Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Cify Cauncil Meeting <br />DRAFT Miuutes of Monday, June 1$, 2007 <br />Page 29 <br />]. conjunction with this proj ect or in the future as additional develop- <br />2 ment occurs. <br />3 <br />4 Ciiy Engineer Deb Bloom advised that, without a traffic study, staff <br />5 was unable to determine what mitigation was necessary; and noted <br />6 that wifh a PUD, the developer agrees to certazn conditions, and staff <br />7 was unable to make recommendat�on for those conditions without a <br />S thorough analysis of this study. <br />9 <br />10 Additional discussion included site-specif c and overall area devel- <br />i 1 opment considerations related to the traffic study and pending AUAR <br />12 update and accomplishments through that document; the right- <br />13 in/right-ou� onto Cleveland Avenue and analysis of impacts; and in- <br />14 t�rnalized traffic to reduce access point impacts to county roads. <br />IS <br />16 Mx. Stark noted that the AUAR will not be completed prior to the Au- <br />17 gust 3, 2007 review deadline for this case. <br />18 <br />19 Counciimember Pust opined that another option would be for the ap- <br />20 plicant to seek a continuance until the AUAR was completed, and <br />21 staff has time �o complete their analysis. <br />22 <br />23 Additional discussion included breakdown of AUAR costs to individ- <br />24 ual developers within the Twin Lakes redevelopment area, including <br />25 this developer; purpose of traffic studies to achieve goals of the City's <br />26 Comprehensive Plan, public infrastructure and Rosevi�le City Code <br />27 stipulations; and whether the environmental review of the AUAR <br />28 would serve to stay the 60-day land use review period. <br />29 � <br />30 Mr. Siark advised ihat staff had suggested to the applicani that they <br />31 seek an extension, as staff had been seeking additional information <br />32 since April, but the essence of what staff was :requesting had not been <br />33 �orthcoming. <br />34 <br />35 City Attorney Squires advised that he had researched whether the <br />35 AUAR update would stay the review period; and his interpretation of <br />37 the lack of clear direction in the statute as to whether that would apply <br />38 in this s�ivataon; and his reluctance to so direct the City, and suggested <br />