2007_0723_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting DRAFT Minutes of Monday, June 18, 2007 Page 31 1. Mr. Livingston encouraged the City Council to take his comments to 2 heart and provide clarity for City staff, recognizing staff's and the ap- 3 plicant's frustration in staff's inability to provide clear direction to the 4 applicant they claim to be still pending prior to their recommendation 5 for approval. Mr. Livingston, in his written comments, expressed his 6 frustrations, lack of understanding of the information being requested 7 by staff; lack of clear direction on the scope being sought for the traf- S fic study in particular for him io provide his consultants; opining that 9 much of the requested traffic information replicated the AUAR previ- 10 ously done, and the pending AUAR update. Mr. Livingston further 11 opined that this was a time-consuming and costly duplication of work. 12 13 Mr. Livingston noted that specifics were important, noting the need to 14 determine length of the center median on C1eveland Avenue; the ap- 15 plicant's understandzng that modifications would be made throughout 16 the approval process; repeatedly expressed his frustration with staff's 17 untimely requests for information and lack of clarity of those requests; 1.8 and provided a brief review of schemes that had been discussed with 19 staff and rationale for those schemes not working due to economic 20 and franchise considerations, along with safety issues related to visi- 21 bility. Mr. Livingston noted that those engineering firms consulted by 22 the applicant had all concurred that the site would not need an EAW, 23 and further noted that he had personally reviewed the proposed project 24 with an Environmental Quality Board (EQB) representative with the 25 State of Minnesota, who discouraged such a xequest under such cir- 2F cumstances. Mr. Livingston noted the time constraints he was work- 27 ing under, and a pending purchase agreement; and opined that the pro- 28 posed project would be an asset to the City of Roseville, and with the 29 City Council's definition and app�roval, together the goal could be re- 30 alized. 3 ]. 32 Discussion among City Cauncil, staff and the applicant zncluded 33 whether the applicant would be seeking public assistance for this pro- 34 ject (no); applicant's assertion and conclus�on that no pollution exist- 35 ing on the site due to previous completion by the former Master De- 36 veloper for Twin Lakes (Twin Lakes LLC} of test wells and samples, 37 and whether the City wou�d have access to thai evidence (no, conf - 38 dential and under ownership of Twin Lakes LLC}; applicant's opinion 39 that remediation issues were unnecessary and would prove cumber-