My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf07-021
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
2007
>
pf07-021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2014 3:07:05 PM
Creation date
6/17/2013 3:07:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
07-021
Planning Files - Type
Planned Unit Development
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
275
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
� <br />Cent Ventures <br />1660 Highway 100 South, Suite 500 <br />St. Louis Park, MN 55416 <br />(612) 272-1246 <br />May 23, 2007 <br />Mr. John Stark, Community Development Director <br />City of Roseville <br />City Hall <br />2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Roseville MN 55113-1815 <br />RE: 2700 Cleveland Avenue N. <br />Dear John: <br />�J <br />by Fax and U.S. Mail <br />In response to your letter of May 21, 2007 you claim that your letters of April 27 <br />and May 4 outline the way in which my application is incomplete. At no point in <br />either of those two letters do you use the words incomplete. The word incomplete <br />is used in Mr. Paschke's letter of April 12 only. It is my firm belief that the sole <br />issue presented as incomplete was for a Division of Land Application which I <br />made according to Mr. Paschke's instructions. Nothing in your letter of April 27 is <br />clearly identified as incomplete items but I will address them each below anyway. <br />In your letters you invite me to call you with questions or comments yet today you <br />refused to speak about the contents of your letters stating that you would only <br />prepare a written response after consulting with the City Attorney. That leaves <br />the question of what remains "incomplete". Your expanding list of demands for <br />information related to Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area as a whole is beyond my <br />ability to address. The design I submitted is consistent with the design I showed <br />you on March 16, 2007. On March 19 you confirmed your understanding of our <br />meeting and directly address many issues. None of those comments were about <br />the position of the hotel relative to Cleveland Avenue. While you mention design, <br />in a general sense, you do not point out any requirement for adherence to <br />specific Design Principals now referenced. The Design Principals were not <br />provided until after April 27. <br />Let me clearly state my position with regard to the issues raised in your April 27 <br />letter. <br />1. My application was made on or before April 6th so I do not recognize <br />letters dated after April 27 to add items defining incomplete information <br />Page 1 of 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.