pf07-021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• • further misunderstanding — we will refer to this incompleteness as "inadequate for staff review and recommendation."' The items that staff deten��ines to be inadequate for staff review and recommendation remain the same as they have been in letters sent to you on April 27 and May 5. Without these items, your application may be formally "complete" as defined in Minnesota Statute 15.99 and, as such, able to be considered by the Roseville Planning Commission and City Council. Without these items, however, staff would be put in a position requiring us to make a recommendation to these bodies that they deny your application. Neither the Planning Commission nor the City Council are bound to staff s recommendation, and you will have the opportunity to present the merits of your application as you see them to these public bodies, or to refute staffls review of your application, for their ultimate determination. We have requested on repeated occasions that you provide us with the substantive information listed in our April 27 letter. Those issues and their status, as far as I understand it, is as follows: o Staff's recommendation that the applicant either wait until the AUAR for the Twin Lakes area to be updated or participate in a discretionary EAW. Since my last correspondence to you on May 21, the City Council has passed a motion to enter into a contract with DSU-Bonestroo to conduct an Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR) of the area that includes your property. This follows their December 4, 2006 motion directing staff to complete the Twin Lakes Business Park AUAR Update. We have asked the Roseville City Attorney to determine whether the status of the AUAR would have any affect on pending land-use applications in the Twin Lakes area. I will let you know if they conclude that there are any impacts on your application. [f your development is not subject to the iindings of the AUAR, staff will be recommending to the City Council that they require a"Discretionary EAW." Your letter dated May 23, 2007 states that you would be willing to consider undertaking such a requirement. o Staff's recommendation that a traffic study be conducted by a transportation engineer in order to determine whether the public transportation system and private improvements, as proposed, can adequately handle traffic associated with the development; It is not clear to staff whether you are willing to have this traffic analysis done as part of your application. Without such a traffic analysis, staff has insufficient information to determine whether your project o Staff's recotnmendation for an analysis of the need for, or benefit of, construction of Mount Ridge Road and/or Twin lakes Parkway (or portions thereof); The traffic analysis would also serve to help determine the need for, or benefits of, construction (in part or in whole) of these roads. Again, it is unclear to me whether you are willing to provide the traffic analysis. City of Roseville Community Development Department 2660 Civic Center Dri��e .• Roseville, Minnesota 55113 6�1-792-ROSE : TllD 6�1-792-7399 •:• «�ilv.ci.rose�-ille.mn.us