pf07-021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

* i Under either option, we need to know immediatel�by May 24) whether you wish to brin�vour application forward to the Plannin� Commission (either in an incomplete state or havin�provided the reauired informationl at its June 6 meetine. In your e-mail you also wrote: "With regard to items `d' and `e' we are unable to determine what you are requiring and request specific instructions and parameters for each of the reyuested items of these sections and subsections." At our meeting on May 1 we discussed many of staff s design-related concerns as they are required by the Twin Lakes Master Plan Design Principles (including such things as massing buildings at the main thoroughfares and breaking-up parking areas). Furthermore, f have made numerous offers to sit down with your project architect to work through the design requirements that are inherent in a PUD and through the Twin Lakes Master Plan Design Principles. That offer is still open and I understand that an effort to set up such a meeting is underway. You wrote: "During our meeting of May lst you provided me a Draft version of Design Principles for Twin Lakes Master Plan & Redevelopment Area. I am concerned about using a "Draft" as a working document." While the docwnent may be indicated as "draft,"" its creation was authorized by the Roseville City Council on July 23, 2001. Staff therefore, views it as an official document of the City that is to be referenced in reviewing land-use proposals in the Twin Lakes area. You wrote: "Contrary to that understanding your April 27th letter now eliminates the use of any of the City's AUAR work. Knowing this why did you provide us the AUAR." The draft AUAR is still an important document because: a) The City Council is formally considering the continuance of that document and, if continued, any developments in the area would be subject to the final AUAR that evolves from the draft document provided to you; furthermore: b) if the City Council ultimately does not adopt the AUAR, the draft could still be a valuable tool for you in modeling an EAW that would likely be required in lieu of an AUAR. You wrote: "In general we are not able to determine the specific design principals you require of these submissions. We have provided you a detailed description and depiction of the proposed development and would appreciate a specific item by item listing of the objectionable elements." At our May 1 meeting, City staff identified a number of specific design principles that do not appear to be met by the current application, such as following the "urban to suburban pattern" (by massing buildings along major thoroughfares), using the lot frontages on the subject property to contribute to the public realm, utilizing dispersed parking, etc. Our overall conclusion, however, is that your application does not include all of the information necessary for us to make a finding that it is consistent with the Twin Lakes Master Plan Design Principles or the Goals and Policies of the Twin Lakes Master Plan. Again, if you insist on advancing an application that staff deems as incomplete, we will recommend denial. We hope that you can provide the infocmation requested in this letter (as well as in preceding City of Roseville Community Development Department 2660 Civic Center Drive •.• Roseville, Minnesota 55113 651-792-ROSE •:• 1`DD 651-79?-7399 ❖ w�v�v.ci.rose�-ille.mn.us