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 />� �. <br />l�s r <br />� <br />May 4, 2007 <br />�Ir. John Livin�ston <br />Cent Ventures <br />166U Highway 100 S., Suite S00 <br />St. Louis Park, l��IN 5541( <br />RE.• May 1, 2007Meeting. <br />Dear Mr. Livingston: <br />This letter is meant as a follow-up to our May 1, 2007 meeting. Those attending that meeting <br />included you, Thomas Noble of AmWest Development, and Russ McGinty of Madison <br />Marquette as well as Jamie Radel, Thomas Pashke, and me from the City of Roseville staff. <br />The purpose of the meeting was to review my letter of April 27. As part of that review, we <br />discussed the following: <br />■ In accordance with the Twin Lakes Master Plan and with the requirements of the B-6 <br />Mixed-Use Zoning District (see 1005.07(B) of the Roseville City Code), staff is <br />recommending that the proposal be subject to the updated AUAR that the City is <br />currently contemplating; you may choose, however, to conduct a discretionary EAW for <br />the development in lieu of participating in the AUAR process. <br />■ Regardless of the type of environmental assessment done, future developments (including <br />your proposal) would be expected to pay a prorated share of any environmental <br />mitigation that is either a necessity of, or a benefit to, that development. <br />■ Staff is also recommending that a traffic study be done by a professional engineer that <br />identifies traffic volumes and traffic distribution on both a daily and a peak-hour basis. <br />Traffic analysis must demonstrate that the proposed access can handle this traffic within <br />an acceptable level of service. The city's traffic consultant would verify the findings of <br />your traffic engineer. <br />■ Staff is recommending that, as a team (including the proposed developer, the developer's <br />traffic engineer, the city's traffic consultant and city staff j, we continue to evaluate the <br />need for constructing portions of Twin Lakes Parkway and/or Mount Ridge Road. <br />■ Staff has concluded that the proposed site design does not meet either the design <br />standards contemplated as part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process or the <br />Twin Lakes Design Principles. City staff is willing to work with your architectural team <br />in an effort to find a design that does meet these guidelines. As a group, we discussed the <br />diificulties inherent in achieving many of the prescribed Design Principles on a <br />development parcel as small as that currently being considered. <br />City of Roseville Community Development Department <br />2660 Civic Center Drive •:• Roseville, Minnesota 55113 <br />651-792-7005 : TDD 651-792-7399 :• www.ci.roseville.mn.us <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.