pf_03715 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4) review of parking, joint and remote parking agreements you have proposed, and some written indication that adjoining owners will share parking. 5) traffic analysis of turning movements and traffic generation at peak periods — the city may� wish to have your numbers reviewed by the city's traffic consultant SRF, the cost of which is borne by the developer. Pg 8, line 2 of your application states the Parkway could accommodate 73,000 trips. This has to be a typo or misconstruction of SRF's numbers. 6) detail on an entry canopy signage, and access roads within required setbacks. 7) consistency of landscape materials and placement with city street tree master plan 8) indication of financial plans the development will have to assist in the construction of new public roads, sidewalks, pathways, landscaping, joint surface\storm water facilities water, and park facilities. WHEREAS, the City Planner (in cooperation with the Commtmity Development Director) has determined that it is in the best interest of the applicant and the City to extend the review an additional 60 days after May 18, 2006 to allow for a complete and accurate application and the required public review and hearings prior to the appropriate actions of the City Council on this project application. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of Roseville, (the "City"), Ramsey County, Minnesota, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 1599, the time line for agency review of the application of Cent Ventures, Ine-Livingston-Cognoscente- Extra Lease (the Developers) for a rezoning and a Planned Unit Development related to redevelopment of property located at 2700 Cleveland Avenue is hereby EXTENDED from May 18, 2006 for an additional 60 days. It is understood final City Council action on these issues may be taken at any time prior to the end of the extension date. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: n and the following voted against: WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.