CC_Minutes_2007_0618 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, June 18, 2007 Page 31 Mr. Livingston encouraged the City Council to take his comments to heart and provide clarity for City staff, recognizing staff's and the ap- plicant's frustration in staff s inability to provide clear direction to the applicant they claim to be still pending prior to their recommendation for approval. Mr. Livingston, in his written comments, expressed his frustrations, lack of understanding of the information being requested by staff; lack of clear direction on the scope being sought for the traf- fic study in particular for him to provide his consultants; opining that much of the requested traffic information replicated the AUAR previ- ously done, and the pending AUAR update. Mr. Livingston further opined that this was atime-consuming and costly duplication of work. Mr. Livingston noted that specifics were important, noting the need to determine length of the center median on Cleveland Avenue; the ap- plicant's understanding that modifications would be made throughout the approval process; repeatedly expressed his frustration with staff s untimely requests for information and lack of clarity of those requests; and provided a brief review of schemes that had been discussed with staff and rationale for those schemes not working due to economic and franchise considerations, along with safety issues related to visi- bility. Mr. Livingston noted that those engineering firms consulted by the applicant had all concurred that the site would not need an EAW, and further noted that he had personally reviewed the proposed project with an Environmental Quality Board (EQB) representative with the State of Minnesota, who discouraged such a request under such cir- cumstances. Mr. Livingston noted the time constraints he was work- ing under, and a pending purchase agreement; and opined that the pro- posed project would be an asset to the City of Roseville, and with the City Council's definition and approval, together the goal could be re- alized. Discussion among City Council, staff and the applicant included whether the applicant would be seeking public assistance for this pro- ject (no); applicant's assertion and conclusion that no pollution exist- ing on the site due to previous completion by the former Master De- veloper for Twin Lakes (Twin Lakes LLC) of test wells and samples, and whether the City would have access to that evidence (no, confi- dential and under ownership of Twin Lakes LLC); applicant's opinion that remediation issues were unnecessary and would prove cumber-