My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0723
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0723
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/12/2007 11:59:30 AM
Creation date
9/12/2007 11:59:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/23/2007
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
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
n <br />Cent i/entures <br />1660 Highway 100 South, Suite 500 <br />St. Louis Park, MN 55416 <br />(612) 272-1246 <br />July 23, 2007 <br />City of Roseville City Council <br />City Hall <br />2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Roseville MN 55113-1815 <br />RE: 2700 Cleveland Avenue N. <br />Mayor Klausing and members of the City Council: <br />v' E ~ V <br />~~~~ <br />G` ~~ <br />We again in front of you to ask for approval of the hotel and restaurant <br />application for 2700 Cleveland Avenue having provided the additional information <br />and completed the report requested by Council Member Pust when we last met. <br />Let me summarize the three principal areas of discussion. <br />Traffic. Mr. Schwartz was able to have the entire scope requested by staff was <br />completed by SRF and reviewed in time for tonight's meeting. The report <br />concludes that the proposal's impact allows for acceptable levels of service <br />during all years requested. Staff's paraphrasement, in 10.2 and 11.2 of the <br />packet, of SRF's suggestion is a mis-construction of the conclusions provided. <br />Further 11.1 A.3 implies that that study relies on un-approved data. Nothing in <br />the scope undertaken by SFR supports that suggestion. With regard to SRF's <br />improvement suggestions I do agree that it is desirable to extend the center <br />island and install a no-u-turn sign as a part of our development. <br />Discretionary EAW: As per staff's request we supplied them with all available <br />information on the EAW form in early June. We have not received any comments <br />or questions from staff regarding the information supplied. I have provided staff <br />with a letter from the EQB dated July 6t" which 1 also note is not included in your <br />package. <br />Design: Our meeting with staff and the City's design consultant on May 24th <br />defined what additional information needed to be reflected on the submission <br />drawings. On June 5t" the modified drawings were delivered to staff with items <br />discussed added. I have a copy of that plan with me tonight if you'd care to see it <br />because I noticed it wasn't included in your packet by staff. In it you would see <br />Page 1 of 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.