Laserfiche WebLink
Item 08A <br />Page 15 of 22 <br />Stillwater required the developer to contribute to the cost of a <br />nearby municipal parking garage. In Roseville, the developer has <br />a shared parking agreement at an adjacent office building. <br />If the City Council requires Proof of Parking, Reuter Walton <br />proposes that it be located on the vacant corner lot, allowing 56 <br />surface stalls. <br />Proposed Proof of Parking, 2260 Mounds View Blvd (vacant corner lot) <br />Staff is opposed to permitting non -adjacent residential parking. <br />Further, if this parking lot were built, it would interfere with <br />redevelopment of the three homes (e.g. Phase II), and would <br />detract from the intent of concentrating development along the <br />Boulevard (e.g. focus to be on buildings, not parking lots). <br />It is Staff's recommendation that if parking becomes deficient, that <br />the property manager assign parking stalls to residents, and <br />reserve stalls for visitors. <br />Refuse4° 41 Dumpster storage will be inside the garage. <br />Signage TBD. If not approved as part of the PUD, signage will need to <br />comply, as if zoned R-4 Multi -Family Residential. <br />40 <br />Mounds View City Code §160.284(B)(4) (Screening) <br />41 Mounds View City Code §160.316(M) (Refuse) <br />I Ile IVIUUf1US V IC.. ...,..... <br />A Thriving Desirable Communitl • <br />