pf07-021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� • TH wondered if JL would consider a way to better integrate the two parcels with shared parking and walkways between the two buildings, for example. JL replied that he is not inclined to separate the sites; however, hotel brands typically do not like to share their site with a restaurant. JL also commented on the need to do a Division of Land to develop site, according to TP. JS agreed that the 4 existing parcels will need to be replatted but that they can be combined into 1 or 2 parcels. JL brought up concerns about shared parking and access. He would agree to close the NW access (Cleveland Ave.) if/when Twin Lakes is developed and use S access (Twin Lakes Parkway). TP commented that the Twin Lakes Parkway access can be pushed a bit to the west and away from the Cleveland Ave. intersection, keeping in mind the distance required from the intersection as well as the traffic anticipated once Twin Lakes has been fully developed. A traffic analysis would determine the effects of the Cleveland Ave. access over the short-term and the effects of the Twin Lakes Parkway access over the long-term. JS asked the developer to keep in mind the driver's experience at either location. JL replied that, in his opinion, there are sight line issues related to the suggested SW corner placement of the hotel and the Cleveland Ave. access. TH inquired as to the placement a temporary drive to the final permanent entrance and placement of the primary signage for the hotel. JL wondered how to design this while taking into account future Twin Lakes development. He noted that his plan drawings have addressed the city's desire that the parking area be broken up. JS inquired if the hotel could be placed closer to Cleveland Ave. with parking along the future Mount Ridge Rd. JL indicated that he would be amenable to that suggestion if the location of the Twin Lakes Parkway access can be clarified. JS wondered what the pedestrian experience will be on the site. JL noted that streetscape/sidewalks were not detailed in his plan drawings as he is not sure of the requirements for their construction. TP indicated that they are part of the development as thus the developer is responsible to construct them. JL indicated that Public Works can address specifics when the next site plan is submitted. TP noted that some sort of pedestrian connections need to be indicated on conceptual plan drawings submitted during this stage of the development process. They are not required to be engineered at this time and pathways can be placed on an easement or public R.O.W.. In his opinion, the Twin Lakes R.O.W. can accommodate pedestrian pathways. TP indicated that pedestrian connections from the buildings to the R.O.W. must be shown on the conceptual drawings, as well.