Laserfiche WebLink
• • <br />JL noted that he was previously unsure of this requirement; however he has safety <br />concerns over installing sidewalks to the as yet unfinished Mount Ridge Road to the <br />east. <br />TH noted that walkability (pedestrian connections, easements, etc.) is part of the <br />design principles created for the Twin Lakes development. <br />TP reiterated that pedestrian connections need to be shown on the conceptual <br />drawings submitted during this stage. The details of those connections can be <br />worked out in the next stage. <br />JS wondered how the developer will create walkability on the site, both in the public <br />realm and the parcel itself, i.e., between the hotel to the restaurant as well as from <br />the site to the greater Twin Lakes development? <br />JL indicated his willingness to create connections to the parcel north of the site and <br />noted the possibility of allowing access to the north parcel via a drive lane through <br />the center of the parking lot on his parcel. The owners of the north parcel would be <br />interested in selling but not developing their parcel, according to their discussions <br />with JL. <br />JS noted that the storm water detention area shown on the current plan looks <br />undersized and that more detail will need to be given in the next step of the process. <br />JL indicated that he will propose an underground solution. <br />TH brought the discussion back to the idea that this development will set a precedent <br />for future Twin Lakes development and the importance of following the design <br />principle document. He indicated that building massing was a concern of CD staff. <br />He noted that the current plan does address the concern of having a large expanse <br />of parking surface. <br />TH stated the following preferences of the CD Dept for the site: <br />• Hotel moved closer to SW corner of site. <br />• Restaurant moved back. <br />• More pedestrian connections provided from the hotel to the restaurant. <br />JL indicated that an attached restaurant was not an option for the site, per the hotel <br />brand. <br />TP noted that the hotel and restaurant could be placed closer together (on two <br />parcels) as there are no setback requirements with a PUD. Shared parking could <br />also be accomplished. The possibility of sharing access to site with the parcel to the <br />north was introduced by TH. <br />