My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf07-021
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
2007
>
pf07-021
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2014 3:07:05 PM
Creation date
6/17/2013 3:07:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
07-021
Planning Files - Type
Planned Unit Development
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
275
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
� • <br />specific design for sidewalk or other public area improvements. Those <br />were considered public improvements for which we would be assessed a <br />cost. <br />9. Checklist 3— Frontages: The current street frontage is Cleveland Avenue <br />with no other streets providing service to the property. I addressed your <br />desire to provide access to Twin Lakes Parkway in the event it is <br />constructed as currently envisioned. This significantly impacted our site <br />planning options and solidified the building position. Our early discussions <br />with Staff did not reveal any latitude in the reduction of current setback <br />requirements under the B-6 guidance. I have always indicated we would <br />desire a sidewalk along Cleveland that provided a continuous walk surface <br />beyond our location. I have expressed concem about any sidewalk that <br />terminates within our property or boundary, o� built interior to the street <br />without further connection or exit such as a dead end sidewalk along the <br />proposed Twin Lakes Parkway. That could create a hazard which should <br />be avoided. If the City would provide a design for a sidewalk along <br />Cleveland Avenue we would be happy to incorporate that in to our design. <br />It is my experience that the City delivers sidewalk improvements (being on <br />public property) at a cost to the property owner. This site is a single <br />development and we have positioned the hotel and restaurant to address <br />the combined commercial viability and public safety. The Cleveland <br />Avenue access currently used by the property is at the intersection and <br />undesirable by staff. I proposed a repositioned entrance with restricted left <br />turn privileges. Staff's recent mention of its desire to have the hotel along <br />the street frontage is not compatible with the type of hotel we've proposed <br />and would limit visual access to the remainder of the site which is <br />economically harmful to the viability of a restaurant. This was addressed <br />at our earliest meeting (see above). The restaurant and the hotel are <br />mutually beneficial if properly positioned. Further we feel that the visual <br />restriction created by placing the hotel along Cleveland Avenue might <br />decrease traffic safety at the access point and for future pedestrians. <br />10. Checklist 4— Buildings (private realm): The items listed being 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, <br />9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 have all been detailed in the submission drawings. <br />The standards we applied are of the highest quality and durability with <br />attention to mixing natural light and vertical zones, and are beautiful. We <br />too desire screening of inechanical systems and have detailed this and <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />5/23/2007 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.