pf07-021 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 � • areas of agreement and those of disagreement between he and staff. Mr. Livingston noted his interpretation of the status of the AUAR and his lack of interest in performing a discretionary EAW due to time and cost consumptions; traffic concerns outlined by staff and his presentation at the bench of possible solutions for right-in/right-out solutions onto Cleveland Avenue and relocation of access further from the intersection; modifications to the proposed center island and his willingness to defer to staff's recommendations; and his only point of access on Cleveland Avenue at this time, whether future plans for construction of Twin Lakes Parkway and/or Mount Ridge Road come to fruition. Mr. Livingston advised that, if the City Council so directed, he would complete a traffic study; however he opined that the AUAR traffic analysis was sufficient and accurately projected traffic loads within the scope of this project. Mr. Livingston presented several options for sighting the buildings that had been considered and rejected for various safety and business considerations; and presented five (5) options that had been rejected. Mr. Livingston admitted that he should have been more proactive in providing green space calculations and proposed sidewalk locations. Discussion between the applicant and Commissioners included the types of hotel products being considered; lot size and design constraints; limitations of the applicant's purchase agreement and the potential hotel brands seeking preliminary approval in this application. Public Hearina Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing, with no one appearing for or against. Commissioner poherty concurred with Community Development staff that the application should be denied; noting his concerns with access limitations for the property only to and from Cleveland Avenue and lack of other pertinent information as outlined by staff. Commissioner poherty expressed frustration that the area may develop piecemeal rather than as a package. Commissioner Boerigter expressed his difficulty regarding this application, and previous applications that were approved based on concept plans with similar levels of detail. Commissioner Boerigter; and noted that the proposed plan's layout seemed consistent with this type of project, creation of one specific parcel for hotel/restaurant development, and B-6 office park district uses. Commissioner Boerigter, while admitting he'd like to see more detail, and was concerned with the right-in/right-out, questioned what impact the project would have on Cleveland Avenue, opining that it would probably have less impact that other potential developments preferred for the Twin Lakes area. Commissioner Boerigter noted that while modifications may be needed on the proposed access, there were not other options currently available to the applicant since the roads didn't exist yet. Commissioner Boerigter further opined that it was not in the City's best interest to say "no" to development; and that he was inclined to allow the project concept to move forward, with a need for further resolution of outstanding design issues; and given the single site, how they could address those items identified by staff in their Checklists in Section 9.3 of the staff report. Commissioner Gasongo concurred with Commissioner poherty's comments regarding development of the area. Commissioner Gasongo questioned if, upon receipt of pending information, staff's concerns would be satisfied. Commissioner Gasongo reviewed options to 1) move the application forward to the City Council for their June 18, 2007 meeting, with the applicant having time between now and then to address the outstanding issues; or 2) reject this application and have the applicant reapply and