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 56 � � Discussion included proposed and/or eventual construction and access on Mount Ridge Road; no roads officially mapped other than Twin Lakes Parkview in the area until future development occurs and dedicated road rights-of-way; Twin Lakes Master Plan design principles dated December 2002 and marked draft and their relationship with the City's Comprehensive Plan; creation of design standards referenced in the design standard section of Roseville City Code, but not formally adopted by the City Council into code; status of Alternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) process projected for completion in August of this year; need for completion of the AUAR or request by the community for the applicant to complete a discretionary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) before final City Council action if this application is supported, with staff noting that the project doesn't meet the threshold for a mandatory EAW; and definition of a"small parking field" versus lot, as being one in the same. Additional discussion included the proposed type of restaurant use (sit down as opposed to fast food) and staff's past conclusion that fast food restaurants would be detrimental to the area due to traffic volumes and congestion in the area from outside the immediate area that would be counterintuitive to design principles, rather than the less congestive nature of a sit down restaurant destination, and attempting to maintain a walkable and sustainable development; standards for parking spots for a hotel use and those for a restaurant use, and their sufficiency; shared parking throughout the development; and adequate employee parking. John Livingston, Hotel/Restaurant Applicant, 2700 Cleveland Avenue Mr. Livingston summarized the written narrative provided in support of the rezoning and concept PUD application, prepared by Midwest Planning and Design LLC, for the applicant Cent Ventures Inc and AmWest Development, LLC, and dated April 6, 2007. Mr. Livingston presented revised site plan information prepared since the applicant's last meeting with staff; initial plans for hotel development, pending negotiations with the owner, subsequent meetings with staff, and proposed Master Plan changes being considered at that time. Mr. Livingston advised that, when made aware of those changes, he'd modified his plan to reflect a modified parkway alignment, and made application with those modi�cations. Mr. Livingston noted that, when the City commenced condemnation proceedings, his efforts were terminated; however, after condemnation was abandoned, he met with staff to revive his hotel plan; with staff reviewing the new plan with variations, and providing specific direction, under the guidelines of the Twin Lakes Master Plan, and at no time during those initial meetings did staff indicate that his proposed plan wouldn't work. Mr. Livingston recognized the difficulties the City was experiencing with their master developer and litigation issues and development of the Twin Lakes area; however, he noted the time constraints he was dealing with, and asked for the Commission's consideration from his perspective as well. Mr. Livingston addressed further overlapping issues; changing market demands for motel rooms; division of land into four (4) lots as suggested by staff; and his frustration with the process in staff's notification of their issues with his proposal being deemed incomplete immediately prior to the last Planning Commission meeting and their subsequent removal of the item from that agenda. Mr. Livingston reiterated the time constraints he was experiencing with financing, pending purchase agreements, and recognized the need for additional fine-tuning of the concept plan. Mr. Livingston addressed specific staff comments, referencing Section 8.0 of the staff repo�t dated June 6, 2007, and reviewed the proposal from his perspective and those