My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_070606
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
pm_070606
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/9/2007 11:49:06 AM
Creation date
10/9/2007 11:48:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
6/6/2007
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, June 6, 2007 <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />Recess <br /> <br />Chair Bakeman briefly recessed the meeting at 8:00 p.m. and reconvened at 8:07 p.m. <br /> <br />c. PLANNING FILE 07-021 <br />Cent Ventures and AmWest Development LLC in cooperation with Xtra Lease <br /> PRELIMINARY PLAT, REZONING, AND <br />(property owner) seeking approval of a <br />GENERAL CONCEPT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) <br />to allow the <br />development of a hotel and restaurant at 2700 Cleveland Avenue. <br /> <br />Chair Bakeman opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 07-021. <br /> <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request Cent Ventures and AmWest <br />Development to place a 5,000 square foot restaurant near the southwest corner of the <br />property; a 4-story, 120-unit hotel near the rear (east property line); parking adjacent <br />to Cleveland Avenue near the restaurant and between the restaurant and hotel, with a <br />small parking field adjacent to the Mount Ridge Road right-of-way; and construction of <br />a temporary right-in/right-out in the northwest corner of the parcel, with a permanent <br />access to be constructed when Twin Lakes Parkway completed along the southern <br />boundary of the subject parcel. <br /> <br />Mr. Paschke reviewed rationale for staff concerns and their ultimate recommendation <br />for denial: no traffic study; problematic traffic flow; not a use staff was supportive of; <br />and a number of components of the Site Design that were not consistent with the <br />Master Plan and design standards necessary to provide clear direction related to this <br />proposal. <br /> <br />DENIAL <br />Staff recommended of the request by Cent Ventures and AmWest <br />Development LLC, based on the absence of pertinent information necessary as <br />identified and detailed in Section 8.2 of the staff report dated June 6, 2007; attached <br />hereto and made a part thereof. <br /> <br />Mr. Paschke advised that staff had earlier today received a revised Site Plan that may <br />address some of the above-referenced concerns, but that staff had not had sufficient <br />time for review and recommendation to the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />At the request of Chair Bakeman, Mr. Paschke reviewed design characteristics <br />referenced for this gateway site as it related to access and traffic; site functions and <br />peak hours related to traffic volumes and potential access off Mount Ridge Road; <br />access on Twin Lakes Parkway versus any access along Cleveland Avenue; Twin <br />Lakes Master Plan design principles; integration of infrastructure (i.e., storm sewer, <br />sanitary sewer, road network, etc.) throughout the redevelopment area; limited <br />exterior right in/out along County Road C or Cleveland to minimize potential future <br />conflicts and how they fit into the overall grand plan and potential impacts and uses; <br />and design standards that would incorporate more dense buildings toward Cleveland <br />Avenue or along the Twin Lakes Parkway, and away from existing or future residential <br />properties. <br /> <br />Mr. Paschke further addressed parking issues; reducing impacts of stormwater <br />management with shared parking as appropriate; and problematic single-site <br />development and unknown infrastructure impacts (i.e., looping of water mains; tying <br />into sanitary sewer; and utilization of public infrastructure. <br /> <br />At the request of Chair Bakeman, Mr. Paschke clarified that staff and legal counsel <br />had agreed to extend the review period to it’s full 120 days, with a final determination <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.