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