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 9 <br /> <br />experiencing with financing, pending purchase agreements, and recognized the need <br />for additional fine-tuning of the concept plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Livingston addressed specific staff comments, referencing Section 8.0 of the staff <br />report dated June 6, 2007, and reviewed the proposal from his perspective and those <br />areas of agreement and those of disagreement between he and staff. Mr. Livingston <br />noted his interpretation of the status of the AUAR and his lack of interest in performing <br />a discretionary EAW due to time and cost consumptions; traffic concerns outlined by <br />staff and his presentation at the bench of possible solutions for right-in/right-out <br />solutions onto Cleveland Avenue and relocation of access further from the <br />intersection; modifications to the proposed center island and his willingness to defer to <br />staff’s recommendations; and his only point of access on Cleveland Avenue at this <br />time, whether future plans for construction of Twin Lakes Parkway and/or Mount <br />Ridge Road come to fruition. Mr. Livingston advised that, if the City Council so <br />directed, he would complete a traffic study; however he opined that the AUAR traffic <br />analysis was sufficient and accurately projected traffic loads within the scope of this <br />project. <br /> <br />Mr. Livingston presented several options for sighting the buildings that had been <br />considered and rejected for various safety and business considerations; and <br />presented five (5) options that had been rejected. Mr. Livingston admitted that he <br />should have been more proactive in providing green space calculations and proposed <br />sidewalk locations. <br /> <br />Discussion between the applicant and Commissioners included the types of hotel <br />products being considered; lot size and design constraints; limitations of the <br />applicant’s purchase agreement and the potential hotel brands seeking preliminary <br />approval in this application. <br /> <br />Public Hearing <br />Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing, with no one appearing for or against. <br /> <br />Commissioner Doherty concurred with Community Development staff that the <br />application should be denied; noting his concerns with access limitations for the <br />property only to and from Cleveland Avenue and lack of other pertinent information as <br />outlined by staff. Commissioner Doherty expressed frustration that the area may <br />develop piecemeal rather than as a package. <br /> <br />Commissioner Boerigter expressed his difficulty regarding this application, and <br />previous applications that were approved based on concept plans with similar levels <br />of detail. Commissioner Boerigter; and noted that the proposed plan’s layout seemed <br />consistent with this type of project, creation of one specific parcel for hotel/restaurant <br />development, and B-6 office park district uses. Commissioner Boerigter, while <br />admitting he’d like to see more detail, and was concerned with the right-in/right-out, <br />questioned what impact the project would have on Cleveland Avenue, opining that it <br />would probably have less impact that other potential developments preferred for the <br />Twin Lakes area. Commissioner Boerigter noted that while modifications may be <br />needed on the proposed access, there were not other options currently available to <br />the applicant since the roads didn’t exist yet. Commissioner Boerigter further opined <br />that it was not in the City’s best interest to say “no” to development; and that he was <br />inclined to allow the project concept to move forward, with a need for further resolution <br />of outstanding design issues; and given the single site, how they could address those <br />items identified by staff in their Checklists in Section 9.3 of the staff report. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.