Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />G <br />It is nat clear to sta�£whether you are willing to have t�is traf�c analysis done as <br />part of your a�p�icatian. Wii�iot�t sueh a traffic analysis, staff has insufficie�t <br />infnrrnation to determin� whether your project <br />o Staff's rccorn�endation foar an a�alys�s a�t�e �eed £a�', ar benefit o£, cons�ruction of <br />Mau�t Radge Road a�d/ar Twin lakes Parkway (ar poriions thereoi�; <br />9 Tl�e traffic analysis would also serve to help detez-�ai�ae the �eed �or, or �en�fits of, <br />10 const�uction (in pa�rt or in whole) af these roads. Again, it is unclear to me wl�e�her <br />1 J. you are wiiling to provide the tra�`iic analysis. <br />�2 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />W11e� a property is developed and/or rezoned, it is not unusual for the ciedica�:ion <br />o� easements or righis-af way ta be req�ired as a condition: o£ app;roval. <br />Staf� has also discus�ed �he possibility o� a s�ecial assessme�t �vith the applica�t. <br />This assessmen� would be �sed �o construct T�vin Lal�es Parkway. Tk�e <br />cantribu�io� �a the assessznent by i�d�v�dua� develop�ents wauld likely be based <br />on t�eir pxo-ra��d share and/or �rojected useage oithe road. <br />2I o Stafi's canclusian �hat the proposal dQes no� meet the design �tandards anticipated in our <br />22 PUD requiretnents, Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan and Twin La�es Design <br />23 Principles. <br />24 <br />2S The Raseville staff has a n�unber of reso�rces �o reference in detera�ining whetlaer <br />26 a given proposal meets �lae quality of desig� antzcipaied, azxd i� tnost cases <br />27 required, by the ao�mu�ity. l�mang these re�ources in ihe Twin Lakes area are <br />28 the Twin Lakes Business Fark Master Flan and Twin Lalces Design Princip��s in <br />29 addition tn ather Zaning Ordinancc ax�d Conaprel�ensive Plan �equixe�rzents. <br />30 �ased on aur meeting yesterday, I am hopeful that you and your de�ign teaann aare <br />31 able ta submit a site plan w�ich better �eets �he desig� standards estab�ishcd i� <br />32 tl�ese documents. <br />33 <br />34 8.3 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />3 8 8.� <br />39 <br />4Q <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />While the requested information and revisions has been. so�ght by sta�f in lettexs and e- <br />mails dated Ap:ri127, May �, May 21, May 25, �ane qf these �ave yei been provided by <br />tk�e applxcar�t. <br />Additionaily, t�e 2001 master plan was adopted and supported by developer,s and laa�d <br />o�mers %ased upon its "flexible Iand use p[an". As par� of i�s adoption, tlae City <br />Cauncii reiterated t�eir sup�ort far baing "flexible" with the lan.d uses as lo�g as a�axgez, <br />mare sophisticated master develop�ent plan was pravided. T1ae City Couneil �trongly <br />discouraged site by site redevelapm�n�. <br />44 8.5 Twin Lakes has long been �lanzaed and st�died to be z�edevelo�ed an a large scaie. <br />45 Supporting a parcel by parcal develop�nent poses comple�c challenges t�afi are diffic�it to <br />46 ove� come, items such as roads and infrastruct�re (sani�ary sewer and r�ratermain) would <br />47 likel� be comprornised if parcel by parcel dev�lflpment occurred. <br />P�'07-fl2I_RCA_061807 Page 7 of 1 i <br />