Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />9 <br />�D <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />1� <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />�9 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />2S <br />25 <br />27 <br />E. The Developz�nez�t Review Camrmittee {DRC} finds that th� proposed developrrient <br />is deficieni in desigi� elerr�ents cansistent with the a�proved Master Pla�� and �ae <br />Design Principles. A compone�t of �he approved Tvvi� La�es Master �'�an is ihe <br />Design Priz�ciples, whic�i is "a checklist for establishing a stron� public realrn and <br />for ensuring livability, walkability a�€d s�stai�abzlity." �� a review of the Design <br />�'rinciples, �I�� DRC has cancludec� tha� the Cent V�nturelAmWest Development <br />LLC proposai req�ires further design znodi�"ications to achicve speci�c goals <br />wi�hin �he document. Specificaliy t�e p�oposal daes �ai appear to rneet ihe <br />fol�awing Design P�rincip�es req�iirements: <br />1. <br />2. <br />Checklist 1— Land Use Pat�en�s: Commercial Visibility {3}; Gateways <br />(S); and Dispersed Parking (9}. <br />Ch�cklist 2-- Streets and Public Places (public realm): �Valkability (Ij; <br />Ran�� of Trans�ortatian Modes (4); and T�ees (8). <br />3. Checklzst 3—�xontages (se�ni-private reaixn): �"rantages Will Support <br />Stxeet life and Walkabili�y (1}; Minimized Setbacks (2); Streetwall (3); <br />Fro�ztages 4n Eveiy Facade (4�); No Blank Wa�l (5j; and Ser-vice (6). <br />4a Checklist 4— Bui�di�gs (}�z'ivaie r�a�am}: Durability (1); A�.aptabi�ity (2); <br />Beauty (3); Mixed Vertical Zanes (4); Maximize Natural Ligh� (6); <br />Shedding Water {9}; S�yle: Backgrau�nd vs Lanc�mar�C B�ildings (10}; <br />Mechanical Screening { 1 I); Gen�ral La�dscape Requirements { 12); <br />Landscape Design Style (13) and Si�nage { 14}. <br />�0.0 Pi.�I�I�IlvTG COMMTSSrOIoi ACT�ON: <br />2$ 10.1 Dn June 6, 2007, t%e Roseville Planr�ing Commissian held ihe public hearing regarding <br />29 the Cent Venture/A�West Dev�lopz�aeni request. Na citizens were presen� io address the <br />30 Commission, hawever Commissioners did have questio�s of staff. <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />�1 <br />42 <br />43 <br />10.2 Specifica�ly C�aair Bakeman asked ihe Ci�.y Pla�ner ta review de�ign characteristics <br />re�erenced for the "ga�eway" site. The City Planner brie£�y re�viewed desig�z <br />characteristics refere�ced for t�ais gaieway site as �t xe�ated to access and traf�ic; site <br />fuzzctio�s and peak �aurs related to traffic volumes a�d �otential access off Maunt Ric�ge <br />Road; access on Twin Lakes F�rkway versus any aceess along Cleveland Avenue; Twiz� <br />Lakes Master P�an design prz�acipl�s; integratian o£ infrastruciure (i.e., siaxz�n sew�r, <br />sanitary s�wer, road network, etc.) ihroug�out the reda�velopnnent area; lim.i�ed ex�exzar <br />r'rgl�t in/out alon� County Road C or Cleveland tQ mi�imize �aten�za� �uture conflicts and <br />how they �t into the overail gra�ad plan and pot�ntial impacts and us�s; and design <br />standards that would incnrporate mnre dense buildings toward Cleveland �venue or <br />along �he Twin Lakes Parkway, and awa� f:rozza existzng or fiiture z�esidez�tial p�aperties. <br />44 � 0.3 Mr. �'aschke furtl�e� addressed �arking issues; reducing impacts of stormwater <br />45 rnanagement wi�h shared �►arl�ing as appropriate; and problexnatic single-site developzr�ent <br />46 �nd ili]1Ct1ow11 irifrast�'iictui'e ii'z"ipaCts (i.e., loopi�ag of water znains; ty�ng inta sanitary sewer; and <br />47 utiliaatio�� af public infrastructure}. <br />PF07-021_RCA_061807 Page 9 of 1 t <br />