Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />2C <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />5Q <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 <br />54 <br />55 <br />55 <br />Discussion inciuded proposed a�dlpr eventual constr�ciion and access on Mount <br />Ridg� Road, no roads afficially rr�apped otF�er tf��n Twin Lakes Parkview in the area <br />until future develapment occurs and dedicated road rights-of-way, Twin Lakes Mast�r <br />Plan design pri�ciples dated �ecember 2002 and marked draft ar�d #heir relafionship <br />wifh the City's Cor�prehensi�e Plan; creatinn of c[esign standards referenced in the <br />design siandard secfion of Rvseville City Cnde, buf rtot formally adopted by the City <br />Council into code; sfatus of AEternative Urban Area-wide Review (AUAR) process <br />projected for comp[efion in Augusfi af tttis year; need for campletion of the AUAR or <br />requesi by the comrrtunity for the applican# to cnmpiet� a discretionary �nviranmentai <br />Assessment Worksheet (EAW) before final City Cnunci) action if this application is <br />st�pported, with staff noting �ha� tt�e praject doesn't meet the threshoid for a <br />mandatary EAW; and definitio� of a"smali parking field" versus lot, as being ane in <br />the sarr�e. <br />Additional discussio� �ncl�ded the proposed type of restaurant use (sit dawn as <br />opposed ta fast fpod) and staff`s past conclusion that fast food restaurants wauld be <br />detrimental ta the area due ta traffic volumes anci congestinn in the area from autside <br />the imrnediate area that would �e counterint[�iiive to design principles, rather than the <br />less congestive na�ure of a sit down res�aurant destination, and attempting ta main�ain <br />a walkable and sustainable developmen#; standarc�s for parking spots for a hatel use <br />ar�d those for a resta�arar�t use, and their suffieiency; shared parking throughaut the <br />developrneni; and adeqtaate empinyee parking. <br />John Livingstnn, NofellResiauran# App{icant, 27pU Cle�eland Avenue <br />Mr. �ivingston summarized the written narrafive provided in support o� the rezaning <br />and concept PUp application, prepared by Midwesi Planning and L3esign LLC, for the <br />applicant Cent Ventures lnc and AmWest �evelopment, LLC, anci dated April S, 2qa7. <br />Mr. Livir�gston presented revised site plan information prepare� since the applican#'s <br />last rneeting with stafF; ir�itial p4arts for hntel development, �er�ding negotiations with <br />the owner, subsequent meetings with sfiaff, and pr4posed Mas�er Plan changes being <br />eonsidered at that tirrte. <br />Mr. �.i�ingston ad�ised that, wher� rr�ade aware of those changes, he'd modified l�is <br />plan to reflect a madified parkway aligr�ment, and made app�icatian with those <br />modifications. Mr. l.ivingston nated t�at, when the City cammenced conderrrnation <br />praceedings, his effo�ts were terminated; however, afier cnnc�ernnatian was <br />abandoned, he me� with s�aff �o revive l�is hniel plan, wifh staff revie►rving tha new plan <br />wifih variations, and providing specific direciion, undar the guidel�nes of the Twin <br />Lakes Master P(an, and at r�o time d€�ring tl�ose initial meetings di� staff indicate that <br />his propased pian wouidn't wark. <br />Mr. Livingston recognized tY�e diffic�liies the City was experiencing wiih th��r master <br />de�efoper and litigation issues and development of fhe Twin Lakes area; however, he <br />noted the time canstrainfs he was dealing with, and asked far the Commission's <br />cansideration from his perspecfive as well. Mr. Livingston addressed further <br />overlapping issues, changing market demands for motel rooms; division of land into <br />four {4} [ots as suggestad by staf�; a�d his frustration with ihe process in staffs <br />notificatinn of their issues with his proposal being deemed incomplete immectiately <br />priar to ihe last Planning Commission meeting and their suhsequent removal of the <br />iterr� from that agenda. Mr. LivingstQn reit�rated the time constraints he was <br />exp�riencing wift� financing, pending purchase agreements, and recognized the need <br />for additinna( fine-tuning of the concept plan. <br />Mr. Livingstoti addressed specifc staff comments, referencing Section 8.0 of ihe staf# <br />report datecf June �, 2007, and reviewed the proposal from his perspective and thase <br />