2007_0618_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 2 3 4 5 6 % S 9 �0 �� I2 �3 14 15 16 17 �. 8 19 20 21 22 23 24 �5 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 areas of agresment and thase a# disagreement between he and staff. Mr. l.i�ingston noted his interpretation of the status of the AUAR and his lack af inte�est in perforrnir�g a discretianary EAW due to time ar�d cost consumptions; traffic concerns out[ined by stafF and his presenta#ion at the bench of passible sn[utions fnr righ�t-inlrighf-out solutions onto Cleveland Avenue and relocatian of access fu�iher from the i�tersectian; mod�ftcatians to the proposed center island a�d his willingness fo de#'er fio staff's recommendations; and his only poir�t af access �n Cleveland Aven�e at fhis time, whether future pians for constr�ction of Twin Lakes Parkway andlor Mount Ridge Road come to fruition. Mr. Livingston advised that, if the City Couneil so directed, h� would corr�plete a traffic study; however he opined that the AUAR traffic ar�alysis was sufficient and accurateiy projected traific Ioads within ihe scope ofi this praject. Mr. Livingston presented several options for sighting the buil�ings #hat had been cnnsidered and rejected for various safefiy and b€�siness considerations; and presented five (5) optians that had been rej�cfed. Mr. �ivingston admiited thai he should l�ave baen more praaoti�e in providing green space caiculations and proposed sidewalk locations. Disc�ssion betweer� the applicant and Commissioners included the types af hptel produeis being considered; lot size and design constraint5; [imitations of the applicant's purchase agreement and the pote�tial hot�l brands se�:king prefiminary appro�al in this applicaiior�. Public Hearina Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing, with no one appearing for or against. Cammissianer Qoherty concurred wiih Communi#y �eWe(opmeni s�aff that the applicafion should be denied; noting his concerns wit� access Eimitations for the praperty anly ta and frorr� Cleve(and Aven�e and lac�C of oiher pe�tinent information as autlined by staff. Comrnissianer poherty expressed frustration fihat the ar�a may develop piecemeal ra�her than as a package. Cnmmissinner Boerigter expressed his diffieuliy regarding this applicatian, and pre�ious applicatinns that were approved based on concept plans with similar le�els af detaiE. Commissioner Boerigter; and noteci fihat the proposed plan's layout seemed consistent wittt this type of project, creation of one specific parcel fnr hoiellrestaurant develnprrser�t, and B-6 of�ice park district USBS. C0171C]'1155E011Bf Boerigter, whiie ac�mitting he'd like to see more detail, and was concerned with ihe right-inlright-out, questioned what impact the project vuould ha�e on Clevelanci Avenue, opining that it wnuld prnbably have less impact that other potential developments praferred for the Twin Lakes area. Commissioner Bo�rigter noted that while modificatior�s may be neeeied on the proposed access, there were no� other options currently availabie to the appiicant since the roads didn't exist yet. Commissianer �nerigter fu�ther opined t�at it was noi in the City's best interest to say °no" to develo�ment; and that he was inclined tv allow fhe project concept to move forward, wifih a need for f�rther resolution of auts�ar�ding design issues; and given the single site, how they co�id address fhose iterns identified by staff in their Checklis�s in Section 9.3 af tF�e staff repart. Comrnissioner Gasnngo cnncurred with Commissioner poherty`s comments r�garding de�elopment of the area. Corrimissioner Gas�ngo questior�ed if, upon receipt of pending infnrmaiion, staff's concerns would be satisfiert. Commissioner Gasango reviewed optians to 1) mave t�e applicatior� forward to the City Council for their June 18, 2007 meeting, with the a�plicartt having time hefween now and thet� to address the autstandir�g issues; or 2} reject this applicaiion and ha�e the app[icant reapply and