Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting <br />July 11, 1983 <br />Page Four <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Jim Benshoof (traffic consultant) explained that he was hired to <br />assist the developer in the traffic aspects of the development, <br />working with the City and County Engineer in order to try to <br />respond to the needs of the City and County as well as tbe <br />developer. <br /> <br />Benshoof referred to charts depicting tbe two proposed off-set <br />aeeeas drives, as well as alternative aligned drivewa:J.-inter- <br />aeetions, on Pine Tree Drive and on County Road E; reviewed the <br />number of conflict points attributable to both the T and 4-way <br />intersections in a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Benshoof said, witb <br />proper separation, the off-set drives, aa proposed, will be safe <br />and effective. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Benshoof also noted the internal considerations on the amended <br />site plan: <br /> <br />1. Widened driveway from County Road E, seeess and egress <br /> <br />>- <br /> <br />2. Enlarged radius of curves of drive at nortb and south <br />ends of Pbase 1 buildings and around the pond area. <br /> <br />Benahoof said he feels these changes will accommodate the access <br />needs. <br /> <br />In discussion, developer was ssked if he is comfortable with the <br />eonditiona of approval of Phase 1 recommended by the Planning <br />Commiasion. Weir said tbe Planning Commission, as he recalls, <br />did not feel the need for berming along County Road E or Pine Tree <br />Drive; otherwise reeommendationa listed appear acceptable. Miller <br />noted that the berming suggested is what he calls "hubcap hiders"; <br />is not significant, but prevents full view of rows of ears; there- <br />fore, auggested berming where feasible. <br /> <br />In discussion of the suggested break up of parking sreas, Miller <br />explained that the long areas of parking along the east and west <br />sides were his concern; unless these landscaped areas are of <br />sufficient size to be significant (probably replace 2-3 stalls), <br />it isn't worth doing. <br /> <br />Pedeatrian access thru the site was qqeried. Miller noted that <br />a sidewalk syste. could be accommodated on site to connect with <br />tbe existing walk along County Road E. <br /> <br />In discussion of the signage, Miller said a aignage plan will be <br />required; noted that some suites will have direct access from the <br />outside; these will be permitted an identification sign. Miller <br />explained that a project identification sign at the entrance <br />to the site (name of office park) is permitted by ordinance, as <br />well as primary directory signs at doorways for tenants without <br />direct access from outdoors. <br /> <br />Weir referred Council to slide examples of the Arden Plaza Shop- . <br />ping Center signage which he said exceeds the City's signage <br />requirements. Weir said they will probably propose the bolder <br />letter treatment for signage in the office park - similar to <br />Coaat to Coast and Pizza Hut lettering in Arden Plaza. <br /> <br />Concern was expressed relative to the seemingly excessive number <br />of access doors to the one-story buildings. Weir said he feels <br />it necessary to provide.easy access to the building suites; noted that <br />they too do not want the site to look cluttered. . <br /> <br />In discussion of access to the site, concern was expressed <br />relative to the off-set driveways, because of the accident potential. <br />Weir said thay have relied on their traffic engineers; noted that <br />the driveway separation on Pine Tree Drive is about 100'; traffic <br />engineers_feel it will be a safe and effective access as proposed. <br />Miller noted that his rule of thumb for adequate off-set driveway <br /> <br />-4- <br />