Laserfiche WebLink
i <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 />26 <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 />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 <br />54 <br />55 <br />56 <br />-�, -1 <br />of turn lanes on poRions of Snelling Avenue impacting its intersection with County <br />Road B. <br />Further discussion included intersection capacity; traffic stacking and rear-end <br />collisions due to slowing traffic; signal phasing; impacts of Har Mar Mall improvements <br />to traffic patterns and related issues; existing and potential impacts to residential <br />neighborhoods due to Mall improvements (i.e., Pascal and Burke); recommendation s <br />of the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission for additional <br />pedestrian and bicycle travel and access on-site; traffic modeling assumptions; bus <br />stop(s) adjacent to the site, but not on-site, and potential for a bus cut lane by the <br />Metropolitan Transit Commission; and the need to make the site more pedestrian- <br />friendly. <br />Additional discussion included anticipated phases of the project, currently impacting <br />only the two (2) outlots, unless modifications were proposed to the existing structure, <br />and depending on the owner's tenant base; potential perimeter road along County <br />Road B and Snelling on-site to improve traffic flow of the mall; and modifications that <br />could be required by the City as conditions for PUD Amendments, based on legal <br />counsel. <br />Commissioners further discussed pre-existing conditions due to the age of the Mall; <br />current driving habits; public comment access for the applicant for their awareness of <br />public concerns; proposed underground infiltration system for storm water drainage; <br />and landscape and screening conditions as recommended. <br />Tom Hart, legal counsel for applicant (225 S 6�' Street, Mpls., MN) <br />Mr. Hart also introduced Mr. Denny Swanson (M-S Realty); Jeff Agnus (landscape <br />architect); and Megan _, (Civil Engineer), all available to respond on behalf of the <br />applicant. <br />Mr. Hart advised that additional buffering on the ease side was a minor issue; and that <br />the focus of today's meeting with staff was related to closure of the west side driveway <br />on County Road B; and his perception of the compromise reached, with the applicant <br />willing to close that driveway if it didn't breach any existing tenant leases. Mr. Hart <br />noted that the Mall owner didn't have a problem closing the intersection, but if closure <br />remained a condition of approval, and it was found to constitute a breach of contract, <br />the applicant would be forced to withdraw the application and leave the Firestone <br />building as it currently existed. Mr. Hart spoke in support of a right-in only, and <br />elimination of the right-out only, pending their more detailed review related to <br />existing /eases. <br />Mr. Hart opined that the proposed improvements and use of the property would <br />provide a relatively minimal increase to the amount of traffic on County Road B; <br />however, expressed the applicanYs willingness to work with staff to satisfy City <br />concerns. <br />Mr. Agnus advised that, upon receipt of the proposed condition related to pedestrian <br />tra�c, their plan had been revised to provide a sidewalk in front of the proposed <br />building, along with a patio eventually connecting to Marshall's on the south side of <br />the building, in addition to addressing the intersection leg addressed in the staff <br />report. Mr. Agnus questioned the viability of mixing bicycle and vehicular tra�c. <br />Chair Bakeman noted that the applicant, as well as the Planning Commission, staff <br />and City Council wanted this to be a productive, useful, safe and vital property; and <br />opined that in actuality, there were no opposing sides. <br />