pf09-003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

::; = 5.7 While not addressed among the standard parking regulations, the Planning Commission �05 recommended a requirement to incorporate bicycle parking facilities as well as to �06 improve pedestrian circulation around the traffic light pole in the sidewalk adjacent to the �o� site. The revised site plan includes the requested bicycle parking and indicates an � o� expansion of the sidewalk facility within the County Road B right-of-way. 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 5.8 Although the anticipated dental office user in the southern end of the proposed building has patient privacy concerns with an entrance directly from the County Road B sidewalk, the building is being designed in such a way that windows in that part of the structure can be replaced by an entrance as tenants change in the future. Planning Division staff continues to believe that a public entrance on the eastern side of the building for pedestrian access from Lexington Avenue deserves consideration, especially in light of the initial absence of an entrance at the south end of the building. 116 S.9 117 1 1 t3 119 6.� 120 �2� 6.1 122 Signage for the development should not be considered with the PUD application; signs should instead be consistent with Code standards, which require a Master Sign Plan for multi-tenant properties like the proposal. OTHER DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE COMMENTS The DRC was generally supportive of the proposal and had the following comments: The storm water management plan for the project may need further development; this need not be finalized in the GENE[tAL Co1vCEPT phase of the PUD process. � 23 6.2 In the interest of ensuring traffic safety, some DRC members have expressed the � 2� preference that the standard Traffic Visibility Triangle be maintained. This concern is �25 complicated somewhat by the fact that locating buildings near street rights-of-way is �26 encouraged in this specific location by the Comprehensive Plan and widely regarded as � 2� good planning practice; while Planning Division staff is confident that this would not be �2� the case if buildings near streets created more dangerous intersections, empirical evidence � 29 of the effect on traffic has been elusive. Without intending to undervalue the concerns �30 over the proposed encroachment into the Traffic Visibility Triangle, it should be noted 131 that the building would be about 18 feet from the back of the curb on County Road B and � 32 about 26 feet from the curb on Lexington Avenue. Planning Division staff believes that � 33 the proposed development contributes to the pedestrian-friendly development called for � 34 in the Comprehensive Plan and the applicant has continued to work with staff to find the � 3� balance between good planning and traffic safety. 136 137 13�3 139 140 141 142 �r 6.3 Part of the proposal includes a 6-foot-tall, wooden privacy fence on the western end of the parking area to buffer the adjacent residence from the parking lot activity. Planning Division staff has been in contact with the residential property owner on the other side of this fence to seek her opinion on whether she'd prefer the more "neighborly" feel of the proposed fence or something a little taller. This property owner is opposed to the removal of the neighboring residence and the proposed parking area and consequently rejects the discussion regarding the height of a fence to screen a parking area that, in her opinion, should not be considered. PF09-003 RCA 032309 Page 4 of 6 � •