pm_071107 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -Wednesday, November 07, 2007 Page 5 Discussion included other components of the City's Traffic Engineer, SRF, detailed by Ms. Bloom, regarding this application, including internal traffic flow and intersection locations and parking lot configuration (i.e., 90-degree parking and angled parking designations); identification in 1999of the intersection of Snelling Avenue and County Road B as one of the ten (10) most dangerous intersections in Minnesota; and work by the State, County and City to mitigate those safety issues whenever possible, including proposed Mn/DOT construction in 2008 of Snelling Avenue, and the addition of turn lanes on portions of Snelling Avenue impacting its intersection with County Road B. Further discussion included intersection capacity; traffic stacking and rear-end collisions due to slowing traffic; signal phasing; impacts of Har Mar Mall improvements to traffic patterns and related issues; existing and potential impacts to residential neighborhoods due to Mall improvements (i.e., Pascal and Burke); recommendations of the Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission for additional pedestrian and bicycle travel and access on-site; traffic modeling assumptions; bus stop(s) adjacent to the site, but not on-site, and potential for a bus cut lane by the Metropolitan Transit Commission; and the need to make the site more pedestrian-friendly. Additional discussion included anticipated phases of the project, currently impacting only the two (2) outlots, unless modifications were proposed to the existing structure, and depending on the owner's tenant base; potential perimeter road along County Road B and Snelling on-site to improve traffic flow of the mall; and modifications that could be required by the City as conditions for PUD Amendments, based on legal counsel. Commissioners further discussed pre-existing conditions due to the age of the Mall; current driving habits; public comment access for the applicant for their awareness of public concerns; proposed underground infiltration system for storm water drainage; and landscape and screening conditions as recommended. Tom Hart, legal counsel for applicant (225 S 6th Street, Mpls., MN) Mr. Hart also introduced Mr. Denny Swanson (M-S Realty); Jeff Agnus (landscape architect); and Megan Sunde, (Civil Engineer), all available to respond on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Hart advised that additional buffering on the east side was a minor issue; and that the focus of today's meeting with staff was related to closure of the west side driveway on County Road B; and his perception of the compromise reached, with the applicant willing to close that driveway if it didn't breach any existing tenant leases. Mr. Hart noted that the Mall owner didn't have a problem closing the intersection, but if closure remained a condition of approval, and it was found to constitute a breach of contract, the applicant would be forced to withdraw the application and leave the Firestone building as it currently existed. Mr. Hart spoke in support of a right-in only, and elimination of the right-out only, pending their more detailed review related to existing leases. Mr. Hart opined that the proposed improvements and use of the property would provide a relatively minimal increase to the amount of traffic on County Road B; however, expressed the applicant's willingness to work with staff to satisfy City concerns. Mr. Agnus advised that, upon receipt of the proposed condition related to pedestrian traffic, their plan had been revised to provide a sidewalk in front of the proposed building, along with a patio eventually connecting to Marshall's on the south side of the building, in addition to addressing the intersection leg addressed in the staff report. Mr. Agnus questioned the viability of mixing bicycle and vehicular traffic. Chair Bakeman noted that the applicant, as well as the Planning Commission, staff and City Council wanted this to be a productive, useful, safe and vital property; and opined that in actuality, there were no opposing sides. Further discussion ensued regarding traffic flow within the site, and ingress and egress impacts; recognizing that both proposed phases for the property affect different residential properties, and separate review allowed for better consideration of each project on those specific neighborhoods; buffering on the east side to protect the residential neighborhood,