My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2009_0420_Packet_Exec
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2009
>
2009_0420_Packet_Exec
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2012 2:40:32 PM
Creation date
4/20/2009 8:54:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
110
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment A <br />ingress/egress points and entrances along Lexington, with the proposed access for this application <br />moving north slightly, as approved by Ramsey County; and potential for limiting left turns out of that <br />driveway onto Lexington, and advantages and disadvantages of doing so. <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had fielded only one (1) phone call related to the project, and that staff had <br />addressed the misinformation they'd been given indicating that the City was intending to take property for <br />the project by Eminent Domain. Mr. Lloyd noted the one (1) written comment, attached to the record, from <br />Dr. Wlson, referenced later in the meeting. <br />Mr. Lloyd noted that staff and the applicant were continuing to discuss fence height and addressed <br />parking requirements for this size of building at forty-one (41) spaces, with the applicant showing forty- <br />nine (49) spaces. <br />Applicant Representative, Sonja Simonsen, Director of Finance for Wellington Management <br />Ms. Simonsen provided a brief history of the intended project over the last year, and conversations with <br />neighboring property owners and staff. Ms. Simonsen advised that Wellington Management had ninety <br />(90) buildings in the metropolitan area, with five (5) located in Roseville, and reviewed Wellington's <br />business model focus since their establishment in 1984, and their real estate ownership and community <br />involvement over that twenty-five (25) year history in over 199 communities. <br />Ms. Simonsen provided an architectural rendering of the building and site; comments received from <br />residents at the neighborhood meeting; rationale for the north end entrance based on the initial tenant for <br />privacy issues; and only three (3) suites to be located in the entire building. <br />Discussion among Commissioners and Ms. Simonsen included rationale for location of the building closer <br />to the corner; urban features of the building; research from police departments in positioning buildings <br />and decreased traffic accidents, indicating traffic calming effects; addressed the traffic visibility triangle <br />and consistencies, based on traffic engineer data, in stopping distances and times; and other site plan <br />and traffic flow issues that were discussed at the neighborhood meeting. <br />Ms. Simonsen noted that sixty-three (63) property owners had been invited to the neighborhood meeting, <br />and that those attending seemed most concerned with security and lighting, which had prompted the <br />applicant to increase lighting to facilitate those concerns, since there were not street lights at that location. <br />Ms. Simonsen reviewed conversations with Dennis Hagel of Ramsey County related to the County Road <br />B access and their preference for closure of that access point; different use with this application, rather <br />than the previous drive-thru use at the TCF Bank; landscaping and islands on site to control the site; and <br />operations of the dental office from 8:00 a.m. — 3:00 p.m., and anticipated reduced traffic. <br />Chair Bakeman noted the configuration and length of Sandhurst and existing traffic problems from <br />Lexington on to Sandhurst. <br />Commissioner Wozniak addressed whether the applicant could give some consideration the fact that the <br />existing signal light was located in the middle of the sidewalk on the north side of County Road B and <br />work with the City to widen that sidewalk along that area to allow better access for bicycles and/or <br />pedestrians. <br />Commissioner Gottfried, speaking in support of bringing buildings closer to streets, expressed concern <br />that sometimes they were located too close, allowing no room for pedestrian and/or bicycle amenities, <br />and suggested the Commission consider a condition stipulating that allowance. <br />Chair Bakeman addressed her concerns with building height, questioning the height of the Cheetah <br />building at its peak, in addition to the height of the smaller residences, and how the applicant could <br />provide extra footage to make the building look less like a box and be more fitting with neighborhood's <br />character. <br />Ms. Simonsen noted that this was part of the design rationale in accentuating the entrance to avoid a <br />boxier look. Ms. Simonsen opined that the landscape plan, on paper, appeared overwhelming, but would <br />� show the applicant's efforts to make the building part of the neighborhood, and expressed willingness to <br />� work with staff on facilitating pedestrian circulation around the signal post in the middle of the sidewalk. <br />� Ms. Simonsen noted that it was not the intent of the design to overshadow anyone, and that exterior <br />� materials of cultured stone were added to soften the building's exterior. <br />� Discussion included whether the parking spaces were all required, or if they could be reduced to provide <br />a softer transition to the neighborhood line, with the applicant noting that, from a leasing perspective, the <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.