2009_0511_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Councilmember Johnson echoed favorable comments of Councilmembers Pust and Ihlan related to aesthetic and setback improvements; however, questioned the location of the curb cut and sight lines on the north side of the building onto Lexington. Councilmember Johnson noted that this was a prime location for pedestrian and bicycle traffic given its proximity to schools; and expressed concerns with the visibility for cars exiting the parking lot and encroaching onto the sidewalk in anticipation of their left or right turns. Ms. Simonsen noted that currently there were 740 vehicles daily encroaching on the same pedestrian/bicycle transit route, and that the new use would reduce that to approximately 340 vehicles per day, and hopefully improve traffic impacts with the proposed development. Ms. Simonsen advised that the developer was attempting to make the best use of the exiting curb cut and reduce traffic counts. Further discussion included whether the building could be reduced further near the curb cut even though some square footage would be lost. City Planner Thomas Paschke clarified that a visibility triangle was not part of that curb cut; and noted that the access functions now and that cars would be encroaching on the sidewalk even with the current use with no building, and would do so no matter the use for the proposed building. Councilmember Roe, while recognizing the concerns for vehicles encroaching on to the sidewalk, opined that in his experience, traffic seldom stopped before the sidewalk; and expressed concern that such a condition may create an unnecessary hardship for the applicant to address a problem without obvious resolution. Councilmember Roe sought additional information from the applicant related to existing and proposed storm water management on the site. Ms. Simonsen and Mr. Paschke responded that initial feedback from the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) and the City was that their storm water management plan met current requirements, pretreatment and rate control practices. Ms. Simonsen advised that they had bid out pavers seeking to provide additional pervious surface for the parking lot; however, she anticipated that the cost would be economically prohibitive. Additional discussion included proposed use and size of the west side service door as a fire exit; the applications exploration of adding additional doors anticipating future uses and the larger window installations for easier change-out to doors if future uses should warrant that; marketability of the building based on the office building having a common entrance through a main door rather than a retail bay; fire rating and construction material considerations and requirements; and potential creation of additional islands to increase water drainage of the parking lot, since there were an additional five parking spaces above City Code requirements; and exterior materials proposed. Mayor Klausing and Councilmembers thanked Wellington for their responsiveness to previously-expressed concerns and comments.