pm_030409 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 04, 2009 Page 3 such flexibility would ultimately need approval by the City Council and must be demonstrably consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended approval of the REZONING, based on the comments and findings outlined in Sections 4 – 5; and approval of the GENERAL CONCEPT PUD, based on the comments and findings outlined in Sections 4 – 7 of the staff report, and conditions detailed in Section 8.0 of the staff report dated March 4, 2009. Mr. Lloyd noted that the applicant remained willing to work with staff on the height and design of the screening fence between residential properties and this proposed commercial land use, in addition to working with those residents. Discussion between Commissioners and staff included clarifying where the existing zoning standards and proposed conditions were inconsistent; subject parcels remaining two (2) separate parcels and not subdivided or replatted, since the structure would not be built over an existing property line; proposed ten foot (10’) setback from the side parking lot line to the residential properties; and no concerns in not adhering to the forty foot (40’) traffic visibility triangle for the building. City Engineer Debra Bloom Ms. Bloom reviewed staff’s rationale in approving the proposed building location and setbacks, based on vehicle visibility and approaches, area speeds and posted speeds, with design consistent with a 35 mph street; and availability of the EVP signal at that intersection. Further discussion included accident potential at that intersection for vehicles not adhering to the traffic light; and concerns addressed by the Fire and Police Departments, with ongoing discussions to minimize potential accident issues. Additional discussion included standard versus proposed setbacks; consistent setback of the proposed building from adjacent business property line; rationale for building locations closer to the street to encourage more pedestrian-friendly access; and consistency with “Complete Streets” concepts, in addition to consistency with the City’s Cornerstone Plan developed in the mid- to late-1990’s for development and redevelopment at significant intersections such as this, primarily to make them more transit, pedestrian and bicycle friendly, and to frame public space in a way not accomplished with a parking lot, and allowing a more urban feel. Further discussion included the location of the main entrance to the building and the privacy concerns of the anticipated dental use, while allowing for future redesign of the entrance location; intent of the Neighborhood Business designation in the draft Comprehensive Plan in accommodating walkability, making pedestrian access from the street preferred; and removal of one (1) driveway onto County Road B from the current TCF property, with this land use. Additional discussion included main and emergency accesses into the building; building height of eighteen feet (18’), with decorative entry cap features facing the parking lot at twenty-one feet (21’); screening of rooftop mechanicals; considerations for this land use in conjunction with the SuperAmerica ingress/egress points and entrances along Lexington, with the proposed access for this application moving north slightly, as approved by Ramsey County; and potential for limiting left turns out of that driveway onto Lexington, and advantages and disadvantages of doing so. Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had fielded only one (1) phone call related to the project, and that staff had addressed the misinformation they’d been given indicating that the City was intending to take property for the project by Eminent Domain. Mr. Lloyd noted the one (1) written comment, attached to the record, from Dr. Wilson, referenced later in the meeting. Mr. Lloyd noted that staff and the applicant were continuing to discuss fence height and addressed parking requirements for this size of building at forty-one (41) spaces, with the applicant showing forty-nine (49) spaces.