pm_030409 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 04, 2009 Page 8 Sections 4 – 7 and the conditions of Section 8 of the project report dated March 4, 2009; amended as follows: Amend Condition C to include language for buffer and screening of the parking ? lot from Sandhurst; Add a condition that the applicant and staff work to improve or widen the ? sidewalk at the northwest corner of County Road B and Lexington to mitigate the location of the existing light pole; Add a condition that the applicant will include bicycle parking facilities on site ? and near the building entrance; and Parking Spaces ? Add a condition that staff will work with the applicant for potential removal of seven (7) parking spaces on the west side of the parking lot and convert them to “proof of parking” to allow for greater green space in the interim, with that assurance that sufficient parking will be provided on site, and not encouraging any street parking on Sandhurst. Commissioner Best opined that he had no problem with the proposed location of the building entrance; and further opined that the tenant’s concerns for privacy were valid. Commissioner Gottfried opined that he had no problem with the proposed building entrance, given that the building’s design capacities included potential relocation with a different tenant. Commissioner Boerigter opined that, while wanting to provide a more urban feel and making the site more pedestrian friendly, the City also needed to be realistic based on human nature and their driving to the site and accessing the building adjacent to the parking lot. Commissioner Boerigter cautioned that the Commission didn’t want to encourage any parking on Sandhurst, which may be an unintended consequence of reducing the parking lot, and therefore supported Mr. Paschke’s suggestion for “proof of parking” for future reference. Commissioner Doherty concurred with that concern, that if adequate parking were not available on site, people would park on Sandhurst, creating extremely adverse outcomes. Commissioner Gottfried supported the parking being built as required for the building’s tenants. Commissioner Martinson expressed concern regarding the traffic visibility triangle and customary speeds of traffic. Mr. Paschke noted Condition A and ongoing discussions between the applicant and staff on final placement of the building. Commissioner Boerigter noted the competing uses at that signalized intersection and nature of the generic safety triangle without looking at the specific location in question; and spoke in support of the proposed location, noting expressed concerns. Commissioner Doherty concurred with Commissioner Boerigter. Mr. Paschke noted similar examples in the community related to encroaching on the safety triangle; noted that the code was created in the 1980’s, and that the community had grown considerably since the 1930’s and 1940’s when parcels were originally platted. Mr. Paschke advised that the concerns brought forward tonight would be included in ongoing discussions and addressed prior to development and presentation of final plans. Commissioner Gottfried noted the need for consistency as this land use designation was initiated. Commissioner Boerigter opined that, in looking at the overall picture and listening to testimony, this land use should provide a more positive aspect to the neighborhood in the long run, as this area was redeveloped into a business node; and opined that there