Laserfiche WebLink
Jeff lshland, RSP Architects, stated he has been involved in this portion of the project for several <br />months. He explained the access points, noting they want to play up the architectural features. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Johnson asked them to walk them through the original plan, which the Planning <br />Commission is familiar with. and what the market is telling them that has led to this'new plan. <br /> <br />Mr. lshland stated the realitv is a lot of smaller retail relies on destination anchor tenants to draw <br />business. He indicated that as you pro~ess from the west, they have tried to maintain the <br />pedestrian feel and connection. As people come in with' their cars into the attto related <br />destinations, you then move away to the scaled down more pedestrian friendly areas. .- <br /> <br />Mr. Voss stated they need to keep focus on the area within the development that is being <br />discussed. He indicated there is considerable dialog [aking place between the master developer <br />and Staff to fix some of the keyhole areas, inc}uding the area in question. He stated they are <br />talking to several ~ocery stores, and could not convince any of them 'to: go with a parking ramp. <br />He indicated they have been told the ~ocery stores could not finance the store with a ramp, and <br />it is too far fi'om what they normally would do. He stated two studies have shown a 45,000 to <br />60,000 square foot store is the appropriate size for the area. and thev are currently looking at a <br />63,000 square foot ~ocery store. He indicated they are in serious negotiations with Coburn's, <br />and Shingobee Builders have workedWith them before. <br /> <br />Mr. Voss indicated the next thing they did was look at the concept of front door and back door <br />retail. He stated Arbor Lakes is an example, where there are doors on the fi'ont for pedestrians, <br />and parking in the rear. He advised th/s forces retailers to have two entrances, which has already <br />posed a problem at Arbor Lakes. He i.ndi:cated they tried to break up the retail into nodes to <br />avoid this. He stated when you force a retailer to have two entrances you have to have two <br />points of sale, which increases your staff needs. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Johnson stated as he looks at the new plan. he does not see ramps readily identified. <br /> <br />Mr. Voss indicated they were never identified to be in this portion of the site. He indicated Staff <br />and consultants are working on a ramp plan. He stated one other deviation they are suggesting <br />may occur is a change to the residential. He indicated they are working with the theory the <br />residential / commercial line is a soft line. He stated they are looking at how residential relates in <br />this area, and more engineering documents are needed, but they are in general asking for a <br />change to the TC-4b boundary line. <br /> <br />Vice Chair Johnson indicated Ms. Hunter from the Task Force has two concerns. He stated the <br />first one was addressed, about moving the store. The second one is more pedestrian access. <br /> <br />Mr. Voss advised at the time they developed these plans, the street plans were not finalized for <br />Sunwood, so a lot of the image~ is not updated for Sunwood, and would need to be. He <br />indicated the streetscape desigm guidelines were not finalized either, so again they were working <br />in a vacumn. He stated they will comply with the guidelines, but do not know what those are at <br />this time. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/April 1, 2004 <br /> Page 18 of 21 <br /> <br /> <br />