01-20-1998 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 • (#19 - #2326 Orono Development- Continued) Gaffron reviewed the general performance standards noted in the application in relation to exterior storage, traffic control and site circulation, signage, lighting, and parking standards. The traffic will move in a counter-clockwise rotation through the bank drive- through window. Both a north and south access is proposed. Exiting traffic may be a problem with the close proximity to the Culver's Restaurant. There will be two-way traffic on the exit and in front of the building. The City Engineer suggested the use of a right-in, right-out scenario if two accesses are provided; he recommended only one access. Hennepin County will need to review this issue. The City Engineer felt the entrance was too close to the intersection. A condition was placed on the Culver's Development for another review of the access due to this issue. Gaffron said Staff questioned the need for the entrance monuments and indicated they must meet the 10' setback. More detail is required regarding lighting. The parking standards are met with 62 spaces proposed and 56 required. The code calls for one space for every 200 s.f of office space; the plan has one space for every 150 s.f of space. Gaffron said the intensity of the restaurant use can be limited by the parking. No joint parking is planned, but O'Sullivan had previously suggested overflow parking for Culver's on this site. • The setback for parking in the front is an issue for consideration. If the road expands, the parking will disappear. At least a 10'wide green strip for landscaping should be provided. The setback is also important in maintaining the natural character of the City. Gaffron reviewed how the 20' front yard could be accomplished as cited by 1-4 in the packet. He added that the building could be pushed back on the lot to accomplish#2. Gaffron said it is unclear whether the intent of the code section regarding drive-in standards applies to restaurants or general drive through services. Gaffron felt the canopy area should not impact the neighborhood except for the possibility of headlight glare, which may require screening. Gaffron expressed the need for additional landscaping due to the loss of trees on the property. Gaffron reviewed the variance requests including hardcover. He questioned the granting of the magnitude of hardcover variances considering the lack of detail or hardship statement. The question arose of whether the storm water treatment concludes that the excessive hardcover has a limited impact. Gaffron said the front parking setback should be evaluated in its regard to what is appropriate in Navarre. 36