Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 <br /> 111 - -(#19 #2326 Orono Development Continued) <br /> Dillon said he understands the need to change the roof line. He will work with Staff on <br /> the lighting plan. Dillon said he spoke with the Watershed District, who were satisfied <br /> with the preliminary plan and with the ponding, but required the City hearing prior to their <br /> formal review. <br /> Dillon indicated that a 5' setback is built in with the sidewalk separating the parking area. <br /> He preferred unrestricted ingress and egress for the two access points, especially on the <br /> south where it is shared with Culver's. <br /> Hawn asked how much more land would be required to gain two lanes of parking in front. <br /> Sepena said it would be a tradeoff and impact the rest of the lot noting 64' is at the <br /> minimum. <br /> Lindquist asked what should be added in front of the building. Schroeder suggested trees <br /> planted in pots. Dillon replied that it would create a problem with snowplowing. Smith <br /> felt that 5'would not make a difference. Schroeder indicated it would encroach on the <br /> Olive Avenue parking. Gaffron suggested bump-outs in order to save trees. Sepena said <br /> it would depend on the parking allotment. Dillon informed Schroeder that his intent is to <br /> frame the property with trees. <br /> Gaffron indicated that further work with the development on the issues is necessary. <br /> Schroeder felt the Planning Commission should see the plan again. Commissioners <br /> agreed. Lindquist asked Staff to work through the issues and develop a list of topics for <br /> discussion. Gaffron said the plan will be reviewed at the February 17 Planning <br /> Commission meeting and the February 23 Council meeting. <br /> Smith felt the two locations for access were intensive with the combined use with Culver's, <br /> the sea of concrete that would exist, and the increased traffic. She is worried about the <br /> level of activity in the area and asked Staff to review this issue. Schroeder, Lindquist, and <br /> McMillan felt that two accesses were necessary. Smith asked to see options. Schroeder <br /> indicated the building could be reduced in size but limited depthwise. Smith <br /> acknowledged the current plan is an improvement. Smith asked that the exterior design be <br /> reviewed. Schroeder suggested the drive through be located to the side to gain the 20' <br /> setback. Dillon said that was possible but would present a problem with stacking and <br /> gaining access to the back of the building if eliminated. Gaffron said a possibility is to <br /> eliminate a portion of the 20' driveway. Schroeder asked that more than 5' be provided in <br /> front. He would like to see a landscaping plan such as the 5' plus trees. <br /> Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application#2326 for additional review <br /> of plan and work on landscaping, roof design, signage, exterior design and issues noted in <br /> this discussion. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br /> 38 <br />