My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-19-2004 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
04-19-2004 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2023 11:42:11 AM
Creation date
1/26/2023 11:34:17 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
381
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
•04*2974 StMcbty Markctpitct <br />AprUIS.2004 <br />ra««9 <br />a reasonable assumption that construction of the le\cl of retail square footage proposed <br />will slam the door shut on any future restaurant opportunities should demographics <br />become more favorable as the Orono-Long Lake-Mcdina area reaches buiId-out. <br />Because the retail is split between two buildings separated by a drive-thru. Planning <br />Comrrassion should carefully review w hether the 2(f-4(y separation of the bu:ldmgs, and'or <br />the building design detail, is adequate to break up what mi^t be seen from certain angles <br />as a single 25(7 unde stnp null. From staffs perspective, this is a critical factor in the\tstul <br />impacts of this site. <br />PreHminarv Plat <br />Plat approval wilt include the establishment ofdrainage and utility easements, as well as pa>ment <br />of park fees and stormwater & drainage trunk fees (both established as part of the previous <br />Stonebay PUD approvals), etc. Preliminary plat approval will be concurrent with site plan <br />approval. The tw'o-Iot layout and separate ownerships do not pose any foimidable considerations. <br />Shared parking, site maintenance responsibility and similar agreements will be established as a <br />matter of course. <br />Rezoning <br />As noted at your February meeting, the rezoning goes hand in hand with the Comp Plan <br />Amendment, and will provide for a greater level of detail than the Plan. Planning Commission <br />identified a specific list of allowable or unacceptable uses for tlie site in February, and refined that <br />list in March. The list of uses w ill be incorporated mto the PUD rezoning for this site, as will a fairly <br />detailed set of conditions related to the specific jitc plan approval for Outlot A. Staff would uitend <br />to incorporate into the rezoning ordinance conditions of approval that clearly document the <br />approved site layout, buildmg design and materials, signage lightmg, etc. The PUD appru\ al for this <br />site becomes the governing ordinance for the property. <br />Summary of Issues to Address <br />1 . Plaiuung Commission should again review the list of allow able uses to ensure it reflects your intent <br />for this site. <br />2. Aooress approval of the lot area and w idths as proposed, as well as the lot coverage issue. <br />3. Discuss w hether die 20'w cst side setback for the w esterly bui Iding should be accepted instead of <br />35 ’. The alternative would be to reduce the overall length of buildings on Lot 1 Also review <br />whether the pedestrian terrace amenity is acceptable at its proposed location in Outlot B. assuming <br />MnDOT has no problem with it.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.