Laserfiche WebLink
r MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY. MAY 17. 2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.in. <br /><5. M4-2974 RELIANCE DE\'ELOP.MENT COMPANY, LLP, CoallaMc^) <br />Chair Mabusth inxnted public comments at this time. Hcanng none, she closed the public hearing at 6:S9 p.m. <br />She asked if the applicant had any further comments at this time; Mr. Trautz indicated there were none. <br />Chair Mabusth directed discussion to the Summary of Remaining Issues to Address as outlined earlier by <br />Gaflhin. <br />t. Address approval of the lot area and viidths as proposed, as \s ell as the lot coverage issue. <br />Chau Mabusth indicated this matter had already been fully discussed in prior discussions. She extended ■ <br />thank you to Ms. V’an Dell uho prepared the Stonebay .Marketplace Narraiixe. <br />2. Address approval of the west side setback for Retail Building A. <br />Chair Mabusth asked for confirmation from staff that the adjoining property to the subject property’s uest side <br />currently is oivned by MnDOT and thereforr .s considered a side street requiring a 35’ building <br />setback. Gaffron confirmed this information and added that in the future the MnDOT property with the storm <br />water pond may become County or Orono property, which would nuke the subject property line an interior <br />side instead of a side street, reducing the required setback from 35’ to IIV. <br />Chair Mabusth asked w ho would be responsible for mainuuting the sitting areas proposed for Outlot B <br />Gaffron replied that the applicant property owners ultimately are to be responsible as it is actually a part of the <br />Stonebay Marketplace development, even if the improvements are on public land, and recommended the <br />responsibility be stipulated in some form of written agreement. <br />Chair Mabusth asked the Planning Commission if there were any problems w ith the proposed 20’ side yard <br />setback. There were no objections. <br />3. Address acceptance of the 150-slall parking proposal. <br />Chair Mabusth stated she was satisfied with 144-stalls as the applicant has demonstrated tlKy have met the B>I <br />standard of 1 stall per 150 s f of net retail space, acknowledging that one stall may be lost with the pedcstnan <br />walkway proposed by Phil Carlson. DSU. ‘There were no Planning Commission member objections. <br />4. Address any renuining landscape issues or concerns <br />Leslie pointed out comments from Phil Carlson. DSC. including 'beefing up’ vegetative screenmg of loading <br />areas, E.xhibit K. <br />.Ms. Van Dell responded that there are exisiuig deciduous trees along Kelley Parkway and where there are <br />trash enclosures very large evagreen trees are proposed to screen from the street, both on the west and middle <br />retail building, as well as for the back of the pharmacy. With the proposed screenmg, Ms. N'an Dell stated they <br />thtnk this IS adequate. <br />Mr. Trautz indicated he did not oppose landscaping in the back to screen from residential. <br />Leslie stated his pnnapti concern w as to screen the residenual from the commercial. <br />Rahn commented the goal it to 100% screen Kelley Parkway from the trash dumpsters. <br />Page 12 of 40