06-09-2003 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o*clock p.m. (#i 2 1^03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued) Forestview (8.2 stalls per unit) was nearly foil at 5:40 p.m. and there was overflow parking occurring on the adjacent street. In Gafiron opinion, this site had a parking issue. Gaffron reported that the applicants were proposing an initial parking ratio of 71 stalls per 13 units or 5.5 stalls per unit, with a maximum potential for 1 13 stalls or 8.7 stalls per unit. By contrast, Orono c<^e would require 15 stalls per unit. He maintained that, despite the attractiveness of leaving the proof-of-parking areas unbuilt and in green space for now, staff would hesitate to recommend approval of parking at any level less than 10 stalls per unit in order to eliminate the likelihood of overflow parking at the Senior Housing or Orono Shopping Center lots. Gaffron acknowledged that the ofllce use would most likely consist of low traffic appraisal or insurance offices, however, one could not be sure this would be the case. With regard to their water management plan, Gaffron explained that all roof and parking lot runoff would be collected via catch basins and transported via imderground storm sewers to the existing storm sewer system serving the Senior Housing siie, discharging to the existing NURP pend located at the northwest comer of Brown Road North and Highway 12. Gaffron pointed out that capacity and design of this pond were previously deemed acceptable by MnDOT, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and the City for development of this site for Office use under the PUD No. 2 approvals. The City Engineer has requested that a drainage area map and storm sewer calcu.'ations be provided by the applicants, as well as evidence that the downstream storm sewei has the capacity to serve the proposed use. Gaffron noted that revised drainage ealculations would be required from the developer to confirm there are no drainage issues if the current proposal goes forward as well. Gaffron pointed out that the topography of Lot 1 is significantly higlier than the adjacent parcels on either side, with its high point near the northeast comer. The land slopes to the northeast, southeast and southwest from this point. Existing grade level rises 28' from the southeast comer of Lot 1 to the high point at the rear. The existing home in Sugar Woods directly behind Lot 1 is at or slightly above the highest elevation on Lot 1. Furthermore, at the south end of SE building, a retaining wall up to 6’ high would be needed along the north side of the service drive, due to the grade needed to gain access to the site from the Senior Housing Highway 12 access. As viewed from Highway 12, tne south end of the property would consist of a grassy slope, the service road, the retaining wall, and the 48’ wide 2-level facade with windows. Gaffron noted that the City Engineer indicated the grade of the access road at the southeast and northwest ends of the site exceeds 12% and should be revised to not exceed 8%. This may have some impacts on the parking lot grades, which should be reduced to not exceed 4% (as submitted, parking lot grades are 0% - 5%). PAGE 20of4P JL