Laserfiche WebLink
#02-2782 Professional Properties of Orono <br />August 22,2002 <br />Page 2 <br />2.Planning Conmission favored a lot line rearrangement to allow the parking areas proposed <br />on the adjoining lot to be within the Medical OfHce property. (Applicants have since <br />indicated they would prefer a cross-easement situation rather than lot line rearrangement; <br />staff notes that this is allowed by the zoning code and would be feasible) <br />3. <br />4. <br />Dumpster enclosure can move to the SB comer of the site to be able to serve both properties. <br />It is critical that landscaping and building design on the SW side of the building be of high <br />quality now that the back of the building faces the 12/OCB intersection. <br />5.Applicant should review the future flow of traffic in the easterly lot to ensure this plan does <br />not have negative impacts on that site’s development. <br />Wetland Issue <br />Although applicants have been negotiating a purchase agreement with the City, it is as yet unsigned. <br />The latest issue with the purchase is that applicants* environmental consultant has suggested the site <br />may contain small pockets of defined wetlands, although none are mapped on the site. John Smythe <br />of Bonestroo & Associates, the City ’s wetland consultant, was asked by staff to review the wetland <br />status of the property. He has indicated after a preliminary analysis of the site that a small wetland <br />(perhaps 1/10 of an acre) app^ to exist near the center of the property. He has suggested the City <br />proceed with a complete delineation of the site to determine the boundaries of the wetland and <br />determine its characteristics to determine the extent of mitigation necessary should the site be <br />developed. The cost of woric completed to date by Smythe is approximately $500; the additional <br />work proposed would be an additional $1,000. <br />Applicants have suggested that the City should be obligated to provide mitigation for the wetland. <br />An argument can be made that this is the purchaser’s responsibility. Council is asked to consider <br />the issue and provide staff with direction. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Staff fiiKk that the revised Concept Plan is superior to the original plan in many respects. Staff <br />concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation. To the extent that developer can provide <br />a joint parking agreement meeting the standards of Zoning Code Section 10.61, Subd. 6, staff would <br />not oppose an easement instead of the lot line rearrangement. Paridng in the easterly lot devoted to <br />meeting the parking requirement for the west lot could not be counted toward the east lot ’s parking <br />requirement in the future. <br />Based on Council ’s conclusions, staff will draft an amendment to the Concept Plan Approval <br />Resolution for adoption at your next meeting.