Laserfiche WebLink
CoDcept Plan Revisions <br />The following items constitute significant revisions or changes fix>m the Concept Plan approved by <br />the Council in June, 2002: <br />1.The building is 16,000 s.f in area rather than 15,000 s.f. It is still one stoiy and retains the <br />same architectural styling as the original plan. <br />2.The building orientation has been reversed so that its front entrance is facing northeast toward <br />Kelley Parkway rather than southwest toward the intersection of Hwy 12 & Old Crystal Bay <br />Road. <br />3.The easterly entrance to Kelley Parkway will be a full access shared entrance with the <br />adjacent property to the east. This was formerly an “in-only” access point. It is located <br />directly across fit)m the Orono Police driveway as required by the City to eliminate left- <br />turning conflicts for exiting vehicles. <br />The westerly access firom Kelley Parkway will be **in-only** which provides easy access for <br />patient drop-off and pick-up while providing less of a stacking backup conflict for cars <br />exiting onto westbound Kelley Parkway. <br />5.The easterly parking lots are connected by two “through ” corridors to additional parking on <br />the adjoining property. Based on applicants ’ revised submittal C2.1, required parking is 72 <br />stalls, of which 67 arc provided on-site and 5 are provided on the adjacent property. The site <br />plan indicates that a total of 15 stalls are proposed on the adjacent property to serve this site, <br />due to the applicants ’ expectation that a total of 83 stalls are likely necessary to adequately <br />serve their intended use of the building. Parking layout appears to meet the appropriate <br />design standards in terms of stall size, driving lane width, etc. <br />Topics for Discussion <br />Parking Easements/Agreements vs Lot Line Rearrangement : The two apparent options for <br />allowing the required parking and shared access to occur outside the boundaries of the <br />property are 1) require that parking casements or agreements be established between the two <br />properties, or 2) require that the lot boundaries be adjusted so that all parking for the comer <br />lot is within the comer lot. The shared access should require cross-easements in any casci the <br />proposed shared access location is very appropriate to serve both sites, and we would expect <br />perhaps one additional access to Kelley Parkway would be developed for the easterly parcel. <br />Staff docs not necessarily oppose the idea of using easements to meet the parking obligation <br />of the comer lot, but these must be properly documented and taken into account when the <br />easterly site is developed. <br />«02-27S2 ProCnilonsI PrepiiliM vf O tmo <br />AugiiftlS,2002 <br />Pa|t2«r2