08-19-2002 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Concept Plan Revisions The following items constitute significant revisions or changes from the Concept Plan approved by the Council in June, 2002: 1. The building is 16,000 s.f in area rather than 15,000 s.f. It is still one stoiy and retains the same architectural styling as the original plan. 2. The building orientation has been reversed so that its front entrance is facing northeast toward Kelley Parkway rather than southwest tow ard the intersection of Hwy 12 & Old Crystal Bay Road. 3. The easterly entrance to Kelley Parkway will be a full access shared entrance with the adjacent property to the east. This was formerly an “in-only ” access point. It is located directly across from the Orono Police driveway as required by the City to eliminate leA- tuming conflicts for exiting vehicles. 4.The westerly access from Kelley Parkway will be “in-only ” w hich provides easy access for patient drop-off and pick-up while providing less of a stacking backup conflict for ears exiting onto westbound Kelley Parkway. 5. The easterly parking lots are connected by two “through ” corridors to additional parking on the adjoining property. Based on applicants ’ revised submittal C2.1 , required parking is 72 stalls, of which 67 are provided on-site and 5 are provided on the adjacent pronerty. The site plan indicates that a total of 15 stalls are proposed on the adjacent property to ser\ e this site, due to the applicants ’ expectation that a total of 83 stalls are likely necessary to adequately serve their intended use of the building. Parking layout appears to meet the appropriate design standards in terms of stall size, driving lane w idth, etc. Topics for Discussion “ Parking Easements^Aareements vs Lot Line Rearrangement : The two apparent options for allowing the required parking and shared access to occur outside the boundaries of the properly are 1) require that parking easements or agreements be established betw een the tw o properties; or 2) require that the lot boundaries be adjusted so that all parking for the comer lot is w'ithin the comer lot. The shared access should require cross-easements in any case; the proposed shared access location is very appropriate to serve both sites, and we w ould expect perhaps one additional access to Kelley Parkway would be developed for the easterly parcel. Staff does not necessarily oppose the idea of using easements to meet the parking obligation ot the comer lot, but these must be properly documented and taken into account when the easterly site is developed. •02-2782 Profeuiuoal Properties of Orono August 15, 2002 Page 2 of 3