04-17-2000 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Other Issues as Raised with Previous Applications City agreed to vacate west half of Navarre Lane in prior application. The southerly access is the same as approved for the prior bank/office/retail proposal and is located consistent with the Walgreen’s proposal. The City of Orono will reserve the right, with Hennepin County, to limit access for the southerly entrance/exit to a right-in/right-out should traffic levels increase to a level creating a public safety concern. Driveways and curb cuts for business uses are regulated by Section 6.05 of the municipal code. The proposed access plan appears to meet the standards of that section, with the exception that only one driveway access is normally allowed for a business site. This proposal has two. The second access was discussed at length during the prior proposals, and ultimately was approved for the bank/office/retail plan. The circulation pattern for the current plan is quite similar to the earlier plans (bank/office/retail and Walgreen’s). counterclockwise around the building to accommodate the drive-thru. The second access is expected to provide a safer exit for delivery trucks leaving the site than would be by a single access to the property. 3. This proposed access connection is similar to that approved for the bank/office/retail plan in 1998. The plan would circulate similar to the access that exists. The applicant has mentioned they are communicating about cross parking easements with the owners of the Culver ’s property. There are no excess parking stalls on either this site or the Culver ’s property, hence cross-easement parking usage is beneficial only to the extent that the “prime time’’ for the uvo users does not coincide... 4. Legal combination of the four tax parcels should be a condition of approval. Staff Recommendation There are two primarv' engineering issues to be resolved regarding the stormwater pond: the pond design is tightly squeezed into the site plan, and the pond must be built exactly as per plan in order to accommodate the design flows. Secondly, the retaining wall at the proposed height must be engineered and constructed in a manner that does not encroach toward the pond further than shown on the plan; design work to confirm that this can be accomplished has not been submitted, and will require some soils analysis work. If the wall cannot be constructed in a single face as shown on the plan but must be multi-tiered, this has severe implications for either the stormw ater pond design if the wall moves toward the pond, or the rear access driveway width if the wall moves toward the building. Similar wall design concerns apply to the nonherly wall on the site, with the trail at its base. Applicants engineer is aw are of these issues. ^2567 IValfreJ Properties 23^0 ShuJy^vood Road Comtfiercial Site Plan Review April 10. 2000 page-^