02-23-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#2326 - Orono Development, LLC February 19,1998 Page 3 the required 20 ’ front yard area is primarily a function of the shape and topography of the site and the proposed uses. In order to maintain two rows of conforming parking spaces and an adequate driving aisle, approximately a 65 ’ width is required. The applicant has indicated that the building itself is designed at the minimum depth to allow for functionality for tenants. The rear drive-thru lane does double duty as a rear entrance for deliveries to the building, and cannot be narrowed substantially and still allow vehicle passage. The NURP pond is already constricted between Olive Avenue and the 12’ retaining wall. From both a safety pnd engineering standpoint, it may be difficult to reduce the distance between the rear drive-thru lane and the retaining wall, or between the wall and the pond. Nevertheless, in staffs opinion, and apparently also in Planning Commission ’s opinion, maintaining a substantial parking setback to Shadywood is critical for a number of reasons, including: providing a green strip for tree and landscape planting providing for future expansion of Shadywood Road (not planned, but who can predict what the future holds...) - maintaining the natural character that Orono envisions in its comprehensive planning, especially in relation to the B-5 district Maintaining the full 20 ’ front yard as a green space could be accomplished in a number of ways, all of which would have a major impact on the site plan: 1. Eliminate the row of parking spaces within the required front yard (the site would then be severely short of the parking requirements). 2. Reduce the depth of the building. 3. Revise the site layout behind the building. In light of the above. Planning Commission suggested that applicant should consider all possibilities for a combination of site revisions that would result in at least a 15’ parking setback from the front lot line, maintaining a 15’ landscaped green space within the front yard area. Topics for Discussion Topics which have been discussed at the Planning Commission level and which are further discussed in the attached staff memos include: . , .j. - General site plan and layout - Building design and facade materials - Landscape plan, screening ■ Hardcover - Lighting and signage < * 1 curb cut entrance vs 2 entrances - Connection to Culver’s site =- - Grading and drainage - Pedestrian/bicycle access trail Council may wish to further explore one or more of these topics. ji-