02-23-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 20, 1998 (#19 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Dillon said he understands the need to change the roof line. He will work with Staff on the lighting plan. Dillon said he spoke with the Watershed District, who were satisfied with the preliminary plan and with the ponding, but required the City hearing prior to their formal review. Dillon indicated that a 5’ setback is built in with the sidewalk separating the parking area. He preferred unrestricted ingress and egress for the two access points, especially on the south where it is shared with Culver’s. Hawn asked how much more land would be required to gain two lanes of parking in front. Sepena said it would be a tradeoff and impact the rest of the lot noting 64' is at the minimum. Lindquist asked what should be added in front of the building. Schroeder suggested trees planted in pots. Dillon replied that it w'ould create a problem with snowplowing. Smith felt that 5' would not make a difference. Schroeder indicated it would encroach on the Olive Avenue parking. Gaffron suggested bump-outs in order to save trees. Sepena said it would depend on the parking allotment. Dillon informed Schroeder that his intent is to frame the property with trees. Gaffron indicated that further work with the development on the issues is necessary. Schroeder felt the Planning Commission should see the plan agam. Conunissioners agreed. Lindquist asked Staff to work through the issues and develop a list of topics for discussion. Gaffron said the plan will be reviewed at the February 17 Planning Commission meeting and the February 23 Council meeting. Smith felt the two locations for access were intensive with the combined use with Culver’s, the sea of concrete that would exist, and the increased traffic. She is worried about the level of activity in the area and asked Staff to review this issue. Schroeder, Lindquist, and McMillan felt that two accesses were necessary. Smith asked to see options. Schroeder indicated the building could be reduced in size but limited depthwise. Smith acknowledged the current plan is an improvement. Smith asked that the exterior design be reviewed. Schroeder suggested the drive through be located to the side to gain the 20' setback. Dillon said that was possible but would present a problem with stacking and gaining access to the back of the building if eliminated. Gaffion said a possibility is to eliminate a portion of the 20' driveway. Schroeder asked that more than 5' be provided in front. He would like to see a landscaping plan such as the 5' plus trees. Schroeder moved, McMillan seconded, to table Application #2326 for additional review of plan and work on landscaping, roof design, signage, exterior design and issues noted in this discussion. Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ■ miMIBiMliii 1