Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, "STONEBAY <br /> MARKETPLACE," NW QUADRANT HWY 12/WILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD <br /> DEVELOPMENT—Continued) <br /> Chair Mabusth commenced polling the Planning Commission members on the Summary of Issues to <br /> Address. <br /> There was consensus the list of allowable uses reflects the Planning Commission's intent for this site. <br /> Chair Mabusth summarized the lot width requirement is met but lot area and lot coverage are not met, <br /> restating the Planning Commission goal of 25% greenspace for the site also is unmet with 24% <br /> greenspace when the proof-of-parking is utilized. Also, the westerly building only meets a <br /> 20'setback not the 35'setback requirement. <br /> Kempf asked Gaffron to review the terrace proposal on Outlot B. Gaffron described the terrace or <br /> pedestrian feature is on top with a trail system to be developed above the retaining wall at the pond. <br /> Kempf stated he had no problem with the lack in setback at the pond as it typically protects an <br /> adjoining property or packing buildings in too tightly which is not a problem on Outlot B. He <br /> commented that he felt residential standards should be treated differently for property protection but <br /> if this site works and is functional he found it to be less problematic than in a residential area. Kempf <br /> continued by stating that screening is very important due to the blank building walls, loading docks <br /> and trash receptacles. He supported as much year round screening as possible and noted that due to <br /> the across-the-street housing being higher in elevation than the subject site he supported really <br /> substantial trees put in initially for effective screening in the first years. <br /> Leslie asked staff if their recommendation would change if MnDOT does not approve the terracing <br /> on Outlot B. Gaffron agreed that it would change if MnDOT does not accept the improvement. He <br /> explained the applicant wants to maintain building size and chose to move the buildings closer to the <br /> corner and to the pond. Leslie asked if staff support is conditioned on MnDOT supporting the <br /> terracing and would not approve the setbacks; Gaffron agreed. <br /> Leslie reiterated Rahn's concern about the number of structures on the lot and the reason for the <br /> discussion is because of the building sizes, resulting in too much building and too small of lot size. <br /> Chair Mabusth requested clarification of the ownership of Outlot B. <br /> Gaffron explained the outlots were part of the MnDOT taking for the original regional pond in the <br /> Hwy 12 improvement project. The outlots were expanded with Outlot B and C to account for <br /> accommodating the pond. He stated the initial agreement and approvals included an overlook feature <br /> and trail, therefore, the expectation is that MnDOT will not have a problem with applicant's proposal. <br /> The applicant is trying to contact MnDOT and hopefully will have information for the next Planning <br /> Commission meeting. <br /> Berg asked for clarification of a proposed greenspace area. Gaffron explained it was widening <br /> between buildings with shrubbery but was not the patio, which he indicated on the overhead map. <br /> Page 7 of 49 <br />