06-10-2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 10, 2002 3. #02 -2782 Professional Properties of Orono, 2765 Kelley Parkway —PUD Rezoning and Concept Plan Review — Resolution No. 4823 — Continued Vicki VanDell stated that in the table shown on page 4 of the resolution, the south side was listed as a rear setback, and that according to the ordinance rear setbacks should be 10' for parking not adjacent to residential. Gaffron stated it was considered a front adjacent to industrial for zoning purposes and that they used 15' for a rear parking setback all the way through. Dr. Berg asked that the setback be made 10' instead of 15'. Gaffron stated that he had provided guidelines that met code and it would be up to Council to determine if 10' or 15' was appropriate. Gaffron stated that they viewed Kelley Parkway as the front because of the access and street address being on Kelley. He asked Council how much separation they wanted between the parking and Highway 12. Applicant questioned if the asphalt bike trail is adjacent to the property and joins the bike trail on the west side, and if they have a 5' clearance on the west side, would they need a 20' clearance to the south side? He stated it would be very beneficial to the project to have an additional 5' for clearance and green space around the building. They are being pushed to the center of the property on all sides. Gaffron stated the intent was to have the bike trail along the south be abutting the property. They would either have 10' or 15' between the parking area and the bike trail. Mayor Peterson stated that they should stay with code and require 15'. Moorse stated that • this would be the first development on Kelley Parkway and will set the standard for development to the east. If the City does not stick with code, then they would be hard pressed to require future developments to conform to code. All of Council agreed that they should go with the code. White asked if the lighting would be street or pedestrian lighting. Gaffron stated that it could be either or both depending on Council's preference. Moorse stated they wanted low lights with shields to light the walkway. Dr. Kotteman asked if it was typical for the developer to pay for the lighting. Gaffron stated for a new development it was, but for an existing lot the City could install the lighting and then assess it back to the developer. Gaffron stated that construction of the trail could be deferred with the developer posting suitable financial security in the interim. Sansevere stated that when projects get deferred, they too often don't get done in a timely fashion. Gaffron stated they would have to put an acceptable time frame on the trail construction. White asked if they could bind future Councils from changing the development to a retail complex. Gaffron stated that future Council would be able to change the development as it saw fit, but would be guided by the current Council's decisions. Moorse stated that besides changing the development, a Council would have to change the zoning and the • 4