Laserfiche WebLink
NIINUTES OF THE . <br /> . . � ORONO PLANNING CONIlVIISSION <br /> Tuesday,February 20,2007 <br /> � 6:00 o'clock p.m. . <br /> . (#07-3250 Philip Carlson, Continued) <br /> The retaining wall bordering the `welding shop' property will be moved slightly further into that � <br /> property leaving a full five feet of space for screening plantings. A permanent easement will be <br /> required for that wall,and its ultimate ownership and maintenance responsibility should be spelled out. <br /> The landscape plan now includes a Dwarf Korean Lilac hedge bordering the parking lot,providing <br /> screening�&om headlights. Staff would recommend that such a screen also be established along the . <br /> south side of the five parldng stalls facing Highway 12 near the entrance. <br /> . The plan for the boulder retaining walls has been forwarded to the City Engineer for his review. If � <br /> both boulder and keystone walls are now proposed,the applicants should provide a site plan indicating <br /> which walls are to be keystone and which are to be boulders. <br /> �Further,the applicants have relocated the dumpster to the southwest corner of the north parldng lot, <br /> making it somewhat more accessible for the tenants. A proposed dumpster enclosure design was <br /> � provided at the last meeting. <br /> The preliminary plat has been revised from earlier versions and now creates five building pads instead <br /> of ten. The reason for this is that the building code requires firewalls when buildings are in close <br /> proximity to lot lines. With the original plat proposal,the shared open space within each building <br /> would be straddling the lot line, eliminating the possibility of firewalls.The option for the developer is <br /> to plat each building as a single unit,then convert them�to condos by describing spaces for <br /> , lease/ownership that end at party walls within each building,the remainder becoming part of the <br /> commons area. <br /> Gaffron stated the City Engineer has recommended that the applicants address the following items: <br /> 1. Will the applicants agree to provide a 50-foot wide easement over the southerly connecting <br /> dxi�e�way�athe�tha�the_2_S�eet showxi� <br /> ' 2. Can the applicant provide written consent of the adjoining property owner to allow the walls <br /> to be built on the welding shop property? <br /> 3. Can the applicant gain temporary construction easements over the adjoining properties for � <br /> retauring wall construction? . <br /> 4. The road connection to the west stops short of the lot line—will the applicants make this <br /> drivable to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal? - <br /> 5. Are there any line items in the City Engineer's comments that applicant believes cannot be <br /> satisfactorily addressed? <br /> Gaffron noted the latest plans have not yet been reviewed by the Fire Mazshal. Plans will also be <br /> forwarded to Mn/DOT and Hennepin County Public Works for review and comment. <br /> Sta.ff believes the following issues remain to be discussed by the Planning Commission: � <br /> PAGE 3 <br />