My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-28-2005 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
02-28-2005 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2012 3:49:35 PM
Creation date
7/24/2012 4:46:54 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
C <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, February 28, 2005 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(8.#05-3080 INTERSPACE ii "EST, 2060 9"AYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, Continued) • <br />Murphy repeated the Council's position that they are neither designers nor architects, but want a <br />look and feel consistent with what they are trying to create along the corridor currently. He urged <br />the applicant to return with a new design once again and more specific questions could be <br />addressed at that point. <br />Daniel Kaplan, Counsel for the developer, asked, if the applicant could return to the drawing board <br />and bring back something else, whether she would be given design freedom as long as it was <br />compatible with the corridor. <br />Sansevere stated that a new design did not guarantee the Council's stamp of approval. <br />Sansevere moved, Murphy seconded, to table Application #05 -3080, Interspace West, for <br />redesign. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. <br />9. #05 -3081 ZB CONSTRUCTION, INC., 26..xx KELLEY PARKWAY (OUTLOT E, <br />STONEBAY) — RPUD — DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW <br />Gaffron explained that staff recommends conceptual approval of the revised plans including the <br />revised parking plan, subject to satisfaction of any minor issues noted within staff memos. In <br />addition, since a second elevator is not required by code for this building, Council should decide <br />whether it will be required. If Council accepts the proposed site and building plans, staff would <br />draft a Resolution for General Development Plan Approval Amendment and Final Plat Approval • <br />for adoption at the next Council meeting. Gaffron added that it should be noted that the building is <br />being approved as a condominium for individual unit ownerships and is subject to the provisions of <br />Minnesota Statutes Chapter 515B regarding Common Interest Communities and a CIC plat and <br />declaration would need to be filed with Hennepin County by the applicant. <br />Specifically, Gaffron stated that the new plans show a single elevator relocated to the interior <br />hallway corner and pointed out that neither zoning, building, nor fire codes require a second <br />elevator. In addition, the applicants voiced their concern that a second elevator would add an <br />additional $1,000 per unit to the cost of the building. <br />With regard to parking, Gaffron indicated that the applicant had submitted a revised building floor <br />plan placing 95 stalls (83 %) within the building, 23 stalls in the parking lot within the property <br />boundaries, and 3 proof of parking stalls; with an additional 7 street side parking spots off Kelley <br />Avenue. <br />White asked what landscape design would be used to block headlights between the building and <br />parking lot. He pointed out that it would be nice to add shrubbery and plantings along Kelley <br />Parkway near the parking lot via an additional hedge, as well as, more substantial plantings in the <br />triangular corner grassy patch as cars pull into the parking area. <br />The applicants agreed to the additions. <br />Murphy moved, White seconded, to accept RPUD Amendment /Site Plan and Building Plan <br />Approval and Final Plat Approval directing staff to draft final approval documents for is <br />PAGE 6 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.