Laserfiche WebLink
«K)3>28S9 <br />Miy 16,2003 <br />Pate 2 <br />Summary of Revisions <br />1 . Reduction in equivalent number of units from 13 to 11 . <br />2. NE Building reduced from S to 3 units, pulling it further south from Sugar Woods <br />neighborhood. <br />3. Five-unit West building will be designed and marketed as individual ofTice spaces with <br />common reception, lunchroom, restrooms, storage, etc. These will be leased spaces rather <br />than individually owned units. <br />4. <br />5. <br />6. <br />7. <br />Additional screening is added along north and northeast boundaries of site to buffer from <br />adjacent residential uses. <br />Applicant is suggesting the new plan has 42,000 s.f gross square footage but contains only <br />21,000 net square feet for parking calculation purposes. Using ITE standards, applicant <br />suggests parking needs are 2.79 stalls per 1000 s.f of gross floor space; 2.79 x 42,000 /1 ,000 <br />yields a 1 14 stall requirement. <br />City code for office use would require S stalls per 1000 s.f. of net floor space. City <br />requirement (if 21,000 s.f. net usable floor area is accepted) is 105 stalls. Parking is <br />proposed at 114 stalls, all to be constructed with no ‘proof of parking’ available. <br />Staffhas not had the opportunity to thoroughly review the gross vs. net floor space diagrams <br />in detail, but a cursory review suggests the proposal is reasonable. The City Engineer will be <br />asked to review this information. <br />Applicant has had discussions with the City Engineer and Public Services Director regarding <br />the grades for the service road and parking areas. The grades recommended by the City <br />Engineer provide difficulties for designing the walkout concept proposed. Although applicant <br />has indicated (Exhibit E) that they wii! accept the ‘approval of the City Engineer' as a <br />condition of approval, we do not have a revised plan that meets the City Engineer’s <br />recommendations. Applicants apparently wish to leave this as an open issue in order to gain <br />approval of the Concept Plan and move forward with their application. <br />Applicants have had discussions with the manager of the Orono Shopping Center and have <br />gained his general agreement to a 20 ’ driveway coitnection to the north end of the property, <br />subject to no runoff additions to the OSC property. <br />T <br />1 <br />i <br />i