Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, April 21,2003 <br />6:00 o*clock p.m. <br />(#11 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued) <br />Dr. Karl Berg, 2112 Sugarwood Drive, commented that he felt the townhome office <br />development was an appropriate design, however, he did not wish to see the site overbuilt. <br />In excess of 39,000 s.f.of rental space, he was concerned that this small parcel could not <br />support this size of development. As proposed, this development is nearly 50% larger than <br />the 26,000 s.f. design presented by Orono Ambar. Berg asked the City to be sensitive to <br />the fact that this proposal is 50% bigger than that which was previously presented on this <br />mere 2.6 acre parcel. Once again, while he could support the concept, the architectural <br />elements, and low use. Dr. Berg requested that the City require the developer to provide <br />adequr.ie protection from this site to Sugarwoods and reduce the size of the development to <br />b'*ttcr suit the parcel. <br />Jackie Ricks, 2108 Sugarwood Drive, indicated that her parcel backs up to the proposed <br />development where there is a gap in the trees between her property and the site. In essence, <br />she noted there is a virtual driveway to her property and she was concerned that the <br />development would seem pretty obtrusive in back of her. She stated that she, and many <br />others, have concern regarding the safety of the numerous children that live in <br />Sugarwoods. She felt the development had too large a density for the 2.6 acre site. <br />Evelyn Schommer, 2106 Sugarwood Drive, agreed with the other neighbors who had <br />spoken and wished to add her concern for the children, due to the proximity of Sugarwood <br />and the project’s parking lot. <br />Chair Smith asked if fencing the back side of the development fit into the landscape plan. <br />Gaffron indicated tnat the City could require a 6 ’ high privacy fence along the lot line at <br />the rear of the property, however, the proposed loop on Outlot D would impact that option. <br />He noted that the fence could run along the Outlot if it were determined to be City owned. <br />Mabusth asked staff to determine who owned Outlot D. <br />Ms. Ricks asked why Outlot D was necessary for a service road in the first place, if <br />Highway 12 was moving. <br />From staffs perspective, Gaffron stated that Highway 12 congestion will be awful for the <br />short term, in the long run, traffic will be cut in half, before slowly building up again. From <br />a planner ’s perspective, Gaffron maintained that the City does not want to give away its <br />ri^ts to the service road just in case something changes. For instance, he added that, if <br />Mr. Wear wants a loop through Outlot D to provide access to his mail, the lights then <br />become an issue. <br />PAGE 23 of 40 <br />iifi <br />■ f <br />i! <br />! : <br />i