Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, April 21,2003 <br />6:00 o*clock p.m. <br />(#i 1 #03-2889 RAVI A REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued) <br />Richard Apple, 2101 Sugarwood Drive, indicated that although a 1 story townhome <br />style office complex sounds attractive and minimal in height, he asked how tall the actual <br />elevations would place this project. <br />GafTron explained that, by definition, the buildings meet the definition of a 1 '/j story <br />building with a walkout basement level. This also would include the main level with <br />parking and the added '/j story for a total height of 25*-35 ’ with peaks. In his opinion, the <br />proposal would meet the 30’ height limit, although elevations might give the appearance of <br />exceeding those. <br />As with any growing business, Mr. Apple inquired what might happen to parking if the <br />tenants expanded and grew requiring more employees and space. <br />Having recently been in negotiations with the City himself. Dr. Berg asked if any thought <br />had been given to a more conservative complex whose parking better meets the codes. He <br />suggested eliminating 2 units firom either end in an effort to downsize the project and allow <br />more room for landscaping and parking. He felt the parking seemed more than inadequate <br />for the size of the development. <br />At 113 proposed parking spaces, Gaffron agreed that the development falls far short of the <br />196 required spaces. <br />With an apparent 60% hardcover ratio uphill, Ms. Ricks asked where the water runoff <br />would go. <br />Gaffron explained that the stormwater management plan indicates that water runoff would <br />be collected in catch basins which would extend to existing ponds on the Senior Housing <br />site. He noted that the City Engineer has asked for confirmation regarding this pond/basin <br />plan. <br />Alcoa indicated tint the end units consist of one unit apiece, with both and upper and <br />lower floor. By eliuiincting the end units they are losing two and not four units. He <br />reiterated that the parking will depend on who the tenants are and pointed out that the code <br />gives a general recommendation for parking, reality could require more or less. <br />Dick Schommer, 2106 Sugarwood Drive, asked how many parking spaces were typically <br />required per unit based on 13 office units, with an upper and lower level, and 3,000 s.f of <br />office space. He pointed out that not only will the number of employees will impact <br />parking, but so will the expected number of customers. <br />By Code, Gaffron stated that the City requires 15 stalls per unit. He pointed out that the <br />proposal offers 71 stalls to be built now and an additional 42 in proof of parking. <br />PAGE 24 of 40