My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-09-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
06-09-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2023 4:13:58 PM
Creation date
2/8/2023 1:26:59 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
451
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, April 21,2003 <br />6:00 o*clock p.m. <br />(MI #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued)------------------------------- <br />While he was fond of the looks, Rahn concurred that the scale should be reduced. <br />Mabusth asked for comment with regard to the City Engineer’s request to reduce the <br />grades. <br />Gafiron noted that the grades at the south end would change the impact of the <br />development. <br />Having heard from many neighbors. Chair Smith supported the need to control the <br />ingress/egress from the site. <br />Keeping in mind the elevations, Mabusth asked how these would impact the views for <br />Sugarwood residents. In terms of safety, she inquired whether a berm or fence would be <br />most effective near the rear property line. <br />Gafiron believed either a fence or berm would suffice to screen the development fit>m <br />Sugarwoods, and felt there was adequate room to add these things. <br />Revering questioned the grade requirements as noted by the City Engineer, for example the <br />12% versus 8% driveway grade, and the 4% versus 5% parking lot grades, and requested <br />an opportumty to speak to the Engineer re3arding his recommendations. After speaking to <br />various communities about special use roads, Revering indicated that it was their opinion <br />that these grades should not be a large issue, whereas, they could pose significant cost <br />issues. <br />Chair Smith indicated that if Ravia could satisfy Gafiron and Kellogg, the Planning <br />Commission would be pleased as well. ^ <br />With regard to the parking capacity and whether a variance is supported. Chair Smith <br />asked for Commission comment. <br />Bremer asked what the parking requirement was for Dr. Berg’s proposed medical building <br />down the road. Given the size of each 3,000 s.f. unit, she maintained that it would not be <br />unheard of that a medical office could move into this development. <br />Gaffron indicated that the medical office complex had been required to supply 1 stall per <br />200 (had it been a retail site, the requirement would be 1 per 150). He agreed that more <br />parking could be necessary, as he ’d observed at the Maple Grove site. <br />Rahn reiterated that the units and parking would be tenant driven, therefore, the <br />Commission should be prepared for the worst case scenario. <br />PAGE 26 of 40
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.