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 />(#11 #03-2889 RAVI A REAL ESTATE, LLC, Continued) <br />Paetzel stated that each individual entiyway would be illuminated and signified with their <br />prospective signage. <br />Fritzler questioned whether adequate separation existed between buildings for emergency <br />access. <br />While the buildings would be set up for ^rinklers, Gaffron indicated that he would wait <br />for comment from the fire marshal on other matters. <br />Chair Smith asked if the Commission felt there were any other topics of importance for <br />discussion. She summarized the Commission’s position that their biggest concern <br />continues to be density and suggested that the applicant detensify tlic use to allow for <br />additional parking. Furthermore, she encourag^ the applicant to add to the landscaping <br />plan to protect the Sugarwood development. <br />Mabusth asked if they could provide the applicant with further direction with regard to the <br />parking balance. <br />From earlier d 'seussion. Chair Smith felt that staff would be comfortable with 10 stalls per <br />unit. She believed other options for access would need to be examined. <br />Gaffron learned and shared that Outlot D was City owned and would not be contemplating <br />use in the near future. <br />Chair Smith stated that they would prefer the applicant stay out of the Outlets and that they <br />would be comfortable with the applicant working with staff with regard to access. <br />Since the development would be surrounded on twe sides by residential use, Mabusth <br />recommended the applicant take parking, the intensity, and landscaping under serious <br />consideration. <br />Gaffron asked if the Commission and applicant believed they had been provided with <br />enough direction to revise the PUD proposal. <br />Rahn indicated that the applicants hav. been advised that the greenspace and parking needs <br />to increase, and the density decreased. He pointed out that the Commission would not look <br />favorably upon underground parking as an option at this site. <br />Alcon understood that intensity, parking, and landscaping need to be addressed. He stated <br />that they would concentrate on these issues and return with options. He appreciated the <br />valuable feedback the Commission and public had provided them in their process. <br />PAGE 28 of 40
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.