Laserfiche WebLink
r MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, May 19,2003 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />(«S #03-2889 RA\1A REAL ESTATE, LLC, Conti^v a«I) <br />- building design, facade materials, etc. <br />• any specific concerns regarding lighting or signage <br />b) <br />c) <br />d) <br />c) <br />0 <br />8) <br />Methods to reduce visual impact to neighbors or to public <br />Landscaping, screening needs <br />Engineering concerns per Kellogg letter <br />Parking capacity, whether basis for proposal is acceptable <br />Pedestrian access, walk^vays <br />Future road connection to the northwest and Outlot D; or to Orono Shopping <br />Center site <br />Any concerns about the revised proposal to provide a mix of owned and leased <br />units <br />Any other topies of importance <br />Any recommendation for site plan approval should also include vacation of utility <br />easements as required. <br />Revering staled that, in response to the neighbors, Ravia deleted two units from the <br />proposal. He indicated that they would be submitting grading plans to Greg Gappa and the <br />City Engineer for review and was comfortable that they would be able to come to an <br />agreement. <br />Chair Smith felt that the intensity and character were good, as well as, the limits set on the <br />retail use. She believed the parking situation was a definite improvement. <br />GafTron asked if 20% was too high a percentage for retail use and whether there was much <br />retail located in their other locations. He suggested the retail use be defined as an ancillary <br />use not to exceed 10*/o of the space. <br />With regard to the issues for discussion, item U6, the City Engineer’s concerns, Revering <br />was confident that the concerns could readily be addressed and submitted to Bonestroo. He <br />staled that he had discussed the capacity of the pipe w ith Greg Gappa and they were both <br />comfortable using it. <br />GafTron found that acceptable. <br />PAGE 19of3S