Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISS:ON MEETING <br />Monday* August 19,2002 <br />6:30 o'clock p.m. <br />(#02-2782 ORONO PROFESSIONAL PROPERTIES, Continued) <br />Smith indicated that, it sounded to her, as if the Commission would prefer to defer the trail issue <br />until they have a better idea of what's going on with Highway 12 and the adjoining property to <br />the east. <br />Hawn concurred stating that an escrow would be a good alternative for the applicant. <br />Gaffron indicated that the existing Resolution No. 4828, section 1 1, docs contain the language <br />allowing construction of the trail to be deferred until development of the property to the cast <br />occurs subject to the developer posting suitable financial security in the interim for such <br />construction. <br />Mabusth asked if the trail should be contingent based solely on the development to the east or if <br />it should include the final plans for Highway 12 as well. <br />Hawn inquired what the property to the cast was guided for. <br />Gaffron noted that the immediate property to the cast was guided for professional office, while <br />Dahlstrom would develop the next parcel over with a trail connection to Willow, <br />Smith asked if the trail issue should be deferred to City Council. <br />Gaffron suggested that the Commission leave it to City Council to consider when the trail <br />development should occur and provide them the flexibility to decide. <br />Dr. Berg questioned where the dumpster should be located within the property. 1 le felt the <br />dumpster should be located at the northwest comer as opposed to the southeast comer due to <br />handicapped stalls located in that portion of the lot. <br />Gaffron stated that cither location was acceptable as long as they were totally screened. <br />Mabusth pointed out that the applicants would lose parking stalls in the northwest quadrant as <br />well. <br />Dr. Berg noted that, originally, they had proposed placing the dumpster in a central location <br />between the two sites for access by either development, but were told incy could not propose that <br />without a development plan for the second parcel. <br />PAGE 7 of 28