04/21/03 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, April 21,2003 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#11 #03-2889 RAVIA REAL ESTATE,LLC, Continued) Dr. Karl Berg, 2112 Sugarwood Drive, commented that he felt the townhome office development was an appropriate design, however, he did not wish to see the site overbuilt. In excess of 39,000 s.f.of rental space, he was concerned that this small parcel could not support this size of development. As proposed, this development is nearly 50% larger than the 26,000 s.f. design presented by Orono Ambar. Berg asked the City to be sensitive to the fact that this proposal is 50% bigger than that which was previously presented on this mere 2.6 acre parcel. Once again, while he could support the concept, the architectural elements, and low use, Dr. Berg requested that the City require the developer to provide adequate protection from this site to Sugarwoods and reduce the size of the development to better suit the parcel. Jackie Ricks, 2108 Sugarwood Drive, indicated that her parcel backs up to the proposed development where there is a gap in the trees between her property and the site. In essence, she noted there is a virtual driveway to her property and she was concerned that the development would seem pretty obtrusive in back of her. She stated that she, and many others, have concern regarding the safety of the numerous children that live in Sugarwoods. She felt the development had too large a density for the 2.6 acre site. Evelyn Schommer, 2106 Sugarwood Drive, agreed with the other neighbors who had spoken and wished to add her concern for the children, due to the proximity of Sugarwood and the project's parking lot. Chair Smith asked if fencing the back side of the development fit into the landscape plan. Gaffron indicated that the City could require a 6' high privacy fence along the lot line at the rear of the property, however, the proposed loop on Outlot D would impact that option. He noted that the fence could run along the Outlot if it were determined to be City owned. Mabusth asked staff to determine who owned Outlot D. Ms. Ricks asked why Outlot D was necessary for a service road in the first place, if Highway 12 was moving. From staff's perspective, Gaffron stated that Highway 12 congestion will be awful for the short term, in the long run, traffic will be cut in half,before slowly building up again. From a planner's perspective, Gaffron maintained that the City does not want to give away its rights to the service road just in case something changes. For instance, he added that, if Mr. Wear wants a loop through Outlot D to provide access to his mall, the lights then become an issue. PAGE 23 of 40