My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/21/03 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2003
>
04/21/03 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2012 3:46:20 PM
Creation date
2/27/2012 3:46:20 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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 RAVIA REAL ESTATE,LLC, Continued) <br /> Mabusth maintained that the City should not be granting variances for new construction. <br /> Chair Smith asked for opinion's regarding underground parking. <br /> Alcon indicated that it was not their preference to provide underground parking. He stated <br /> that tenants would be hesitant to purchase the units if they felt parking to be an issue. <br /> Paetzel, the architect, indicated that the lower levels of each unit would be typically used <br /> for storage, infrastructure, offices, etc. He indicated that the units would not support, for <br /> instance, a phone bank tenant there,but instead would be designed to accommodate 5-6 <br /> employees and a few customers at a time. <br /> Fritzler asked if the handicap parking requirement had been addressed. <br /> Gaffron pointed out that 6 stalls had been proposed with ramps to the lower floor. <br /> Mabusth asked whether a variance should be required in a planned unit development in the <br /> first place. <br /> Gaffron indicated that the Commission needs to be comfortable with a standard <br /> requirement which it could relate to other developments, for example the Navarre office <br /> site. He asked whether owners would be allowed to sublease their units. <br /> Alcon indicated that, typically, that has not been allowed. He noted that people purchase <br /> the units to use for their personal office space, generally, lawyers, accountants, insurance <br /> providers who wish to be located near their client base. He added that the sublease could <br /> be a condition of the plat. <br /> Chair Smith stated that she was uncomfortable with the proposed proof of parking took <br /> away the planned landscaping. She felt the need to assure the residents of Sugarwood that <br /> more landscaping would be required to preserve or protect their development. <br /> With regard to access, Alcon pointed out that the neighboring strip mall had requested a <br /> sidewalk be constructed which connects to his property. Alcon indicated that the <br /> developer had no problem with that. <br /> Chair Smith asked if staff were comfortable with the signage and lighting proposed thus <br /> far. <br /> Gaffron indicated that, in general, the proposed lighting seems to be just enough to <br /> accommodate the development and individual entryways. He noted that further details <br /> would need to be provided. <br /> PAGE 27 of 40 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.