Laserfiche WebLink
n <br />U <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MONDAY, JUNE 9, 2003 <br />8. #03 -2889 Ravia Real Estate, LLC, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard West PUD <br />Concept Plan Approval — Continued <br />Ms. Schulman stated that the front of the building faces Sugarwoods with the parking <br />adjacent to their preserve. She was concerned that they would have parking lights shining <br />into their yards whenever the trees are bare. <br />Ms. Ricks stated that she has four small children and is concerned there is not enough <br />buffer between the houses and the development. <br />Marilyn Woosek asked if Ravia Real Estate had met the green space requirements. <br />Gaffron stated that the B -6 zone has no specific green space requirements. The plan was <br />about 45% green space. <br />White asked why the building didn't face Highway 12. Revering stated that the <br />topography and walkout design of the buildings requires it face Sugarwoods in order to fit <br />enough parking. <br />Gaffron stated they would have to cut 20 -25% of the proposed buildings to meet the <br />parking requirements. Van Houten stated that would kill the project. <br />• White asked if the parking requirement was reasonable. Gaffron stated that 3.5 stalls per <br />1000 s.f., using 85% of gross as net, was reasonable. He stated that the office lot could be <br />used as overflow parking for the senior housing complex on the weekends, according to <br />the PUD. <br />r <br />Revering stated that they don't feel the need for more parking. Gaffron stated that they <br />felt the project required more parking. <br />Sansevere asked how many people would work in the office. Ulten stated that there could <br />be 4 -5 workers per office. <br />Mayor Peterson stated that the applicant should move the garbage away from Sugarwoods <br />and fix the parking. She also stated the northeast corner should remain green space. <br />Rick Schommer of 2106 Sugarwoods stated that he was at the first Planning Commission <br />meeting. He felt that the planned parking would encroach on the neighbors when it was <br />developed. He stated that the development was only required to have a 20' setback, but <br />the residential neighbors were required to have a 30' setback. <br />Gaffron stated that only 10' was required from the lot line to the parking lot, and that the <br />applicant had doubled the required setback. He stated the evergreens would be 3 -4' wide <br />and 6 -8' tall to start. <br />13 <br />