My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-06-1991 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1991
>
05-06-1991 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/14/2022 12:14:10 PM
Creation date
12/14/2022 12:06:02 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
52
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
that the Committee had set up initial site criteria and then <br />judged the five (5) sites presented to the Committee for review <br />against that. They felt the joint location of facilities was <br />important/ not only for capital but also in ongoing operational <br />costs. <br />Mr. Jack Boatman addressed the advantages of a common site and <br />discussed the three (3) "models" the cities use for siting public <br />works, police and city hall facilities. They were: <br />A. Campus facility <br />'Jt-- <br />Vy' <br />B. Split Facility in which city hall was included in the <br />downtown and public works away from the downtown area. <br />itr'. ■w/' <br />iM ■ ' ^ A , <br />C. A split facility in which there is not a traditional <br />downtown. <br />He further indicated that in most cities without an urban <br />downtown, cities gravitated to a more campus approach because of <br />the operational advantages together with the ability to buffer <br />these uses from others. <br />In review of sites the summary of comments by the Committee were <br />as follows: <br />Site #1 - Highway 12 - Clearly the Committee’s <br />recommendation because of size, location and access. <br />Lack of centrality was not considered a material factor <br />in view of the site's accessibility and prominent <br />location . <br />Site #2 - Highway 15/Navarre - Committee indicated <br />little interest in this site and felt it was a difficult <br />site to develop. <br />Site 3# - Crystal Bay/South Brown Road - Again as <br />fecapped there was little enthusiasm by the Committee on <br />this, in part because of the limited ability to put both <br />facilities on here, no expansion room, potential for a 2 <br />story fariiity, expenses and the intensification of <br />placing all the facilities in here would generate more <br />traffic in a residential neighborhood. <br />IM <br />—.Vi <br />i <br />ifiiiUMilii
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.