05-06-1991 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

rp--.; m- rm 1 fe-: .1 2. FACILITIES COMMITTEE: • d. Easy to direct people to. 2. OUR VIEW: ^ ^ .. . ,. d. This Is probably not worth serious consideration, but if it is, it can be arguv-d that the present site is already familiar to our own citizens and a few signs would greatly ease any strangers task In finding it. 2. FACILITIES COMMITTEE: e. Near public facilities of a similar nature. 2. OUR VIEW: e This Is a very dubious Ideal. There seems little connection between a city hall, a school, a possible future library and an Ice arena- except that they are all tax supported, instead, the clustering of an these facilities together could create a serious traffic problem that could be very frustrating to deal with and costly to correct. rwwfr 2. FACILITIES COMMITTEE: f. City Utilities available. 2 OUR VIEW: f This Is always nice, but certainly not essential. There are plenty of city facilities around that have neither public sewer nor water. We have sewer and wells are still considered a viable source of water. g. Large enough for a campus of facilities with room for future needs as yet undetermined, o OUR VIEW: G. The present site Is large enough for an appropriate sized facility. The prelected growth of Orono is so minimal that future neeos will probably also be minimal. It Is almost a certainty that adjacent Parcels will become available from time to time to satisfy any future needs, if, Indeed, they do arise . 2. FACILITIES COMMITTEE: H. Open for building expansion and growth. 2. OUR VIEW: H. This appears to be a repeat of letter G. above but we would add that the design of the building (2 story, split entry, basement expansion or storage, etc.) can allow considerable space for expansion a the present site. I ^ V.. m OTHER FACILITIES COMMITTEE DETERMINATIONS: The Committee determined that there are operating efficiencies, cost savings, and morale benefits to City employees from location of a City Jl