My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-28-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
02-28-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2023 10:51:41 AM
Creation date
1/11/2023 10:25:30 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
422
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
The applicants have not submitted any additional materials for staff review at this time. However, <br />tlicy are requesting further discussion regarding their proposed building designs and architecturni <br />style. The applicants designed their buildings in accordance with the D - 6 architectural standards <br />found in Section 78-797 (9) and attached as Exhibit E. While informal discussions relating to the <br />future development of existing Highway 12 have occurred in recent years, no detailed architectural <br />design standard have been formally adopted into the B - 6 zoning district, which was drafted <br />specifically for the Highway 12 corridor and approved in February of 2001. <br />Due to the PUD designation there may be some merit in attempting to achieve the design standards <br />envisioned for the west end of the Highway 12 corridor with this site. However, staff feels sonic <br />discussion should take place as to the connectivity of this site to the new development along <br />Highway 12 between Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road, and how and if that same <br />architectural style should extend eastward from Willow Drive. Staff feels this is important in an <br />effort to justity, tlvough the PUD process, reasons for imposing a more restrictive architectural style <br />standard than established by the B - 6 regulations. <br />For the purposes of discussion, staff has attached the plans from the Ravia Real Estate proposal <br />which gained general concept plan approval for 42,000 s.f of office condos in June 2003 and al.so <br />the plans submitted by Orono Ambar, LLC which also gained general concept plan approval for <br />25,000 s.f. of office space in March of 2001. With both of these proposals, the developer choose to <br />not move forward following general concept plan approval by the City Council. Ravia Real Estate <br />backed out prior to the drafting of documents where Orono Ambar, LLC has a signed and adopted <br />Planned Unit Development Agreement known as 2A, of which the applicants have proposed to <br />amend. <br />Building Height: Staff is attempting a comparison of the building elevations and actual height above <br />exi.sting grade for the Interspace-West, Ravia, and Orono Ambar proposals. We will have more <br />definitive information for Monday’s meeting, but it appears at first blush that the two prior approved <br />plans had peak heights higher than the current proposal. <br />COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED <br />While no formal action is requested at this time, the applicants should be given clearer direction on a <br />preferred architectural style specifying precise design parameters including exterior finishes, roof <br />pitch and material, window/glass locations, orientation to the Sugarwoods residential development, <br />etc.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.