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
f •MINUTES OF'HIE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Tuesday, January 18,2005 <br />6:00 o ’clock p.tu. <br />Bremer cumincnied she prefers the nine-fool ceilings and (hat she does not have an issue with the increase <br />in hciglit as a result of the raised ceilings. Bremer indicated in her view the buildin" would be more <br />visually attractive with the taller roofs, but that she has a concern with the size of the one building. <br />Bremer encouraged the developer to reduce the size of the building. <br />Rahn slated he would like the siz,e of the building reduced to the amount of square footage that was <br />originally approved. Kahn inquired whether any outdoor amenities are being proposed. <br />Johnston staled they have looked at some outdoor amcnilie.s but have decided not to include them due to <br />the maintenance issues associated with u pool and the close proximity of tennis courts to this site. <br />Johnston indicated in his opinion this proposal is a better looking plan and noted that one unit wa.s <br />removed from the previous proposal. <br />Winkey commented the units arc more likely to be leased with the amenities but that in his opinion the <br />costs associated with the amenities with this proposal versus the previous proposal have not changed <br />dramatically and that a higher rent could be charged for the larger unit.s'. <br />Johnston noted some square footage was added to make the building deeper. <br />Zachman indicated they did increase the size of the parking stalls to allow easier access for full-size cars. <br />Winkey staled it is his under tanding the number of larger units has been increaseil and that in his opimon <br />this project; 'ould be economically feasible even with a reduction in the number of units. <br />Jurgens commented it is difTicult to imagine the visual impact this building will have. Jurgens inquired <br />whether the first floor elevation is seven to eight feel above the curb line of the existing road. <br />Gaffron stated the road is at 1022 ’, with the first floor level being .seven to eight feet above the road. <br />Jurgens inquired how it would be transitioned from tire roadway to reduce the appearance that this <br />building lowers over you. <br />Johnston stated the slope os it exists now would remain for the most part, with the parking lot located in <br />between the road and the building. <br />Jiiigcns inquired how far back the building is situated front the curb. <br />PAGE 46
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.