My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-14-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
03-14-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/11/2023 3:56:44 PM
Creation date
1/11/2023 3:38:54 PM
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.
/
241
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
MINUTES Or THF <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, Ecbriiary 28, 2005 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />(8. ms-3080 INIKRSPACE WEST, 2060 WA YXATA BOULEVARD WEST, CoiiU$iued) <br />Philip Carlson asked whether the Council would Ire willing to support a two story design that <br />stayed under the 30’ height limit. <br />White indicated that he would he willing to support a two story building, if it fit within the <br />traditional look of the ncighlMirhuod better. <br />(Jina Carlson questioned how they had gone thru the planning process with an application that fit <br />within tire ordinance, were given a 6/0 approval, and arc now being told by the ('ouncil that it is <br />their (Krsonal opinion this design does not fit. <br />Mayor Peterson stated that at the previous Council meeting the applicant was asked to provide <br />Council with a redesign that would flow with other Orono development projects, using previous <br />approvals in the packet as examples; noting they had not done that. <br />(lina Carlson stated that she could come back with a new design in Maich but asked for assurance <br />that her new design concept would have support among the Council. In addition, she asked if there <br />were other items within the application to which the Council objected. ,She shared a few photos of <br />previous designs hy her finn, including prairie .style and flat roof type buildings. <br />Murphy reitemted that it was not simply the roofline but how the proposed building fit into the <br />landscape, lie was reluctant to redesign the concept for the applicant, stating that he would like to <br />see .something different than what had been provided, and would know what fits in when he sees it. <br />Planning Commissioner U-slic interjected that the Planning C’ommission had discus.scd the rootline <br />and, while they did find it did not interfere with the prupo.sal, .suggested that perhaps a Hat roof line <br />would be more acceptable if the rest of the building componcnls fit. 1 le asked the Council if they <br />conctiiTcd. <br />White agreed that a flat roof would be acceptable but would like to .see what the applicant came <br />back with. <br />Mayor Peterson and Sansevere indicated that they both liked tlic overall project and layout, but <br />were not convinced the building design itself fit the corridor. <br />Attorney Barrett .stated that the oidinance diws slate that Council has the ability to aiilliori/e <br />aichilccluial designs and decide what the look of the comdor should be. <br />(iina Carlson maintained that, in her opinion, the corridor did not have a .set .standard for the area. <br />Moorse staled that, allhough roofline and style are ai issue and In’cause the design has more units <br />and windows facing the residential area, it is impoilanl that the (’ouncil to advise the applicant on <br />wiial they arc willing to accept, boih in terms of height and design. Moorse e.xplaincd that if <br />Council IS directing the applirani to go back and redesign the buiUlings, the applicant needs to <br />know whether the w.’tidows caiiiiol exceed the height as |iro|)osed cunenlly.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.