My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-14-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
06-14-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 11:14:59 AM
Creation date
1/25/2023 8:56:22 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.
/
627
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> •> <br />I » <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />Mr. Trautz pointed out that if the goal is to match what is on Kelley Parkway and it is a residential-type light, <br />many more lights futtures would be necessary to get the correct light level. He commented he was not sure <br />how to answer Chair Mabusth's question yet. <br />Leslie pointed out there is a fair amount of screening between this development and the street, assuming the <br />combination of the berm and taller trees, and he advised he will request more trees to be included, that there <br />will not be a direct, visible conflict between box-type lighting and the Kelley Parkway lighting fixtures. <br />Kempf asked staff where the lights are located on Kelley Parkway, one or both sides of the street. <br />Gaffron confirmed the lights on Kelley Parkway are on both sides of the street with regular spacing. <br />Fritzler asked for clarification that if the Kelley Parkway lights were sufficient, no new lights would be on the <br />buildings. <br />Ms. Van Dell clarified that building lights will remain but there may not need to be additional lot lights. <br />Bremer asked for information about the location of employee entrances. <br />Mr. Trautz explained the service entrances are on the rear of the buildings. <br />Gaffron recommended that functional lighting is needed at the rear of the building but does not have to be <br />nearly as intense as the parking lot lights. He indicated he expected to see downcast box lighting fl.xtures on <br />the rear of the buildings. <br />Chair Mabusth invited public comments at this time. Hearing none, she closed the public hearing at 6:59 p.m. <br />She asked if the applicant had any further comments at this time; Mr. Trautz indicated there were none. <br />Chair Mabusth diiected discussion to the Summary of Remaining Issues to Address as outlined earlier by <br />Gaffron. <br />1. Address approval of the lot area and widths as proposed, as well as the lot coverage issue. <br />Chair Mabusth indicated this matter had already been fully discussed in prior discussions. She <br />extended a thank you to Ms. Van Dell who prepared tite Stonebay Marketplace Nanativc. <br />Page 16 of 58
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.