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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />Chair Mabusth asked if there are any other issues for discussion. <br />Kempf questioned if resolution was reached about requiring residential style lighting along the <br />sidewalks coming up to Hwy 12 on the east side from Walgreens and along the pond area, as it is a <br />more park like setting. <br />Chair Mabusth asked what would be the function of such lighting and how much lighting the <br />residences prefer across the street. <br />Kempf stated a box-type fixture would not be wanted there and it would serve an aesthetic purpose, <br />too. <br />Fritzler stated he support additional or upgraded lighting along the pond area, but did not see a need for it on <br />Willow Dnve. <br />Ms. Vp.n Dell explained what is shown on the Lighting Plan, concluding there is no need for additional lighting <br />as it adequately lights tne path along Willow Drive to Hwy 12 as well as the trail going around the pond. If the <br />lighting fixture were required to be changed, it would be only for aesthetic purposes <br />Chair Mabusth asked if there would be mounted lights on Retail Building A. <br />Ms. Van Dell replied there may need to be for the potential patio area on the west end of Retail Building A and <br />for safety reasons on the path going to Kelley Parkway. She pointed out there are two fixtures, both on the <br />door and the southwest comer to well light the area. She stated it has upwards of 6-foot candles illumination <br />and docs not go below 1.5-foot candles. Ms. Van Dell advised the lighting would go in as needed, depending <br />the tenant. <br />Chair Mabusth asked for any further comments. <br />Rahn asked Gaffron to explain when structural coverage requirements apply to retail uses, given the dental <br />oftice example. Gaffron indicated the dental office site is 2.0 acres and structural coverage requirem^'"ts only <br />apply to sites 1.9 acres or less. Rahn stated that compared to the Culver’s site in Navarre at the 20.2 % and <br />this application at 17.9% (combined), where Culver’s site is usually very crowded as an over utilized site, his <br />concern is to prevent crowding on the subject site. <br />Chair Mabusth noted the structural coverage issue is only being applied due to the subject site’s subdivision. <br />Page 22 of 58
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.