My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-15-2004 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2004
>
11-15-2004 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2023 1:26:30 PM
Creation date
1/26/2023 1:21:05 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.
/
341
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
L_ <br />MINi TES or THE <br />OltONO PLANNING COMMISSION ^lEETING <br />Moadey, Oclob«r IS, 2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.ui. <br />(S04-3062 Jolia Tcrraace Hoaict, Coallaacd) <br />building (o two stories was discussed in depth as a way to reduce the visual impact and that she would <br />like to see that with this proposal to as-oid this building being out of character with the other structures <br />on the property. Bremer stated in her opinion the drainage issues can be resolsrd but that the massing <br />needs to be addressed. <br />Bremer inquired whether the underground parking could be separated into two garages as well as <br />going back with the concept of tw*o separate buildings. <br />Villard stated he is unsure whether this site will allow the appropnatc ingress and egress for two <br />separate parking garages due to the wetlands and other topographical features. <br />R ihn inquired whether the majority of the amenities could be included in a separate building. <br />Villard stated that design is typically used more in the south where there is not severe weather. <br />Rahn suggested an enclosed walkway linking the buildings could perhaps be included to help offset <br />those issues as well as the massing. <br />Winkey noted the size of the building was increased to accommodate the amenities as well as allow <br />for an increase in the size of the units. <br />Bremer stated the only way she would be in fa\or of the L-shaped building would be if the drainage <br />issues related to the open space above the underground garage dictated a ^ ''jcture in that area and if <br />there were no other design options available for two separate underground parking garages. Bremer <br />commented she would prefer the mne-foot ceilings and tlut the higher ceilings in her opinion would <br />make the units more marketable. Bremer commented she still has concerns regarding the amount of <br />massing ard t'.K visual impact with this building <br />Kempf commented tall trees in front of the structure would also help to dimmish the impact <br />Rahn stated he would like to see an elevation side view showing the building in relation to Kelley <br />Parkway. <br />Villard noted there is not a lot of residential m this area and that in his view the sight lines w ould be <br />diminished by the other buildings m this area. Villard noted the original RPL'D approved 62 units. <br />Rahn inquired w hat the ceiling height of the garage is. <br />Vilbrd stated from floor to floor ms 11 feet and that Ihetc arc codes that rcqunc a ‘IS-mch clearance <br />into the door to allow for access by a \^n <br />Kempf commented he personally prefers the building being proposed tonight based on the <br />consideration given to vary the bcadc of the building. Kempf suggested the applicant look at <br />PAGE 39
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.