My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-09-2003 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2003
>
06-09-2003 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2023 4:13:58 PM
Creation date
2/8/2023 1:26:59 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.
/
451
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
M3-2889 .................. <br />April 18,2003 <br />Page 13 <br />10. Plans should be revised to provide for pedestrian access connecting Orono Woods and the <br />oflice complex sidewalks, as well as a connection to the existing sidewalks abutting Hwy 1 2. <br />11 . Plans should depict existing vegetation that will remain as screening to the north; it is critical <br />to fill in any gaps in existing vegetative screening between the north parking lot and the <br />Sugarwoods neighbortiood. What is the potential for relocating existing trees on the site? <br />12. Is there a need for screening and buffering between the office complex and the commercial <br />properties to the immediate west? What landscaping methods are proposed to reduce the <br />visual impact of the building as viewed fiom offsite, especially the view of retaining walls? <br />13. The applicants should address how or whether the individual buildings, entryways or <br />walkways will be illuminated <br />14. Trash enclosure should be finished in materials/colors matching the facade of the buildings. <br />15. Applicant should indicate the proposed sign location, and indicate the nature of proposed <br />individual unit signage. <br />16. Any other issues Planning Commission wishes to discuss. <br />Staff Rccomineiidation: <br />In general, staff believes the office condo concept proposed is an appropriate and relatively low- <br />intensity use of this site as compared to other possible B-6 uses. The design of the buildings is <br />attractive and of a residential character. Staff is concerned about the parking needs, about potential <br />traffic flow impacts to the adjacent commercial use, and how this site will visually impact or be <br />impacted by existing surrounding uses. Staff also has concerns about the proposed road and paridng <br />lot grades, and would suggest that applicant should be advised to submit a revised grading plan <br />addressing the City Engineer’s recommendations. <br />Planning Commission should address site planning issues, including but not necessarily limited <br />to the following: <br />a) Is the scale and character of the buildings appropriate for the site, in terms of: <br />• appropriate intensity of use and resultant impacts to surrounding properties, traffic, etc. <br />- building setbacks <br />• building height, number of stories <br />- basemcnt/walkout exposure and elevation views <br />- parking location and orientation <br />- driveway layout, site access, interior circulation
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.