My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-10-2002 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2002
>
06-10-2002 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/9/2023 10:15:15 AM
Creation date
2/9/2023 9:27:36 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.
/
249
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
From staffs perspective, the conversion from office to residential has pro ’s and con ’s. Curtly the <br />market for office space is very weak, yet this parcel has been sitting for nearly 15 years without any <br />action, and markets come and go. Does it make sense to wait for the office market to develop? <br />What if the neighborhood retail was developed at 12AVillow with office south of Kelley further <br />west? <br />Remember also that the City has made a commitment to providing a wider range of li fecycle housing <br />options, and this is one of only three areas in the City where the 2000-2020 CMP allows for the <br />higher densities necessary to allow lifecycle housing to happen. <br />Staff recommends that Planning Commission give careful consideration to the conversion from <br />commercial office use to multifamily residential south of Kelley Parkway. <br />IV. Concept Plan Discussion Punchlist <br />Applicants have provided a detailed narrative describing the various elements of their proposal, and <br />have provided the required submittals for the concept plan review (See Exhibits D-6 and D-7). <br />Rather than reiterate this information, staff would offer the following punchlist of issues to be <br />addressed if the concept review continues to move forward. <br />Site Features: <br />1.The full wetland delineation report should be submitted for review by staff and City <br />Engineer. <br />2.Should a tree survey be required for areas to be disturbed? This is not a specific City <br />requirement, but is alluded to in Subdivision Code Section 11.60... the applicant should do <br />some degree of review of existing stands of trees to confirm the extent of woodlands to be <br />impacted and determine if any should be preserved... <br />Development of Kelley Parkway: <br />3.Does the applicant’s proposal provide the “parkway” character intended by the City? Since <br />Orono has not strictly defined the characteristics (landscaping, lighting, pedestrim <br />walkways, bikeways, etc.) for Kelley Parkway, some attention should be given to this topic <br />as part of the concept plan review... <br />4. The City Engineer in his preliminary comments indicates a traffic study should be completed. <br />#02-2789 Dahlstrom Development LLC <br />May 17,2002 <br />Page 7 of 9
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.