My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-21-2002 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
10-21-2002 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/22/2023 12:15:12 PM
Creation date
2/22/2023 12:10:59 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.
/
401
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
Dahlstrom Development LLC #02-2789/02-2840 <br />‘Stonebay’ Final Development Plan Review <br />October 18,2002 <br />Page 2 <br />Key Issues- for Review <br />There are a number of key issues on which the Planning Commission should focus its review. These <br />are pnmanly items that were not dealt with in depth at the Concept Plan stage, and for which a <br />^eater level of detail now has been provided at the Development Plan stage of the review process. <br />Various City consultants and staff have reviewed the plans and have made verbal or written <br />comments, summarized below: <br />1.Wally Case of DSU, Inc. has reviewed the Final Development Plans, specifically the <br />landscape plans. He also was asked to comment on the scale and massing of buildings, open <br />space, circulation, etc. While his written comments will not be available for another week <br />or t%vo. Case did verbally provide his comments to staff in a phone conversation on October <br />17. He indicated that the proposed landscape plan is very good and substantially exceeds the <br />mimmum requirements of the RPUD District. Case had a number of suggestions and <br />comments about various aspects of the plan. The following is a brief summary of his <br />comments: ^ <br />Landscaping: <br />In general, the landscaping/grading of the site incorporates many retaining walls. Based <br />on the cover sheet key, most of these will be modular block walls, although the detail <br />suggests they will be mostly boulder walls. Which is it, or is there a mix that is not clearly <br />apparent. What is the type of stone to be used in the boulder walls - Limestone? Igneous <br />boulders? Most of the walls appear to be less than 4’ in height; those over 4’ will need to be <br />engineered. Where boulder walls are to be used, the detail suggests a tiering by boulder size, <br />biggest on the bottom, smallest on top. This is conceptually correct, but an experienced <br />boulder wall contractor should be used to ensure attractive, high quality, stable wall systems <br />that don t look “layered”. <br />- The boulder wall along the NW comer of the east Lofts building leaves no pedestrian <br />access above the boulder wall... could this be tweaked, and is it a potential fire access issue? <br />- In general the landscaping plan is excellent, incorporating suitable tree and plant species <br />and seed mixes. The proposed tree sizes are appropriate. Case has some suggestions <br />regarding a few tree or plant species he would rather avoid, and he might suggest more use <br />of native species, but overall the planting plan is very well done. He suggests that pH <br />readmgs be taken before planting so that certain tree species might if necessary be traded out <br />for those most tolerant to actual site conditions... <br />- Note that the shrub beds are not edged, which leads to a softer look but perhaps unkempt <br />until plantings mature. r f
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.