03-09-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON FEBRUAP.Y 17, !998 (U4 - #2326 Orono Development - Continued) Tom Dillon felt the majority of the issues have been satisfactorily worked out with Staff. He feels the 5 ’ setback to Shady^vood is critical in maintaining two rows of parking while maintaining the required size of the pond. There is a sidewalk planned for the front of the building. He also is unsure of the viability of the proposed trees. Dillon felt the cedar shake design would create a transition between the commercial, residential, and lakeshore areas. The other half of the building will be brick. Smith was informed by Dillon that the main reason for the cedar shake facade is aesthedcs. Other choices include lapsiding or all brick, which would be more expensive. Dillon said the building use is moving more towards service type businesses rather than retail. The building will include a bank corporate office and a conservation district office. He has received some letters of intent on the building space. Dillon noted the additional use approved for a bagel and coffee restaurant. There were no public comments. Mike Sepena, architect, highlighted the areas of landscaping. Lindquist expressed concern with the landscaping for the front of the building along CoRd 19. I he plan currently calls for 6-8’ of sidewalk and 5 ’ of green space. Stoddard said he would like to see more green space noting safety is a concern with the building being along the county roadway. He asked if the building could be moved back 5' to accommodate more green space Dillon indicated that this would have a domino effect back to the 20' drive lane to the rear of the building. Stoddard suggested if the concern was for the pond to take 5' from the green space in the rear and add to the front. Sepena said this would affect the retaining wall height. The green space to the rear is also sloping down from the retaining wall. Loss of this would give the effect of a higher wall. Dillon said this could be review ed Gaffron reported that this issue had been discussed. He noted the problem with rnoving the driving lane closer to the retaining wall is the possible concern with structural integrity. He also questioned whether cars should be driving so close to a wall with a 14' drop. Gaffron agreed with the concern tor green space in front but questioned where the trade off should come from Two driving lanes are necessary in the rear and space is required between the building and the road. Gaffron suggested the building may be too big for the space. He said the applicant had informed him that losing 10 in depth would change the building length, affecting the entire site plan. Smith suggested the building be shrunk 5 ’ and 5' taken from the rear green space to increase the green space in front 10 ’. This would result in 15' of green space in front instead of 5 ’ as proposed.