My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-15-2002 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
04-15-2002 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/27/2012 2:30:19 PM
Creation date
2/27/2012 2:30:19 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,April 15, 2002 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#02-2771 Orono Ambar,Continued) <br /> currently guided for commercial use,the RPUD District does allow such buildings to exceed 30 feet,but <br /> limits them to three stories. Gaffron noted this building does meet the RPUD height standard. <br /> Gaffron indicated Staff does have some concerns about the height of the building, however, since it will <br /> tend to be significantly higher than the existing development on either side of it. The proposed building <br /> would have a peak height ranging from 40 feet to 50 feet depending on the viewer's location. Its lowest <br /> profile will be as viewed from the north. The defined height of the building averages 38 feet based on <br /> the elevations provided. Gaffron indicated the building incorporates a stepping down to two stories at <br /> the west and south ends, which helps to decrease the visual mass. <br /> Gaffron stated the Applicant is expected to submit a detailed drainage and grading plan, but at this time <br /> Staff does not anticipate any significant drainage issues. <br /> Gaffron stated access to Lot 1 was established during the approval process for PUD No. 2, and consists <br /> of a shared right-in/right-out driveway access directly to Highway 12, and a shared driveway access <br /> eastward through the Orono Woods site to Brown Road. Orono's traffic consultant has reviewed the <br /> initial proposal for the office and Orono Woods Phase I in November, 2000, and based on a 70-unit <br /> senior apartment, the building would be expected to generate 120 trips in and 120 trips out per day on <br /> weekdays, less on weekends. Based on the additional senior housing, it is anticipated there will be 192 <br /> trips in and 192 trips out on weekdays and slightly less on the weekends. Gaffron noted the anticipated <br /> weekday trip generation from Orono Woods and Orono Woods West combined will be less on <br /> weekdays and more on weekends than the amount of traffic generated from Orono Woods and the office <br /> building combined. <br /> Gaffron stated the developer is meeting the parking standards of two parking stalls per unit for a <br /> multifamily dwelling, with some excess parking being provided. Gaffron reviewed the internal traffic <br /> flow and parking layout. Gaffron stated Orono Woods West features a two-way driving lane along the <br /> east boundary allowing vehicles entering and leaving the underground garage to avoid traversing the <br /> parking lot. This creates a potentially safer parking lot and provides for easy drop-off/pick-up access <br /> without requiring backup maneuvers. In addition, sidewalks are proposed between the parking lot and <br /> the building. <br /> Gaffron noted a landscaping plan at this time has not yet been provided, and recommended the <br /> landscape plan address sufficient screening and buffering between Orono Woods West and the adjacent <br /> Sugar Woods neighborhood as well as to the commercial properties to the immediate west. Gaffron <br /> stated the RPUD ordinance requires 10 percent of the site be devoted to private recreation areas. <br /> Gaffron stated if the Planning Commission concludes that the proposed senior housing use is <br /> appropriate for this site, then a recommendation for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment <br /> and rezoning to RPUD would be in order. The Planning Commission should also consider whether any <br /> recommendation is warranted regarding use of TIF, City ownership of land, or other proposed <br /> development parameters that may be desired. <br /> Dunbar indicated he does not have much to add to Staffs report, noting that they are not seeking any <br /> approval tonight but would like to gain the input of the Planning Commission regarding their proposal. <br /> PAGE 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.