Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Wednesday,July 17, 2002 <br /> 5:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#2) #02-2789 DAHLSTROM DEVELOPMENT LLC, Continued <br /> Gaffron indicated not. He asked how removing the entry to the underground parking from the <br /> end to the south side would impact the development. <br /> Johnston stated the entry is hidden at the end versus the front, and because of noise, it is typically <br /> put at the end to avoid additional problems. <br /> Rahn asked what might be put on top of the berm. <br /> Johnston indicated that a rough poured concrete wall with climbing plants and additional <br /> landscaping would sit atop the berm. <br /> Rahn stated that those things would need to be placed on the applicants' side of the berm. <br /> Johnston argued that, in order to achieve maximum height, the wall etc., would need to be placed <br /> on the City side. <br /> Rahn stated that he clearly had issue with the wall and landscaping on the City side of the hill <br /> and would not want this to become the City's problem or maintenance responsibility. <br /> Gaffron noted that the top of the wall would be ceiling height of the first story. <br /> Mabusth added that the end units would only be two story loft units. <br /> Hawn suggested they plant tall mature trees. <br /> Berg maintained that the loft unit building was still too tight, necessitating removal of additional <br /> units. She felt it was too cramped and additional room from the property line was necessary. <br /> She stated that she would not support the underground door in the middle of the building. <br /> Krall asked if the applicant were able to narrow up the building to obtain additional room, <br /> whether the Commission would find that to be adequate, rather than losing additional units. <br /> Berg stated that she didn't feel the City was asking too much for them to remove an additional 4 <br /> units. The magnitude of the project and tightness they propose were too much in her estimation. <br /> Smith stated that, according to Commissioner comment,the berm would need to be on the <br /> developer's side of the property. She asked for comment regarding City property. <br /> Hawn asked why it should even be considered to be put on City property at all, no hardship exists <br /> to compel it. She reminded the Commission that if this were a regular property owner they <br /> would not permit them to build on City property. <br /> PAGE 8 OF 22 <br />