My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-22-2011 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
02-22-2011 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2012 3:39:06 PM
Creation date
8/15/2012 3:38:56 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
154
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).
View images
View plain text
� , <br /> " FILE#11-3498 <br /> • 7 February 2011 <br /> Page 3 of 10 <br /> public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, <br /> separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of <br /> parking. <br /> 4) Promotion of energy conservation through design, location, orientation and elevation of <br /> structures, the use and location of glass in structures and the use of landscape materials <br /> and site grading; - <br /> 5) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for surFace <br /> water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those <br /> aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial <br /> effects on neighboring land uses; and <br /> 6) The Planning Commission and City Council may attach such conditions to their actions as <br /> they determine necessary or convenient to better accomplish the purposes of the City Code. <br /> Additional Discussion Issues . <br /> The architectural style of this building is slightly different than the previous plan. The new plan <br /> � appears to have 2 full floors where the previous plan had a "stepped-down" or"ground-hugging" <br /> appearance on the ends of the building. <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission feel the new design is compatible with the surrounding <br /> areas as well as with the goals of the CMP? <br /> - 2. Does the color scheme appear to blend into the landscape satisfactorily? <br /> 3. Can the Planning Commission identify any additional issues for discussion? <br /> For the discussion at the meeting on •Tuesday night there are bolded topics which staff feels <br /> need Planning Commission discussion or input. In addition to any other identified issues, <br /> please be prepared to address and discuss these bolded items specifically.• <br /> SITE PLAN ANALYSIS <br /> Buildin Setbacks to the Pro ert Line:The buildin meets the re uired setbacks. <br /> RPUD Re uired Pro osed <br /> Front—Wayzata Boulevard 50' 125' Main Building <br /> 92' Stora e Buildin <br /> Rear— Hi hwa 12 50' 300'± <br /> North Side—Luce Line Trail 35' 66' <br /> South Side 35' 185' <br /> Parking Lot Setbacks to the Property Line: <br /> The private access road runs along the property line and eventually crosses into the right-of- <br /> way. There is at least 60-feet of ditch between the private road and.the traveled portion of <br /> Wa zata Boulevard. Generall , the arkin and drive aisle setbacks are met. � <br /> RPUD 'Re uired Pro osed <br /> Front—Wa zata Boulevard 20' 45' <br /> Rear— Hi hwa 12 20' +300' <br /> North Side— Luce Line Trail 20' 120' <br /> South Side 20' 200'± <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.