My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-23-2008 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2008
>
06-23-2008 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/8/2015 2:44:45 PM
Creation date
4/8/2015 2:40:11 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
190
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 CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, June 9, 2008 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />___________________________________________________________________________________ <br />(6. #08-3360 BOB RITTER WITH BERKSHIRE PARTNERS, LLP, 2745 KELLEY <br />PARKWAY, Continued) <br /> <br />4. The landscape plan being revised to add planting materials north of the building and <br />boulevard trees along Kelley Parkway as well as to respond to the landscape architect’s <br />review. <br /> <br />After further evaluation, the applicant’s architect has determined the east parking aisle could not be <br />shifted west two feet as this would make the islands that define the center parking area too narrow to <br />support trees. The doors are not visible from Kelley Parkway. The Commission had found the original <br />location acceptable. <br /> <br />In addition to the items noted in the City Engineer’s and the Landscape Architect’s reviews, Staff <br />recommends the following items also be revised: <br /> <br />1. Landscape plan. The landscape plan does not include screening for the parking areas <br />adjacent to roads or boulevard trees along Kelley Parkway to continue the pattern set in the <br />Stonebay development. <br /> <br />2. Lighting Plan: The lighting plan is not complete. Fixture designs were not provided and <br />the architect indicates the light levels adjacent to the building need to be increased. <br /> <br />Rahn asked if the building height to the top of the roof deck is 29.1 feet. <br /> <br />Turner stated to the top of the actual roof deck is 29.1 feet and the parapet is 31’/1”. <br /> <br />Rahn asked whether that exceeds the height of the bank building. <br /> <br />Turner indicated the atrium is exempt and that the bank building is similar in height at 31 feet. The <br />proposed building would be constructed at existing grade. <br /> <br />Rahn noted the parapet wall would extend more than three feet above the height of the building and <br />asked whether that is allowed by code. <br /> <br />Turner stated her understanding of the code is that with a conditional use permit, you are allowed to add <br />three feet of parapet to the height of the building to go over the 30 feet. The parapet wall would qualify <br />for the conditional use permit but that the decorative feature would not. The top of the arch is <br />approximately 40 feet. <br /> <br />Rahn asked if the majority of the building is 31.1 feet tall. <br /> <br />Turner stated the majority of the building is 31.1 feet tall. <br /> <br />Rahn stated his main issue is the 18 foot parking stalls and that in his view the parking stalls should be <br />longer. Rahn questioned whether the building should be made smaller in an effort to allow for the <br />appropriate size parking stalls. <br /> <br />Turner stated the shorter parking stalls were allowed on the site for the bank and that the same architect <br />is proposing the shorter stalls for this site. If two additional feet were required to be added to those <br /> <br />PAGE 5 of 10 <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 06/23/08 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 06/09/08 [Page 5 of 10]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.