My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-12-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
04-12-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 10:31:02 AM
Creation date
1/19/2023 2:48:48 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
437
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 crrv council meeting <br />Monday, March 22,2004 <br />7:00 o ’clock p.m. <br />(IL U04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORE., HWY12/ WILLOW DRIVE <br />OUTLOTA, STONEBAY, continued) <br />the pond as an amenity. They provided a little bit better focus toward the center of the site <br />opposed to totally focusing towards Highway 12. The traffic engineer hasn’t looked at the <br />circulation and parking issues yet. Gaffron still thinks there is potential for impact on the <br />neighborhood but they understand the need for screening will be critical. <br />The last plan Gaffron reviewed was not complete in many ways and could be changed in a <br />number of ways. The key issue for Gaffron was that they went away from three separate <br />uses, now we’re down to two uses, a drive-thru issue usurping the west end amenity, a pond <br />that sneaks through in-between the two halves of the building. He stated they are getting <br />closer, but are not there yet. <br />Plan 23 was introduced to staff and Council. <br />Sansevere stated that as far as he is concerned the applicant would proceed further if they <br />keep in mind Gaffron’s recommendations. <br />Plan 23 splits one retail building on the west to accommodate a drive-through between the <br />buildings. <br />Murphy noted the changes to the Walgreen site and inquired how Walgreen’s feels about the <br />changes and will they do what is needed. <br />The applicant responded they have seen this plan and turning the building they can accept. <br />This building now has less parking around their front door which they don ’t like, but getting <br />a drive-thru on the east side may be more acceptable. Their primary response was that the <br />applicant should come back to them after they have something that can be passed by the <br />Council. <br />CVS Pharmacy may have an interest, but are not being approached at this time. <br />Murphy stated he likes what is being proposed and he is supporting the retail and pharmacy <br />use, but is more concerned that the applicant understands the parameters in the March 1 <br />letter and will take them seriously. <br />Murphy further apologized to the applicant for the process. The applicant should never have <br />come before Council until they had gone before the Planning Commission process and said <br />if the applicant isn’t one to give up, neither is he at this point. <br />White agreed with what Murphy stated on the process. He stated the site plan is much better <br />and agrees with Gaffron that it is coming along. White stated he is not opposed to making <br />this site all commercial. <br />PAGE 17 of 23
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.