My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-22-2004 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2004
>
03-22-2004 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2023 8:54:44 AM
Creation date
1/19/2023 3:25:48 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.
/
390
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
M4*2974 StPsAay Martetplan <br />January Itf, 2004 <br />Pa|c4 of 6 <br />IV. Commercial Site Plan Review, Conformity to B-6 Standards <br />City Engineer Tom Kellogg and the City’s planning consultant, Phil Carlson ofDSU, Inc., havebeen <br />to comment on the enpneering and planning aspects of the proposed site plan. Please carefully <br />review their comments (Exhibits D & E) as well as the comments in the staff letter of December 16. <br />Phil Carlson’s comments of January 15 are in complete alignment with staffs thinking. The site <br />plan has a number of significant issues which sh^'ild be worked through at the <br />staft/developcr/consultant level before Planning Commission spends any time on a detailed site plan <br />review. For that reason, a review of the site plan details has not been included with this memo. <br />A public hearing has been scheduled for this proposal at your January 20 meeting. Planting <br />Commission members are encouraged to use the limited allotted time after hearing firom the public, <br />to identify for the benefit of staff and the developer any specific concerns you believe need to be <br />addressed with the site plan. Topics you may wish to make general or specific comments on include: <br />1. Site orientations, relationship to Stonebay residential nei^borhood, relationship to <br />12AVillow intersection, relationship to stormwater pond as an amenity <br />2. Site access and circulation patterns, impacts/pros/cons of drive-thm’s <br />3. Building materials and building design <br />4. Pedestrian access and circulation <br />5. Signage, lifting, and landscaping <br />6. Other topics of concern or interest <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Staff supports the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and die rezoning to B*6 PUD. <br />Planning Commission could take action regarding these elements of the application at this time, or <br />could table them so that die Commission takes action on all elements of the application at the <br />February 17 meeting. <br />Staff recommends tabling the preliminary plat and commercial site plan review, to allow applicants <br />to meet with City staff and consultants to work through the variety of identified site plan issues. The <br />intent would be to present Planning Commission with a revised site plan for a comprehensive review <br />at your February 17 regular meeting.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.