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
MINUTESOPTHE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Tuesday. February 17,2004 <br />6:00 o’clock pm <br />during the approval of the Stonebay plat. B*6 is the appropriate zoning for the proposed <br />use. Since Sections 78*643 thru 78-793 additionally contain a number of development <br />standards applicable to this site, Oaffion suggested the Commission review the permitted, <br />conditional, and accessory uses allowed in B-1 and B*6 zoning regulations. <br />In terms of uses, Trautz questioned whether a PUD with B-1 zoning would be more <br />appropriate to the site. While he believed S of the 6 underlying conditions as recommended <br />by staff to be reasonable, Trautz found the requirement of Walgreen ’s to be reoriented to <br />place the main entry in the southwest comer of the building a concern to this retailer. He <br />asked for some flexibility on this point. <br />Johnston distributed a revised site plan, version 17, since the work session the past week, <br />which showed a decrease in impervious surface and an increase in green space to 26.5%. <br />He pointed out that many sidewalks connect to the site and buildings and agreed that the <br />only issue may be the Walgreen ’s orientation. <br />Acting Chair Mabusth asked the Conunissioners how comfortable they were with <br />approving the changes to the amendment without having final plans in hand. She was <br />uncomfortable proceeding without final plans. <br />Rahn concuned. <br />Hawn stated that she was hesitant to proceed at all without comment by Long Lake. She <br />maintained that early conversations with Long Lake had guided retail to the Long Lake <br />area, not Willow, and that representatives of Long Lake had indicated to her that they <br />would be interested in reviewing this proposal. Since the past Planning stance has been to <br />cooperate with Long Lake and plan together the development of this corridor beginning <br />with Long Lake, Hawn felt this to be premature without more official conversations with <br />Long Lake. She suggested the Commission extend a formal invitation to the Long Lake <br />Planning Commission to join them for a joint work session to discuss the proposal before <br />PAGE 7 of 25 <br />I <br />i
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.