My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-21-2004 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2004
>
06-21-2004 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2023 12:40:13 PM
Creation date
1/26/2023 12:35:43 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.
/
324
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
IL <br />MLNUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PI-ANNTNG COMMISSION MEETING <br />MONDAY, MAY 17. 2004 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />(5. «04-2974 RKLIANCL DKVKLOP.MtNT COMPANY. LLP, Continued) <br />GafTron recommended approval of the proposed Commercial Site Plan subject to the \ ar.ous recommendations <br />in the text of the May 13.2004 Staff Report. Any motion to recommend approval should address the <br />remaining issues, and prosidc clear direction to the applicant. Gaffrun believed the application is ready to be <br />forwarded to the Cit>' CourKil subject to Planning Commission recommended conditions for approval <br />Chair Mabusth asked the applicant if there were any questions to stuff, to Shelley Johnson, Engineer or Phil <br />Carlson. DSL). <br />Mr. John Iraute staled they are in agreement with just about everylhing identified by staff as outstanding <br />issues. He accepted the 10* w ide requirement for the monument signs and the manual reader board. <br />Mr. Trautz asked the Planning Commission lo consider not identifying the space in front of Walgreens ’ <br />entrance as a landscaped area but as a walkway to the building's access point. <br />He indicated landscaping features would make it more difTicult for patrons to enter the biiildinu and proposed <br />some other treatment, such as painting <br />Kempfasked if this area was raiM.*d .iKise the parking lot level <br />Fntzlcr asked if a curb is proposed <br />Mr. Trautz explained the area is flush to the parking lot surface and could be constructed with colored asphalt <br />or stamped concrete. It provides an easy way for pedestnans to get to the Walgreens front doors. <br />Frilzler asked for clanfication that it would not become a space for promotional 'sandwich* boards <br />Trautz stated that there would be no st'^nage in this area <br />Jurgens suted he assumed the area is not raised because of handicapped parking requirements, but a raised <br />area could help guide traffic. He asked for information about how the transition occurs from parking lot to <br />pedestnan walkway. <br />Ms. Vicki Van Dell. Landform Engineering, explained the area is flush to the ground w ith vertical bollards at <br />the front. <br />Gaffron illustrated the Walgreens* access point and the 20* \ 20* area in quesrion <br />Jurgens clar«ficd the area will not be raised and w ill have no curb along the face of the building and questioned <br />if there w ill be bollards all the w ay down the length of the building. <br />Ms. Van Dell explained there would be tw o bollards in front of the handicapped stalls, another one on the next <br />stall oxer, and transitions .iito a full curb mg the rest of the building length <br />Bremer commented that she had no problem with the proposed access area <br />Rahn concurred stating it makes it easier to traverse mto the access point for Walgreens. <br />Mr. Trautz exhibited the finished palette of exterior colors and distributed the samples to the Planning <br />Commission. <br />Page 9 of 4U
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.