My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-11-2006 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
09-11-2006 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/25/2012 4:37:17 PM
Creation date
7/25/2012 4:37:17 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
MINUT: <br />ORONO CITY C <br />Monday, Sel <br />• 7:00 0' <br />• <br />C <br />OF THE <br />rNCIL MEETING <br />aber 11, 2006 <br />ck p.m. <br />(8. #06 -3212 HEMPEL PROPERTIES, OUTLOT A STONEBAY (NW CORNER OF WILLOW <br />DRIVE NORTHAND HIGHWAY 12), Continued) <br />Council could hold off on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment until the PUD is approved. Brokl <br />suggested the Council discuss the limited type of retail that would go along with the office component. <br />McMillan inquired how the Council feels about the si <br />Murphy and White indicated they do not feel it is a <br />A representative from MSP Commercial stated ty <br />construct a hip roof on the building. The actual s, <br />approximately four to five feet tall with a parapet <br />the roof design and the architectural style of the b <br />Murphy inquired whether the coloring of the <br />The MSP representative indicated they would be <br />McMillan stated they would like to see a softer, <br />industrial. <br />White suggested the applicants re- appear before the <br />present. <br />story on the main office building. <br />when abutting residential neighborhoods, they <br />of the wall facing the residential area would be <br />MSP requested some input from the Council on <br />would be complementary to the neighborhood. <br />to make the buildings complementary. <br />residential look to the buildings rather than <br />in two weeks when there is a full Council <br />Murphy commented he has not been convinced that this area needs more retail. Murphy noted there has <br />been some talk about another retail development in Long Lake and that the current retail spaces in this <br />area are not totally occupied at the present time. Murphy stated he would like to see some type of <br />service- oriented support for that particular office building. <br />Malin stated she is unable to tell the Council exactlywhat tenants would be occupying either building. <br />McMillan inquired whether the two buildings wouldbe tied together architecturally. <br />Malin stated that was their intent. <br />White stated he would need to reconsider the retail <br />the Stonebay residents. <br />Brokl stated the Council could approve at their next <br />upon approval of the PUD. <br />Wrede pointed out that this would not be a strip <br />Long Lake area since it would have a Class A n <br />type of clientele to the site. <br />The City Council took no formal action on this i <br />of this project in light of the comments by <br />a comprehensive plan amendment contingent <br />similar to what has already been constructed in the <br />tl /office building, which tends to attract a different <br />PAGE 43 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.