My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-12-2011 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
09-12-2011 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/26/2012 4:19:29 PM
Creation date
7/26/2012 4:04:59 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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 CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, September 12, 2011 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(5. RYAN COMPANIES US, INC., 450 AND 550 OLD CRYSTAL BAYROAD NORTH, <br />Continued) <br />McMillan noted she did meet with Casey Hankinson last week to discuss this item and that she suggested <br />he bring forward some proposals to the Council. McMillan noted the Council works hard in creating <br />these ordinances but that in her view at times the government can be flexible, especially in difficult <br />economic times. McMillan stated she does not feel it will negatively impact the City by allowing the <br />building to remain for an extended period of time. <br />Franchot asked what the rationale was for requiring removal of the building in the first place. If the <br />building is still serviceable, Franchot stated he also feels there could be some flexibility. Franchot <br />suggested that if the building is' empty for a year, that could trigger removal of the building. <br />Curtis indicated at the time of the development agreement, the building was connected to Building 1 and <br />they were creating a lot line between the two buildings. The intention of the development was to build <br />out the entire site. <br />Casey Hankinson stated their original plans for the site have changed due to the poor economy and that <br />they were originally agreeable to removing the building in order to improve the appearance of the site. <br />Bremer commented she is fine with the proposal by Ryan Companies. The lot line issue was something <br />that was in the forefront at the time of the original agreement but that it has not caused any problems. <br />Bremer indicated she is fine with extending it to 2020 or demolishing the building if it sits empty for a <br />year. <br />Curtis noted she suggested a couple of options in Staff's report, such as adding restrictions on building <br />permit issuance on maintenance items if the building is to remain past the initial recommended removal <br />date of 2015 and a restriction on the use due to the parking limitations. <br />McMillan stated she would like to make sure the applicant is able to continue to make some <br />improvements to the site. <br />Curtis indicated she does not know the logistics of the building and what changes might be required or <br />desired. <br />Hankinson stated the spirit of the agreement is to allow them to conduct maintenance repairs and/or <br />improvements to the appearance. I <br />Franchot stated in his view the applicant would like the flexibility to make minor interior changes to <br />accommodate a tenant. <br />Hankinson stated he would ask that if it does become vacant for a year, that they be given the flexibility <br />to demolish it in the summer or fall rather than winter. Hankinson stated he is fine with the proposal that <br />if the building is vacant for 24 months, that by July 1" of the following year it would have to be <br />demolished. <br />Mattick indicated Staff can put together an amendment to the development agreement. • <br />Page 6 of 28 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.