04-26-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 12, 2004 7:00 o’clock p.m. (4. U04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT CORP., HWY12 / WILLOW DRIVE (OUTLOTA, STONEBAY) - COMPREHENSIVE PL 4N AMENDMENT- TEXT DRAFT, continued) • Mr. John Trautz, Reliance Development Co., applicant, indicated that he had two specific comments to make about the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment text changes. First, he asked for a change to a parameter for retail use developed and maintained on the property that w'ould require remaining buildings to have no individual tenant space greater than 5,000 s.f. except for food- oriented uses w'hich may occupy a space greater than 5,000 s.f. He asked for an increase from 5,000 s.f. to 7,000 s.f. explaining that 5,000 s.f. is limiting as there seems to be certain retail space categories of 1200 s.f., 3000 s f., 6,000 - 7000 s.f. and above that, particularly in the long temi (at 10 yrs. or beyond). Sansevere asked if the staff had an issue with increasing the square footage parameter to 7,000 s.f. Gaffron asked if Mr. Carlson could provide an example of what specific uses correspond to the 5.000 s.f. to 7,000 s.f. areas and pointed out that increasing to 7,000 s.f. would mean that just over Vi of one proposed building would be in one use. Mr. Trautz responded that Kinko’s and video stores use about 5,000 to 7,000 s.f. Sansevere asked if the square footage increase is proposed to not limit tenants’ choices. Mr. Trautz agreed and expects the need may not happen for ten (10) years. Murphy asked how difficult would it be if in the second turn of tenants a tenant requested to go to 7.000 s.f. from 5,000 s.f. rather than granting an open end at this point in time. Gaffron responded that it would involve an amendment to the PUT), with Planning Commission and Council review, or it could be set up now as a Conditional Use and acknowledging it now as a future option. As a consideration. Attorney Barrett interjected that the Community Management Plan would also need to be changed in confonnance with that approval process. Gaffron pointed out that increases in the square footage may affect other factors, such as fewer uses in a building, different parking lot needs at different times of day for certain uses, though he stated that ‘.le was not necessarily committed to 5.000 s.f. McMillan asked for consideration of what the city’s objective is for setting square footage parameters and whether this may be micromanaging the site. She reiterated that the community docs not want a ‘big box’ or large retail building; however, what is the structural co\erage, black-top parking lot constraints. McMillan encouraged looking at the site from ihc outside regardless whatever store fit into the buildings. Gaffron responded that it needs to ensure that a mix v . uses to serve the neighborhood are represented in the Comprehensive Plan, and there is likelihood of more uses if there are smaller square foot limits. But, he continued, on the other hand it could limit a neighborhood use that is desired, too. Page 5 of 20