Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF TAE <br /> . ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Monday,November 20,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> . <br /> 9. 06-3249 CITY OF ORONO,OUTLOT A,STONEBAY,COMPREHENSIVE PLAN <br /> AMENDMENT, 10:58—11:30 P.M. <br /> Steve Johnston, Stonebay,was present. <br /> Gaffron stated the City of Orono is requesting a comprehensive plan amendment that was brought on <br /> behalf of the City and is specifically an amendment to reguide Outlot A of Stonebay back to essentially <br /> what it was guided in the'2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan. The City Council has reviewed a number of <br /> applications for this site, and in 2004, did some guide plan revisions that would have allowed,in addition <br /> to the primary office use on Outlot A,would have allowed certain uses to be allowed,including a <br /> pharmacy. Additional parameters have been included on how retail could be expanded on that site. <br /> In conjunction with the Hempel application,the City Council spent considerable time discussing whether <br /> they felt the 2004 Comprehensive Plan amendment was still appropriate and came to the conclusion that it <br /> may not be. Council has directed Staff to proceed forward with the process of returning this area back to <br /> the original zoning for this property. � <br /> Gaffron stated there are some factors which may have some bearing on how the reguiding back to <br /> primarily office is structured, including: <br /> 1. The original guiding for office with"minor retail and service uses allowed only as accessory uses <br /> to the office use"might need additional detail added to describe exactly what accessory uses are; � <br /> 2. Some of the parameters established for retail in 2004 might be applicable to an office <br /> development on the site and should be retained; such as the requirement for orientation to the stormwater <br /> pond as an amenity,the limits on building sizes or architectural styles, etc. <br /> Procedurally,this CMP Amendment requires approval of the Metropolitan Council. However,this is <br /> expected to be viewed as a minor amendment,will have no new or unplanned-for impacts on <br /> metropolitan facilities, and is not expected to be met with any resistance by the Metropolitan Council. <br /> Gaffron stated the issues for consideration by the Planning Commission include: <br /> 1. Does the Planning Commission agree with the Council's intent to return to the former provisions <br /> of the CMP with regards to Outlot A? <br /> 2. Are there any specific elements of the original CMP language(first part of Exhibit A of • <br /> Resolution No., 5190)that should be revised or clarified with this amendment? <br /> 3. Planning Commission should consider whether there are any negative impacts to proceeding with <br /> a rezoning of the site to match the CMP. <br /> Staff and the City Attorney recommend that Outlot A be rezoned to B-6 PUD with reference to a basic � <br /> undeveloped survey of the property as the approved development plan. The rezoning would be structured <br /> so that an amendment of the B-6 PUD zoning would be required for any development plan proposed for <br /> � . PAGE 29 <br />