My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-16-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
01-16-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2012 3:27:26 PM
Creation date
6/19/2012 3:26:59 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.
/
428
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
�r��r�s o���� <br /> ��ONO C�TX COYII�CY�,1V.�E�TYIVG . <br /> Nlonday,Septeu�ber 25,2006 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.�l. . <br /> (6. #06-3212�1'�'MPEL PROPEIZTI'�S, OUTLOT A STONEBAY(NW CO.RNE12 O� T�i�ILLOW <br /> D1tl�'NORT�I A1VD HIGHWA�'12), Co�tti�ii�ed) <br /> Murphy stated in his view if tonight's coinprellensive plan amendment is not approved,the City would Ue <br /> Uetter off if the first comprehensive�lan amendment is undone and the site is rezoned. <br /> Gaffron stated if the Council undoes what was done a few years ago,it would allow an of�ce <br /> development on this sife., <br /> White stated tlle consensus of the Council is that they do not want retail on this site. <br /> Kerznack stated if the coni�rehensive plan is not amended,they have zero options available to ihem and <br /> that they are not able to construct the inedical office Uuilding without the retail coinponent. Kerznack <br /> . indicated they would be able to wait for enough inedical users to occupy the building but that without the <br /> coi�iprehensive plaii amendinent,they have no options for develo�ing this site. � <br /> Murphy inquired when their option for financing expires. � . <br /> Kerznack stated they have until October 13��'. <br /> Gaffron s4ated the Council would be taldng one step Uack if they undo what was done last time,which <br /> would leave the City Council with a site that was zoned RR-1B office;which would need to Ue rezoned to <br /> B-6,and would require a Rl'UD. ` . <br /> Kerznack inquired if the comprehensive plan amendment is approved tonight,whether they would be able <br /> to proceed forward with the medical building. <br /> Sansevere stated they could Uut that it sounds like one of the other partners is not interested in <br /> constr-ucting a nledical buildiizg without t11e retail component. � <br /> Kerznack stated if they have tlle option of conshucting a medical building,they could at least look at that <br /> option and hold the land until they have enough tenants to make the proj ect viable. • <br /> Murphy inquired whether the Gouncil is in agreenzent with a medical building on this site, <br /> White stated it appears tlze consensus of the Council is to allow a medical building on this site. <br /> Muiphy inquired how the Council could a�prove that o�tion. <br /> Sansevere suggested t11e Council taUle this application until Ocfober 9`�',which would give the ap�licants <br /> time to design a plan depicting a medical office buildiiig on this site. <br /> Kerznack siated they could go ahead and conshtiict a medical building on this site,but that it is likely it <br /> would sit vacant for some period of time. <br /> McMillan stated she personally would like to undo the comprehensive�lan amendment that was a�proved <br /> a cou�le of years ago and that she is not able to make any decision on what fy�e of development she <br /> would a�prove for this site at this tiine. <br /> PAGE 5 of 14 � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.