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
IQ'�I1VIT'I'�S OF'��I� . <br /> ORO1�T� C�'TI'CO�JI�C�MEETING � <br /> IVlandlay, Septembei•25,2006 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.na. � <br /> (6. #06-3212.FIEIbiPEL PROI'ERTIES, OUTLO7'A STONEBAY(IVI�CORNER OF l3�XLLOW <br /> 1)RIYE IVOR�'�I A1QTI�.F�'IG�WA..I"12), �'o�ztifr.ccerl) • <br /> Brokl stated one of the options available to the ap�licants tonight or at the next meetiiig is that the <br /> applicants could amend tl�eir application to request a reguiding of the site to office use, with the condition <br /> that tliere would be no refail component. Brokl stated under the City's cuiTent comprehensive plan,retail <br /> uses are pexznitted,which would require an RPUD ap�roval process, The applicants would still need a <br /> RPUD since the site is still zoned residential. Brolcl stated the applicants could argue in the future for the <br /> retail component but they would be able to pursue the office coinponent at the present time under tl�at <br /> option. • . <br /> � Sansevere inquired wliether the developer would be willing to construct just the medical com�oiienf <br /> without the retail. <br /> � Young stated they would not be interested in�utting a Uuilding on t11is site until they had some tenants for <br /> the strucfure and that in their opinion,based on the present market,the retail coinponent would be a draw. <br /> M[upphy moved,lPeterson seconded,Application#05-3212,Hempel Properties/�o�n Tex•rance <br /> k�omes, Outlot A,Stonebay,#o deny the Compreliensive Plan Amend�ent. <br /> Gaffron stated if the comprehensive plaii anzendment were denied,the site would still require a phairnacy, <br /> Murphy stated he would like the Council to undo what was previously a�proved for this site. <br /> . Brokl stated the City could proceed forward with the rezoning and reguiding of this site if they so choose <br /> but that the City would need to provide notice to the property owner. <br /> � • Sausevere inquired whether the applicants would like this a�plication tabled. <br /> Kerznack inquired what the next step would be if the application is tabled. <br /> • Sansevere stated it is unlikely that the comprehensive plan anlendment approved a couple of years ago <br /> could be redone by the next council meeting. Sansevere stated tabling theix a�plicafion would give the <br /> a�plicants some time to revise their plans to only propose office for this site. ' <br /> VO'I'E: Ayes 5,Na�s 0. <br /> � *7. #06-3214 RiJ7DY�'VgCKLANAER JE�OMES,INC.,3345 CItYSTAL�AY ROAD— <br /> VARiANCES—RESOLIUTION NO. 5515 <br /> VVhate t�oved,Mui•ph��seconded,�o adopt RESOL�ITION NO. 5515, a Itesolution gratiting <br /> varfances for the property located at 3345 Crystal I3ay Ytoad. VOTE: Ayes�,Nays 0. <br /> � *8. #06-3219 EDSON SPENCER, 1135 SP][�NG T�TLI,ROA�—SYJBDIVISION—]F'YNAL <br /> PLAT—RESOLUT�ON NO. 5516 <br /> White xnovecl,Nlurpl�y secondecl,to aclopt ItESOLUTION NO. 55�6, a Resolution Appr.oving the <br /> Plat of Spencer Addition. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. <br /> . � PAGE 6 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.