Laserfiche WebLink
� MINUT�S OI+TIIE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COlYIMISSION <br /> lYlonday,\Tovember 20,2006 <br /> 6:00 o'clocic P.m. . <br /> � <br /> 1. The original guiding for office with"minor retail and service uses allo�ved only as accessory uses <br /> to ihe office use"might need addit•ioilal detail added to describe exactly what accessoiy uses ar�; <br /> 2. • Sonie of the parameters established for retail in 2004 might be applicable to an office <br /> developnzent on filie site and shotiid be retained; such as the requiren�ent for orientatioii to the stoinzwater <br /> � �ond as an anaeuity,the]imits on building sizes or architectural styles, etc, <br /> Procedurally, this CMP AnZendment requires a��roval of the 1%Ietropoliian Council. Ho�vever, this is <br /> � expected to Ue viewed as a minor ameizdment,�vill have no ize���or unplaimed-for impacts on � <br /> inetropolitan facilities, aiid is not expected Yo be met wit11 any resistance Uy ihe Metropolitan Couucil. <br /> Gaffron stated tlie issues for coi�.sidexafion by the Planning Coirnnission include: <br /> 1. Does the Planning Cominission a�n•ee wiih ihe Coui�cil's intent to return to the fonner provisions <br /> of the CMP�vith regards to Outlot A? . � . <br /> 2. .Are there any specific elements of the original CMP language(first�art of EahiUit A of . <br /> Resolution No., 5190)that should be revised or clarified�vith this ainendment? <br /> 3. Planning Conmiission should consider whether there are any negative impacts to proceeding with <br /> a rezoning of the site to il�atch the CMP. <br /> Staff aild tl�e City Attorney reconunend that OuYlot A Ue rezoned to B-6 PUD with reference to a Uasic <br /> undeyeloped survey of the�roperty as the approved development plan. The rezoiiing would Ue shuctured <br /> so that au amendment of the B-6 PUD zoniii��vould Ue required for any developmenf plan pro�osed for <br /> the sifie. I�i this���ay,tlie B-61'UD zoning becomes the holding zone and this would al1o��for the zoning <br /> and conlp�lan to Ue consistent as required by State Statute. <br /> G�ffi•on noted he recei�ved t�vo o�f the puUlic notices back today fi•om Dahlstrom Developn�ent, LLC, and <br /> Jolu-►Ten•ance Homes, LLC. Although the City's notices �vere sent con•ectly, the for�varding of their mail <br /> by the United States Postal Service had expired. Gaffron stated Staff did receive an e-mail toclay frorn the • <br /> �'oup ih�i o���ns the prc�perty askin�for, one,notice of ihe next public hearing and, t�vo, iaUling the <br /> � _ �'A�� 37 , <br />