Laserfiche WebLink
• 16��1`dU'A'ES OY''I'�iE <br /> ��Ol�dO CATY CO�TN�d�,MEETING <br /> 109(onday,September 25,2006 . <br /> . 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (6. #06-3212 HEM�'EL d'ROPERTIES, OUTLaT A STONEBA•�'(NW CORNER OF 1�T'ILLOY�r <br /> I3R.7T�E NORTHANl3 I�IG'HT�.4�'12), C'oixtinicecl) <br /> Gaffron stated under the current Comprehensive Plan,the retail element rnust consist of a pharmacy, and <br /> if tl�at element were removed,it would be up to the Council to determine what retail would be appropriate <br /> for this site. � <br /> Mu�hy indicated he would not be in favor of changing the comprehensive plan amendment. <br /> Josh Kerznack inquired whether they would be allowed to proceed forward��vith a pharmacy if the <br /> Council votes not to change tlie Compreliensive Plan tonight. <br /> Brokl stated they could construct a pharmacy on the site but they would need to go through the Planned <br /> Unit Development process. . � <br /> � Sansevere commented he does not want to be force-fed any particular development. <br /> Kerznack commented it feels that they have not niade any progress on this application and that they are <br /> nofi interested in construc�ing a pl�armacy at this site, Kerznack stated they are requesting that the <br /> �harmacy component be eliniinated fronz the comprehensive plan. . <br /> Murphy stated if the coinprehensive plan is not changed,the City would go back to square one on this <br /> application, and that he does not want to mislead the parties that he would approve retail on this site. <br /> Kerznack stated he understands they would need to go through the Planned Unit Development process if <br /> the comprehensive plan is changed. <br /> Sansevere stated from his understanding of the last Council meeting,the biggest concern was the amount <br /> of retail and the uses, Sansevere stated the City is not in need of additional retail at this time. <br /> Kerz�iack pointed out at some point the comprehensive�lan would need to Ue changed and that they are <br /> simply requesting the Council approve the zemoval of the requirement of a phannacy for this site. <br /> - McMillan stated in her opinion the Council was probably mistaken when they rewrote the comprehensive � <br /> .plan to require a phai�zlacy on this site but that she does not want to be chan�ing the comprehensive plan • <br /> every time a developer approaches the City about developing this site. <br /> Gaffron stated if the comprehensive plan is not amended at this time, any development of the site would <br /> need to include a pharmacy on this site. Gaffion stated if the pharmacy is eliminated, it would a11ow a <br /> developer to come before the City with a plan siinilar to wliat is being proposed tonight by the applicants. <br /> Gaffron noted fihis pro�erty is cuirently zoned RR-1B and that the prior rezoning is not valid and is now <br /> void because the previous proposed devclopmcnt on this site never occuiied. Gaffron statcd a list of uses <br /> could be included in the rezoning ap�lication. <br /> Brold indicated the big piciure is that there was a two-piece deal previously and that the half that is left <br /> does not work on its own and is in conflict witli the Ciiy.'s zoning for this area, Brolcl stated residential <br /> homes could be consiructed on this site,which may not be what the applicants are interested in. <br /> � PAGE 4 of 14 <br />