My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-19-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
03-19-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2012 4:41:09 PM
Creation date
6/19/2012 4:40:41 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.
/
529
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
IO��I.V�JTES OF T'I� <br /> ��tONO C�T�CO�TPdCI�,1VIEETII�G . <br /> lYIonday, September 25,2006 <br /> 7:00 o'ctocic p.m. <br /> (6. #06-3212 HEMPEL PRO.�ERTI.ES, OUTLOT A STONEBAY(N13�CORNER OF T�ILLOW <br /> DRIVE 1VORTHAND HIGHWA�'I2), Cortfi�itced) <br /> Murphy stated in his view if tonight's comprehensive plan amendment is not approved,the City would Ue <br /> Uetter off if the first cornprehensive plan 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 office <br /> development on this site, <br /> White stated the consensus of the Council is that they do not want retail on tliis site. <br /> Kerznack stated if the coinprehensive plan is not amended,they have zero options available to ihem and <br /> that they are not able to const�-uct the inedical office building without the retail component. Kerznack <br /> indicated they would be able to wait for enough medical users to occupy the building but that without i:he <br /> conlprehensive plan amendment,they have no options for developing this site. <br /> Murphy inquired when their option for financing expires. <br /> Kerznacic stated they have until October 13`�'. <br /> Gaffron stated the Cotuicil would be taldn�one step back 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 be rezoned to <br /> B-6, and would require a RPUD. <br /> Kerzizacic inquired if the conlprehensive�lan amendment is approved tonight,whether they would be able <br /> to proceed forward with the inedical building. <br /> Sansevere stated they could Uut that it sounds like one of the other partners is not interested in <br /> const�-ucting a medical buildiiig without tlle retail component. <br /> Kerznack stated if they have the option of constructing a medical building,they could at least look a1:that <br /> option and hold the land until they have enough tenants to raake the proj ect viable. <br /> Murphy inquired whether the Council is in agreeme�zt with a medical building on this site. <br /> White stated it appears tlie conseiisus of the Council is to allow a medical building on tliis site. <br /> Muiphy inquired how the Council could ap�rove that option. <br /> Sansevere suggested tlie Council table this application until October 9`",which would give the applicaizts <br /> time to design a plan depicting a medical office buildiiig on this site. <br /> Kerznack stated they could go ahead and conshvct a medical building on this site,but that it is likely it <br /> would sit vacant for soine period of time. <br /> McMillan stated she personally would like to undo the comprehensive�lan amendment that was ap�roved <br /> a couple of years ago and that she is not able to inake any decision on what iy�e of development she <br /> would a�prove for this site at this time. <br /> PAGE 5 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.