Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, September 25, 2006 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />i <br />(6. #06 -3212 HEMPEL PROPERTIES, OUTLOT A STONEBAY (NW CORNER OF WILLOW • <br />DRIVE NORTHAND HIGHWAY 12), Continued) <br />Gaffron stated under the current Comprehensive Plan, the retail element must consist of a pharmacy, and <br />if that element were removed, it would be up to the Council to determine what retail would be appropriate <br />for this site. <br />Murphy 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 with a pharmacy if the <br />Council votes not to change the Comprehensive 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 made any progress on this application and that they are <br />not interested in constructing a pharmacy at this site. Kerznack stated they are requesting that the <br />pharmacy component be eliminated from the comprehensive plan. <br />Murphy stated if the comprehensive 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 is <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 />Kerznack pointed out at some point the comprehensive plan would need to be changed and that they are <br />simply requesting the Council approve the removal of the requirement of a pharmacy for this site. <br />McMillan stated in her opinion the Council was probably mistaken when they rewrote the comprehensive <br />plan to require a pharmacy on this site but that she does not want to be changing 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. Gaffron stated if the pharmacy is eliminated, it would allow a <br />developer to come before the City with a plan similar to what is being proposed tonight by the applicants. <br />Gaffron noted this property is currently zoned RR -1B and that the prior rezoning is not valid and is now <br />void because the previous proposed development on this site never occurred. Gaffron stated a list of uses <br />could be included in the rezoning application. <br />Brokl indicated the big picture 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 with the City's zoning for this area. Brokl stated residential <br />homes could be constructed on this site, which may not be what the applicants are interested in. • <br />PAGE 4 of 14 <br />