Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, April 26, 2010 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />(7. ORONO 2010 -2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, Continued) <br />Printup asked if the Art Center/Hill School could be defined as school/institutional. <br />Gaffron stated the Metropolitan Council would have an issue with the City calling them something other <br />than institutional but that the City Council could place specific guidance on that type of property. <br />Printup asked whether other newspapers could be notified of the meetings. Printup noted the City's <br />newsletter came out after the Comprehensive Plan meeting and that the public has not had the opportunity <br />to digest the full extent of its ramifications. Last week the Planning Commission meeting was standing <br />room only with the majority of the residents being opposed to the guiding of the high density near the fire <br />station. Printup stated in his view it would be unfair to the citizens for the City Council to accept the land <br />use being reguided at this point since there will be future discussion on it as it relates to the <br />CommonBond project. Given the fact that the Comprehensive Plan has a huge importance and impact on <br />the City, Printup stated in his view it would be appropriate for the citizens of Orono to be given more <br />notification. The Comprehensive Plan will impact this community for the next 10 to 20 years but yet has <br />only been discussed for the past months. Printup stated he would like the residents to have additional <br />time to review and discuss this. <br />Mayor White closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. <br />• <br />White noted the owner of the NAPA store has not contacted the City about the mixed use designation and <br />that it does not affect the City greatly if they remove it from that district. White indicated he is not sure • <br />what the intention is of the property owner for the future of that property but that the City does have the <br />ability to add it back in later. White stated he would prefer to have the input of the property owner, <br />especially given the comments of the neighbors <br />McMillan asked whether it could become 100 percent residential and override the retail portion. <br />Gaffron stated the City has not attempted to create a mixed use overlay district. The City has the <br />opportunity over the next six months to create standards for a mixed use overlay district. Pure residential <br />would be allowable in a mixed use. One of the City's stated goals is not to allow properties that are <br />residential to become mixed with some commercial. That specific site could potentially become totally <br />residential, but it would be directed through an ordinance after the Comprehensive Plan is adopted. <br />McMillan stated keeping retail is also important to a residential neighborhood. <br />Franchot stated his concern is that the Navarre area is a problem area already basically due to the traffic <br />and the ability of the neighbors to live comfortably and happily but that the City would be missing an <br />opportunity to address a significant problem area if it is taken out of the mixed use overlay district. <br />Franchot commented that if someone comes to the City with a plan to change this part of Navarre into a <br />way that will work, that nothing in this Comprehensive Plan precludes the City from doing that. Franchot <br />stated he would prefer to expand the mixed use district in this area to give the City more flexibility since <br />nothing that has been discussed to date has improved the situation. Given that, it may be time to consider <br />other options for that area. <br />Franchot asked how limited the City would be if that one parcel is removed from the mixed use overlay <br />district. is <br />Page 8 of 15 <br />