Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />Monday, June 23, 2014 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  Page 24 of 30  <br /> <br />(8. 14-3666 LUKE KUJAWA ON BEHALF OF EOF INVESTMENTS, LLC, 1440-1442 <br />SHORELINE DRIVE – REZONING, Continued) <br /> <br />Printup commented that could be what was referred to as the cart before the horse. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted in Staff’s first memo to the Planning Commission it was indicated that there would need to <br />be a Comprehensive Plan Amendment as part of the process. The Planning Commission was reluctant to <br />proceed forward with creating a B-2 sub-district without the Council’s input and were not interested in <br />doing a complete rezoning to a B-2 district. Gaffron stated Staff is recommending that the applicant <br />withdraw the rezoning application and submit a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which would allow <br />Staff to more fully explore the creation of a sub-district. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated he personally does not have a problem with the concept of creating a zoning district for <br />this site and that the City does it with PUDs all the time. Gaffron stated these two properties are in a <br />significantly different status than other properties next to marinas, and that if a B-2 sub-district were <br />created, one of the goals would be not to create something that allows existing marinas that have <br />adjoining residential property that has never been used commercially in any way to expand. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated if the Council feels there will be any type of rezoning for these two properties, the next <br />step would be a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. <br /> <br />McMillan stated the City Council should decide whether they are interested in creating a sub-district and <br />that it is up to the applicant on whether they would like to withdraw their application. McMillan asked if <br />the application would go back to the Planning Commission if the City Council indicates that they are not <br />interested in a sub-district. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated if the applicant withdraws his application, then there would be nothing on the table to <br />review until a new application is made for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. <br /> <br />McMillan stated Staff and the Planning Commission is asking whether the City Council is interested in <br />going down the path of writing new code for a sub-district. McMillan indicated she does not want to <br />prolong the application but that she is simply not interested in a sub-district. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated if the application is to go back to the Planning Commission, it would be helpful to provide <br />as much direction as possible to the Planning Commission on how they should proceed. <br /> <br />McMillan stated it is also up to the applicant on how he would like to proceed. McMillan noted the <br />Planning Commission would need to decide on the rezoning request if the application is not withdrawn. <br /> <br />Printup stated he would withdraw his motion to table the application and ask the applicant how he would <br />like to proceed. <br /> <br />Mattick stated Staff is looking for direction, and that what he has heard is that two of the Council <br />Members are opposed to creating a sub-district. Mattick stated if the direction is not to explore the <br />creation of a sub district, a motion is not necessary. Mattick stated there has been some discussion by two <br />Council Members that 1442 seems appropriate to rezone to commercial but 1440 should remain <br />residential. Mattick stated that can be formed as a motion but otherwise direction has been provided to <br />the applicant and Staff.