My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-14-2014 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
07-14-2014 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2015 10:37:36 AM
Creation date
4/7/2015 10:37:09 AM
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.
/
326
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
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />Monday, June 23, 2014 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> Page 16 of 30 <br /> <br />(8. 14-3666 LUKE KUJAWA ON BEHALF OF EOF INVESTMENTS, LLC, 1440-1442 <br />SHORELINE DRIVE – REZONING, Continued) <br /> <br />Gaffron indicated the applicant would like an early resolution to the rezoning issue in order to determine a <br />course of action regarding their Tanager Lake dock noncompliance issue with the LMCD. Staff believes <br />this process will take through the summer and into the fall. The review period for the rezoning request <br />has been administratively extended 60 days to August 20. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated a rezoning from residential to commercial requires approval from the Metropolitan <br />Council. If the applicant withdraws the current rezoning request and applies for a Comprehensive Plan <br />Amendment, it would be reasonable to allow a no-cost reapplication for the rezoning under whatever new <br />zoning is established. The applicant has indicated he is amenable to this course of action. <br /> <br />Gaffron noted that Staff believes continuation of the existing zoning situation at these properties is not in <br />the best interests of the City, the property owners, or the neighbors. Staff recommends that a <br />Comprehensive Plan Amendment be pursued to establish parameters for future use of the properties, <br />followed by zoning code changes to allow implementation of those parameters and then rezoning of the <br />two properties based on the zoning code revisions. Site plan review would then be needed prior to <br />construction of any changes or improvements. <br /> <br />Gaffron requested the City Council consider approving a motion authorizing the Planning Commission to <br />proceed with the review of an applicant-initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment request to re-guide the <br />properties at 1440 and 1442 Shoreline Drive for commercial use, subject to the applicant’s withdrawal of <br />the current rezoning application and submittal of an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. <br /> <br />McMillan stated since she has been on the Council, there have been issues with this area, and that she is <br />in agreement that it would be nice to find a permanent solution rather than a make-shift solution. <br />McMillan stated in her view a portion of the properties should remain residential and that keeping the <br />1440 residential and the 1442 commercial is one option. McMillan stated that is probably the only option <br />she is interested in researching at this point and that she is uncomfortable with the creation of a B-2 sub - <br />district since it would be creating code for one site. <br /> <br />McMillan stated she understands the owner of the 1432 property purchased their property thinking that it <br />was residential on both sides and that he would like that to remain. McMillan stated she is not sure <br />whether only one residential property between the property owner at 1432 Shoreline and the marina will <br />be sufficient, but that it may be a good compromise. McMillan stated the basic premise of the rezoning is <br />to allow the site to become more functional and should be explored in more detail. <br /> <br />Printup stated it sounds like that might be a compromise and that he is interested in hearing what the <br />applicant has to say about it. Printup stated it is one of those scenarios in the City where it is labeled as <br />residential but has functioned to some degree as commercial and that it is somewhat arbitrary. <br /> <br />McMillan stated she would envision1440 as a residential lot with no parking by the marina allowed. <br /> <br />Printup stated for the last few years it has existed as a parking lot and that he has problems changing it <br />since it has been used that way. <br /> <br />Levang noted the property has also been used as a residence. <br />Item #03 - CC Agenda - 07/14/2014 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 06/23/2014 <br />[Page 16 of 30]
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.