Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,October 15,2018 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> structure whatsoever on the site,would you still be opposed to it. The answer is probably yes because <br /> people are naturally opposed to change. <br /> Ressler noted the site is on a busy street but has easy access. There have also been some arguments made <br /> for not disrupting the traffic flows. Ressler stated he understands the comment about the schools and that <br /> has been a point of discussion in previous meetings. Ressler stated he could see where this is one of the <br /> better sites for more density but the question is whether it can be something that can be done that is not <br /> disruptive to the views of the people who live there. Ressler noted a lot of decisions the Planning <br /> Commission makes are to appease the Metropolitan Council in order to be compliant with their <br /> expectations. <br /> James Riley asked whether the City has to do everything the Metropolitan Council says since the <br /> Metropolitan Council is an unelected group of people. A lot of the residents moved out here to live in <br /> rural Orono. That was the selling point. Another selling point was the small class sizes in the school. <br /> Riley stated when he moved here,there were 22 kids in the class but now there is 36. Class sizes are <br /> getting bigger. Riley stated never in a million years would he have dreamed there would be almost a <br /> 300-unit apartment building going in on this site. Riley stated the question is whether the City is doing <br /> what the Metropolitan Council say or whether they are governing themselves here. <br /> Barnhart stated the Metropolitan Council does not tell Orono how to develop but they do tell the City that <br /> they have to develop a plan to provide opportunity to achieve the growth projections that they prescribe. <br /> The City does not have to approve any of those projects. Barnhart stated previously the City was not <br /> providing enough opportunity to achieve the desired growth. While the City does not necessarily need <br /> this project to achieve the desired density,the City has to approve a Comprehensive Plan every ten years. <br /> It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to support the expansion of the MUSA to this site. <br /> Landgraver asked how many residential homes could be built on this site. <br /> Barnhart indicated six to seven. <br /> Lemke pointed out they could build seven McMansions and the visual impact would be almost as much <br /> as this. Lemke noted in that case there would not need to be any difference in zoning or variances since it <br /> would be allowed on site. <br /> Landgraver stated unfortunately it is developable land and it will not stay undeveloped and the residents <br /> will lose their pristine view. The question is, without any changes or input,what could be put there. <br /> Presumably those homes would be pushed up to the 150-foot setback so they could have as much lake <br /> view as possible,and regardless of where this project goes, it will be developed up to six or seven homes. <br /> Landgraver stated he knows Mr.Lurton donated 40 acres as a buffer,but there will be something there at <br /> some point and it will be visually jarring to go from eagles and swans and trees to McMansions. <br /> Barnhart stated urban density is anything with one acre or more in lot size. In a perfect world the City <br /> could say they support urban density at three units per acre if they were looking to change. Realistically it <br /> would be better to say they support rural or urban density rather than prescribe a certain number. <br />