Laserfiche WebLink
84.PAGE 7are is a n<eed for that this 5 acre use. McDonald th the pollution <br />>roposed density <br />al of opposition <br />•ersonally liked <br />stated that the <br />.etter of the law <br />t look as nice, <br />would be well <br />/ouldn't be that <br />he last meeting <br />n but that the <br />Goetten stated <br />and that she was <br />hold with this <br />the plan he was <br />ublics comments <br />J the Planning <br />snsity should be <br />:he rezoning it <br />ions from the <br />residential is <br />rvice area, the <br />ned for a lower <br />le citizens have <br />ve rural ,quasi- <br />and support the <br />lorical land use <br />determined the <br />:wo acre. This <br />:y developed and <br />rting in all of <br />density will be <br />acre except for <br />Lsting housing <br />?P. New rural <br />lustering when <br />ow provided the <br />nt conforms to <br />>■5 ymmrn <br />i. ■ <br />• V • <br />•4 <br />I <br />PAINTERS CREEK DEVELOPMENT <br />#805 JOHN HALLSON <br />2640 WATERTOWN ROAD <br />PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION <br />PUBLIC HEARING <br />9:25 - 9:26 P.M. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that the 5 acre was established because it was what the people wanted.Chairperson Goetten read for the record a letter from the Assistant Director of Land Stewardship from the <br />Nature Conservatory (attached to these minutes). <br />Bastyr stated that if the rezoning wasn't approved <br />that the lot would be sold and that this development <br />probably wouldn't go through. <br />Rovegno moved to table the conditional use permit and <br />the subdivision application until Council decides <br />whether the rezoning will be approved or denied. <br />McDonald seconded. Vote: Ayes, (5), Nays (0). <br />Rovegno moved to deny the rezoning based on the finding <br />that it is not in the best interest of the physical <br />development of the City and based on the neighbor <br />opposition, but further ask the applicant to continue <br />with this type of plan but with a lesser density. <br />McDonald seconded. Vote: Ayes (4), Nays (1). <br />Adams minority opinion - Adams felt that this was a <br />reasonable development for Orono. Adams noted that <br />the school districts encourage development because it <br />increases the number of students. Adams stated that <br />the Planning Commission is often biased in keeping <br />Orono at the lowest possible density and that may not <br />always be in the best interest of the community. <br />John Hallson was present. Zoning Administrator <br />Mabusth noted the certificate of mailing and the <br />affidavit of publication. There was no one present in <br />the audience for this application. <br />McDonald moved to recommend approval of the two-lot <br />plat of John Hallson, finding that all lot standards of <br />the RR-IB zoning district and the Orono On-Site Septic <br />System Code have been met subject to the following <br />conditions: <br />1. Approval of Lot 2 access location by the Public <br />Works Coordinator, John Gerhardson. <br />2. Dedication of 33' of right of way for Watertown <br />Road. <br />1 <br />» f <br />Im;: <br />(m <br />V- <br />iT <br />t ■ : . .. ^ <br />/.^m:.L,ATING/'/ThMinncso <br />January <br />Jeanne A <br />Zoning A <br />City of I <br />1335 Broi <br />Orono, Ml <br />Dear Ms. f <br />Thank you <br />Pointer's <br />As ovners <br />prefer tha <br />west bound. <br />Sincerely, <br />3#^ <br />Jeffrey R. <br />Assistant I <br />Land Stew <br />JRWrjn, <br />i’o.iid III 1 <br />c If MkM \\ <br />'I* I * llX.'kMx-. <br />I • l»« • <br />V •. <br />■> <br />r . . . . • <br />i . <br />___________________________________________________________________________‘ ^