My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-12-1996 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1996
>
08-12-1996 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2023 11:53:52 AM
Creation date
9/5/2023 11:51:57 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.
/
224
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 TilE ORONO PL.\NN1NG COMMISSION <br />MEETING HELD ON JULY 15, 1996 <br />(#9 -#2154 John O'Sullivan/Ervvin Smith - Continued) <br />Peterson said he would not have envisioned changing the zoning one year ago but now <br />views it differently, noting a recent proposal further south on Shadywood for a minor <br />rezoning from residential to commercial for an automotive graphics business He <br />suggested the two sites be considered together There are two residential lots combined <br />with the lot that was considered for the auto graphics site Berg said she did not believe <br />the Commission would want to tie the two properties together Goetten said the back lots <br />were zoned residential, and the applicants had proposed rezoning Goetten said the <br />Council wanted to look at all of Navarre before making any changes <br />In discussing whether to look at Navarre as a w hole or property by property, Lindquist <br />said it could not all be done at once l.indquist saw the need for developers to make <br />anything happen and rezoning alone would not accomplish anything. <br />Berg cited an example in Minneap>olis of a neighborhood revitalization. She said the <br />business owners had to be convinced to become involved by oft’ering incentives Mabusth <br />later noted in the meeting that the business owners back in 1987 were offered low interest <br />loans but still had no interest Berg acknowledged O’Sullivan's pride in his property and <br />saw the proposal as an improvement She also saw the need to look at the highest and <br />best use of the property and w as not convinced residential w ould be the answer. She <br />noted the neighbors were pleased with the proposal at hand. <br />Mabusth asked for a reason why the property was not suitable for housing Berg said it <br />was close to an intersection and not large enough to attract a developer. <br />Peterson said he thought the neighbors would prefer a buft'er such as a church but that was <br />not voiced. <br />Lindquist asked about petitions for and against the project. O'Sullivan noted that petitions <br />were presented at both information meetings as well as located in his store. Of all the <br />signatures, he has only received one in opposition, and that person lives farther away from <br />the site O'Sullivan said he has heard no opposition. Peterson acknowledged the change <br />of heart from those neighboring property owners in this application as compared to the <br />previous application for a shelter for this property O'Sullivan also questioned the <br />affordability of land for moderate housing on the site <br />It was noted that the public w as not notified of this sketch plan review. The next door <br />neighbor to this property, John Erickson, was said to not oppose or voice positively for <br />this proposal. <br />15
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.