My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-28-2016 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
03-28-2016 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/19/2016 11:06:12 AM
Creation date
4/19/2016 11:02:51 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
188
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 MEETING <br />Monday, March 14, 2016 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 20 of 37 <br /> <br />12. #16-3807 ESTATE DEVELOPMENT GROUP ON BEHALF OF SCOTT FREDRIKSEN, <br />425 AND 595 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH, AND PID 33-118-23-24-0002, REZONING <br />TO RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND <br />COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (continued) <br /> <br />Gaffron stated the application consists of three parts: <br /> <br />1. Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to allow development of the property at a density of <br /> approximately three units per acre for this property which is guided in the CMP at a density of <br /> 7-10 units per acre; <br /> <br />2. Preliminary plat approval for the 39-lot development; <br /> <br />3. Rezoning from the current RR-1B to a Residential Planned Unit Development. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission and Park Commission reviewed the application recently. The Planning <br />Commission recommended approval with a number of conditions that are outlined in Staff’s memo. The <br />Park Commission did not feel the need for a park within the property, nor a new trail along the perimeter <br />of the parking, and recommended a park dedication fee, as did the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />As it relates to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, under the current guiding, there would need to be 88 <br />units on this property. Gaffron stated the only way to accomplish that would be with multi-family <br />buildings rather than single-family homes. The applicants have suggested that that does not seem <br />appropriate for the area. <br /> <br />The Council should consider the following questions: <br /> <br />1. Should the City be striving for more density or less density at this location? <br /> <br />2. Is the single-family concept right for this area? Does it match the City’s goals in terms of <br /> housing type and density? <br /> <br />3. Is there a significant difference in visual impact from off-site of a row of minimally-separated <br /> single family homes versus groups of attached townhomes versus large condo/apartment <br /> buildings? <br /> <br />4. Will the City benefit from this type of development? Should the entire property be developed in <br /> this matter or should this site incorporate a multi-family element? <br /> <br />Based on Staff discussions with Metropolitan Council representatives, re-guiding of the site for less <br />density will ultimately require that the City find additional lands to re-guide for higher density. Staff <br />believes that based on in-house calculations, this proposed development will place the City near the <br />overall 3.0 units per acre threshold. It is possible that this proposed development will trigger <br />Metropolitan Council to withhold approval of the required Comprehensive Plan amendment pending a <br />companion re-guiding of other properties for higher density. A pending application for lower-than-guided <br />density on the nearby Eisinger property is very likely to trigger that requirement. The City Council <br />should be prepared to consider what other properties in Orono could be re-guided for higher density.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.