Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> • <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday, March 15, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#11. #04-2994 LANDFORM, STEVE JOHNSTON, REPRESENTING SWERVO <br /> DEVELOPMENT, 875 W. WAYZATA BLVD., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN <br /> AMENDMENT-Continued) <br /> The property is at a highly visible location to traffic entering Orono from the east. <br /> Development at this site might be considered as a `main entrance' to Orono, and as such <br /> will inherently set a tone as to the character of the City. <br /> 4. The property abuts the Luce Line Trail, which as it traverses Orono has a completely <br /> different feel than it does in Plymouth to the east; a rural feel rather than a suburban feel. <br /> Due to topographic constraints, development of a multiple family residential use on the <br /> site will likely be in close proximity to the trail, and have a potentially negative impact on <br /> the rural character of the trail. <br /> 5. Attached multi-family housing, and such housing at the densities proposed, would be <br /> inconsistent with existing and expected residential development surrounding the property. <br /> While the property in Long Lake to the north is zoned to allow up to 4 units per acre, it <br /> has developed in the past with a wide range of lot sizes and at a lower density than it is <br /> zoned for. A recent subdivision at the south end of Lindawood Road created a total of 5 <br /> single family lots from 4.2 acres of land, a density of just over 1 unit per acre. <br /> Gaffron suggested the commission consider the following questions to be answered to assist in <br /> determining whether the proposed amendment should be approved: <br /> 1. Is the property currently guided in a manner that allows the owner some reasonable use <br /> of the property? <br /> 2. Does the unique location of the property suggest certain types of uses may be more <br /> appropriate than others? <br /> 3. Would re-guiding the property tend to promote some specific goal of the City in terms of <br /> land use? <br /> Given that the areas recently re-guided for higher density housing have not yet developed, isn't it <br /> premature to consider additional areas for higher density? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to <br /> wait until those areas have developed, then consider whether additional such areas are <br /> warranted? <br /> Similarly, if in the future the areas to the north in Long Lake are redeveloped at a higher density, <br /> would that be a more appropriate time to consider higher density at this site? <br /> Gaffron briefly explained the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as stated in detail in the <br /> packet. <br /> Page 31 of 48 <br />