05/16/2006 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

" MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,May 15,2006 ' 6:00 dclock p.m. (#06-3201 CHARLIE THOMPSON,CONTINUED) Gaffron noted this property is located within the MUSA boundary. It has not been determined at this time whether the Long Lake sewer and water systems have capacity for residential uses of this site at the densities requested. The applicant proposes to remove the day care use and construct a 12-unit townhome development at a density of two units per acre. The proposed use would require the following actions by the City: 1. Amendment of the 2000-2020 Community Management Plan to convert the status of the property from rural to urban. 2. Establishment of standards within the CMP for future use and development of this property. 3. Rezoning to allow a multi-family development. 4. Approval of a RPUD development plan, subdivision and development agreement. Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission should review the application and determine whether there are sufficient and compelling reasons to re-guide the property to allow for urban density development, and if such reasons are present,consider what goals or standards should be established to minimize any negative impacts of the urban density within the defined rural area. Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission consider the following: 1. The basic characteristics used to establish the areas recently re-guided higher density residential use are not present at this site. Primarily,the site is not near a commercial area that can provide the urban services,nearby shopping,public transportation,walkability,etc.,that were compelling reasons for the recent re-guidings near downtown Long Lake. 2. Insertion of higher density housing into the defined Rural Area for a property that the owner finds difficult to develop,does not necessarily promote or advance the City's housing goals of providing life-cycle housing where appropriate urban services can be provided. 3. The property does have a variety of potential uses under the current rural status and RR-1B zoning,and the fact that the property will now have a freeway that its southwest boundary does not in itself suggest that those uses are no longer viable. If the site is acceptable for upper- bracket twinhomes proposed,why isn't it acceptable for single-family units as currently guided? 4. Development of housing at a density of two units per acre on this site would be inconsistent with most of the surrounding development. 5. Potential negative visual and related activity impacts associated with urban-density residential development abutting the Luce Line Trail would be inconsistent with the City's vision for the Rural Area. PAGE 30