10-10-1988 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1988 HIGHWAY 12 ZONING AMENDMENT CONTINUED Councilmember Goetten asked whether the purpose of the 5- acre minimum was to specifically prevent development unless 5 acres were available to do so? Shardlow responded that the purpose of the 5 -acre was to achieve a more comprehensive development of any area as opposed to a hodge -podge of 1 -acre developments. It would defeat the purpose of the PUD if only a 1 -acre minimum was required. City Administrator Bernhardson added that.the PUD could apply in any zoning district whether it be 2 -acre, 1/2 -acre, etc. It is expected that there would be few applications within the 2 and 5 acre zones unless the proposal involved clustering the development as in a PRD application. The 5 -acre zone has no density significance with regard to the PUD. The only requirement for the PUD is that there be a minimum 5- acre assemblage of property. One reason the possibility of a 10- acre minimum was discussed was because the overall PUD development would need to have a plan for storm water, sewer, water, etc. Shardlow interjected that the 5 -acre PUD would require the developer to provide enough information to demonstrate that those same objectives could be accomplished. Zoning Administrator Mabusth inquired as to whether the PUD would be a valuable tool for the development of Navarre? Shardlow answered affirmatively. Mayor Grabek asked Shardlow for the worst and best scenario •involved in a hypothetical situation involving a PUD application wherein several 1 or 2 acre residential lot were joined to meet the 5 -acre minimum. Shardlow stated that a bad use of the PUD would be excessive density on one piece of property where it was inconsistent with the overall area. Shardlow said that could be avoided by the Council not approving such�a plan. City Administrator Bernhardson stated that not passing the PUD now would not disallow a future council body from rezoning an area. Councilmember Goetten stated that the current ordinances would not allow such a plan to be approved. Callahan added that there would be a less likely occurrence of such rezoning of property if the PUD was not permitted. Shardlow. stated that a good use of the PUD would be in the clustering of a development on the land where it was best suited. Mayor Grabek asked if such a plan would constitute a PRD? Shardlow stated that the PUD could allow some increase in density. Councilmember Goetten asked if, there would still be credits for wetlands, etc.? Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that would apply if the property were sewered. The current PRD ordinance does not give density credits, only the LR -lC1 district provides for density credits. The PUD allows for better development. Goetten stated the PUD would make it easier to deal with the wetlands, ponding areas and soil conditions found in Orono. Mr. Shardlow stated that the PUD proposal came about because the Planning Commission wanted development controls put in the B -6 District. Shardlow did not believe that would be consistent with the limits of the City's authority. The Planning