Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,August 15,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> 2. If so, what are appropriate standards for such a development? <br /> Gaffron displayed a sketch of the proposed building and interior layout. <br /> Gaffron indicated the stormwater pond was originally sized to accommodate all elements of Stone Bay <br /> and no additional ponding will be required on this site. Because the site is so flat,the assumption is that <br /> in order to make drainage function adequately and allow for underground parking,the site will require <br /> some amount of fill, likely raising the main floor above the level of Kelley Parkway. An internal storm <br /> sewer system is likely to be constructed on the site which will discharge to the pond. <br /> The property is not within the Stormwater Overlay District. If developed as RPUD, it would be subject to <br /> a maximum hardcover per lot of 50 percent. The site plan indicates impervious coverage of 53 percent, <br /> which will have to be reduced to meet the hardcover limits. <br /> While the property is technically subject to the City's Conservation Design Ordinance, it is anticipated <br /> that due to the small size and open nature of the property, a Conservation Design Inventory and Master <br /> Plan may be unnecessary. The Planning Commission should discuss whether there is a need for an <br /> inventory and master plan. <br /> Staff recommends the following topics be considered by the Planning Commission: <br /> 1. Is there justification for the necessary CMP amendment and rezoning to allow the guiding of this <br /> property to be converted from commercial office to residential? If that conversion is not allowed, <br /> what other uses for the site might be acceptable? How will the City benefit from this <br /> development? Would the City see greater benefit by waiting for commercial development of this <br /> property or is this the appropriate time and location to make the change? <br /> 2. Is the Planning Commission comfortable with the density of the development at 20 units per acre <br /> gross? <br /> 3. If the developer had to construct a third story over part of the building in order to meet required <br /> setbacks and hardcover limits while maintaining the same 70 units,how would the Planning <br /> Commission react? One of the reasons a past Council was okay with the third story at the Lofts <br /> was its distance from Wayzata Boulevard. As a result,the extra height would be somewhat <br /> mitigated by the long views. <br /> The same justification might not apply for the proposed building. The B-6 standards for <br /> commercial office use of this site would limit the height to 30 feet,while the RPUD standards for <br /> properties currently zoned or guided in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial use would allow <br /> height to exceed 30 feet but not to exceed three stories. <br /> 4. Is there sufficient justification for flexibility in terms of the hardcover limit and the proximity of <br /> the building to Wayzata Boulevard. <br /> 5. The Planning Commission should discuss whether this development should be required to create <br /> the RPUD standard 10 percent private recreation space. <br /> Page 16 of 21 <br />