My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/16/2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2015
>
03/16/2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2018 2:12:12 PM
Creation date
12/27/2018 2:12:08 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,March 16,2015 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Road all the way north without seeing any houses. Gaffron stated a goal would be that someone heading <br /> east or west on County Road 6 would not see houses at all during the summer. Gaffron stated he does not <br /> want Mr. Stickney to bring them into the prairie, but that he could move them closer to the prairie. <br /> Stickney stated he has a 50-foot buffer on the south side of the property and that he can make more of a <br /> buffer on the north end. Stickney indicated he went through months and months of designing to not have <br /> the houses seen and that he can possibly pull the building envelopes farther down. <br /> Leskinen asked if he could pull the lots down and have the driveway traversing the edge of the preserve <br /> area. <br /> Gaffron suggested a 150 to 200-foot buffer be left, relocate the homes further down, and then preserve the <br /> top 200 feet. Gaffron stated the covenants can restrict the area where the homes can be built. Gaffron <br /> stated he would also bring the cul-de-sac back, which would shorten the road. <br /> Gaffron asked if he has some flexibility with the Minnesota Land Trust in terms of the defined <br /> boundaries. <br /> Stickney indicated he does not have much flexibility but that he can perhaps move the envelope down and <br /> preserve the top. <br /> Gaffron stated if he is stuck with the boundaries, he would move the houses as far south as possible,with <br /> a buffer to the north, which would help minimize the impacts to the Big Woods area. <br /> Lemke asked if the reason why he does not want to put a house below Lot 11 is because that area is <br /> preserved. <br /> Stickney stated that will not happen since that area is preserved. Stickney stated the family is going well <br /> beyond what would be expected. <br /> Landgraver asked if the island is needed. <br /> Stickney indicated it is not needed and that it was done for visual reasons. <br /> Landgraver stated if the concern is the disruption or the breaking of the canopy, then a smaller cul-de-sac <br /> might be worth considering. <br /> Stickney stated he can just do the regular 100 feet and that it would be an easy change. Stickney stated if <br /> he brought the lots down,the cul-de-sac would get smaller, but that in his view that is a good spot to have <br /> the cul-de-sac. <br /> Gaffron stated he would like to get an idea of how far north into Medina the Big Woods goes. Gaffron <br /> asked if 50 percent or more of the untouched Big Woods is located on the Dayton property. <br /> Liz Weir stated Dayton's property consists of 15 acres of Big Woods but that she is not sure about the <br /> acreage of Charlie Crosby's land. Weir noted Peter Recklebockel owns this parcel but is moving out <br /> because of this development. Weir indicated that land is not permanently conserved but the woods are of <br /> the same high value. Weir stated she believes it is 35 to 40 acres of contiguous Big Woods. <br /> Page 28 of 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.