My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-12-2020 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2020
>
10-12-2020 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2020 12:32:10 PM
Creation date
12/1/2020 11:34:08 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
310
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 <br />Monday, September 21, 2020 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 4 of 6 <br /> <br />intentions are of the City to achieve as many units as possible, while at the same time can they offset the <br />setbacks and come up with a building layout that is not directly exposed to those two streets (which they <br />did), and in order to enhance and protect the safety of what Mr. Libby said, they have nice ornamental <br />fencing, with nice piers, columns, entry features and brick monuments on all corners of the property. He <br />noted they are respecting conditions by bringing in a product that will support that corner, and they may <br />be able to play with the topline area and bring them inside what Mr. Barnhart is recommending. If they <br />work with the certain setbacks, this project will work; however, if they stick by the book of 15 feet, 50 <br />feet and 50 feet, the project is dead. He noted that is where they are at today, and it would be nice if after <br />the meeting he could go back to the team and say they have some direction. <br />Kirchner asked regarding the side portion along 40 and 43: if they did away with it and did not count it as <br />recreational space, would they still meet the 10%. <br />Rausch said they’d be about 3,000-3,500 feet short. <br />Kirchner said right alongside those buildings, it’s not really something the people residing there would <br />view as a public space, but rather viewed as the side to a building or side-yard. He would appreciate a bit <br />more thought as to how they can incorporate a little more square footage that way. <br />Mr. Saddiqui said to open up the thought process of what was initially proposed or thought, as to the very <br />high density…they were very skeptical if it was going to work in this location with the number of units <br />because they were going down to 60% of what was proposed. If they are going to stick with some of <br />those side-yard scenarios, it would shrink significantly. <br />Chair Ressler stated Orono and Burnsville are probably different, and Orono prides itself as a rural area, <br />although it is becoming more dense, which is something requested by the Met Council, and it hasn’t <br />necessarily been welcomed. He noted some of the applicants today with single family residence being <br />built 30 feet from a property for one home and having resistance against that. He said density is a valid <br />question and the Applicant is trying to figure out what this will work for and where it will work, and <br />Chair Ressler isn’t sure it’s Orono. He said the way it was guided was perhaps more units, but also <br />perhaps more centralized and they’ve seen other concept plans (preliminary) which were proposed and <br />after the Commission’s feedback they haven’t worked out because it centralizes the units which gives <br />more green space and softens the approach, which the Commission likes. At the same time, by not <br />centralizing and reducing the number of units, it can also be a burden because in this case they’re <br />spreading out the units and the total is less, but the effect is more because they’re not centralized. Chair <br />Ressler tries to stay open-minded because this is a new concept and new concepts have followed trends <br />and that is how they get established. He knows it’s difficult to see and while looking at the plan, it looks <br />daunting as there is no softening or trees proposed. To summarize, Wayzata Boulevard is a very busy <br />road and represents Orono…he thinks the 50 foot setback is probably his feedback for that area. He noted <br />36 feet is agreeable on Kelley Parkway and Willow Drive, reluctantly. To summarize, because they’re <br />talking about less units but more sprawl, he’d like to see a larger setback and that may be a problem for <br />the development, but that is his personal perspective. <br />Gettman noted what the Applicant is hearing loud and clear is that the concept of setbacks, and he asked <br />if they can put a different type of unit with the other units. Specifically, can they mix a higher density <br />building within there somewhere, especially as they play around with the outlot, and even potentially with <br />commercial on the first floor and units above. Rather than trying to shove or piecemeal things around, he
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.