03-15-2021 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

FILE#LA20-53 March 15,2021 Page 3 of 4 13 Signage Signage located,plans not yet developed. 14 Landscaping Landscaping plans not yet developed. 15 Architectural Standards Elevations provided. 16 Flexibility from standards Requested. 17 Traffic Studies Not suggested. 18 Building Permits Expected. 19 General regulations applicability Expected. 20 Lighting Lighting plans not yet developed. 21 Trails Sidewalks and public walks proposed. Applicable Regulations: The RPUD regulations can be found in Division 11 of the zoning code, attached as Exhibit J. Analysis: The Planning Commission and City Council are asked to comment on this project generally, and on a couple of issues specifically. Site size. The property is not large enough to stand alone as a RPUD (requiring 5 acres), but the Commission could view it as a transition between commercial (to the west is a gas station) and residential (senior housing to the east, and single family residential to the north). In other areas, the Council has supported a RPUD for an undersized lot (Orono Apartment, Orono Crossings) when those projects were viewed as an architectural continuation of an adjacent RPUD development, Stonebay. This project is not viewed as a continuation of Orono Woods, an RPUD. Building Height. While there are two buildings taller than 30 feet in Orono (Orono Woods, built in 2002,and Stonebay condominium, built in 2006),the City Council has recently and consistently held firm on the building height issue, providing direction to applicants to stay within that height. The applicant has introduced a unique argument regarding the height, basing the height calculation on the site conditions found prior to grading for the Amber Woods development, where grading to support 'walk-out' style office buildings was completed. Even with this application of the site conditions,the building exceeds the design height by 5 feet. In the past,to accommodate height issues, the ceiling height and/ or lowest floor elevations have been manipulated. Roof style. The plan shows a flat roof, contradicting the requirement for a residential, pitched or hip roof style. While flat roofed residential structures are perhaps more common now than when the RPUD regulations were originally drafted,the Commission should comment on the roof design for this proposal along Wayzata Blvd. Setbacks. If the existing elevation is applied and the building is found to be 41 feet in defined height,flexibility from the setbacks relative to building height will be necessary. Private recreation. The plans does not show with any clarity the private recreation proposed. The