My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-12-2021 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2021
>
04-12-2021 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2021 9:20:11 AM
Creation date
4/15/2021 9:09:25 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.
/
365
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 CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, March 8, 2021 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 11 of 24 <br /> <br />26. LA21-000014 – MARK RAUSCH AND AZIZ SADDIQUI O/B/O UNIVERSITY OF ST. <br />THOMAS AND DAVID WEEKLY HOMES, NW CORNER OF WILLOW AND WAYZATA <br />BLVD., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, PRELIMINARY PLAT, <br />AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – RESOLUTION NO. 7177 – Continued <br /> <br />there are a couple waivers he wants to alert the Council to. There are external setback requirements off of <br />Kelley, Wayzata, and Willow. Setbacks required off of Kelley are 35 feet, off of Willow and Wayzata are <br />50 feet, and there is a drive line setback of 20 feet from the property line. The drive line off Wayzata <br />Boulevard is 10 feet (waiver is requested), and the Applicant proposes a row of arborvitae or screening <br />along that edge to provide some buffer. The buildings are 35 feet off of Kelley and meet those <br />requirements; most buildings are 50 feet from Willow Drive though lot 4 is 36 feet back (waiver of 14 <br />feet requested). Blocks 6-8 are 50+ feet from Wayzata Boulevard and are okay. The external setbacks <br />were an issue during the sketch plan review and at the time the setbacks were quite a bit tighter. During <br />the development of that project, they came to learn that they really cannot drop below 10 units/acre – if <br />they start dropping below 10 units/acre or 37 units they start running afoul of those other things <br />mentioned, such as the affordable housing calculations and the overall growth numbers. They go from a <br />deficit of 4 to a deficit of more than 4. The Applicant really tried to stay to the minimum 35 feet and has <br />conformed to the setbacks with the exception of that issue. Staff does support that change. Barnhart said <br />one concern Staff has, and identified with the Planning Commission, if they look at the overhead map <br />there is a potential concern is the front of the buildings front onto sidewalk. Owners would enter the <br />garage space from the rear of the structure and it is this area (noted on screen) that the rear of the structure <br />faces Willow and faces Wayzata which are two highly-visible streets in town. He wants to make sure the <br />Council is aware that is the face that will be seen as one is sitting at the intersection – they will be seeing <br />the rear of those buildings and the garage doors. The screening proposed is fairly robust based on the <br />landscaping plan, but from a planning perspective they generally try to avoid a situation where screening <br />or landscaping fixes the problem, rather they try to find situations where berming or street orientation or <br />other features help address a design issue. From a Planning Staff perspective, they identified a potential <br />concern as to how those buildings are oriented. In solution, Staff suggested perhaps flipping the buildings <br />so the front would face out, then they would have the “public face” of those buildings. To do that they <br />would route the road interior to basically circle Outlot C there. The Planning Commission was not <br />supportive of that suggestion; they did not think it was necessary and to flip those buildings they would <br />have to reduce the setbacks a bit further and the Planning Commission was not willing to go that far. <br />Barnhart throws that out there and looks for feedback on whether the Council would like that. The <br />Applicant did react to the Council’s comments from the original sketch plan process. <br /> <br />Crosby asked if there is any room for berming. <br /> <br />Barnhart replied no there is not, it is a 10-foot setback. Even with 20 feet it would not be enough for <br />berming. From an RPUD standpoint the project shows the 10% private recreation area and since this <br />project will be a subdivision there will be a park dedication fee required. <br /> <br />Seals said if they mimic what Stone Bay has, they do not have any garages facing exterior. <br /> <br />Walsh noted they would have the fronts on Kelley. But the problem is this project has three roads on <br />three sides. <br /> <br />Crosby noted there are no garages sides showing on Stone Bay. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.