04-12-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 7 9. LA20-000053 DALE RICHARDSON O/B/O CBS MN PROPERTIES, LLC, 2060 WAYZATA BLVD W, CONCEPT PLAN (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Dale Richardson, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. This is a sketch plan or concept plan review for a propose 40-unit apartment building located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard. In 2005 this property was the subject of a proposed office condominium/townhome project. At the time there were 5 townhome office buildings. One was built in 2008 and a foundation for another was poured. The existing building was the subject of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a daycare center and was the first activity in this project area since 2008. The property owner purchased the property in 2017 and is looking to develop a 3-story apartment structure with 40 units. The property is guided for high density residential and used to be guided for commercial; in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan the property was re-guided to high density residential (20-25 units/acre). The Applicant is working under that guidance from the Comp Plan. The building will be 4 stories including one level of underground parking with 66 stalls plus three above ground apartment floors proposed. The project is being proposed as a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) and the Commission may recall last month that they do not have a zoning district for high density residential; most come through as an RPUD of which this is a permitted use. They are operating under that from a guidance standpoint in terms of the final zoning district. Barnhart’s memo included analysis of the RPUD zoning regulations. Regarding elevations, he showed on screen access to the underground parking in the south portion of the building and noted there are three levels exposed on the back and a little bit of the fourth story adjacent to the parking garage is shown exposed. The project is proposed as a flat roof building. In Barnhart’s analysis of the RPUD zoning district it requires a five-acre minimum lot size for an RPUD zone – this property is at 2.48 and is calculated based on the remnants of the original project less the existing daycare center building at the northwest corner. The Council may find this project conforms to this exception under C; the zoning ordinance has certain exceptions where the Commission or Council can support a re-zoning. The exception here that would apply is the property is located in an area where it is a transition between commercial and existing residential. On the west side of the property is a fertilizer warehouse and gas station and on the east side is a senior housing project. It would meet with that condition in terms of a transition. To the north is single family residential. Barnhart noted the main issues are the roof style, the height of the building, and the private recreational areas. The RPUD zoning district requires 10% of the gross land area of a project to be private recreation. The City has allowed a range of uses for the private recreation. Orono Crossing last month had a tot lot and some open space in the center of that project, and for a senior housing project they had a walking path and a pavilion area, they have also had an outdoor deck for other uses. This plan shows a rooftop deck over the southern portion of the project which could meet some of the private recreation area. He would appreciate any comment the Commission has regarding the private recreation area. Perhaps the biggest issue that Staff and Applicant are looking for is feedback on the building height. Historically the City has kept to a 30-foot maximum limit for building height and there is a mechanism to define that different height. This is a unique situation because the property developed in 2005 and grading occurred for that project so the building is set up for walkout basements and office buildings. Obviously, this project is not that so there is some redevelopment as part of the grading proposal. In both situations, the building is more than 30 feet high. The shortest, most generous way to review it is a 35-foot-tall building and based on existing conditions it is defined as a 41-foot-tall building because of some challenges in terms of fitting within the 30-foot limit. The setbacks are based on a minimum of 35 foot for side yard and rear yard, but also there is a clause that the setback should not be less than the height of the building. If the height is measured at 41 feet the setback should be 41 feet from the side and rear and obviously this project does not do that. The roof is a flat roof and the RPUD regulation specifies residential character by LA20-53 Council Exhibit B