Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,March 15,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> County 112 in Orono and includes a certain height restriction, a pitched roof, and setbacks equal to the <br /> height. He is comfortable in sticking with that. <br /> Ressler thinks there could be a project here that could be built without having to exceed that measurement <br /> and it would certainly be nice to see what that would look like in contrast. <br /> McCutcheon noted they should probably talk about the setbacks since it is not a five-acre property, it is <br /> much smaller. Is the Commission comfortable putting that much massing on a small lot. They may talk <br /> about where those people will walk their dogs,is there any kind of playground area,or anything the people <br /> there can enjoy. The rental space was mentioned but it needs to be rented. He would like to see a little <br /> more combination towards public space or common areas besides a parking lot. <br /> Ressler asked to go to page 9 of the cumulative concept,which shows a backset view of what the building <br /> looks like from afar. He thinks that was helpful for him based on setbacks to look at it from that setting. <br /> He noted there was a proposal last month and Ressler was very much against it due to the very mild <br /> setbacks...he thinks it was 10 feet. This one is proposed at 35 feet and asked if that is correct. <br /> Barnhart believes they met the requirements of 50 feet to Wayzata Boulevard and 35 feet to the rear and <br /> the side. The proposed plans show 82 feet to Wayzata Boulevard, 36 from the side, and 35 from the rear, <br /> so it meets the requirements from a setback perspective. He clarified it meets the prescribed minimum <br /> setbacks. There is also a clause in there that the setbacks should be at least the height of the building. If <br /> they use the existing grades and measure at 41 feet or so, then they are too close to the property line at 35 <br /> and 36 feet. <br /> Ressler stated if they were to grant a variance on height that would be an important part that they would <br /> need along with that. <br /> Kirchner agrees. <br /> Erickson pointed out that directly north of this property is the sugar woods neighborhood,a very high-level, <br /> professional neighborhood and years ago he saw homes listed in there for$800,000-$900,000 and he is sure <br /> they have gone up since then. The owners are professional people and as this moves forward, they will <br /> make themselves heard,he is sure. <br /> Kirchner said to McCutcheon's point regarding the setbacks,he does have concern over how limited green <br /> space there is,with what appears to be potential drainage,manhole cover styles in the back and side yards. <br /> He would better like to understand the 10%of recreational space and how that is being accomplished. <br /> Todd Mohagen, Mohagen Hansen Architecture and Interiors, clarified they did not really think about the <br /> green space at this point. They were very concerned about the height limitation. He noted they have a <br /> surplus of parking because of what the design was previously, so they can take out parking stalls and make <br /> more greenspace.In the back,the manhole covers are just there to change the direction for the underground <br /> system and there are ways to deal with that, also. Mr. Mohagen said from a technical standpoint they can <br /> increase green space and deal with the amenity space in a very easy way. To the architects,the big thing is <br /> what Barnhart said...the height. With the sloped roof, in looking at the section that is at the bottom, he <br /> pointed out on screen the neighboring houses are to scale,it is setback,there is heavy green space in between <br /> this project and that. The scale is very appropriate for this type of lot in his experience. <br /> Page 32 of 34 <br />