08-23-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 9, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 13 PUBLIC COMMENTS Laureen Darling, 1719 Fagerness Point Road, has lived in Orono for over 42 years, she loves the City and her neighbors. However, over the past two months there has been a parking problem on Fagerness Point Road of which she has pictures. There is a parade of cars that are overnight, a front-end loader parked there for three days and nights, cars and trucks, and she has a hard time getting out of her driveway. She noted someone hit one of the cars that used Ms. Darling’s driveway as a turn and there is glass all over and police were called. Ms. Darling believes there are two houses that are responsible for the parking issue. People are also using the corner by the stop sign as a drop off for their junk, there was a king-size mattress which made it difficult to see traffic coming. They also turned that area into large mud holes and said it is not a good first impression when friends come over to see the large parking lot and dumpster, as well as the mud holes. She is asking if something can be done such as no parking signs, and perhaps the City can fix up those pot holes across the street. Mayor Crosby asked Ms. Darling to introduce herself to D.J. Goman, the Public Works Superintendent, and he can talk to her about some of these things. FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT Finance Director Olson gave an update and noted they spoke a lot about budget at the work session and he does not have anything additional to report. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT 11. LA21-000042 – MOHEGAN HANSEN ARCH O/B/O CBS MN PROPERTIES, LLC, 2060 WAYZATA BLVD WEST, MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL, ZONE CHANGE, AND PRELIMINARY PLAT – RESOLUTION NO. 7207 Barnhart said at the last City Council meeting, Staff was directed to draft a resolution of approval establishing a specific elevation for the building height elevation calculation. This project was the original site of an office/townhome development and the Applicant proposed using the grades prior to that project being graded in 2006. He put together an exhibit and showed it on screen demonstrating highest existing grades on the site. He walked the Council through previous calculations versus current, mass impacts, and the direction from the Council on using the highest existing grade of 1,024 prior to the development. He is looking for direction and whether the Council would like any changes. Johnson asked for this to be removed as he was not at the previous Council meeting. He clarified the highest existing grade is 1,018 and the lowest is 1,002 and they would add 10 feet to that which is 1,012. By strict interpretation of the Code, 1,012 is the number for this project, but the Staff’s recommendation was to use 6 feet higher than that to work with the application based on the overall length of the building over the grade level. The Code reads 1,012, Staff proposed an exception of 1,018 and he noted the additional fact that this is to be a pitched roof and they agreed to use a flat roof. To Johnson, using the existing highest grade of 1,018 is a more reasonable response to the application. Using the pre- development numbers, it concerns him that they would be setting precedent. Johnson proposes that they change the application to be approved with the other Staff recommendations and an elevation of 1,018 versus the 1,022 that was approved.