My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-17-2002 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
06-17-2002 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/16/2023 4:02:14 PM
Creation date
2/16/2023 3:59:57 PM
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.
/
293
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
Proposed Residential Density and Housing Types; <br />The table below summarizes the development densities for each residential component <br />of the site. Planning Commission should discuss whether these densities are appropriate <br />south of Kelley Parkway, and if not, what densities might be acceptable... <br />Planning Commission should also consider whether the applicant’s proposal includes features <br />which help to reduce the visual impacts of higher density... <br />A comment was made at the 5/14 work session that Orono ’s code does not allow more than <br />four (4) residential units attached. This is true for the LR-IC-I and M-6 zoning districts, but <br />was not adopted into the RPUD standards, primarily to allow for a wider variety of housing <br />options in RPUD... <br />The densities proposed for the LofVs are <br />only allowable in the context of RPUD <br />development that meets City housing <br />goals. The Lofts were initially presented <br />to staff as senior housing, but applicant <br />indicates they arc now intended for all <br />age brackets. Planning Commission <br />may wish to review the CMP Housing <br />Element, specifically housing goals, to <br />conclude whether the proposed density <br />increases attributed to the Lofts and the <br />rowhouses are supportable by meeting a <br />defined housing goal of the City <br />(affordability, lifecycle) <br />Recreation and Open Space: <br />Development Areas Analysis <br />Site Area: <br />Upland 38.4 acres <br />Wetland 12.8 acres <br />Gross Area; 51.2 acres <br />Site Area by Proposed Use: <br />Kelley Parkway <br />Commercial <br />41 Townbomes <br />82 Rowhouses <br />112 Condo Units <br />Welland, Open Space St <br />Siontm-ater Mgntt. <br />2.8 acres <br />5.0 anes <br />17.0 acres (2.4umts/ac) <br />9.8 acres (8.4 units/ac) <br />4.5 acres (24.9 units/ac) <br />12.1 acres (+ MnDOT Pond) <br />51.2 acres <br />Overall Residential Density: <br />235 Units on 31.3 acres = 7.5 units/ac <br />2000-2020 CMP Planned Densities: <br />-North of Kelley Parkway 3-6 units/ac <br />-South of Kelley Parkway (Not designated; <br />guided for <br />commercial use) <br />8. What portions or areas of the residential development are devoted to the 10% private <br />recreational areas required by the RPUD ordinance? This must be exclusive of the areas <br />devoted to public pa^ dedication (8%)... <br />9. Does Planning Commission accept developer's suggestion that tot lots, tennis courts, and <br />other recreational amenities are unnecessary for this development? Staffwould suggest that <br />reliance on existing City facilities 1 /4-1/2 mile away will not necessarily sen e the needs of <br />the proposed inhabitants of the various housing types proposed... <br />M12-27I9 Dihlftrom Developiiwnt LLC <br />hUy 17,2002 <br />Page 8 or 9
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.