My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06/15/2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2015
>
06/15/2015 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2016 10:32:36 AM
Creation date
1/12/2016 10:32:30 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
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 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> setbacks, both visually and functions. Is this intended to be a family oriented neighborhood or <br /> geared to empty-nesters? <br /> 5. Many of the lots propose a building pad that almost maxes out the buildable area of the lot once <br /> the perimeter berms are in place. Many of the lots abutting the wetland in the rear would have <br /> only minimal back yard as the building bumps up to within 20 feet of the wetland buffer. a result <br /> of these two factors in the future is the owner's inability to construct an addition of even a deck in <br /> some cases, as well as providing minimal rear yards for outdoor enjoyment. <br /> 6. Planning Commission should consider whether a revised plan incorporating a fu1125 feet front <br /> yard setback measured from the edge of right-of-way should be required. <br /> 7. Should the City allow the property to be developed without developing at least a vision of how <br /> the Dumas piece to the west might be included? If the Dumas property develops a townhouse <br /> use, are there possibilities for negative transitions through this proposed development? <br /> 8. Should the wetland be treated as an amenity to be shared with the entire development? As <br /> proposed, only lots abutting the wetland will have the wetland as an amenity. The Planning <br /> Commission should discuss whether this development should be required to create the RPUD <br /> standard 10 percent private recreation space. <br /> 9. With development at a density somewhat new to the City; to protect the aesthetics of the existing <br /> rural development, and also to protect future owners of these properties,would specific exterior <br /> finishes for the building help lessen the density impacts. <br /> 10. Staff recommends that a trail be constructed within the applicant's property connecting as a <br /> minimum from the northerly road access to the southwest corner of Wayzata Boulevard and Old <br /> Crystal Bay Road. Should this density of development include sidewalks along the interior <br /> streets? <br /> 11. To what extent will developer be altering grades to deal with stormwater management, high water <br /> tables, and development with basements? <br /> 12. The extent and nature of perimeter visual and noise buffering should be a point of discussion. <br /> 13. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> Gaffron stated the Planning Commission should provide the developer with an overview of the pertinent <br /> City ordinances and how they affect the proposed plat. Gaffron indicated Staff will be bringing this <br /> sketch plan to the City Council as well. <br /> Thiesse asked how this differs from the development on the landfill site. <br /> Gaffron indicated these are narrow lots, and from a density standpoint, that development was guided for <br /> 10 to 12 units per acre. <br /> Leskinen asked if those were attached units. <br /> Page 48 of 53 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.