My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-20-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2015
>
07-20-2015 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/11/2020 8:43:11 AM
Creation date
1/12/2016 1:34:15 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.
/
373
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 full 25 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 flie 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 /> Page 72 of 79 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.