My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-28-2016 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2016
>
03-28-2016 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/19/2016 11:00:27 AM
Creation date
4/19/2016 10:59:49 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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 CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, March 28, 2015 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />7. #16-3807 TOM GONYEA, ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 425-595 OLD <br />CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH, PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL — DRAFT RESOLUTION <br />AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, <br />RESOLUTION NO. 6599 (continued) <br />Gaffron indicated the resolution for Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat Approval is in a draft form for <br />Council consideration and discussion. Adoption of the resolution at the March 24 meeting is not <br />recommended as Staff would like additional time to refine it and bring it back for formal action on <br />April 11. <br />Staff does recommend adoption of the resolution granting preliminary approval for the Comprehensive <br />Plan Amendment. Following approval, the amendment, application and appropriate attachments will be <br />forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for their review as soon as possible. <br />McMillan asked if there was any discussion about a trail on the south side of the road. <br />Gaffron indicated Hennepin County did not feel it was necessary to have a trail on both sides of the road <br />as long as there was an internal roadway system. <br />Printup stated in regards to the plan before the Council tonight, he does not really have any complaints, <br />but that the City should at least require an easement along Old Highway 12 for this property and the <br />Dumas property. Printup stated once the Dumas property is developed, it will be inviting for people to try <br />to get up to the stoplight and the crosswalk rather than a midway crosswalk. Printup stated if that day <br />ever comes when the Dumas property is developed, the City can say they planned for it. <br />Printup stated with regard to the County recommendations about reconsidering the trail along the north <br />side of Wayzata Boulevard, in his view the City should strike that from anything being discussed so it <br />does not imply that the City condones something like that. Printup noted the school is not aware of any <br />County reconsideration of the trail along the north side of Wayzata Boulevard. <br />Gaffron stated that recommendation is in letter form from Hennepin County and that it is a question of <br />how much should be included in the City's resolution of approval. Gaffron noted Page 12 talks about <br />street lighting and an internal sidewalk system but that he does not believe there is any other place in the <br />resolution where it talks about yes or no to a trail along Highway 12. <br />Gaffron noted the Planning Commission, Park Commission, and a majority of the Council did not feel a <br />parallel trail along the west side of Crystal Bay was needed but that they did not address whether there <br />should be a parallel trail along Wayzata Boulevard. <br />Tom Gonyea, Applicant, stated as it relates to the sidewalks, in his view it seems like it will be redundant <br />given the internal sidewalk. An easement along Highway 12 would also inhibit his ability to screen <br />things a little bit. Gonyea stated if that internal system continued into the Dumas property, it would offer <br />a way to get up to the intersection along a quieter road and not along Highway 12. <br />Gaffron pointed out the lots along Wayzata Boulevard would have a berm that extends from existing <br />grade up to a high point. Gaffron stated if an additional ten feet is taken, it would push the berm and <br />screening closer to the back yards. <br />Page 9 of 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.