Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, May 9, 2016 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />Page 10 of 28  <br />  <br />10. #16-3822 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST – <br />PRELIMINARY PLAT/RPUD REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT <br />(continued) <br /> <br />The Park Commission tabled the question as to whether land for park purposes should be dedicated <br />instead of a park dedication fee pending further review by the individual commissioners of the site and <br />the City’s park needs. <br /> <br />Senior Planner Gaffron noted one of the new pieces of information that has recently come in is a letter <br />from Hennepin County that is suggesting there should be only one access and not two. Hennepin County <br />has also indicated that turn lanes would be desired as well as some additional right-of-way. The applicant <br />has indicated that they would like to discuss the proposed layout. Staff has not taken a closer look at the <br />proposal to see whether a different layout or access point would be more desirable. <br /> <br />Staff would request the City Council discuss the following seven and provide direction to Staff: <br /> <br />1. Does the amendment further the City’s goals for development of higher density housing? <br /> <br />2. Are there specific aspects of this site that support a reduction of the density from the current <br /> guided density? <br /> <br />3. Are there any negative aspects to re-guiding this site for lower density? <br /> <br />4. Aside from numerical density concerns, does the City Council have any concerns about revising <br /> the development parameters for this site from multi-family use in one or two buildings to single- <br /> family individual homes? <br /> <br />5. The developers have suggested the possibility of developing a multi-family building within the <br /> landfill site, which would require extensive mitigation (remove landfill contents in area being <br /> developed). That is not part of their current request. Does the City Council find that adding a <br /> multi-family building would be desirable if it helps increase density on the property? <br /> <br />6. Are there specific conditions that should be established as part of an approval of the re-guiding? <br /> <br />7. With the proposed amendment, the City’s overall development density is expected to drop below <br /> 3.0 units per acre. The City will need to identify more opportunities for higher density housing. <br /> Staff expects the Metropolitan Council to request that the City identify other areas for higher <br /> density. <br /> <br />Gaffron requested the City Council discuss the above items and then provide direction to Staff. <br /> <br />McMillan stated the access issue will make this site even more difficult to develop and that the Council <br />should discuss how that should be handled. <br /> <br />Walsh stated the language from Hennepin County appears to be pretty passive and that they say they <br />would prefer a single access. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated Hennepin County also did not provide any insight into what the sight distance should be or <br />whether the access point should be one of the two proposed or in a different location.