Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 21,2005 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#05-3161 LOREN FRITZ,CONTINUED) <br /> Rahn pointed out the Planning Commission does rely on the recommendations of the City Engineer and if <br /> the applicant is able to arrive at a mutually agreeable conclusion with the City Engineer,he would be fine <br /> with that. <br /> Winkey stated he has a concern regarding the adjoining property to the south and how that might be <br /> developed in the future. Winkey inquired whether there would be the potential to expand that driveway to <br /> also serve that property. <br /> Gundlach stated in her view it would make more sense to develop the property to the south at the same <br /> time,but since the two properties are not being developed together and are in separate ownership,the <br /> parcel to the south would need to come before the city in the future and go through an application process <br /> in order to subdivide. <br /> Winkey commented there are multiple driveways coming off of the road in this area. Winkey inquired <br /> whether any thought was given to a central driveway to serve these properties. Winkey stated ultimately <br /> there is going to be a long driveway constructed along the edge of the property. <br /> Gundlach stated Hennepin County has indicated the proposed accesses are acceptable because they are <br /> existing accesses. Gundlach stated if there were an access off of North Shore or Shadywood, there would <br /> need to be a 400-foot separation from the intersection. <br /> Gaffron stated the distance available would be less than 300 feet, and that if both property owners were in <br /> agreement on development of the parcels,the ideal solution would be to do something that solves access <br /> to both parcels. Gaffron stated Fritz has attempted to purchase the southern parcel to no avail. <br /> Gaffron stated the City's subdivision ordinances do contain some language regarding half roads to <br /> property boundaries being provided to serve other adjacent properties but that does not necessarily mean <br /> it is the logical thing to pursue. Gaffron indicated there are topography issues and lot width issues. <br /> Gaffron stated the proposed driveway is not the ideal situation but that in his view there is not anything <br /> the City is able to do unless the other property owner is willing to become involved in this process. <br /> Rahn stated he would like to see a detailed view of what this development would look like from the west. <br /> Bremer stated she has a concern with the retaining walls and that in her opinion the Planning Commission <br /> needs to have something more concrete regarding the retaining walls and the house layout before <br /> approving the application. Bremer stated in her opinion the view of this development from the street <br /> should be considered and that the houses may appear to be cluttered. <br /> Jurgens requested Staff explain the 10-foot setback. <br /> PAGE 11 <br />