My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-20-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
02-20-2007 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/19/2012 4:09:29 PM
Creation date
6/19/2012 4:09:12 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.
/
346
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
' #07-3250 <br /> y • I+ebruary 15,2007 <br /> Page 5 of 5 , � <br /> Platting, Unit Ownership <br /> The preliiiiiiiary plat has been revised frorri earlier versions, and now creates 5 building pads <br /> instead of 10. The reason for this is that the building code requires firewalls wheii builciings are <br /> in close proximity lot lines; with the original plat propos�l, tlie sliared opeii space withiil each <br /> building would be straddling the lot line, eliiniiiating tlie possibility of firewalls. The option for <br /> the developer is to plat each building as a siizgle iuiit, then "condominiumize" by describing <br /> spaces for lease/ownership that enci at party walls within each building, the remainder becoming <br /> part of the corrunons area. ' <br /> Additional Reviewers , <br /> � The latest plans�have not yet been reviewed by tlie Fire Marshal. Plaiis will also be forwarded to <br /> MnDOT and Hennepin Couiity Public Works for review aiici conuneiit. <br /> Issues for Discussion <br /> Keeping in mind that the City had approved the development of tlus site by the applicants in <br /> 2005, and that much of the proposal has not been significantly changed, staff believes the <br /> following are reinaiiung key issues for Planning Coinmission discussioii: <br /> 1. Is tlie landscaping plan adequate to provide screeniiig where necessary? <br /> 2. Is Plaruzing Commission satisfied with the site layout and building design/materials? � <br /> . 3. Are there any aspects of the prior approvals (as documented in Resolutions 5296 and <br /> 5387) that Plaruung Commission believes should be revised? <br /> 4. Have engineering concerns been adequately addressed? � . <br /> 5. Are there any other issues with this proposal? � <br /> . Staff Recommendation <br /> Plaruzing Coimiiission should address the above noted issues, aiid determine wlzether there are <br /> any,other issues that ileed fui-ther consideration. If all Plaruliug Coiimlissiotl coiicerns are <br /> satisfied, tlieii a reconimendation for approval would be appropriate. Approval coiiditioiis � <br /> similar to those found in Resolution Nos. 5296 and 5387 will become paifi of the approval - axe <br /> there any additional conditions Plaiuung Coiiunission wishes to reconunend? . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.