My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-16-2016 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
02-16-2016 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 2:48:09 PM
Creation date
8/24/2016 2:48:04 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Tuesday,February 16,2016 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> Staff has discussed this development, as well as other proposed developments, with the Metropolitan <br /> Council. Development of this property and others guided for medium density at a lower density will <br /> trigger the requirement for formal amendment of the CMP. With that amendment,there will be an <br /> expectation that other developable properties will be reguided for higher density to offset the decrease. <br /> The Metropolitan Council guidelines require an overall new sewered development density of at least three <br /> units per acre. <br /> The applicants are also requesting rezoning of the property from RR-1 B to a Residential Planned Unit <br /> Development. The current zoning has been in place since the 1975 rezoning. The RPUD district contains <br /> detailed development standards with regards to lot size and setbacks, building design, landscaping, <br /> screening and buffering, and trails and recreation. The RPUD district offers some flexibility to those <br /> standards. <br /> The third part of the application is a preliminary plat review process. Page 4 of Staffls report contains a <br /> table that shows the minimum lot size and other minimum requirements. The proposed lots range from <br /> 7,500 square feet, which is approximately half the standard,to as much as 66,000 square feet. The larger <br /> lots include a portion of the wetlands. The applicants are proposing that the wetlands be included as part <br /> of individual lots, which is not an unusual situation. As a result, a homeowners association would not be <br /> required to maintain that area. The majority of the lots are in the range of 15,000 square feet. <br /> The minimum RPUD-required lot width at setback line is 90 feet, with the majority of the proposed lots <br /> being at 65 feet. Some lots are at 45 feet due to their location on the cul-de-sac. All the lot depths are at <br /> 125 feet, which meets the RPUD standards. The minimum required front building setback is 25 feet. The <br /> applicant is proposing 20 to 25 feet setbacks. The minimum rear or side setback to Wayzata Boulevard is <br /> 50 feet, which the applicants will meet. <br /> As it relates to the side yard setbacks, the RPUD standard is 10 feet. The applicants are proposing for <br /> most of the lots a side setback on one side of five feet and ten feet on the other. Gaffron noted there will <br /> be situations where there will be a 5-foot setback against a 10-foot setback or a 10-foot setback against a <br /> 10-foot setback or a 5-foot setback to a 5-foot setback. The 65-foot lots will generally have a 10-foot <br /> setback and the 45-foot lots will have a 5-foot setback. <br /> Gaffron stated as it relates to minimum rear yard setback, the applicant is proposing rear yards that are <br /> roughly 20-plus feet in depth. Gaffron stated he does not anticipate it being an issue but the Planning <br /> Commission may wish to discuss that. The applicant will also meet the wetland building setback as well <br /> as the building height restriction. <br /> A letter from the neighboring property owners has been submitted with the request that it be included in <br /> the resolution. The intent is to ensure that the future property owners are aware of the potential <br /> consequences of living next to a working farm. The farrrâ–ºwork involves the use of heavy vehicles, <br /> sprayers, pruning compressors and other metal working equipment. Machinery is parked along the east <br /> property line,which is essentially the west boundary of this development. The trees are sprayed every ten <br /> days from May to October. The farm operation involves production of potentially objectionable odors <br /> and noise. Gaffron stated the Dumas family believes those are factors that the developer and future <br /> property owners need to understand and that those are pre-existing conditions that could remain for many <br /> years to come. <br /> Page 9 of 30 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.