My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-16-2016 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
05-16-2016 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 2:55:41 PM
Creation date
8/24/2016 2:55:39 PM
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).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,May 16,2016 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> per acre. Barnhart stated this proposal would not be meeting the City's goals based on the current plans <br /> but that he is comfortable the City can make up the three acres somewhere else. The question for the <br /> Planning Commission is whether this is an appropriate use for the property. <br /> Landgraver asked if the mixed use is specific to a certain portion of the site. <br /> Barnhart stated the City has identified a potential for redevelopment when it is listed as mixed use and <br /> that it could be commercial or something else. <br /> Leskinen noted a few years ago a memory care facility was discussed for this site,which was fitting for <br /> this location. Leskinen stated in her view seven homes crammed into a few acres does not meet the City's <br /> density goals and that she is not sure about changing the zoning for this particular property given the fact <br /> that there is a church next to this property and a couple of grocery stores nearby. Leskinen noted this area <br /> also has a substantial amount of traffic. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if this project is far enough along to ask Hennepin County about the access. <br /> Barnhart stated it is not but that Staff has been meeting with them on a couple of other projects and that <br /> they have informally indicated they would not be opposed to it. <br /> Thiesse stated the guided use is greater than what is being proposed and that he would be surprised if <br /> Hennepin County would be opposed to it. <br /> Barnhart stated as this segment of Shadywood develops or redevelops,the accesses for the church,the <br /> subject property, and the former Freshwater parcels will be consolidated and coordinated, which will help <br /> to reduce the turning movements in that stretch of roadway. Hennepin County is supportive of that <br /> coordination. The proposed access also closely lines up with a future shared access for the Freshwater <br /> properties. <br /> Landgraver asked if the applicant has considered increasing the density, such as having a townhome or <br /> two. <br /> Denman stated from an economic standpoint,the risk goes up when the homes are attached. Denman <br /> stated from a marketing and financial standpoint, it is easier to construct single-family homes. <br /> Thiesse asked how the stormwater would be treated before reaching the wetland. <br /> Denman indicated there would likely be a stormwater pond in the corner but that the engineering has not <br /> been completed at this point. <br /> Thiesse asked what zoning would apply if the lots are combined. <br /> Barnhart stated as part of the process,the platting, rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan amendment would <br /> all be done at the same time. <br /> Leskinen asked if this proposal would require approval by the Metropolitan Council. <br /> Page 4 of 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.