My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-16-2016 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2016
>
02-16-2016 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/18/2019 2:23:27 PM
Creation date
8/25/2016 9:13:01 AM
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.
/
356
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
- <br /> � , NIINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNIlVG COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,June 15,2015 <br /> b:30 o'ctock p.m. <br /> Schoenzeit asked what the doliar range of the homes would be. <br /> Peterson stated in general.terms they are probably looking at upper fours to mid sixes. <br /> Lemke asked if there is that much demand for that type of hous'vag in this area. <br /> Peterson stated his background and specialty is in specialty projects. Peterson indicate�ti�ey have done <br /> some market studies and analyses and that they are looking at an empty-nester or a couple whose children <br /> are in college or the divorcee market. <br /> Schoenzeit stated pric�wise it is similar to thc Red Oak development. <br /> Thiesse asked if he could discuss the 10 percent amenity requirement. <br /> Gonyea stated they did have some discussions with Staff about the idea of putting a common trail or <br /> something around the wetlands. Gonyea stated it could be done,but wi�fi the stormwater requirements <br /> and things of that nature, it becomes a little more di.fficult Gonyea indicated he is aot opposed to taking a <br /> look at it, <br /> Thicsse asked if the wet�and extends out into the orchard area. <br /> Gaffron stated they have not explored that to see whether�e trail could be continued down by the Dumas <br /> property but it would ba something to look at. <br /> Gonyea stated to!us undecstanding Mn/I�OT owns�at sma11 comer of property. <br /> Gaffron pointed out the property that Mn/DOT owns. Gaffron stated to his recollection the wetland docs <br /> not continue past that az�ea. <br /> Lemke asked what consideration has been given to traf�c loading. <br /> Ga.ffron stated one of the�ings Staff looiced at in conjunction with the JEM property on 41d Crystal Bay <br /> Road was achieving enough separation from tlze OCB/Wayzata Blvd. intersection. Gaf&on noted the <br /> engineers k�ave not looked at this developme�nt,but that Ste,ffwould ask that they look to sc,e if there is <br /> a.ny need for turn lanes and signalization. Gaf&on stated if the sout3�access was the only acc,ess,there <br /> would be a very long cul-d�sac. <br /> Thiesse asked if Staff could describe a scenario wk�ere the City could come close to meeting the density <br /> for this property. <br /> Gaf&on stated that sc�nario would raquire multi-family units, such as apartment buildings or <br /> condominiums. Gaffron stated at a minimum twin homes would need to be constructed,but more likely <br /> multi-family buildings. <br /> Thiesse stated he prefers this over muIti-family un.its. <br /> Leskinen stated in her view it is too much for the site. <br /> Page 50 of 53 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.