05-16-2016 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,April 18, 2016 6:30 o'clock p.m. The site layout shows two road entrances onto Wayzata Boulevard,plus a segment to the southwest for potential additional parking areas and to provide future access to a possible multi-family building. The angled or z-sbaped lots allow for additional outside views from within the dwelling units. As a result of tbe lots being angled,the driveways can become more elongated to allow for off-street parking of at least two vehicles within each lot. A potential downside is that the driveways directly abut the neighboring residence parcel and aim headlights into windows likely to be located on the ends of some of the hoines. Eleven of the 27 units will have their rear yards facing Wayzata Boulevard. Most of these homes have been located to have a 40-foot setback froin the right-of-way of Wayzata Boulevard where the RPUD standard is 50 feet. Traffic noise inay be an issue with just the vegetative buffer. The homes facing the wetlands appear to be set so that each would have at least a 10-foot mowable, walkable yard between the home and the wetland buffer. A majarity of tbe proposed building lots have a functional width of 40 feet rather than the 90 feet width required with an RPUD. These lots are designed to maintain separation of 10 feet between buildings which is necessary in order to accommodate the proposed density. Increasing the setbacks would likely result in fewer homes and a further reduction in density. In order to prepare the building pads,the high ground adjacent to Wayzata Boulevard will be excavated as inuch as six to ten feet, leaving the homes at an elevation of four to six feet above the highway. Parts of the developing area will be filled to allow for acceptable road grades and basements. The internal road system serving the development is proposed to be private. This is inconsistent with the provisions of the CMP Transportation Plan in Urban Transportation Polices. Due to the number of units to be served,the internal road system would appear to qualify as a public road. Due to the unusual lot configuration and the proposed 40-foot road corridor,the applicant is proposing a 28-foot road width. A public road serving this many homes would have to be 32 feet wide. The applicants are also required to submit evidence that Hennepin County will allow two access points for this development. The second access is desirable from a circulation and emergency access standpoint, and lack of a second access would require a loop or cul-de-sac to be incorporated into the plan and possibly an emergency-access-only or right-in/right-out configuration for the secondary access. The Planning Commission should discuss the various items outlined in Staff's report as they relate to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,the rezoning from RR-IB to RPUD,and the preliminary plat review. Staff recoimnends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment,with the condition that the City should identify alternate sites for higher density development Staff also recoinmends approval of tbe rezoning to RPUD,with formal approval being given at the time of final plat. If the Planning Commission concludes that the proposal as presented is acceptable and can be moved on to the City Council for review of preliininary plat approval, Staff would suggest the recoinmendation at a minimum address the following: 1. Flexibility for the requested specific RPUD lot and develop�nent standards; 2. Adequacy of Conservation Design Master Plan; 3. Internal road system to be private; Page 13 of 32