My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-08-1997 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
12-08-1997 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/28/2012 4:06:42 PM
Creation date
12/28/2012 4:06:42 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 8,1997 <br />( #9 - #2308 Brook Park Realty - Continued) <br />Van Zomeren noted the typical submittals being required. The park dedication fee is <br />$19,464. Sewer and water fees were noted. The Planning Commission recommended <br />approval of the preliminary plat and PRD. <br />The applicant, Bill Gleason, had no comments at this time. <br />Flint questioned the 7' easement of right -of -way dedication to Shoreline Drive. He noted <br />the Hennepin County bike trail plan and questioned whether this easement is the place <br />for a bike trail. It is currently noted for use by utilities only. He questioned whether <br />there is room for a bike trail on the southern edge of the property. Van Zomeren said it <br />can be reviewed by the City Engineer and resolution can -be amended for a trail if <br />requested. She indicated the Hennepin County right -of -way agent is requesting the same <br />amount of easement as utilities companies have. <br />Jabbour asked if the City wants a 7' or 10' trail. He noted the park dedication fee would <br />have to be adjusted if that was the case. He asked if Gleason understood. Gleason said <br />he was working through it. Flint noted the trail would have to be 10' or 12' questioning <br />whether the location was feasible for a trail without getting into wetlands. Gleason said <br />he did not believe there was adequate room for a trail in that location. <br />Flint questioned the determination of 30 units in the zoning district. Van Zomeren said 40 <br />the property is in the LR -1 C1 District and the applicant is able to increase the density by <br />50% if items A -F are met on pages 1 and 2 of the resolution. Barrett suggested the <br />resolution be amended to note the addition of the proposed plat meeting those <br />requirements. <br />Kelley asked if the application meets those requirements, if the City has to allow the <br />50% increase in density. Barrett said he would review the matter but believed it is <br />mandatory. Kelley felt too much structure was being squeezed in but would comply if <br />required. <br />Kelley asked how many townhomes were located to the east of this subdivision. Van <br />Zomeren did not have that number. Kelley said he would like to know as the <br />subdivision would add traffic through a lower density neighborhood. He suspected the <br />property to the east has more dry buildable and has only 24 -26 duplex units. Jabbour <br />noted that a credit is received for the wetland. Kelley said he understood that, noting <br />that was the reason for asking Barrett the question on allowing an increased density. <br />Jabbour noted that sewered areas are reviewed differently from non - sewered areas. <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.