My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-12-2016 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2016
>
09-12-2016 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2019 1:34:55 PM
Creation date
4/4/2017 3:54:06 PM
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.
/
812
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
those expenses. There are currently 27 or so acres in the Navarre mixed use area identified for 10 units <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 />Barnhart indicated it is Stafrs belief that it will. Barnhart stated the Metropolitan Council recognizes the <br />market demands and that they just want to make sure the City provides the opportunity for higher density. <br />Staff will be looking for other areas of the City that could be developed at a higher density. <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.