My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-21-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
08-21-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2018 11:46:52 AM
Creation date
2/8/2018 11:46:09 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
186
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,July 17,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Thiesse noted the Planning Commission has already discussed Item No. 3 and that they have encouraged <br /> him to provide more private recreation space. <br /> Landgraver stated the City should also show some leniency on that item given the nature of the residents <br /> and that perhaps they should include the rooftop seating areas. <br /> Schoenzeit stated there could be flexibility in how to get to that number but that he would encourage the <br /> applicant to get as close to it as possible. <br /> Thiesse noted if they are going to provide a 10-foot easement for a trail,that would be considered. <br /> Barnhart stated his understanding is that a trail goes towards the Park Dedication. <br /> Thiesse noted Hennepin County has a 100-foot right-of-way and that they would likely construct any trail <br /> within that. <br /> Barnhart stated the developer would pay the City's portion of the trail,and if it is located on this property, <br /> Hennepin County would pay for the trail. Barnhart stated the City can accept a rooftop seating area but <br /> that he does not believe a public trail would meet the 10 percent private recreation area. <br /> Thiesse noted the Planning Commission discussed Item No. 5 and that they feel the Conservation Design <br /> requirements should be waived. <br /> Schoenzeit asked whether any precedent would be set by allowing 3.5 acres rather than 5 acres for the <br /> RPUD. <br /> Barnhart stated the RPUD standards have minimum requirements and that they have different stipulations <br /> that could be applied. Number two of the development standards states the property is directly adjacent to <br /> or across a public street from property which has been developed previously as an RPUD,which would <br /> apply in this case. Barnhart stated the City has also seen some projects in the past,such as Shadywood <br /> Villa,where the Council did grant a waiver,and that he does not believe they would be creating any <br /> precedent. <br /> Lemke stated he has a concern with the amount of massing without a break. <br /> Thiesse commented the recesses and offsets help him feel better about the massing. <br /> Schoenzeit noted they are also stepping back the second level and adding some patio areas,which could <br /> help break up the façade. <br /> Larry Schultz asked about the stormwater pond having runoff from Highway 112. <br /> Barnhart stated Hennepin County is eying a portion of the subject property to accommodate expansion of <br /> the pond. Barnhart indicated a portion of the stormwater from Wayzata Boulevard will be fed into the <br /> existing pond,which requires a bigger pond,but that flooding is rather remote. <br /> Landgraver commented demands change over time. Landgraver asked whether the City has any <br /> mechanisms for keeping the structure at three different living options. <br /> Page 7 of 20 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.