My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-18-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
09-18-2017 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2018 12:24:01 PM
Creation date
2/8/2018 12:23:13 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.
/
206
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
FILE#17-3969 <br /> September 18,2017 <br /> Page 2 of 2 <br /> The calculation of building height is based on two factors,the height of the building,and the <br /> adjacent existing ground level. Orono Preserve was originally a very flat development,fill was <br /> brought in to create house pads that afforded surface drainage away from the structure. This <br /> elevation,coupled with a narrow two story structure and high pitched roofs, raised to defined <br /> height to over 30 feet. The review of the first two plans resulted in a defined height of 32 and <br /> 31.5 feet. <br /> The staff report to the Planning Commission outlining the original preliminary plat, including a <br /> discussion of the RPUD rezoning is attached as Exhibit C. Conceptual Building plans provided as <br /> part of the development application are provided as Exhibit B. These same plans are being <br /> offered to potential buyers of the lots. A section drawing showing the conceptual homes in <br /> relation to buffer along Old Crystal Bay Road and Wayzata Blvd are provided as Exhibit D. <br /> Options <br /> In lieu of modifying the RPUD agreement to allow higher buildings,the developer has two <br /> primary options: <br /> 1. They could adjust the roof pitches and/or the grading plan to fit within the <br /> regulations for the project,or <br /> 2. They could apply for variances for specific parcels that require flexibility. The <br /> variance process adds additional time and uncertainty for the buyer and was rejected as a viable <br /> option. <br /> Public Comments <br /> To date, no public comments have been received. <br /> Issues for Consideration <br /> The Planning Commission should discuss the following: <br /> 1. If a departure from the height limitation is appropriate for this property/project? <br /> 2. Has the applicant provided adequate support for an amendment? <br /> 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? <br /> List of Exhibits <br /> Exhibit A. Application <br /> Exhibit B. Building Elevations proposed as part of platting process <br /> Exhibit C. PC Staff report dated February 11, 2016 <br /> Exhibit D. Section drawings <br /> Exhibit E. Property Owners List and Map <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.