My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-19-2017 Planning Commission Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
06-19-2017 Planning Commission Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/23/2018 11:00:08 AM
Creation date
2/23/2018 11:00:03 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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,June 19,2017 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Barnhart indicated the main issues would be height and traffic. Barnhart stated he understands the <br /> impacts of traffic on the area, but noted the lot is currently vacant and any development will generate <br /> some level of traffic. Barnhart stated this area is not zoned residential, and if it is rezoned to residential, it <br /> would require approval from the Metropolitan Council at a density of three units per acre. <br /> Tom Goodrum, Westwood Professional Services, stated they have listened to the comments of the <br /> Planning Commission,the City Council, and the neighbors, and redesigned their plan to be 40 high- <br /> quality condominium units rather than 51 apartments. <br /> Goodrum stated they are proposing the same footprint but that they have enhanced the building by <br /> increasing the height of the ceilings. The number of parking stalls has also been reduced and another 15 <br /> feet of buffering along Shadywood Road has been added. The targeted tenants for this site are expected <br /> to be empty nesters and retirees,which is also what the residents wanted. <br /> Goodrum stated he appreciates Staff's comments, and as it relates to the grading and stormwater <br /> calculations,those will be addressed in the near future if approval of the plan is received. Goodrum noted <br /> engineering costs a lot of money and that they would like to receive approval prior to incurring those <br /> costs. Goodrum stated they understand the main issues are height and traffic and that in their view they <br /> meet the seven standards for the RPUD. Goodrum stated while there are arguments on both sides,they <br /> believe they have a good argument for life cycle housing. Goodrum stated they are looking from the <br /> Planning Commission a recommendation of approval. <br /> Goodrum noted the site does have ample room for stormwater ponding and that they are within traffic <br /> guidelines for that road. Goodrum stated in their view they are looking at a market that will have the least <br /> impact on traffic. <br /> As it relates to the environmental impacts,there is a 75-foot buffer to the edge of the wetland and the <br /> proposal is close to meeting the additional ten feet required by the City but it depends on whether the <br /> balconies would be counted. Goodrum indicated they have also discussed adding more wetland buffer to <br /> the Freshwater Business Center as part of this project. Goodrum noted the building is not near the <br /> wetland and the stormwater ponds would be located outside the wetland areas. <br /> Thiesse asked if there is any way to eliminate one level of the building and construct a larger structure. <br /> Goodrum stated the penthouse will make the project financially feasible and that they did look at other <br /> options but they were not economically feasible. Goodrum stated unless more parking is eliminated,they <br /> would not be able to expand the structure. The flat roof matches the Freshwater building, Byerly's, and <br /> other buildings in Navarre. The proposed building at the west end would be 36 feet high along <br /> Shadywood Road. Goodrum noted a pitched roof would be well above the 36 feet and that they are <br /> minimizing the visual impacts with the flat roof. <br /> Thiesse commented he is more concerned with the residents to the rear. <br /> Goodrum stated a pitched roof would be taller than a flat roof. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if additional acreage could be added to the property so the building could be lowered <br /> and the footprint expanded. <br /> Page 9 of 17 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.