07-19-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY. JL'NE 21. 2004 6:00 o'clock p.m. (9. #04-3027 Breuball IHt ciopx «nt om behalf of Thomai James Properties, LLC, SW Corner of Old Cr>slal Bay Road Highway 12, Sketch Plan - continued) Chair Mabusth commented that the proposed exterior house elevations appeared attractive and there w'as general consensus to her comment. Rahn questioned how average units for density calculations could be determined without penalizing the remainder property. Mr. Johnston acknowledged the C.MP guides for 2-4 units density range w ith a 2.5-acrc average preferred. He emphasized the proposed sketch plan is in the 2-4 unit range. When asked by Chair .Mabusth for her opinion regarding real estate market issues. Berg indicated she could not respond as she may have a potential for a conflict of interest w ith the subject property. Jurgens requested the applicant's representatives provide the Planning Commission w ith locations of housing developments w ith similar densities for the members to view. Mr. Johnston and Mr. Coffman suggested two locations in Eden Prairie and .Mound. Chair .Mabusth referred to the existing high water table known on this subject property. Mr. Johnston explained the proposed site plan would require fill from the Hw y 12 construction project or the houses would nei^ to be built at slab/grade. Jurgens emphasized it was important for the Planning Commission to be provided w ith site examples in order to gain more understanding of the project. Mr. Coffman affimicd that examples w ould be provided to the Planning Commission. .Also, he advised that about 6-8' fill would be required for the proposed project and would result in the road being higher than the existing grade. Gaffron commented that views from Hwy 12 could be problematic, similar to the experience at Stonebay. Jurgens requested the applicant provide on elevation from outside of the development to illustrate the back of the buildings. Chair Mabusth initiated discussion of the Issues for Discussion included in the staff report: 1. Although the plan proposes 4.0 units per acre, arc the goal.s established under the CMP addressed? It w as a consensus that the sketch plan did not address the C.MP goals. 2. Could the City benefit from a development such as this? If so. should the entire properly be developed in this manner, or should this 13 acres incorporate more than one style of house? Chair Mabusth asked why the proposal did not include townhomes on Hwy 12. .Mr. Johnston explained towiihomes on this site were not viable as a community. Rahn suggested the site include tw in-home doubles, as an option. Kempf added that he w os familiar with a site in Savage that included views, walkout style houses and had adjacent less expensive housing styles sharing amenities. Chair Mabusth concurred w ith their comments regarding the benefits of mixed residential uses. 3. Is the issue of mixed use of single family residences and tow nhouses addressed? Should this property develop under one single use? Page 17 of 22