06-27-1994 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r minutes of the regular orono city council ^fEETING HELD ON JUNE 13, 1994 (#6) #1885 - LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION, INC., 2675 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH - SKETCH PLAN REVIEW (CONTINUED) Terry Forbord 935 East Wavzata Boulevard, the City Council had reviewed the original propoal and that proposed a density of 58 units. They have revised the plan and are now proposing a density of 44 units. This was the plan reviewed by the Planning Commission in May. Jabbour inquired if the developer was aware that since three ot the Planning Coinmissioners had conflicts of interest. Mayor Callahan had appointed Council members Kelley and Gotten to su on the Planning Commission to help them make a decision regarding this proposal. Forbord responded that he was aware of that. Mr. Forbord stated that they are trying to develop a property, which is very difficult to develop. He reviewed the proposed plan and noted that the property cannot be served with septic systems because the water table is too high. They have reduced the density to 44 units which is the fewest number of units they feel they can have and still have a viable project Because of the extensive grading required to develop the property the costs will be increased by approximately SSO.OCX) per lot, which is extremely high. They have created a large transition area along l e northern portion of the site, and are requesting the rezoning for the southern portion of the project to a 1-acre density. They believe it could be economically feasible at the densuy of 44 units. He noted that the location of the property along Highway 12 was indicative of a more intense use as specified in the Comprehensive Plan. The land does not have the attractive rura features which so many other sites in Orono have, which would make this p.operty difficult to develop as two acre lots. He noted they are conforming to the present zoning on the northern portion of the property and are requesting a zoning change for the southern portion. Goetten asked how small the lots would be, and Forbord responded that he did not have those figures immediately available. Jabbour commented he had a logistic problem with the plan because there was no hardship demonstrated and he felt they were being asked to grant a variance to the zoning and they were strictly prohibited from granting a variance on ‘he b^‘* of financial gain. He noted that the City Council was under no obligation to create buildab e area for a development. He felt that the density proposed for this project was too high and while sewer might be the best means of development, he still felt that the two acre minimum was the best. He noted that the PUD zoning does give the developer benefit because of the sewer. Hurr inquired what the smallest lot size would be, and what the density would be in the multiple residential portion of the project. Mabusth responded that it could be six units per acre, but the exact density was up to the developer making the proposal. Discussion ensued regarding transition between the subject property and the surrounding areas. -I i