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