05-17-2010 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

t '� Novak stated they worked with their architect and met with City Staffto determine the appropriate density for the site. Novak noted they are below the density that is allowed and that the 42 units would allow them to provide the appropriate services and maintain the feel of a community. It is a possibility that two or three units would need to be removed in order to accommodate the wetlands,but that they would need to maintain a 37 to 42 unit development. (#10-3460 COMMONBOND COMMLTNITIES,SKETCFI PLAN,CONTINUED) Novak stated as it relates to increased crime, Commonbond is ve"ry�ll-kn n for having wonderfully managed and maintained communities. They are constantly�engaging the residents in the community in which they live and that crime has not been an issue at their other developments CommonBond also works closely with the police department to ensure that there is not an ongoing issue. �ommonBond is very cognizant of the city they are developing in and also cognizant of what t`he residen s are doir�g. .. � " >°�,� �=."., , -� � , . �': j As it relates to parking,the residents would have one garage and one driveway. There wo�u d also be parking available for them in the driveway. Novak noted that the�major'ity of the residents wo ld only have one car. The residents that have two cars would park in their dri eway".�No�ak indicated there are ten excess spaces �, `�:�: proposed on the plan right now available which would be available��or\guestparking. A majority oftheir developments have one car garages and parking has no been an issue at-those developments. CommonBond takes a very hands-on approach with the management and wrll.not just bui�ld�his�project and then walk away from it. CommonBond has a long-standing ze`putation-�or providing quality ousing. � -� �� '�: "' � Ann Mohaupt indicated that Ms.Novak has stated several fimes that they;�work closely with the communities. Mohaupt asked who in Long Lake they ha e,�,be,en work'g with� �' ` ,�'�� '- �': Novak indicated she has been having co��ersations�vvrth Terry Po�s ,Long Lake's Ciiy Administrator,and that they have provided information to�him;which is to be preserited to the Long Lake City Council. The Long Lake City Staff and Council are v�''vell aware of the proposal.�To ak noted that CommonBond did flyer this meeting above and beyond wlia�is expected for a public hearing because they felt it was an opportunity to hear from the resident�s. The Plannmg�Cornmission will not be voting on the plan tonight. Novak stated CommonBon3 is attempring to extend an olive branch to let the residents know that they are interested in their commenYs'`.�' � � �� . . . Miclia 1 LeQuay asked whether there can be any.thing done for a wartmg hst. � � Novak stated they typically do`ot sta�rt{a waiting list until the development is moving forward. Once the �applicatioii"is going forward, a w�aiting list will be started and they will let people know who to contact. Jan Solheim commented that sh�did n"ot see any recreational facilities proposed for the site at all and asked where th ci�ildren are going�to play� � Novak stated currer�tly there is�approximately a 2000 square feet community center proposed for the site and a tot lot, and that rt has been their experience that the residents encourage their children to use the onsite playground. � Tanya Stevens,264 Inglewood,Long Lake, stated she does not agree with the proposal and that she would like to see it in Orono and not in Long Lake's back yard. Stevens suggested the development be located near the police station. Kang reiterated that this is a sketch plan review and that the Planning Commission will be taking no action tonight on this matter. This is an opportunity to provide feedback to CommonBond and that the sketch plan