Agenda - Council - 03/27/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I wetlands and/or the City storm sewer system. The development may need to be accommodate that need. Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, stated that Royal Oaks Realty has owned the and had a few discussions some time ago with the City Council regarding the the land. During those discussions with the Council, the Council requesl any p development wait until the moratorium expired on the property. The has lifted and they are looking to develop the site. Currently theprop, zon~:;Dusmess*~ alor~(,;:::~ Nowthen Boulevard and R-1 Single Family. The m ~submitted to the Met Council designates the property as Mixed Residential includin I~i !~sity, High Density, and Single Family. The current development conform to the submitted Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Black explained that the site 86 ~es and w~ll ~nclude 308 total units. There will be 71 single-family units, 152 townhomes will be eight unit buildings and be 1 baths. The price range on the town_homes will be from complex would be built by Real Life and they will have a phase of the project to explain what they do. The single-famil existing neighborhood and range in pri~ from $180,000 to $300. lot does not meet the setback requeStS:and reviewed 'its location explained that they intend to the City desires them to because it would be redundant. 5 senior units. The and 1.5 ;140,000. The senior ive present during the next will blend in with the Bla~I~°ted that one He also development. If the trail connections Principal Planner Trudgeon noted that :~. a connection to Fluor/ne Street. He explain.~d:~., that:City staff and ~er have had~'discussions if it would be wise to make that cormectiOn, ;"AIr,is point they don't have an answer other than the lots to the. south of the deYel~opment ~e'larger lots and trina is~?/~me sensitivity to keep them separate. Acting Chairperson Johnson'inqmred as to ho~h~ developer felt about removing the connection between the townhomes~ Semor.hous~ng:~¢omplex. Mr. Black replied/:..:.thal' they would accept either way. He noted that the connection was a ";tion made bY;st~in early discussions so there would be two access points to the senior 2'.';'l-te stated that h~:wod~;be willing to hear an opinion from a traffic consultant. Acting Chai~i~s~on Jotms0Wexplained that residents along Dysprosium Street have had many. regai:~¢g traffi~':~iong that roadway and the concern would be if the connection existed concerns between the to~nhomes and senior complex, people would cut through there and go south on Dysprosium Street to C.R. #116. ' ~;,·:~. Black; re~i'ewed the layout of the private streets within the development. ... !:5~~ Acting Chairperson Johnson inquired as to how the Commission felt about private roadways. Planning Commission/March 6, 2001 Page 4 of 6 -05-