Laserfiche WebLink
Orono City Council <br /> Committee of the Whole <br /> February 9,2010, 630 p.m. <br /> Orono City Council Chambers <br /> • White commented that these types of applications and projects can take years to complete. Affordable <br /> or workforce housing is one of the few types of housing that are currently under construction and this is a <br /> greatidea. <br /> • McMillan stated she does not object to the project but is concerned with the timing, noting that the <br /> timeline indicates a purchase agreement would be brought before the Council on March 9. <br /> • White stated that CommonBond could move forward with some of the funding applications that the city <br /> can support but not all of them because of application deadlines. <br /> • Per Gaffron, the Comp Plan process will most likely reguide this property from 2-3 units per acre for single <br /> family to 10-15 units per acre for multi-family. Rezoning would follow within 6 months of approval to <br /> match the Comp Plan. Council will need to determine if they want to sell or donate the property. Staff <br /> has not attempted to define if the Fire Department needs more land, but the Fire Chief has indicated the <br /> Fire Department could benefit from more firefighters in the neighborhood. If any of their funding sources <br /> aren't approved, the project could fall apart. CommonBond wants to acquire enough land to develop 10- <br /> 12 units per acre. <br /> • Planning Commissioner Berg commented that CommonBond is requesting a letter of intent so they can <br /> proceed with funding applications. tt comes down to whether the council wants to provide affordable <br /> housing or not. In her opinion, CommonBond is probably one of the better developers. If the city keeps <br /> putting off this type of development, it will never provide affordable housing. <br /> • McMillan reiterated that the city has been cautious with development and shouldn't rush through this <br /> proposal. It might be better to wait another year before looking at this type of project. The city is in the <br /> process of completing the Comp Plan update and determining how this property should be guided. She is <br /> in favor of higher density for this property, but wants to be sure the citizens know about the project and <br /> that Met Council issues have been addressed. Council and staff have limited time in the next six months <br /> and she is concerned that the time and attention needed for this project may not be available. <br /> • Franchot stated that it doesn't seem like the city is rushing through this proposal and should continue to <br /> move forward. <br /> • Murphy commented that the city has never gone out and been a leader, but has always reacted to <br /> proposals from developers which has served the city well. The senior housing project was proposed by <br /> Dunbar, the city didn't seek them out. If the city changes its reactive nature, there are other properties in <br /> the city that that also need to be considered. This particular project came to the city through Interfaith <br /> Outreach. When the city purchased this property, it was discussed that this would be a good place for <br /> some type of higher density housing. This would be a great opportunity to show citizens that the city is <br /> interested in finding workforce housing. The Millers also deserve to know the city's intent. While the <br /> timetable is aggressive, the city could chose to do some parts and not others, and the city should pursue <br /> this opportunity. <br /> • Bremer agreed with McMillan regarding timelines and stated that in reality CommonBond won't be able <br /> to hold to their timeline. She recommended the proposal should be sent to the Planning Commission to <br /> proceed through the normal process. The letter of intent should include information indicating the <br /> property is in the process of being reguided as part of the Comp Plan update and the city anticipates that <br /> this property will fit the proposed density. <br /> • Bremer stated that a majority of the council is in favor of this type of project but should be realistic with <br /> CommonBond about the timeline and status of Comp Plan update. <br /> • McMillan commented that she would not want CommonBond to move forward with grant applications <br /> without having the Comp Plan density established. Council discussed the possibility that the property <br /> could be reguided for even higher density than CommonBond's proposal. <br /> • Gaffron noted the timeline includes February application deadlines, which are annual funding programs. <br /> Council should be aware that for some of the CommonBond grant processes,there may be a need for <br /> HRA action. <br /> Page 3 of 4 <br />