05-20-2002 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MIMTKSOFIUK ORONO N.ANMNf; ( OMMISSION MEETING Monday. April 15. 2002 6:30 o'clock p.m. (#02-2771 Orono Ambar. ('ontinucd) Frank Dunbar. Orono Ambar, indicated his concept is to bring forward a senior housing building similar to what Is currently being constructed. Dunbar stated they are proposing to bring this building substantially fonvard, noting that the proposed building and parking u ill cover six percent less on the site than the ofticc building which w ill enable them to sa\e some landscaping in the area. Dunbar indicated they arc also proposing to reconstruct the retaining wail that is currently on the property and replace it w ith a 4.5 foot retaining wall. In addition, there w ill be a number of pine trees placed near it that w ill also help to hide the garage. Dunbar reported according to the research conducted by Maxwell Consultants, this area is substantially undersized m its housing for seniors. Currently 40 percent of tk* first building is leased, with over 100 other people expressing interest in leasing a unit. Dunbar .stated in his view that helps t»i dcnnmstrate the need for additional senior housing in this area. Dunbar indicated the senior housing building will also reduce the traffic impact •< this area and will require fewer parking spaces than the ofl'icc building. Dunbar compared the differeii *s of the proposed senior housing building with the office building, noting that the parking and amount of tratVic generated with the senior housing building would be significantly less in his view than an office building. Dunbar noted the building would also be located 110 feel from tk* property line whereas the ofTice building would be located 75 feel. Dunbar indicated the height of the two buildings is relatively the same, with the senior housing building being 27 feet high. Gaffron stated within PUD No. 2A the only uses that would be allowed are those uses desig ated by the 2000-2020 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Tlie property included in PUD No. 2A had been zoned B-1, Retail Sales Business Distnct for at least 35 years pnor to its rezoning to B-6 PUD in 2001. and has been formally guided for commercial use since adoption of the 1080 CMP In 2001. Orono amended tlie draft 2000-2020 C.MP to reguide Lot 2 for Multi-family Residential use. specifically for senior housing Gaffron indicated the impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhoods arc likely to be less intense than most of the potential commercial uses that could be established if the site remains guided for commercial use. 1 he impacts of residential traffic through Lot 2 are expected to be less than if I ot I is developed commercialls. .Additionally, the limited direct access to Highway 12 makes Lot I a relatively unattractive site for high traflic commercial uses Ciaffron stated there clearly IS a demand in this area for senior housing, and development of additional senior housing will be in keeping with the City's affordable and lifecycle housing goals as defined in the CMP and is within easy walking distance of downtown Long Lake rutiher. senior housing would provide a reasonable transition between the single family housing to the north and the commercial retail uses to the west and south. Gaffron stated the proposed 50-unii building on this 2 6 acre site would yield a development density of approximately 19 units acre. I his density can be allowed only via a rezoning to RPUD. Gaffron noted phase one of this project was 62 units, with a 15 or 16 unit per acre density Gaflton suted in order for the City to accomplish some ot its housing goals, higher density is reouired Gaffron slated the developer is requesting essentially the same development parameters iliat were previously approved by the Council for phase one of this project GalTron suted the units will all be PAGE 15