My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-17-2002 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
2002
>
06-17-2002 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/16/2023 4:02:14 PM
Creation date
2/16/2023 3:59:57 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
293
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />OKONO PI-ANMNG COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, April 15, 2002 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />(tf02'2771 Oronu Ambar, Conlinucd) <br />would not be opposed to changing the use of the budding. Rahn indicated he probably would nut be in <br />favor of the project as it is currently designed. <br />Hawn commented she does not expect a developer a construct a budding that would not be <br />economically viable, which is probably the reason why the office budding is not being constructed at <br />this tiiiK. Hawn stated she also recogni/cs there is a need in this area for additional senior housing, but <br />staled the height of the proposed building is very difficult to approve. Hawn stated she would prefer the <br />height of the building be reduced to two stones. <br />Smith stated she would be in favor of the reroning in order to accomnxKlatc additional senior housing, <br />but noted she does have a concern with the height of the proposed budding and would prefer two <br />stones. <br />Fritzler noted he also was not here at the time phase one was discussed. Fnt/ler stated he has a major <br />concern w ith traffic at this location and the amount of traffic that w ould be generated in this area. <br />Fnt/ler inquired what Item 2 under the proposed development parameters mean. <br />Gaffron stated a portion of the units needs to be affordable based on income guidelines. <br />Hawn inquired what the median income is m the Twin Cities. <br />Dunbar indicated it is $74,600 this year. <br />Gaffron inquired of the units that haw been currently leased in the first budding, w hat portion of those <br />are the lower rent units. <br />Dunbar stated approximately 30 percent out of the 40 percent are the low er rent units. Dunbar stated the <br />difference is around $116. <br />Frit/lcr stated he is nut seeing this as an affordable housing project but rather as condominiums for <br />well-to-do seniors Fnt/ler indicated he is not in support of either project <br />Mabusih noted ihe affordable housing units arc only for 20 years, with the lease being fur 9'j years. <br />Mabusth stated she personally does not have a problem with the re/oning or the senior housing building, <br />but expressed a concern regarding potential commercial uses for this property. <br />Mabusth inquired what steps were taken to protect the trees on the outlot. <br />Gaffron stated under the olficc use very few trees would have been saved because the entire site would <br />need to be graded. <br />Mabusth inquired how it is determined how much senior housing is needed in this area. <br />Gaffron stated the developer was required to do a market analysis on senior housing in this area, and <br />based on that research, it was demonstrated that senior housing is needed in this area. Gaffron stated it <br />PAGE 20
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.