HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-26-2010 Council Work Session Minutes , ,.
� Orono City Council
�
Committee of the Whole
January 26,2010, 6:30 p.m.
Orono City Council Chambers
Present: MayorJim White, Council Members Cynthia Bremer, Lili McMillan and Jim Murphy; Assistant
City Administrator for Long-Term Strategy Mike Gaffron, Finance Director Ron Olson
1. Common Bond Discussion Regarding Property Behind Long Lake Fire Station
• Ellen Higgins,Vice President of Development for Common Bonds Communities, provided an update
on progress of the potential workforce housing project including use of the property,designs, City
participation and benefits of the project to the City.
• Common Bond has been working with an architect from UrbanWorks on a number of different
concepts as well as putting together a financing package and reviewing marketing studies.
• A meeting was held with the Miller family regarding the property to the north of the fire station.
The family is willing to discuss selling the property and considers the project a benefit to the
com m u nity.
• The financial package includes equity, mortgage and soft funding. Minnesota Housing Finance
would probably be the main equity piece, mortgage with Wells Fargo, as well as 5 other funders for
soft funding as follows:
o Hennepin County Home Fund
o Met Council—$300,000
o Hennepin Home—$500,000
o Hennepin County CDBG—$125,000
o Minnesota Housing Challenge Funds—$500,000
• A key financing issue is if the developer can negotiate a below marketplace price for the property or
if the city will consider a donation of property.
• The following investors have shown interest in the project:
o Wells Fargo (took over Wachovia Bank)
o Enterprise Community Partners
o Berkshire Hathaway
• Murphy questioned if Common Bond had ever done a long-term lease of property. Higgins
indicated they have, but the funding is more complicated.
• The City lot is 3.4 acres with only 1.65 acres of buildable area. It is crucial to come to an agreement
with the Millers to have a large enough building site.
• Financial benefits to city:
o If the City donates or reduces the property price,the developer will pay SAC and WAC charges.
o Property that is currently off the tax rolls would be put back on tax rolls.
o Property would not be assessed at the full value because it would be classified as affordable
housing($45,000 would come back to the City in taxes).
• Todd of UrbanWorks Architecture presented a general site plan and three design options.
o He noted that access would be off of Fire Drive. The south side of the site includes a wetland
and utility easement.
o The project proposal includes 42 townhomes or apartments with two-thirds of the units with 2
bedrooms and one-third of the units with 3 bedrooms. One enclosed parking stall and one
surface stall are proposed for each unit. Square footage of the 2-bedroom units would be
approximately 1200 s.f. with 1 % bathrooms.
o Option A
- 42 townhomes in a configuration of 4 distinct 2-story buildings, a center commons area
including tot lot, and access closer to the bridge.
Page 1 of 4
` �
Orono City Council �
Committee of the Whole
January 26, 2010,6:30 p.m.
Orono City Council Chambers
o Option B
- 42 townhomes with green space north of the fire station, no secondary access, and a
separate building for the commons/community space.
o Option C
- 42 apartments in a 2-story building, more of a traditional parking lot, green space north of
the fire station, and community space inside the building. More trees would be saved with
this design.
o Price points are the same regardless of configuration of the buildings.
o Samples of projects in Blaine and Delano were presented.
o Handicap accessibility could be accomplished by designing some units with a bedroom on the
first level.
o This project is not subsidized housing. Workforce housing requires a certain level of income
usually at 50-60%of the median income—approximately$33,000-$40,000.
o The project will maintain a connection to the park which is actually in Long Lake.
o McMillan asked if there is an advantage to having the commons area separate from the main
buildings. Higgins commented that while designs have been done both ways, it is preferable to
have the commons area (Advantage Service Center)closer to the units to maximize its use.
o Bremer preferred Option B, noting the view along the road is an important consideration.
Murphy agreed,stating that the apartment building design would be least preferable. White
also preferred Option B commenting that this design preserves viewsheds,tucks against the
park and includes natural barriers.
o McMillan questioned the parking needs of the fire department, noting that the fire department
should be comfortable with the parameters of the design. The fire department conducts
activities such as the pancake breakfast or emergency operations that may rely on overflow
parking.
o Bremer suggested a combination of Options A& B could result in a commons building closer to
the main buildings. Murphy added that he would prefer to avoid an additional access.
o White recommended that the Met Council be encouraged to look at public transportation
nearer to the site.
o Murphy asked what the incentive would be for Met Council to contribute $350,000. Higgins
responded that this project could be a model for similar developments.
• Gaffron added the following comments:
o The developer will need to work on stormwater management. There may be room for a
stormwater pond in the southeast corner. The east end of the property already has a drainage
easement which may impact development. The open space to the north of the fire station is
the highest spot on the site and it would be difficult to direct drainage to that area if needed.
o Ron Miller is concerned about the impact to his property if the city lowered the purchase price
of its property. Miller would like some sort of assessment of his property interests at full value
as he doesn't want his value affected by the city's selling price. Miller is a�so concerned with
higher density in the area.
o Local SAC and WAC charges will need to be paid upfront. The city spent extra money on sewer
capacity when the fire station was built to serve additional properties. The city may want to try
to recover some of these costs.
o This project is quite intense for what is normally seen in Orono with many details to address.
o The city benefits by meeting some housing goals with 3.5 acres developed with 42 units.
o Proximity of parking directly east of fire station parking may impact homes closest to the fire
station.
Page 2 of 4
� ..
� . Orono City Council
Committee of the Whole
January 26,2010,6:30 p.m.
Orono City Council Chambers
o The current financial situation is difficult for a large project. The senior housing complex has
not been filled to capacity. Very little multiple-unit rental housing is available in Orono.
• Murphy stated the Council will need to further discuss what the city is willing to do regarding
financing for the project.
• White indicated he would work with Common Bond on their application which includes financing.
2. Comp Plan Discussion
• Steve Grittman recapped the following goals for the Comp Plan update:
o Maintain low density pattern
o Avoid offset as much as possible to minimize number of units to account for on other sites
. o Maintain rural development pattern -avoid 1 unit per 10 acre requirement
o Maintain predominant pattern of development in MUSA areas
• Met Council housing count projection for 2030 is 4100 units for the overall community and 3020
sewered units. Current sewered units are at 2256 which leaves a difference of 764 units to meet
the Met Council projection. Met Council allows a 5%variance, resulting in 726 new sewered units
to be connected between 2010 and 2030. The minimum density is 3 units per acre on average.
• The number of sewer units that could be accomplished in areas that are currently planned for
development were discussed. The net density results in .8 units per acre. 113 units can be
subtracted from 726.
0 2 acre sewered lots-45 units on 117 acres
o Fire station site—14 units on 6.6 acres; current Common Bond proposal would increase unit
count
o Senior housing site (Comforts of Home site)—50 units on 4.9 acres
o New MUSA sites—4 units on 7.3 acres
• A Comp Plan Amendment would be easier to do than to try to include all potential areas in the
update.
• Met Council will look at the existing zoning in the MUSA as of 1998 which includes the capacity for
69 sewered units with no offset required. An additional 69 units can be subtracted from 726.
Murphy questioned if there was any leverage the city might have to getting the 1998 date moved
closer to the current year. Grittman commented that there is not a huge impact on the number of
units that would be affected. Since Met Council accepted the Comp Plan from 2000, it is difficult
for the city to accept the date from 1998. Grittman considers a bigger and more important issue to
be a request to waive the 1 unit per 10 acre requirement in rural areas and to be able to finish out 2
and 5 acre development.
• 726 units minus 113 units in planned development areas minus 69 units in existing MUSA area
leaves a gap of 544 units to accomplish in other high density areas of the city.
• The Dumas/lames/Eisinger sites were discussed. Two of the properties are in the MUSA with a
total net developable area of 63 acres. If all of remaining 544 units were put on this site,the
density would be at 8.6 units per acre. Met Council wants to use whole numbers for land use
classification. If these sites were classified at 9 units per acre, the unit count would meet and
exceed the Met Council requirements.
• Murphy questioned if the total of 63 acres is accurate considering the former dump on the Eisinger
site. Gaffron commented that Welsh Companies has listed the Eisinger site and is considering
selling the house separately with a lot line rearrangement. To make this site useful to the city, the
house and remaining property should be kept together.
• Council discussed options for density on the Dumas/James/Eisinger property. Council preferred 7
units per acre which results in the need to locate 103 units at a minimum of 6 units per acre in
other mixed use areas, such as the Navarre area.
Page 3 of 4
'' 1
Orono City Council `
Committee of the Whole �
January 26,2010,6:30 p.m.
Orono City Council Chambers
• The Met Council also has a requirement to provide 311 affordable housing units. This can be met
by having any development at 6 units per acre. For example, the Common Bond proposal would
receive credit for density as well as affordable housing.
• Approximately 2-3%of the existing housing in Orono would be classified as affordable housing.
• Met Council will monitor plat reviews, but they can't force the city to build a high density project.
The city should be prepared to approve high density projects. Although a high density project could
be denied, the reasons would have to be based on performance issues and not just density.
• McMillan asked how property taxes are affected for properties that are reguided. Grittman stated
that the county has statutory authority to assess property at the highest and best use. The county
almost always assesses property at the existing use and wouldn't change until the property was
actually re-developed.
• To get a sense of density,the Stonebay Lofts building is at 15 units per acre (60 units). This would
translate to 10 buildings of similar size on the Dumas property to accomplish 9 units per acre.
• Grittman commented that the city is well served to identify some mixed use development as the
Met Council looks favorably on mixed use areas. Mixed use could potentially be used in exchange
for the 1 in 10 acre requirement.
• McMillan stated she would not want to concentrate all of the high density on the Dumas property.
• The summary proposal to submit to the Met council will include the following:
o Development pattern and history
o Impracticality of extending sewer to remaining rural parcels
o Difficulties of promoting lakeshore density
o Environmental advantage of providing sewer to existing unsewered parcels in MUSA without
offset penalties
o Compliance with system statement numbers for density and housing count in new
development
o Willingness to provide density in appropriate locations (Dumas/James and Navarre, etc.)
• Murphy asked if there was anything that allows for expanding the MUSA. Grittman responded that
the Eisinger property would be a good consideration. Per Gaffron, the White Oak Circle
neighborhood would also be an option because it was developed prior to 1985 and without
alternate septic sites,the area would meet the criteria for not having to be part of the density
count.
3. Open Book vs. Local Board of Review
• Olson stated there was a brief discussion last year about considering a change to the Open Book .
process. If the city wants to pursue the Open Book process for 2011, it would be helpful to notify
residents at this year's Local Board of Appeal and Equalization.
• Council agreed to discuss further after the new City Administrator starts and that it may not be the
right time, politically,to make a change in the process for the Local Board of Review.
• The city has until December 1 to notify the county if they wish to change to the Open Book process.
• The Hennepin County Assessor has indicated that both formats have advantages.
• McMillan asked how the property assessments are coming in compared to prior years. Olson
indicated that there has been a decrease but not as much as last year. He will provide additional
information in the next Information Update.
4. Comments Regarding Information Updates
• None
Page 4 of 4