05-12-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

^22094-18-97(Rcviscd 4-21-97) Page 9 Gross Or>no Acreage Less Orono WdlanH* Net Developable Actcage 147 ac. 10 ac. 137 ac. Average Lot Size in 2 ac. zone incl. interior roads - 2.5 ac. Number of Lots Possible * 137 / 2.5 ■ 55 lots B. Tax Base Implications Annual Taxes on 55 homes of average valuation of $600,000 each •= 55 X $13.500-$742,500 City Portion of Same - 0.11 x $742,500 - S 81,675 Annual Taxes on Golf Course: Example: Woodhill CC -120 acres in Orono Taxable Market Value: Und$ 835.200 Bldgs $ 189.900 Total $ 1.025.100 Taxes $ 59.300 City Portion $6400 Example: Wayzata CC -150 acres in Orono Taxable Market Value: Land$U55.l00 Bldgs $1,326,000 Total S 2.581.100 Taxes S 144,600 City Portion $15,900 C. Park Fee Implications Q4o park fee is charged because this is not a subdivision) 1997 Tax Book Land Valuation of Orono Parcels: $ 1.620.000 Total Acreage in Orono: Valuation per Acre: Applicants Stated Property Costs (incl bldgs) Per acre costs ($5400.000/195 ac.) Cost of Land iflntcnded for SFR is higher, say Cost per Acre for Housing ($6,000,000/195) 8% Orono Park Fee based on Sale Price (147 ac. X $30,800 X .08) Park Fee Per Acre ($362.000/147) $ 2.460/ac. Park Fee Per Lot - $362,000/55 - $6,600. (This is not out of line with park fees charged in other subdivisions in Orono since 1990.) 147 ac. $ ll.OOO/ac. $ 5.500.000 $ 28.200/ac. $ 6.000.000 $ 30.800/ac. $ 362.000 #22094-18-97(Reviscd 4-21-97)Page 10VI. OTHER IMPACTS A. Archaeoligical/hlstorical sites (Information added 4-21 -97) This topic is addressed at length in the EA W. The Phase 1 Cultural Resources Surv^ conducted for Spring Hill by Bear Creek Archaeology. Inc. identified two areas of potential archaeological importance. The first is a historic habitation site located between Co. Rd. 6 and Spring Hill Road near the west end of the property. The second is also a historic habitation site including a stone and mortar foundation, located just north of Spring Hill Ro^ near the cast end of the property. Both sites were deemed to have potential for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Because of U. s potential, both sites will undergo a Phase II investigation this spring. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None, pending outcome of additional investigation. B. Aesthetic impacts 1. Architectunil Comoatihilitv With Surrounding Neighborhood. The propo^ clubhouse is intended to be a remodeling of the existing conference center buildings which arc already somewhat residential in character. The steeply pitched gable roof, donners and I -2 story nature of the structure make it relatively compatible with its rural residential setting. Also, the clubhouse will be located such that its visibP'W from off-site is limited. The proposed maintenance building is not architecturally compatible with the neighboring residential area, hence the City's concern as part of the Oversize Accessory Structure review is to make su.rc that building is adequately screened as viewed from off-site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept architectural Siyle of clubhouse as presented, require screening of maintenance building. 2. I .iyhting. Applicants have indicated they intend only minimal lighting of the site as necessary for safety and function. Prior to building permit approve, a lighting plan will be required. City codes require that all lighting be "difffused or directed away from R Districts and public streets. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Applicants to provide a lighting plan prior to issuance of building permit for staff approval, the intent beirig compatibility with the residential nature of the area, compliance with City codes and shielding so that the source of light are not visible from off-site.