HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrono Amber, LLC Completion Date: 10/30/00
Application Deadline: 12/29/00
TO: Chair Hawn and Orono Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
FROM: Paul Weinberger, Zoning Administrator/Planner
DATE: November 16,2000
SUBJECT: Orono Amber, LLC.
2060 Wayzata Boulevard
#2640 Preliminary Subdivision/CUP-Rezoning/Comprehensive Plan Amendment
#2641 Site Plan Reviews
Public Hearing
Existing Zoning: B-1, Retail Sales Business District
Lot Area: +6.7 acres
List of Exhibits
A Plat Map J Ll Office Building Landscaping
B Site Plan/Preliminary Lot Layout K LI-1 Senior Building Landscaping
C Office Building Views L Section 10.52 Hwy 12 Rezoning
D Senior Housing Building Views M Section 10.53 Hwy 12 PUD Ordinance
E A2.1 Second Level Building Plan N Proposed RPRD Landscaping Req.
F A2.2 Third Level Building Plan 0 Traffic Consult. Review I (11/7/00)
G A2.3 Typical Building Plan P Traffic Consult. Review II (11/14/00)
H A4.1 Unit Floor Plans Q Property Owner Notification List
I A4.2 Unit Floor Plans
Application Summary
Orono Amber,LLC.has submitted an application for a two lot plat of a 6.7 acre property. Proposed
is a rezoning for the two properties from B-1,Retail Sales Business District to B-6/PUD(for office
use of the proposed west parcel) and RPUD/PUD(for multi-family residential use of the proposed
east parcel). The intended use of the properties are a 3 story 70 unit senior housing project and a
23,000 s.f. office building. The proposed residential use of the property would require a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment as the property is not guided for residential use in the 1980 Plan
or the proposed Comprehensive Plan (CMP). The City has a Highway 12 PUD procedure and a
Highway 12 rezoning procedure established that provide the process the review requires.
Section 10.53 is the Code section that defines the standards and review process for a Highway 12
PUD and Section 10.52 defines the special requirements for rezoning along the Highway 12 corridor
and study area. Those Code sections have been attached as exhibits to this report.
Orono Amber,LLC.
2060 Wayzata Boulevard
#2640/42641
Page 1
) I
The applicant has provided site plans for both properties. A commercial site plan review for the
office and senior housing._properties and buildings will include a full review of the following items:
1) Landscaping
2) Traffic Flow/Road System
3) Parking Arrangement
4) Building Height/Setbacks
5) Review of Architectural Materials/Building Design
6) Lighting
7) Screening
8) Other
I. Preliminary Subdivision/Rezoning/Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Uses within the PUD may include only those uses designated by the official Comprehensive Land
Use Plan. The 1989 Comprehensive Plan Amendment had guided the property for commercial use.
The Comprehensive Plan (CMP) as preliminarily approved by the City Council in September
designated several Orono properties as areas that would allow medium density. The density
proposed in the CMP does not have an existing zoning district that would allow the types of housing
that would be offered by as proposed in this application. The proposed CMP did not include this
property as a residential site. In fact it has been guided for commercial use as was the case with 1989
CMP amendment. The entire property has been zoned B-1 since at least 1967, perhaps earlier. To
rezone the east property would require changing the land use designation to residential.
The 70 unit building on the 4 acre site would provide 17.5 units/acre of senior housing units at a
variety of unit sizes and rental rates. The proposed RPUD zoning district would be the appropriate
zoning district to provide the units/acre density requested. Section 10.33, Subdivision 5(E) in the
proposed RPUD district would allow the City of Orono to provide incentives to encourage projects
which are consistent with housing goals. "Incentives may include modification of density and floor
area ratio requirements for developments providing lifecycle housing and low and moderate cost
housing." The City has the ability to ensure the housing need, for lifecycle housing, is met. The
RPUD district would rely heavily on the CMP designation for housing density and the ability of the
developer to meet the housing needs of the community.
The office use would not require a CMP amendment as the underlying land use designation is for
commercial use. The property is proposed as a 2.7 acre site. The use of the property as office/clinic
would be permitted under the B-6 district should the Council approve an amendment to the permitted
uses in the B-6 district to permit clinic uses.
Platting Process
This review is at the preliminary plat stage. A complete review of the preliminary plat will require
review and approval of the proposed site plans. The plat would result in two lots.
Lot 1 (west property)= 116,832 s.f. or± 2.7 acres
Lot 2 (east property) = 173,871 s.f. or±4.0 acres
Orono Amber,LLC.
2060 Wayzata Boulevard
#2640/#2641
Page 2
The preliminary plat review falls under the standard platting procedures as established in the
Subdivision Ordinance._Additional requirements may be imposed by the City on non-residential
subdivisions to protect adjacent residential areas from potential nuisance from a proposed
commercial/office development including for provisions for a permanently landscaped buffer strip
if necessary. Additional special requirements may be imposed to protect the residential areas
surrounding the development.
The developer has proposed to plat the senior housing project as condominiums. Each unit would
have a separate legal description and tax statement. Under this type of plat the units would be owned
by a non-profit agency and rented to the occupants under the agreements established for the building.
Surrounding Land Use
The subject parcel was platted as Outlot F, Sugarwoods the parcel immediately south of the
Sugarwoods neighborhood. The only buffer between the residential use in Sugarwoods is a 40'wide
platted outlot that is owned by the Sugarwoods homeowners association. Restrictions were placed
on each lot within the Sugarwoods neighborhood that prohibits removal of trees greater than 2" in
diameter within the rear setback for those lots located closest to the proposed development. The
property is located on Highway 12 and the City of Long Lake is located south of Highway 12. Two
lots that are located west of the project are developed as the Orono Shopping Center and Conoco gas
station.
U.S.Highway 12 is proposed to be relocated to the south and the existing Highway 12 will be turned
over to Hennepin County. Part of the proposed Highway 12 relocation includes a change to the
existing 12 and Brown Road intersection. Currently, Brown Road North ends in a T intersection
with 12. The Brown Road south of 12 will be realigned to create an intersection with existing 12
directly across from Brown Road North and a signal light would be installed at that intersection. The
property east of Brown Road is the Long Lake State Bank site, in the City of Long Lake.
IA. Financial Considerations
Briefly,applicant has requested the Council consider various methods of financial assistance to make
this project feasible. Such methods include the creation of a TIF district or similar provisions or
reimbursements. Council has had early discussions regarding this and has indicated it is willing to
consider this. The City's financial consultant is also reviewing the request.
II. Site Plan Review (Lot 1 - Office Building)
The proposed office building is two stories with approximately 23,000 s.f. of gross floor space.
Under the building is a 21 stall underground parking area. The actual building size is 172' X 80' or
13,760 s.f. The building is designed to step down from a two story structure to one story
immediately adjacent to the Sugarwoods neighborhood. The building would be constructed to only
expose the 80' width to the neighborhood.
Orono Amber,LLC.
2060 Wayzata Boulevard
#2640/#264I
Page 3
Site Characteristics,B-6 Conformity
(Note: Needed variances are shown in bold type)
Required/Allowed Existing/Proposed
Site area: 2 acres 2.7 acres
Defined lot width: 100' 195'
Parking setbacks:
Required front yard: 15' 15'
Required rear yard: 10' 35'
Required side yard adj. to "R" district: 10' 125'
Required side yard adj. to "B" district: 5' 15'
Building setbacks:
Front lot line: 30' 190'
Rear lot line: 35' 35'
Side lot line adj. to "R" district: 35' 30'
Side lot line adj. to "B" district: 10' 83'
Building Height: 30' (2 '/z stories) 30' and 32' for the
decorative tower to
the left of the side
entrance
No. of Parking Stalls: Required= 1 per 200 s.f.
Required= 1 per 200 s.f. of"net usable floor area for office/medical use"
(Net= 20,880 s.f.+/200 = 105 stalls required)
Total stalls required = 105
Total stalls proposed = 105
Signage Allowance 190 s.f. Not known
Additional Standards required by the current B-6 zoning district (Section 10.45):
A. At least twenty five percent(25%)of the land area shall be landscaped with grass,approved
ground cover, shrubbery and trees. At least three percent (3%) of the land area within a
parking area shall be landscaped.
B. All trash and trash handling equipment shall be stored within the principal structure,within
an attached structure accessible from within the principal structure,or totally screened from
eye-level view from public streets and adjacent residential properties.If accessory structures
are proposed, they shall be constructed of the same building material as the principal
structure and be readily served through swinging doors.
Orono Amber,LLC.
2060 Wayzata Boulevard
#26401#2641
Page 4
C. Garages, accessory structures, screen walls and exposed areas of retaining walls shall be of
similar type, quality and appearance as the principal structure.
D. The ground level view of all mechanical utilities shall be completely screened from
contiguous properties and adjacent streets, or designed to be compatible with the
architectural treatment of the principal structure.
E. External loading and service areas must be completely screened from the ground level view
from contiguous residential or commercial properties and adjacent streets, except at access
points.
F. The light from automobile headlights and other sources shall be screened whenever it may
be directed onto adjacent residential windows.
*Note that the proposed B-6 landscaping/screening and architectural standards(application
#2638) will be much more detailed than the current standsard. The proposed standards have been
forwarded to the developers landscape architect for this project.
III. Site Plan Review (Lot 2 - Senior Housing)
The senior housing building is designed with the same concept of stepping down to decrease the
mass of the ends of the building from 3 stories to 2 stories. The building is designed to have 3 levels
and a level of underground parking for 83 cars. One significant design element of the building is
the clock tower,designed to break up the roof line of the building. The building is designed to have
the east '/2 of the entire structure located 10'lower than the west 1/2 due to the existing topography.
A MnDot stormwater pond is located at the northwest corner of Highway 12 and Brown Road. The
pond is owned and maintained by MnDot. Developer has indicated this pond has existing designed
capacity to serve both proposed structures as well as other existing/future development in the area.
Site Characteristics. Conformity with the proposed RPUD zoning district standards
(Note: Needed variances are shown in bold type)
Required/Allowed Existing/Proposed
Site area: 5 acres 4 acres
* The RPUD district allows the Council flexibility to this standard when findings are made as listed
in proposed Section 10.33, Subdivision 5 (A).
Parking setbacks:
Required front yard: 20' 45-50'
Required rear yard: 20' NA
Required side yard 20' 60'
Orono Amber,LLC.
2060 Wayzata Boulevard
#2640/#2641
Page 5
Building setbacks:
The setback for all buildings from exterior RPUD lot lines would be 35' except that in no
case shall the setback be less than the height of the building. One concern is the building location
being proposed at 41'to the rear lot line. The developer will provide a new site plan at the Planning
Commission meeting that would indicate a greater setback to the rear property line. The property
is very limited by the MnDot pond for developing the housing further from the property line. One
non-desirable option to allow the building to be located even further from the rear lot line would be
to located the access to north of the building. This may not be the best option as a building would
be a better"neighbor"to the residential properties to the north than a service road providing access
to the buildings and a clinic.
Building Height:
The intent of the RPUD district is to provide housing to meet lifecycle, and affordable and
moderate cost housing needs. As discussed with the review of the RPUD ordinance, the housing
types may require buildings to exceed the 30'standard that applies to single family residential homes
and office buildings. The only district that could allow a building greater than 30' is the Industrial
district which all 3 stories or 40'.
The proposed building would have a peak height of close to 50'as viewed from the back side
of the structure. Staffs determination of the defined height of the building averages 38'. Strict
interpretation of the ordinance would define the height at 45', lowest grade adjoining building to
highest midpoint of the roof Because the RPUD ordinance has not been adopted,no standard exists
for building height in the district. The developer has stated to allow the project to work the building
would have to be three stories or moderately priced senior rental units would not be feasible.
No. of Parking Stalls: Required= 2 per dwelling unit (Section 10.61)
Required = 140 spaces
Total stalls proposed = 83 interior spaces
70 exterior spaces
Section 10.30 establishes required parking for the M-6, Multiple Family Zoning District as
2 spaces per unit plus .25 spaces for each unit as additional parking areas for guests. A minimum
of one space per unit shall be provided on the interior of the building. While this proposal is not
subject to the M-6 standards,these standards provide a guideline for parking for a standard apartment
building.
The standards for a building designed for senior housing use may not require the same
parking standards. The applicants have stated they do not feel all the parking proposed on site will
be necessary for the use. They will be providing additional information as to parking needs for other
similar projects to justify the amount of spaces provided.
IV. Road/Parking/Access
The property would have two access points. One on Brown Road North to serve the entire
development and provide access to a future signal light at the intersection of Highway 12 and Brown
Road. A second access point for the properties would be to Highway 12 for right in/right out turns.
The City of Orono's traffic consultant has reviewed the plan and has determined the development
Orono Amber,LLC.
2060 Wayzata Boulevard
#2640#2641
Page 6
would expect to generate approximately 500 vehicles trips per day (250 in 250 out). Both reports
dated 11/7/00 and 11/14/00 have been attached for your review.
A primary concern addressed by our consultant is the proposed interior road would be used for the
clinic traffic as well as the residential use. The individual parking spaces in the lots located in front
of the senior housing building would back out directly into through traffic. They have recommended
a separate primary parking area be designed to not allow two sided parking to have to back out into
the through traffic.
When the original planning for the site was completed in 1988 it was envisioned that a service road
would pass through this property to the Orono Mall property, Otten Bros. and connect to Willow
Drive. The plan was completed many years prior to the final route of the Highway 12 relocation.
A full service road may not be required since Highway 12 will be relocated and the intersection with
Brown Road and 12 will be realigned and lighted in the future. However, the traffic consultant
believes that many motorists would seek this service road route as an alternative to the other direct
access drives to Highway 12 increasing the amount of "cut thru" dramatically.
V. Grading and Drainage
The proposed grading plan shows the parking lot in the northwest corner of the site approximately
10' higher than the adjoining property to the south. The City Engineer is recommending this part
of the site be lowered at least 4'. The retaining wall could then be eliminated.
Additional engineering is required for further review of the proposal. The developer should provide
storm sewer and ponding calculations for review.
VI. Landscaping Plans/Pedestrian Ways
Proposed standards for landscaping are attached as Exhibits J and K. The applicants have provided
landscaping plans for each property under review. The plans have placed an emphasis on heavier
planting between the buildings/parking areas and the residential use to the north. The Code requires
a screen not less than 50% opaque be located between commercial uses and residential uses.
The RPUD ordinance has proposed a landscaping value to be required based on a percentage of the
project value..For a development greater than$4,000,000 the minimum landscaping value that must
be provided would equal 1% of the project value. Wally Case, the City's landscaping consultant,
would complete an estimate of the landscaping value based on the proposed ordinance.
Some of the existing trees would be removed to make room for the project. The plans submitted
have been designed to protect several mature trees that are located between the proposed building
and Highway 12. Protection of those trees requires the building and access road to be shifted to the
north. An adjacent property owner to the north has expressed concerns about the location of the
building being 40'from the rear property line. The Planning Commission should consider the option
of shifting the building forward 20' to allow a 60' setback between the rear property line and the
senior housing building. Shifting the building forward would likely require removal of the trees
Orono Amber,LLC.
2060 Wayzata Boulevard
#2640/4'2641
Page 7
located between Highway 12 and the pond. If the trees are removed, it would make the building
more visible to the future 12 and Brown Road intersection. This may be a more desired option as
the building would be moved further from the adjacent residential properties. A suitable landscape
plan would soften the impact of the building as viewed from the Brown/12 intersection,and perhaps
enhance the urban feel of this area.
The developer is preparing an alternative site plan that will show a road without two-sided parking
and relocating the senior housing building 60' from the north property line. They will present that
option to the Planning Commission on Monday night.
Pedestrian paths should be made available between parking areas and all entrances to the buildings.
It would be appropriate to provide for a pedestrian access between the senior building and the clinic,
and the existing sidewalks abutting Hwy 12.
The Planning Commission should review and discuss each of the 6 items as presented in the report
and any other issues the Planning Commission deems appropriate.
1. Preliminary Subdivision/Rezoning/CMP Amendment
2. Site Plan Review- Office Building Property
3. Site Plan Review- Senior Housing Property
4. Roads/Parking/Access (use of interior street as a future frontage road connecting Brown
Road to Willow Drive)
5. Grading
6. Landsca in
P g
7. Other Issues
Options for Action
Planning_ Commission is advised that, per the Highway 12 PUD provisions of 10.53, this proposal
is at the General Concept Stage,equivalent to the preliminary plat stage of a subdivision. However,
the Council may hold a second public hearing after the Planning Commission recommendation.
Council approval of the concept plan requires a 4/5 vote. Section 10.53, Subdivision (A) (2) (1)
requires the Council to proceed with the approval process if the Planning Commission does not make
a recommendation within 60 days of receipt of the application. The application was received
complete as of 10/30/00. While the lack of a Planning Commission meeting in December is a
legitimate reason to extend past the 60 day limit, the developer would prefer to have conceptual
approval this year,rather than be tabled until the January meeting. As an option to tabling,Planning
Commission may wish to identify for Council the major concerns with this proposal, and give
Council a sense of the pro and cons of each issue.
A. To recommend approval of the application with direction on each of the 7 issues listed
above.
B. Table, stating additional requirements or information requested.
C. Deny, stating reasons.
D. Other Action
Orono Amber,LLC.
2060 Wayzata Boulevard
#2640/#2641
Page 8
. .
• _
......... 4z--- //y_ a,„ .......,
A
figfr
---------17:1 . . .
. ;,, ,... „.07 ‘.. .:, 07---- d •
—238 .2t. 1 i
21
• ., 1 . 0, t.:, 123
A . I 4 114 7 gr. 2 .,
/41 1 . ..1 (+2) ^ '• :I t
.55,r. ••• ;16 ".. 2341,4I.: so
0.
1
""1----0—'-'
,tzto,/ ,s,„.
--.... • .. . Ix .- •704_ i
36614 '
Nali 36 , . 1 i1. • •,i , =
"" .11 cm •4 3 i . 7 ......,
Ix
! •-•_,____, 41s)
t• 71) 9!"9. 9er-1, cW.ST ., a 47' ,,,,,..23% '2'1-1( ii
.1'Pa:: 622 1 6363
14.1
a!,
N 4'
tz;LL_txx.:zv j12.2_4_ _{ 11'79 501
I
C1.111.07 A S I
MI 44
g
i14
230,6 - • ''' Ili
•WOO GI 2 .
••-., —__-•
IOU 4p -- 41 I"
1.-...,;,. .7--------- ,=u drt----------- .
—- .1 537•411• MI
4 t3-441: 3
---216-ifiV MiVi:ZIH t..;',,u. 712a—da,- . ...,,,,..-4...1. .
_
,__ 1.2 i...: :,TOWNH OMES
,.-
2=-'r...„.4,. \•7,,,,,NAt.,.., .---!
114 IL 01 i3.7:if:-Zb. 3
Zr
4' : 6•3 '63.7.333 3wp. , ,,...., }24 j 9o-
tr, 17
# / .......... ...... 72)
...'r'ktt 7--723#3, .,;ts.,•-44ty341., 2 Z
/ / 43) --1:----r- !si-MT-2=N----7,----1-7, :-:--------- / "tt.c..\..,... 4.41 4,
,- . 4
l'Ir: 332 "4
6 Mom,••:2 ' zg \74, ''S•'7'4en,.
;4. 1747 ..44 I ‘....f.
I q.,• 'lb k
/ t 7 ,2?,e s. _,_(?, --' s " .1, (74) .0 1
r21,c20 ii-K- • -,. -•
1 i . , 'leigittl' 1" ' ., 1 , \
k.i .!6) st51 e '-i-----2,71-----•--1--r"2-r*---0--(2-33,.4. 1 iiss) ' 'Wm Yr 3 '11'r t".5li
..., .2 . 3 vr, 341 e -_ Z v•-
•tf-3 er-- 'NC LI)▪ 1 , 23 C Vol %a • 7\, -7 St om__
.2" •i \pok. r\ 2 !S 77 '1_?•_,t*',0., 4 -_•.•ViAl 1 Is i osx41-1 4 ,/ ,tt.s.s,7 . _ ....
___ .
dr'
..:
t\1el ..,,E• '''T3_4(3,,I-. I_321 t7) • 0.23 X,,7S Tr, ..:.,S.,,,.."a' .
7.
-1--- 2171111-.-7.-13164--651 --112e_s4Ji 1----54 -- •.., -;,:..1,-• ,i -
301p 6!59 ----- S
2-- 1 7.1, .!- . •- - :11 l'—'-4,s_.....ail
- ,! I WE• E..,2,7,E s%,->"'s ' .1,0:. 7,,,,
,..._ • cu7,,,,
--...,1471 7 .
\
•
\"\\i '•
..-"
_ ...
. .
--_ \
-----------------___ _
_..:‘•*7‘. .r. . ,,
f1:' F.. . \,; • .- .
C.1•3..'7.::-/ 3,:'
•
A3. . '.... ,... ...,1
:.
.:i......;..1.- .2..71
..
...
• Li ...77: ?\ ....P. 4.,•:1 1% -
....
C''.., '.. •'. .." -..
...,....
. .'...:.:
--,..:f:-.:':'
-1 1 3,.
1
- '_. r'''...,---1,7.1 ........." ibigA.4" 2.3
/ '.._.' / \ / /
1 \ +f m c
j >73.-'3> rmi S n?•19YM' W . IMAM' ' .''''._'
(� ci
N ) D r -S' PARKING SETBACK -`•' j�
III Y 'O C'O D )� _---__�-'k'1
(/I �.. 1
a, r171- 3 CbIN ---1-1.11
c�iA�m o ft
rti,
i I I I I .' "rP•I
xdw
/ tr'
II
II N �n.qqqqI I '3 /�
fill N o °,,.ii.u' ///. ` /a N r I ITA toit
I, c\/>
y D r i ��f .I�2S �YL -
1gi 9!
- /11.1f: \ .... ..._....1 r-
f, S sa
% ... , ri ,,,
....--/ i I
i
m o u \ kra_._.. If ,^..
l\ /�/I ,.,,,.?.,;,...„..;4:.••••.--'.-_ 41'1 ..- ti 1,`.r.' t`VIL,�f._.-.ti)g - I —r
to�1" ; 7 t ; �, •_� // IIP I
fr
6 il\----_______- -----A'...\
v l i 1 --kiiiiiiiiii;30' FULDING SETA W ---,_-_ -J \\\\,
171.
I ill
if i /, * , J) IF
\Z '• .;', ›. jejV. c"----\.............. ......:___ sii,V I ! afgot,1 t',3
a
i\ .._.-.)0.'-' : I !°1 ' W"iff t 77—- — . .:;: Ill 14-1 .-- ----"Lit rip---- --------N
412,--12 .: 15 i ; -------.1. ..0.0 fr. ---,
,I.;:
, 1.5ii-r„------___ ..
Z 1,p___."Thrir i ,______1_,,,,jiLi.,___----______=_:\,-
l'\ **4
1.." , \ I \\7- .,,,,-..-:--
, L,
----------;:k .._.__--------- 1)7.11---.'"1 L'........:° -----........
/ �' 1111 \.i. ,I .� 3 .L4,4L I0 Sa.� �
...5 moot--- i.. 1.
u .,_,:--trs-r7 1 ()
i-7 ........ _.. ,_, A------------.'- //:".)04i 1
11- 1 / I\ ii\k i\)1',..\ I
1741:
i \-011.,-,/ 1‘) iT :,, 1 FV_::::25 -11.-----__L\ . .1
''''?--' f,5 .' NI,...7\k:,.. \ I\ , t. 11,,,,,
I /I /454
7. ' ,r .4'4' s u qty - . z A. ' p \ ��‘' A �I. -11�'ta . � t \\ 1 \ \ �� :..----'_I,'tK '
�.
i.,'1 \4z . '--.\
7'.71:k j.11-:1- .- ----- .. --.- .
0.4.______<...2,..dr.. .,,...s.... ---4_...:•"1-1---..._.1 ./..„ . -"•41%,,.,,,,.......„..."../,,,....-7 .
/I \ '41
4.
--- A *I ( \\.\ /.//' '''
\ \\
A -/..... • ---...._ is /---- ) 6
4‘1.___ ' \\\211,10: .-,-„, j 'IS \ / ./-/ ."---_ 2 z P
iffl \ ., , r.
\\
/, /... ..\411.\
\--..e.u. (�
e i .
S`, lj`32•.W ,::-.7:::•-„:::eq AI,'`,64„........... ..*- .....*-- j 1\ 1
`moi\
�, m m° 51.83" "y'�
\ N' 1 e!�- el(��r ;.: ,•,. `\ "4Rr4Nn. 1 i1 1 I, I t
1ill k...
I
r_ ISI
I \
r
—I— \\I b
�r
,-r %
r
I
I
I
I
I
-,
I 1 ---r-
:
: ____ I T,
I H,r,
I
Ii
1 .1 -
I ► ►
,
I
I
I i
I ,
Ii �.
I ,
I ( ► \�
J I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
l
I 11--.1 -
I
j111-1 l____ I I ► i 1 RN
MI
C_ C1 11 H1, 1 I
,t1' .
I
r m II 1 II
I I r ► 7i
� I 1
r'-0 li ii H: '
111
--1-
1
►
i !
1-
'i N_ ■i 11 : "
I ; - T
111 Ni
LLI I -T 1111 , 1
. . _
•1
\
/ —1 ,
III
I
,..-, M •i
Al ---- [71-71 tin
1• ., iiil all 1 1 lti
() int Mt 11 -----------
MN N I
0 I- / FM a •a '
tu
to A2[I • .. .„.,,
-„Th ,,
. •, (-0 ..i, . .
..,...
. , I.
, II DIII III
20 . [1111 WI JD
• 1 [BI In
0) HI
M I 0
1 D1OH
2111 ni -1111 IEEE 11''
kill-------------- , —r
Ifl In I'Lral
i ()
In] ODI 00
Z m I \ \I I - iil (111 1101
m
I
l' • 1 I e, 111111 III) ---)
., .1 ' —___ _.1
, . LI
III EITII '11
i • , in
3111 1:111 1
t. a 11 , n
(-I; i DB DU0111 00
1--- - 1— —-
(___. It. L_ I NI BEEI 111111 111 1''
.._•._ --.---_-_-.J.--_,--_:-, 1 _—___—IP"
-------
))
NIII MI 1)
KO 11111_111.113 EU 00
III
;. 1111 EU 01
ni
‘ NI EIS II / 11
1- ..._.
iiii :III EMI 1111 /1 i
_--=_-- I []II EIIII ill
_
7 ()
/
LI Ail FBI III
ri . il am oul 1,:in
1.- ... ... .. . u.
I IN I %Hi)
•I
6 1\11 int in 1 It1 -,vZ II i lEEfi xi
. , w-- —
Emi 0111 •Irl EEiliall
-- . , . a ,, ..
21 11(.11C
' 1ODI DO ,
• I
1111
.11111 oN Hi, .' ,
OBI 0111 III
1 I WI 111
!!-_111_1331E-1
• 0111 II _ .---'
7 I I 11 ___ I IMEmi,
Ill
r II_
IIII
1111 0111 111 in
1, 11 DD1 :1111
•..
I- 11 EMI ID 9 ®I um 1
in_ ------[_ . _____ ... ,
11 11 II) .... • ,... au l. al
1 ..A
II. q.-.) \ 0-111 1:011 11
<_::. tiliIIIITJ '
. NI SIC 141 '
0111 ill WI
I CIE In .
am am In VII tII LI.I
NII NIN NIL; .
N
. I 03:11 III
m ' II OBI
I
N N. (t,.)
m , ! Ill ED III 1
pn
NX NN ' 111 0111 • 1
i.., )
X
NX 6
/ I mil nil*,
1 mei fi•lin
e.
NNX ••
X /. 11111E01 Dill COI OD
. -
•
m Fr
zi o I
rm o
r ►o
i
Z -- — L��1'TI
L.. _.—._._.._._
_ __.-------p
N
9 u/ � x / >
(/ S
�//N - � ;
p
• N>NNN, x ,./ N
/1 7 '' ii - , ,,,
..,,..
c ,
... .4, _.„4„0,.4, ..,4 . v.,
N ii '' > NA, eI,/
,,a
- p N� \, Vii,/\,
�/ /
' '' ,
.. ," ,
,gN '' P w
•
, , lip,__,.
. � ;�
' --, /-11.1110.10 ..4: _ 1
li
•
w• 1•
�,
•.,,aimil
•
III4—I
I Ill
•
i• t
J7 � .
m - _.,,,i-11 J: f
(T1 w .
C ' �� C
f-
r a 7 \.
r- o tiia
z _-_4. l.00 ILi4A llll
iii;i_I ,7,_it
[LII—IIIc II li alril
1 . _-Era I--
!I I -c
r:-
,/R� `c
i
P', //,/, / N ' 0 ..,
,s,., .; , ,i oi,,."\\,,,,•.., y/ `'"..,...
NNA
id* ` . '` .
.
iI .
. .
4:' 'N. 4 A N\ lel 4
K..
I :lip i, .
'
/\.iZ I o` y
1,P I� 1 Ic3r
i.
-.-- ,J,- ,�j,
� 4,_ II :111;_.!_
,i.,, S `I --�, 1
c "71
m p
• JJ ' IJI I-
w ,l
o = II.I � I
r }- 1- _ ";
11
S°
T ,�
Z o ` v '
rn
r4-1 I I IIINIIIIIN 1
m qt. J —
1 a �– a � _. __ m L
n
ili , Its
1 ' ''' t z.'; -,
� >,
.,�
itilk
. " , 1 / N. * > / N
s/ 14 - ',,,,,,,r-- ,,, / 76-,� ,.
. N.,, / „ ...isN, 4 /*, ,s.•.,
% - %0, *It #
,‘e.. ., 4,„ ,4 ,„
, . , , __Ns, •.,, • :„.. ,
‘itift., / io.v. *4r' ,N/
. �Nweyt
,„=..
'�
• IsI
1 I
2
—i -1 -J;;;s;: c
?, —,, H„. ,
,_ .0 , _
.. 11-r-'.1-. I)1.),
J Li
il
Ii: trIi
s ” 1I A
a
—. — _— — --' — — -- -__'—_ -- '-' _--_ -____—_----_—__---__
'
•
�
— --- -- '— '--- ---� --- -'- |
r - ) / -- ---mm�m�� �m-- --- --' --- --__
y | - / � �� -'--
/ � __
�
� � �� �to
�u � —\ il
. 8 �� / \. \�' _� �.�
--I [___• � �'. ' ' ' , r) �1
CO
/ - U ---
DJ |
-` `' | �)
! / ( stN. ..
\ /
[c...7:-- --•1 ~~.~~���1�
----- - ��^--� x
--___ h '--
/ | � --
/
'' 7�
" �
/
t- ITI
.6
'''`I i
\'/ -
- -
--1\1.__ _\1.\/_7\ 1.--
\ '/ - |
-- --'
�
�11
_ �A
r. 2 ��
i. .
•
'~` =~~-- �u _____ • -__ _____ -_-- __- __- -_- _--
| �' - U
�.�� � ____ __
. -1 � '/'
' � � ~ -~~. °
III
�� , ' on �
�^ ^M - -- -- — ^�
� i �� / �1
~ I -
Co �
1 / / \
| , `` ' ''
c7 T --
I • , nn (l |�-� -|
— ` �� ---- �� \
--'-i- 1_ | `' --- - | `
- | � �_� - . i -- _-_ � �v
| --^ ^»
[-
( | �) ^ | �
/ � '-_-_1 � / ~//
1_�� -� � -- i /
1 • | / ^v
0 \ ~ . — �
. `' ~ l 1 -� f ��f,|| | '/
IF
I \
II .
A - — s=ue -
C tir
O m p — - -
i '
CO j
_
17 i" j f ri
M (viz
'kikIIIIIII%IP ('S
T cc
f,1 lt
ff, �" /
7' ` /
` /i
N
1 \ \ 1.:i...- /
`'
A,,, /
u
/
1:
A,
I__ I---as-ar.4-il ci--L. ny,71i
1, u u `
4:; .<\
r 4 ,�\
TI {
1
v 0
LI IR!
m
r-0 a g f 9
r--
c13 V D n cis P pi ,1. N OyD
5.-4 m ~n T O Zz
TA
n m n ] m ] Z N N N U 1: l-
..01#111&11
7 l P n j n mDDi ! fI
CP 2 ., L I
O a a �{A ff
\
p . N n N N Dl n O .N l l U . 0 E
N a Q N N• .11aSDpQ7 N N m m N r. 7 O F <
m ; mCalqPAP ..< 2 7 g
S. 2a 21.CN ji'JPaA l Q P-1 OY n 3Z m I
p °Q InPlC P m a o- c P o O o oi
Vn r r wt
IA A n N n 3a0- p A p m N nn m -
1.N 1 b P a0 p m C l 0• C it O
pn l mm1a NC PPlPml 4. O n
O o 0 '-'-
a
Nn7m N a . P 7 N C ° 7 1
ra 0] 1 J P M 0 iC m 5' J °C
P a q ti.
9, i ] m m OO
7 I n P Li n JC 7 a P a m N —____—____— f-
P .0 • 0 l P CU -`1 Y tit f„--,
U D 1n
o P'.m O O ,to ml OlO , C 7 fD ] XYO ) O (n O L_,
ti
C l a •..NC a m
n O P - N .. uOO V
•
N p P p p'o P ^a Y '' O > n f l f/.7 1 l
D1
71- .-N .-`1 N a P n.< .. tl'N fC N 3 c. N n n Z (--C)
�'1
n Q...N A N am m H n' :" B o n o o 0lin I e .1'Jj��1•
].. �'D. m N-0 D N P O m 1 ] n O. 1 f'1 I :�t('
<lj< l 7 n l m Pfl , O m N 7 j 7 O II
1 m 7 3
i. $� �O o S ] ] .l • m P0 rt '; 1 , l
° n m m h a s' v q n f 1 0 . N n to ArJ tl
'D q P µ m a n .�N l R a . U n. .� ;Z7 a l t ,
_114 4
• a.
P X1 I 0 p 7 P N a m • N C m 4
O N 7 a...a Q ..° ] n j ■6y�
.,C N C a°n P p a 7 O G Z
ao .-.N mON ] ^'ni O — — G)
m l P m P C
o U l n N 01 N N U 1/1 01 P1 N
1 n = a N C) N P ~ P U to N I I r
0 T.1 [C 7 J A n p ] 1 W I 1 n n W (O fD
N An maim p om a c n R, n I. R'
7 P'D p P ] .. 0 w W 0)
O < 0 3 T-1 m
• ru'D `2;
a ] m T 1 ----- - _ _-____._ -
] V l N P I K
P Q O n ] O _
5 1:":7 O P n ■ N
a m 13 7'D m J P
. l a to N p' I N 3
r om PF a Q. P at I. .O •I . ; O
u u _� >-
IIi
r Q n ]m N ca LA
n v I7 1 fra- � 1 I ' ,
m m m R.u
I4
♦ J
N 1
_ n :(0
l.+ y a _ < n p
°1 O co ry
�� 111
V n c
c o
n i '�< a
D r
:3 n (n ,,�11, c
c, -'l N °1 fD 11.41.1116C—
',� I
n ° 11/4
E mo CO UI V
° �c ° �' °a jI
nm n ill(D •r rCo
� .r= I Q, �0 , • 0 ( 4I`
_i1'' 13
o if
S 02.19'001 W 188,03'
r —5 PARKING SETBACK— o
yyt� I 1rR344
SETEIA4 I I /
co
1 I —r
mL I
.' -ter. 1
!
I
8 -
1
I
1
1
•
1
1
S 02.19'00• w 211.45' — 1
r 5'PARKING SETBACK J1
1
1 I
r
I— —30' BUILDING SETS.a •.f ESMS
u
co I
1 m
i i - \ K
c
t g 0117.1 0
lip U)
Pr
•
•
J
0 ( .
_ ° ,18001. /, \c�1 '• ' • .L4,sl .10 S `___.�,
V 001 0 U V rfikc ';• Kii
I O411,.: Nplri (1r
Ouc]
r-:-.)
�° °
e CD
03
c _4/ e ° 0
6 °
z 0,115!!, °
•
O ►11 '` p
0
00
0p� T 0 AV
z m O ..
>
i o lir
❑�
0707
kqi
.TO ., I�. I/' ° w o
A: _ , i,
1 0
L__ ON
pOp �: N 1
.� A-. �/s
0 0 ��
I s 01' 1332 w ,-.%>1.....
e4�O p90Ao O' r �•�
51.63' O i
S , ,,e°0,A Off,' a * N 0 KA.1
L
§ 10.52
SEC. 10.52 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR REZONING IN THE
HIGHWAY 12 CORRIDOR STUDY AREA.
Subd. 1. Minimum Area. To insure consistency with the goals and objectives of the
Highway 12 Corridor Study,applications for rezoning within the study area must include a minimum
of five acres. The plans submitted along with these applications must also include enough
information regarding the effect of the proposed development on surrounding parcels to insure that
the property can be developed in a manner that is both compatible with adjacent properties and
consistent with the Highway 12 Corridor Study.
Subd. 2.Access and Circulation Plan. The plans submitted along with the application
must propose access to the proposed development which is consistent with the Transportation
Planning Objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. All public easements and road right of way
that is needed to allow the construction of service roads and/or the expansion of Trunk Highway 12
past the subject property, shall be dedicated to the City.
Source: Ordinance 67, 2nd Series
Adopted: 5-8-89
Subd. 3. Sanitary Sewer and Municipal Water Availability. The available sanitary
sewer and municipal water capacity to serve the development of this corridor is currently very
limited. Therefore, any plans to develop within this area must either demonstrate that it can occur
utilizing current sewer and water allocations or they must include improvements to increase the
capacity of the systems serving this area. If sanitary sewer or municipal water system improvements
are proposed as part of the application, then the feasibility of providing this service will also be
scrutinized along with an improvement financing plan to insure that the costs associated with
providing this additional capacity will be paid for by the development.
Source: Ordinance 78, 2nd Series
Adopted: 1-22-90
Subd. 4. Storm Water Management. Site Drainage plans must be submitted to insure
consistency with the Storm Water Management objectives of the Highway 12 Corridor Study. Plans
will be carefully reviewed to insure both that proposed storm water ponding areas contain sufficient
storage capacity and whatever additional measures are necessary to guarantee that the quality of
runoff from the site, meets or exceeds the City's standards.
Subd. 5. Available Zoning Districts. Due to the unique set of constraints and
opportunities that affect future decisions regarding development within the Highway 12 Corridor
Study Area, applicants for rezoning are strongly encouraged to utilize the planned unit development
ORONO CC 359 (4-1-84)
(5-8-89)
§ 10.52
approach, outlined in Section 10 of the Orono Zoning Ordinance. However, applications will be
accepted for rezoning requests for any of the following existing zoning districts within the City,
consistent with a finding of consistency with the Highway 12 Corridor Study and subject to
compliance with all of the additional requirements established in this section:
B-6 Highway Commercial District
PRD Planned Residential Development
R-1A One Family Residential District
R-1B One Family Residential District
M-6 Multiple Family Planned Residential District .
Any proposal which requires a modification to zoning or subdivision requirements must be done as
a Planned Unit Development.
Subd. 6. Building Design and Construction. In addition to other restrictions of this
Chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any building or structure within the
district shall meet the following standards:
A. All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be:
(a) Face brick, or
(b)Natural stone, or
(c) Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been
integrally treated with an applied decorative materials or texture, or
(d) Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction,
if the panel materials be of any of those noted in items a, b and c above, or glass.
(e)Other materials as may be approved by the Council. Combinations
of such materials shall be permitted.
•
B. All subsequent additions and outbuildings constructed after the erection
of an original building or buildings shall be constructed of materials comparable to those used in the
original construction and shall be designed in a manner conforming with the original architectural
design and general appearance.
C. No building or structure of a temporary character, trailer, basement,tent
or shack shall be constructed, placed or maintained upon the property except as accessory to and
during the construction of permanent buildings.
Subd. 7. Requirement of Development Agreement. All development permits
authorized within the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area shall be subject to the execution of a
ORONO CC 359-1 (4-1-84)
(5-8-89)
• NI\
§ 10.52
development agreement. Said development agreement shall clearly identify the timing of all of the
public improvements associated with the development and the developers' financial commitments
related to these improvements. The agreement shall also include any and all other conditions of
approval deemed necessary to insure compliance with the Special Minimum Requirements for
Rezoning the Highway 12 Corridor Study Area, as well as the goals and objectives of the Highway
12 Corridor Study.
Source: Ordinance 67, 2nd Series
Adopted: 5-8-89
SEC. 10.53. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
Subd. 1. Authorization: Planned unit development authorization may allow:
A.Variety: Within a comprehensive site design concept a mixture of land
uses, housing types and densities.
B. Sensitivity: Through the departure from the strict application of required
setbacks,yard areas,lot sizes,minimum house sizes,minimum requirements,and other performance
standards associated with conventional zoning, planned unit development can maximize the
development potential of land while remaining sensitive to its unique and valuable natural
characteristics.
C. Efficiency: The consolidation of areas for recreation and reductions in
street lengths and other utility related expenses.
D. Density Transfer: The project density may be clustered, basing density on
number of units per acre versus specific lot dimensions.
E.District Integration:The combination of uses which are allowed in separate
zoning districts such as:
1. Mixed residential allows both densities and unit types to be varied
within the project.
2.Mixed residential with increased density acknowledging the greater
sensitivity of PUD projects, regulation provides increased density on the property if a PUD is
utilized.
3.Mixed land uses with the integration of compatible land uses within
the project.
F. Applicability: Utilization of this zoning district is limited to the Highway
12 Corridor as set forth in the City of Orono's Comprehensive Plan Amendment#2 adopted May 23,
1988.
ORONO CC 359-2 (4-1-84)
(5-8-89)
•
§ 10.53
Subd.2.Allowed Uses:Uses within the PUD may include only those uses designated
on the official Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Specific allowed uses and performance standards for
each PUD shall be delineated in an ordinance and development plan. The PUD development plan
shall identify all the proposed land uses and those uses shall become permitted uses with the
acceptance of the development plan. Any change in list of uses presented in the development plan
will be considered an amendment to the PUD and will follow the procedures specified in Subd. 6
of this Title.
Subd. 3. Required Standards: For the purpose of administering this ordinance,the
City shall apply the standards contained in the conventional zoning district that is most similar to
• the proposed development. In the event of mixed-use developments, the Zoning-Administrator
shall determine the appropriate underlying zoning standards, subject to the approval of the City
Council. Furthermore, the City shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of view of all
standards and purposes of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to achieve a maximum coordination
between the proposed development and the surrounding uses, the conservation of woodlands and
wetlands,the protection of health, safety and welfare of the community and resident of the PUD. To
these ends,the City Council shall consider the location of the buildings, compatibility,parking areas
and other features with respect to the topography of the area and existing natural features such as
streams and large trees; the efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of internal streets
and driveways; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of
parking areas; and such other matters as the Council may find to have a material bearing upon the
stated standards and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Subd. 4. Coordination With Subdivision Regulations: Subdivision review under the
subdivision regulations shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of the PUD. The plans
required under this Chapter shall be submitted in a form which will satisfy the requirements of the
subdivision ordinance for the preliminary and final plat.
Subd. 5. Revisions and/or Changes.
A. Minor changes in the location,placement and height of structures may be
authorized by the Development Review Committee if required by engineering or other circumstances
not foreseen at the time the final plan was approved and filed with the Zoning Administrator.
B. Changes in uses: Significant changes in the location, size. or height of
structures.any rearrangement of lots,blocks and building tracts,changes in the provision of common
open spaces. and all other changes to the approved final development plan may be made only after
a public hearing conducted by the Council. Any changes shall be recorded as amendments to the
recorded copy of the final development plan.
ORONO CC 359-3 (4-1-84)
(5-8-89)
§ 10.53
C. All of the provisions of this Title applicable to the original district within
which the Planned Unit rr velopment District is established shall apply to the PUD District except
as otherwise provided in approval of the final plan.
D.Review: If substantial development has not occurred within a reasonable
time after approval of the PUD Zoning District as set forth in the Developer's Agreement, the City
Council may instruct the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning to the original zoning district.
It shall not be necessary for the City Council to find that the rezoning was in error.
Subd. 6. Phasing and Guarantee of Performance. •
A. The Planning Commission shall compare the actual development
accomplished in the various PUD zones with the approved development schedule.
B. Upon recommendation of the Planning Commission and for good cause
shown by the property owner, the Council may extend the limits of the development schedule.
C.The construction and provision of all of the common open space and public
and recreational facilities which are shown on the final development plan must proceed at the same
rate as the construction of dwelling units, if any. The Development Review Committee shall review
all of the building permits issued for the PUD and examine the construction which has taken place
on the site. If they find that the rate of construction of dwelling units is greater than the rate at which
common open spaces and public and recreational facilities have been constructed and provided,they
shall forward this information to the Council for action.
D. A letter of credit shall be required to guarantee performance by the
developer. The amount of this letter of credit, and the specific elements of the development program
that it is intended to guarantee, will be stipulated in the development agreement.
• Subd. 7. Control of Planned Unit Development Following Completion.
A. After the certificate of occupancy has been issued,the use of the land and
the construction, modification or alteration of any buildings or structures within the planned
development shall be governed by the final development plan.
B. After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, no changes shall be
made in the approved final development plan except upon application as provided below:
1. Any minor extensions, alterations or modifications of existing
buildings or structures may be authorized by the Development Review Committee if they are
ORONO CC 359-4 (4-1-84)
(5-8-89)
§ 10.53
consistent with the purposes and intent of the final plan. No change authorized by this Section may
increase the cube of anyThuilding or structure by more than ten percent(10%).
2. Any building or structure that is totally or substantially destroyed
may be reconstructed only in compliance with the final development plan unless an amendment to
the final development plan is approved under Section 10.53 Subd. 5.
3.Any other changes in the final development plan must be authorized
by an amendment of the final development plan under Section 10.53 Subd. 5.
Subd. 8. Procedure for Processing a Planned Unit Development.
A. Application Conference: Upon filing of an application for PUD, the
applicant of the proposed PUD shall arrange for and attend a conference with the Zoning
Administrator. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an
opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance as to the general suitability of his proposal
for the area for which it is proposed and its conformity to the provisions of this Title before incurring
substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys and other data.
1. Purpose: The general concept plan provides an opportunity for the
applicant to submit a plan to the City showing his basic intent and the general nature of the entire
development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following:
a) Overall maximum PUD density range.
b) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways.
c) General location and extent of public and common open
space.
d) General location of residential and nonresidential land
uses with approximate type and intensities of development.
e) Staging and time schedule of development.
f) Other special criteria for development.
ORONO CC 359-5 (4-1-84)
(5-8-89)
§ 10.53
2. Schedule:
a) Developer meets with the Zoning Administrator to
discuss the proposed developments.
b) The applicant shall file the concept stage application
and preliminary plat,together with all supporting data.
c) Within thirty(30)days after verification by the Zoning
Administrator that the required plan and supporting data is adequate,the Planning Commission shall
hold a public hearing.
d) The Planning Commission shall conduct the hearing
and report its findings and make recommendations to the City Council. Notice of the hearing shall
consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official
newspaper at least ten(10) days prior to the hearing and written notification of the hearing shall be
mailed at least ten(10) days prior thereto to owners of land within three hundred fifty feet (350') of
the boundary of the property in question.
e) The City may request additional information from the
applicant concerning, operational factors or retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant
concerning operational factors.
f) The Council may hold a public hearing after the receipt
of the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission.If the Planning Commission fails
to make a report within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the City Council may
proceed without the report. The Council may approve the concept plan and attach such conditions
as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the entire Council.
3. Development Stage: Following general concept approval, if given,
the applicant shall submit the development stage application and final plat. The application shall
proceed and be acted upon in accordance with Section 10.53 Subd. 8(D) for zoning district changes.
If appropriate because of the limited scale of the proposal,the concept stage and development stages
may proceed simultaneously.
4. Applications: Ten(10)copies of the following exhibits,analysis and
plans shall be submitted to the City:
General Concept Stage:
a) Preliminary plat and information required by subdivision Title.
ORONO CC 359-6 (4-1-84)
(5-8-89)
§ 10.53
b) General Information:
(1) The landowner's name and address and his interest in the subject
property.
(2) The applicant's name and address if different from the landowner.
(3) The names and addresses of all professional consultants who have
contributed to the development of the PUD plan being submitted,
including attorney, land planner, engineer and surveyor.
(4) Evidence that the applicant has sufficient control over the subject
property to effectuate the proposed PUD, including a statement of all
legal,beneficial,tenancy and contractual interests held in or affecting
the subject property and including an up-to-date certified abstract of
title or registered property report, and such other evidence as the City
Attorney may require to show the status of title or control of the
subject property.
c) Present Status:
(1) The address and legal description of the Property.
(2) The existing zoning classification and present use of the subject
property and all lands within one thousand feet (1,000') of the
property.
(3) A map depicting the existing development of the property and all land
within one thousand feet(1,000') thereof and indicating the location
of existing streets,property lines, easements, water mains and storm
and sanitary sewers,with invert elevations on and within one hundred
feet(100') of the property.
(4) A written statement generally describing the proposed PUD and the
market which it is intended to serve and its demand showing its
relationship to the City's Comprehensive Plan and how the proposed
PUD is to be designed, arranged and operated in order to permit the
development and use of neighboring property in accordance with the
applicable regulations of the City.
ORONO CC 359-7 (4-1-84)
(5-8-89)
§ 10.53
(5) Site Conditions: Graphic reproductions of the existing site conditions
at scale of one inch equals one hundred feet (1" = 100').
(a) Contours; minimum two foot (2') intervals.
(b) Location,type and extent of tree cover.
(c) Slope analysis.
(d) Location and extent of water bodies;wetlands and
streams and flood plains within three hundred feet
(300') of the property.
(e) Significant rock outcroppings.
(f) Existing drainage patterns.
(g) Vistas and significant views.
(h) Soil conditions as they affect development.
All of the graphics should be the same scale as the final plan
to allow easy cross reference. The use of overlays is
recommended for clear reference.
(6) Schematic drawing of the proposed development concept including
but not limited to the general location of major circulation elements,
public and common open space, residential and other land uses.
(7) A statement of the estimated total number of dwelling units proposed
for the PUD and a tabulation of the proposed approximate allocations
of land use expressed in acres and as a percent of the total project area,
which shall include at least the following:
(a) Area developed to residential uses.
(b) Area developed to residential use by building type.
(c) Area devoted to common open space.
ORONO CC 359-8 (4-1-84)
(5-8-89)
s ,
§ 10.53
(d) Area devoted to public open space.
(e) Approximate area devoted to streets.
(f) Approximate area devoted to,and number of,off-street
parking and loading spaces and related access.
(g) Approximate area, and floor area, devoted to
commercial uses.
(h) Approximate area,and floor area,devoted to industrial
or office use.
(8) When the PUD is to be constructed in stages during a period of time
extending beyond a single construction season, a schedule for the
development of such stages or units shall be submitted stating the
approximate beginning and completion date for each such stage or
unit and the proportion of the total PUD public or common open space
and dwelling units to be provided or constructed during each such state
and overall chronology of development to be followed from stage to
stage.
(9) When the proposed PUD includes provisions for public or common
open space or service facilities, a statement describing the provision
that is to be made for the care and maintenance of such open space or
service facilities.
(10) Any restrictive covenants that are to be recorded with respect to
property included in the proposed PUD.
(11) Schematic utilities plans indicating placement of water, sanitary and
storm sewers.
(12) The City may excuse an applicant from submitting any specific item
of information or document required in this stage which it finds to be
unnecessary to the consideration of the specific proposal.
(13) The City may require the submission of any additional information
or documentation which it may find necessary or appropriate to full
consideration of the proposed PUD.
ORONO CC 359-9 (4-1-84)
(5-8-89)
§ 10.53
Development Stage:
Development stage submissions should depict and outline the proposed implementations of the
general concept stage for the PUD. Information from the general concept stage may be included
for background and to provide a basis for the submitted plan. The development stage submissions
shall include but not be limited to:
a) A final plat and information required by the City subdivision Title.
b) Ten(10) sets of preliminary plans drawn to a scale of not less than one inch
equals one hundred feet(1" = 100') (or scale requested by the Administrator
containing at least the following information):
(1). Proposed name of the development(which shall not duplicate nor be
similar in pronunciation to the name of any plat theretofore recorded
in the county where the subject property is situated).
(2) Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property and any
significant topographical or physical features of the property.
(3) The location,size,use and arrangement including height in stories and
feet and total square feet of ground area coverage and floor area of
proposed buildings, and existing buildings which will remain, if any.
(4) Location, dimensions of all driveways, entrances, curb cuts, parking
stalls, loading spaces and access aisles, and all other circulation
elements including bike and pedestrian; and the total site coverage of
all circulation elements.
(5) Location, designation and total area of all common open space.
(6) Location, designation and total area proposed to be conveyed or
dedicated for public open space,including parks, playgrounds,school
sites and recreational facilities.
(7) Proposed lots and blocks, if any and numbering system.
(8) The location,use and size of structures and other land uses on adjacent
properties.
ORONO CC 359-10 (4-1-84)
(5-8-89)
§ 10.53
(9) Detailed sketches and provisions of proposed landscaping.
(10) General grading and drainage plans for the developed PUD.
(11) Any other information that may have been required by the Planning
Commission or Council in conjunction with the approval of the
general concept plan.
c) An accurate legal description of the entire area within the PUD for which final
development plan approval is sought. .
d) A tabulation indicating the number of residential dwelling units and expected
population.
e) A tabulation indicating the gross square footage, if any, of commercial and
industrial floor space by type of activity (e.t. drug store, dry cleaning,
supermarket).
f) Preliminary architectural"typical"plans indicating use,floor plan,elevations
and exterior wall finishes of proposed building, including mobile homes.
g) A detailed site plan, suitable for recording, showing the physical layout,
design and purpose of all streets, easements, rights of way, utility lines and
facilities, lots, block, public and common open space, general landscaping
plan, structure, including mobile homes, and uses.
h) Preliminary grading and site alteration plan illustrating changes to existing
topography and natural site vegetation. The plan should clearly reflect the
site treatment and its conformance with the approved concept plan.
i) A preliminary plat prepared in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance.
j) A soil erosion control plan acceptable to watershed districts, Department of
Natural Resources, Soil Conservation Service, or any other agency with
review authority clearly illustrating erosion control measures to be used during
construction and as permanent measures.
Source: Ordinance 67, 2nd Series
Adopted: 5-8-89
ORONO CC 359-11 (4-1-84)
(5-8-89)
N. Landscaping.
1. Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be prepared
by a landscape architect or other qualified person acceptable to the
City, drawn to the scale of not less than 1 inch equals 50 feet and
shall show the following:
a) boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions;
a) locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots,
roads and other improvements;
b) proposed grading plan with 2-foot contour intervals;
c) location, approximate size and common name of existing
trees and shrubs;
d) a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common
and botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition
and special planting instructions;
e) planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new
plant material;
f) locations and details of other landscape features including
berms. fences and planter boxes;
g) details of restoration of disturbed areas including areas to be
sodded and seeded;
h) location and details of irrigation systems; and
i) details and cross sections of all required screening.
2. Minimum Landscaping Requirements.
a) All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for
required parking areas, drives or storage shall be landscaped
with a combination of overstory trees, understory trees,
shrubs, flowers and groundcover materials. The plan for
landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery,
trees.sculpture,foundations,decorative walks or other similar
site design features or materials in a quantity having a
minimum value in conformance with the following table:
8
Project Value Minimum Landscape Value
(In:cluding building construction,
site preparation,and site improvements)
Below$1,000,000 2.0 %
$1,000,000- $2,000,000 1.7 %
$2,000,001 -$3,000,000 1.4%
$3,000,001 - $4,000,000 1.15 %
Over$4,000,000 1.0 %
In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable
species exist on a site prior to its development,the application
of the standards in this section may be adjusted by the City to
allow credit for such material,provided that such adjustment
is consistent with the intent of this ordinance.
b) A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many
existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into
the site plan.
c) All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or
moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees
shall have a minimum caliper of 21/2 inches. Coniferous trees
shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental trees
shall have a minimum caliper of 1'/ inches.
d) All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking
lots, driveways,patios, or similar hardsurface materials shall
be covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved
by the city. This requirement shall not apply to site areas
retained in a natural state.
e) In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped
areas, an underground sprinkler system shall be provided as
part of each new development, except one and two family
dwellings and additions to existing.structures which do not at
least equal the floor area of the existing structure. A sprinkler
system shall be provided for all landscaped areas except areas
to be preserved in a natural state.
9
f) Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees
shall be composed of one species. No required tree shall be
one of the following:
1) a species of the genus Ulmus(elm),except those elms
bred to be immune to Dutch Elm Disease;
2) box elder;
3) a species of the genus Populous (poplar); or
4) female ginko.
3. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping.
a) All parking lots containing over 150 stalls shall be designed
to incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in number and
dimension as required by the City. All landscape islands shall
contain a minimum of 180 square feet. Islands which are
necessary to promote the safe and efficient flow of traffic
shall not be subject to the "150 stall" standard and shall be
required by the city when warranted.
b) Parking lot landscape areas,including landscape islands,shall
be reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot area so as
to break up expanses of paved areas. Parking lot landscape
areas shall be provided with deciduous shade trees,
ornamental or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch
and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate by the Planning
Commission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at
the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces
provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping
shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised
concrete curb or equivalent approved by the Planning
Commission.
4. Maintenance of Landscaping. The owner, tenant and their
respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the
maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy,
neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants
and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape
10
plan, and which have died shall be replaced within three months of
notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may be
extended up to nine months by the city in order to allow for seasonal
or weather conditions.
5. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height,and
staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in height or involve
more than 4 tiers, must be constructed in accordance with plans
prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect.
6. Landscaping Performance Security Required. When screening,
landscaping or other similar improvements to property are required
by this ordinance a letter of credit shall be supplied by the owner in
an amount equal to at least one and one-half times the value of such
screening, landscaping or other improvements. The letter of credit
shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by
the city for engineering,legal,contracting or other fees in connection
with making or completing such improvements. The letter of credit
shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and
shall be valid for a period of time equal to one full growing season
after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may accept
some other form of security in lieu of a letter of credit in an amount
and under such conditions that the city may determine to be
appropriate. In the event that construction of the project is not
completed within the time prescribed by building permits and other
approvals, the city may, at its option, complete the work required at
the expense of the awner and the surety.
The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all
landscaping if the delay is due to*conditions which are reasonably
beyond the control of the developer. Extensions which may not
exceed nine months, may be granted due to seasonal or weather
conditions. When an extension is granted, the city shall require such
additional security as it deems appropriate.
11
7. Screening and Buffering.
a) The following uses shall be screened or buffered in
accordance with the requirements of this subdivision:
1. Principal buildings and structures and any building or
structure accessory thereto used for residential uses at
a density of greater than 4 units per acre shall be
buffered from residential lots located in any "R"
district.
2. Off-street parking facilities containing six or more
spaces shall be buffered from streets located within 50
feet.
3. Loading docks shall be screened from all lot lines and
public roads.
4. Trash storage facilities shall be screened from all lot
lines and public roads.
b) Required screening or buffering may be achieved with fences,
walls, earth berms.hedges, or other landscape materials. All
walls and fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the
principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of
3:1. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which
provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons.
c) All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot
• occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be
screened. No screening or buffering shall be located on any
public right-of-way or within eight feet of the traveled portion
of any street or highway.
d) Screening or buffering required by this section shall be of a
height needed to accomplish the goals of this section. Height
of plantings required under this section shall be measured at
the time of installation.
12
• Bonestroo
Memo 1 Rosene
Anderfik&
Associates
i es
Engineers&Alchnectf
Project Name: Orono Apartments Traffic ReviewClient: Cityof Orono
To: File No: 139-98-000
From: Bryant Ficek Date: 11/07/00
Re: Traffic Flow for the Orono Apartments
The proposed Orono Apartments will be located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Trunk
Highway(TH) 12 with Brown Road North in Orono, Minnesota. No development currently exists on this
site. The current site plan, dated October 17, 2000, shows two buildings. One building is proposed to be an
apartment complex with 70 dwelling units and would be located on the east side of the site,next to Brown
Road North. The other building is proposed to be an office building with approximately 23,200 square feet
of area and would be located on the west side of the lot.
Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' trip generation rates for developments of this kind, the
following table shows the estimated traffic volumes to and from the site.
Office Building Senior Housing Total Site Trip Ends
Time Period In Out In Out In Out
Average Weekday 130 130 120 120 250 250
AM Peak Hour 30 5 5 5 35 10
PM Peak Hour 5 30 5 5 15 35
Average Saturday 30 30 90 90 120 120
Average Sunday 10 10 95 95 105 105
As shown in the table, the site could expect about 250 vehicles in and 250 vehicles out of the site during a
typical weekday according to the size and type of these developments.
Site Access
The current site plan shows the three access drives to and from the proposed development. The first access
drive connects to Brown Road North on the east side of the lot. We would recommend aligning this site
access drive, if possible, with the access to the bank and private homes on the east side of Brown Road
North, creating one four-legged intersection rather than two closely spaced 'T' intersections. One lane in
each direction on the access drive should suffice for the expected amount of traffic. From this full access
driveway, motorists could continue south to the existing full access intersection of Brown Road North with
TH 12. Motorists should expect delays at this intersection of Brown Road North and TH 12 due to the
traffic volumes on TH 12. We would not recommend a signal at this TH 12 intersection since other nearby
intersections in both directions on TH 12 have existing signals. The current geometrics at this TH 12
intersection are also adequate for the expected amount of traffic.
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates
2335 West Highway 36+ St. Paul, MN 55113 + Phone: 651-636-4600+ Fax: 651-636-1311
•
November 7, 2000
Page 2 of 2
The second access drive connects directly to TH 12, south of the proposed site. At the location of this
access, TH 12 currently has a closed median. We would recommend a right in/right out only access at this
location, leaving the median on TH 12 closed. We further recommend a short right turn lane be created
from TH 12 into the access drive. By re-striping the existing markings with a short taper immediately
following Brown Road North, this lane could be created without widening TH 12. One lane in each
direction would suffice for the amount of traffic expected for this access drive.
A third access is in the northwest corner of the site. Based on site plan drawings and field reconnaissance,
we were unable to determine where this access leads. Further investigation will be needed before making a
recommendation. However, we would not recommend this access if the drive connects into a residential
area. Due to the high volumes on TH 12 and the likely delays for vehicles turning onto TH 12 from the side
streets, it is likely that many motorists would seek this route as an alternative to the other access drives.
Thus, the amount of'cut-thru' traffic in the connected area would likely increase dramatically.
Internal Traffic Flow
From the access directly off TH 12, motorists proceed to an internal intersection and are able to choose to go
to the office building or the senior housing. This allows vehicle trips to and from each building without
disruption of activity at the other. The access drive connecting to Brown Road North does not provide this
type of separation. Motorists using this access to and from the office building would be driving through the
middle of the senior housing parking, creating safety concerns. Correcting this potential problem would
require changes to the existing site plan. Some options include:
• Swapping the location of each building so the office building is on the east side of the lot and the
senior housing is on the west side of the lot. Although this may result in the undesirable situation of
apartment residents driving through the office parking lot, office users are generally used to more
vehicle activity in their building's parking lot.
• Provide a separate drive aisle to the south of the senior housing parking. This puts the parking close
to the building while allowing other vehicles to continue through the lot without disruption from
parking activities.
• Provide a separate drive aisle north of the senior housing building. Apartment parking could remain
as shown or be shifted to the north side of the building as well. Either option would allow office
users to use this drive instead of going through the apartment parking area.
Changes should be made to separate the office users from driving through the senior housing areas.
The access drive in the northwest corner of the site could have motorists from the senior housing driving
through the middle of the office parking, depending on where this access leads. Although not desirable,
office users are generally used to more vehicle activity in their building's parking lot. As stated before, this
access drive and its relation to the internal traffic flow should be re-assessed when more information is
known.
Pedestrian Movements
To provide additional safety and encourage pedestrian movements, sidewalks should connect each building
to the existing trail and sidewalk system, located on the east and south sides of the lot. This would allow
people from either building another option to use to reach nearby land uses or for general exercise.
•
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates
2335 West Highway 36 + St. Paul, MN 55113 + Phone: 651-636-4600 + Fax: 651-636-1311
Bonestroo
Rosene
Memo Assoa ik s
Associates
Engineers&Architects
Project Name:Orono Apartments Review Client:City of Orono
To: Paul Weinberger File No: 139-2641
From: Bryant Ficek, Tom Kellogg Date: 11/14/00
Re:Traffic Flow and other issues for the Orono Apartments
The proposed Orono Apartments will be located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Trunk
Highway (TH) 12 with Brown Road North in Orono, Minnesota. No development currently exists on this
site. The current site plan, dated October 17, 2000, shows two buildings. One building is proposed to be an
apartment complex with 70 dwelling units and would be located on the east side of the site, next to Brown
Road North. The other building is proposed to be an office building with approximately 23,200 square feet
of area and would be located on the west side of the lot.
Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers' trip generation rates for developments of this kind, the
following table shows the estimated traffic volumes to and from the site.
Office Building Senior Housing Total Site Trip Ends
Time Period In Out In Out In Out
Average Weekday 130 130 120 120 250 250
AM Peak Hour 30 5 5 5 35 10
PM Peak Hour 5 30 5 5 15 35
Average Saturday 30 30 90 90 120 120
Average Sunday 10 10 95 95 _ 105 105
As shown in the table, the site could expect about 250 vehicles in and 250 vehicles out of the site during a
typical weekday according to the size and type of these developments.
Site Access
The current site plan shows the three access drives to and from the proposed development. The first access
drive connects to Brown Road North on the east side of the lot. We would recommend aligning this site
access drive, if possible, with the access to the bank and private homes on the east side of Brown Road
North, creating one four-legged intersection rather than two closely spaced 'T' intersections. One lane in
each direction on the access drive should suffice for the expected amount of traffic. From this full access
driveway, motorists could continue south to the existing full access intersection of Brown Road North with
Tl-I 12. Motorists should expect delays at this intersection if this project is completed before MNDOT's
realignment of TH 12. As part of the MNDOT TH 12 project, South Brown Road will be realigned to be
the fourth leg of the Brown Road/TH 12 intersection. MNDOT plans include signalizing this intersection.
Bonestroo, Rosene,Anderlik and Associates
2335 West Highway 36+ St.Paul,MN 55113+ Phone:651-636-4600+ Fax: 651-636-1311
November 14, 2000
Page 2 of 3
The second access drive connects directly to TH 12, south of the proposed site. At the location of this
access,TH 12 currently has a closed median. We would recommend a right in/right out only access at this
location, leaving the mediarron TH 12 closed. We further recommend a short right turn lane be created
from TH 12 into the access drive. By re-striping the existing markings with a short taper immediately
following Brown Road North, this lane could be created without widening TH 12. One lane in each
direction would suffice for the amount of traffic expected for this access drive.
A third access is in the northwest corner of the site. Based on site plan drawings and field reconnaissance,
we were unable to determine where this access leads. Further investigation will be needed before making a
recommendation. However, we would not recommend this access if the drive connects into a residential
area. Due to the high volumes on TH 12 and the likely delays for vehicles turning onto TH 12 from the side
streets, it is likely that many motorists would seek this route as an alternative to the other access drives.
Thus, the amount of `cut-thru' traffic in the connected area would likely increase dramatically.
Internal Traffic Flow
From the access directly off TH 12, motorists proceed to an internal intersection and are able to choose to go
to the office building or the senior housing. This allows vehicle trips to and from each building without
disruption of activity at the other. The access drive connecting to Brown Road North does not provide this
type of separation. Motorists using this access to and from the office building would be driving through the
middle of the senior housing parking, creating safety concerns. Correcting this potential problem would
require changes to the existing site plan. Some options include:
• Swapping the location of each building so the office building is on the east side of the lot and the
senior housing is on the west side of the lot. Although this may result in the undesirable situation of
apartment residents driving through the office parking lot, office users are generally used to more
vehicle activity in their building's parking lot.
• Provide a separate drive aisle to the south of the senior housing parking. This puts the parking close
to the building while allowing other vehicles to continue through the lot without disruption from
parking activities. This will require locating the drive aisle a bit further south than originally shown.
This will not impact the site any more than shown on the proposed grading plan. A sketch of this
option is included with this submittal.
• Provide a separate drive aisle north of the senior housing building. Apartment parking could remain
as shown or be shifted to the north side of the building as well. Construction of this drive aisle
would impact an area north of the buildings not shown to be graded on the proposed grading plan.
Either option would allow office users to use this drive instead of going through the apartment
parking area.
Changes should be made to separate the office users from driving through the senior housing areas.
The City should evaluate the proposed access drive in the northwest corner of the site. This access could, at
a minimum, provide access to the City's pump house.
Pedestrian Movements
To provide additional safety and encourage pedestrian movements, sidewalks should connect each building
to the existing trail and sidewalk system, located on the east and south sides of the lot. This would allow
people from either building another option to use to reach nearby land uses or for general exercise.
Bonestroo, Rosene,Anderlik and Associates
2335 West Highway 36+ St. Paul, MN 55113+ Phone: 651-636-4600+ Fax: 651-636-1311
•
November 14, 2000
Page 3 of 3
Grading and Drainage
The proposed grading plan shows the parking lot in the northwest corner of the site approximately 10 feet
higher than the adjoining property to the south. We recommend this part of the site be lowered at least 4
feet. The retaining wall could then be eliminated and 4:1 slopes graded between the parking lot and the
adjoining property. If the proposed grades are not revised the developer should work with the adjoining
property owner to replace the existing timber wall with a segmental block retaining wall.
The developer should provide storm sewer and ponding calculations for our review.
•
Bonestroo, Rosene,Anderlik and Associates
2335 West Highway 36+ St. Paul, MN 55113+ Phone: 651-636-4600+ Fax: 651-636-1311
r ; -^...........--:- ' s..r r"\ ,,..„.„,..,t,
::: ,. ,
. v.,.. ,.. A,
. ...„ , ,
. , . , xi
,
.t./ 0
H ..3o .• '�1
S • I r.
Lel '
M O`
J ri
H
C- N
. UJ S2 Y UU
Z < H H H U U H H
O. = Z C Z Z
H NN NN HH S 0 NN
C 5 .0 LU W Z N Z W W
O N W O C. <4 H £ _ 7 N h Z Z H MMF• F-
C o ❑ W. h1 4C HC w0 NCLL ,0 NCYW .D N200 0 M Oa < .D
W O ? H SS 0 CD 0 << 0 D O H H W1 0 0 0 Z U, O O H H UI O Z H H O 1.11
C O JS M O H H M o yy M O H H M o F.I.- O0 U U > M
CZ 0 Ui OZZCUI O Cd U1 O CJC U1 ODU COOJ Ut
H ea > 0 r- O H H O U H O W W O on H O W Cl GI H 0 0 0 H N N CO LO)
N4 J NO LD CD NO NO £ 0 NOCCSZ NNNN
I.- 2 C CD 3CCO 2a < O 2 0'CI 2F- F- = Na «
M « Q MCHHO MC HO hiC7UO MC NNF- M W F-
N Ni W W< Z N < > > O Z N < CC H O Z N < < O Z N Q Z Z N >- N C Y } < Z
i .} 22 F- £ L CD 2£ i C0 Z2 £ I C7 ed 73 £ L 000 W I ❑ W W N £
0 < < O0 W MC COONQC C00 \ C 00000SJ CO ❑ JJ >-
ri 3 2 2 N W H N 4 W r-1 N W Q W ri N N J < W ri N H J ri < J J < W
H > Y H 770 H 3: C.3 CD 14 ri Y 0Y ri OOU1 < ri < < 5 14
L L=4 < 1 0 < L z 0 < i U J 0 < i J J S > L » <
S < Q 3 J 4r N N N J S H = N J S H W N 1 .7 Q 4 H S 2 J
MONK PI0 << MNY hi CID CQ MSZZ W MCO ZZ
`0 JJO0 C7ZE0 C7 O ON C7 0 = O0 riOOHJ M W W OCD
✓i J J .DZ H000Z riLOOZ HJUo2 riOOO C. O W W O' Z
O NHH riO CONS=riO CON OHO ON HriCD ONU0 `DC OOCCHO
MO 53NJ MOf-F- NJ MCF•-F- NJ MOE >: NJ MO £ Sh < MOU 0 NJ
_
W .
F-
CI U U
>.
} C C O O
N LU..1 Z W � N 0 U
Z C W Z < <
co co_ J O O LD Z
H a C H N N O
F- N -C O` C M U 0 'D CD U O N C C H
< F- O J ri C .0 ri C J < 4D N C 0 N 43 N C C C ,O M N W W F-
= 0 O 0 o O 0 CO 0 CO U1 CD CZ W 0 Ui O < 2 2 U
C H O Z M O M O W W M o £ = M O CO CO M O Z 2 2 0
O J 0 ❑ cc OHHCLCI 0 CC VI 0 2Ui 000 C
U. C4 L.1 ,- O CD HOZZO Li HOLU W ❑ LC1 riOOO ❑ LC1 ri W W F- UJ
it ri CC NOS NOZZ NO NO NN £ = N > ,D
H C 2 3F= ❑ 3000 :C DC DS 3550 N 0OZ < ri
W MZZZ MCH F- O MC000 MC O MC O MW = SO .7
> Z N 2 0 0 0 2 N < £ H O Z N 4 0 Z N a C C O Z N Q Y Y O Z N C U C 11
F- 3 C ONNC £ 1 0N535 1 CD oC e42 £ loss L CD 3 = 10 (111) W1.1 ,
CO COCCC O0 NC CO :o C 000 = = C 00005 Dace 000OONF-
LU ri 0O << Z W H N < < W ri N 7 7 a LU H N £ £ < W ri L) < W ri < O O C N
CL >- H J J 2 Y ri -) 0 Y H C7 Y ri 0 0 0 Y ri 0 CD CO Y H O O W CD
O F- I O < i > 0 < i 000 < i 050 < 1 CC0 < L 22 CO W Z
C C 1 7 7 C J 4r N N J S C C N J S 0 U N J S W W N J •- W 2 £
C. LW MO CO MnbC . hiri .2 .2 hi 43 NN MN0) 0) M CCCCC
C Cr C4 C.4 CD C 5C. CD O = = HCD O .00D H NO M < a LC) N
YO `0HHOZ ri7OOZ r•CUUOZ ri £ O= OZ 1.4 LD C7 ri2 000ONJ
h- 04 c0 CD CCO` O ON =riO CONHHHO CO N ri C) ON HO Cf 000 \ UIC-
it 0. MO W W .DJ hi0F-F-NJ MOCCNJ M OCCNJ MOY 14NJ hi CD NNUMS
0
O
U
Z
H
a
W
Z
z
W I
U U
J O O
J 0 N N O I
H W N N U
N Z C7 Z «
C a CD it
W C7 L1 S H C!) N co
L 1 J_ CO O N L., = U CO N C C H
o .D ri C .O ri C = .0 N C N .D N C 0 a N N W W F-
c:, 0 00 < N OO 0 o OJH 0 O ❑ay `D O < Z Z U
o Z M o M o C7 M o JU M O Ya U1 05330
0 ❑ 22L1) O 2U1 ❑ HZceU1 ❑ar CM 0002
N O U1 HO O 0 ri0 40 U1 r♦ O CD a O U1 ri O F- 0U1 H LU W h- U4
ri C N O LU N O Z C N O C CJ O 0 0 N N = = N > .D
0HZ 3 Z0 Ya .2 Ca 2NL+- 0 20 ❑ N OO Z < ri
MZJ F- M2 a0 MC CDN0 MC O MC a0 M W = = O J
N 2O W0Z N < NHOZ N < 0 OZ N < LL 14OZ Na £ HO NC UC 0
L O CO C C £ 1 C7 2 0 2 £ 10 = ea 5 £ L CD 3 £ I LD C 2 Z 1 C N N W U1
CO .= H C O 0 W C 00 0 C O 0 ca N C 02 0 ca a cc 2: O O O ❑ N F-
ri CO W< Z W H N J ea <W ri N CD 7 < W r I N Q W H N 5 < H < 0 0 C C!)
H N C7 3 Y H = CD Y ri 0 Y H J Z 0 Y H S CD Y ri 0 0 W C)
L 0 < L < 5 0 < I N J 0 < I J LJ O < i U ea 0 < i 2 2 07 W 2
1 C C C J 1 N J 1 J N J S H S N J J 4 N J S W S 5
Ni o m M Cr' O 0 M M oa 4 M y C7 U M o y d M O C 2 C
O LJ1 << CD o HOLD o OM 0 o F- SCD ri a CD CD CD M << tel 0
o .D Z Z O Z H eC > o Z ri 7 2 O Z H N W O Z H F- a H Z O C� 0 O N J
N. CO O < < U1 co O N <ri O CO N < H O 00 N C H 0 CO NN ri O O 0 0 \ UI Cr
n MDF F- `DJ PIC ❑ ❑ NJ MoCCNJ M O CDC7N .4 hiCUUNJ re) O0ul UM £
N
N.0
H W C W C W C W C W C W C
CO C = O C = 0 C 5 O C £ 0 C £ O C = ❑
W O O < C O O Q C 0 0 < CC O < C 0 O a C 0 O < C O
H U1 ❑ 2 W Q O 2 W < 0 2 W a O Z W < O Z W < O Z W <
< < >- N. < Y\ Q Y \ < Y \ a > \ < Y• \
O = C Q W C Q W C 6 W C Q W0-
C Q W 5 Q W
U LL WIl £ CWC= C- WCS away CWC £ CLUCL. =
Z f- O Z X Q O Z X < O Z X a O Z X < O Z X < 0 Z X <
0 < C 3 < Z C 3 4 2 C 2 Q Z C 2 < 2 C 2 Q 2 cc 3 < 2
C 00 0. OH 0- CD F- CL. OF- 0_ OF- COF- 0_ OF-
•
:i ^>> "` Aja-4 t ^i.., I; .
Lei -t- C?7i :P-'S_ _
;' h.%,
ri
0
1
1.11
M o
H N
H
Ct.
• W
o CD
Z <
Cs_
H W W
C 2 S Y Y 2 0
O r1 ri 6 < a .0 ON - 0 0
CL o ❑ •0 N. 0 J J •O H W .0 N W N W .0 S ❑ H
W o > M 0 > 30 0 > 0 o > C O > Ui 0 > N
C of M o J CD CD M o < M O « HI 04 M OJ OC HI
CO J f J Lei CO Z Z ❑ LA Lit W 0• Ln 07 co
S < ..-1 Ln M 00 > 0 J < W LC1 d6C M L76 W 1/1 0' F-hi
N . H H HI < J JJ N H LL > NHU W 0 NH > N<J J IA L11
F- W C = I- N ZLLLL< Z > U1 Z < HJJ L11
M 4 4 M < LL.LL MH LL.7 MHC) < MH M < OO a
NNC W YZ NNOO < Z N07C <Z e4 N CD > < Z NNUU H
I } < 3C = I } F- = I C C H = 1 C= N I C } 03H = I > N c9 O
CO .4 W C 004YY< 03 hi ZZ W H WZ COHOWZ CO < HH 41
H3 3 2 W w .-iS Z Z N W ri > =}HW H > CdXH = .-1 > W = H W HS C C W Z
r4 CO Y r•i < < >IC H J CO Y H < < H = 0 0 DC H 0 Z
I = = YC I C10< < I N C < I C W 0. G I N C < I HZJ
S < < UJ a 3J 4' JHJ . < Ctel H S = HJ S CiCUH7
M O H hl < M S W W M N ee> > M 111 W U G M Lel U > M u, W. =4
N J J S 0 .0 F- F- 1 CD N C CD S C o N H Z 0 .0 Z Z CI-
ri J J Z a• 4 < .0 Z u1') W N Z U1 U Z CO > u1 e5 W u1 Z o =2 o N
CONHH .O O NH HH O. 0 No S N 0 No < 0 < NO 3 .10 NNOO \MH
M0221MJ r••• co NCA 1.-4 -1 I. o '7 U Ln-1 I-- o ❑ ❑ ri3 N. 000 Lt1J ho77Ure) 0
W
I-
0 N
D-
O 0 Z
LU <
Z Z H
O CO Z C
H H W 5 4 3 3 H
H o N H 0 0 M 1.11 CO 0' H
G H N N H 40 H Z = H W .D N N W .0 m M
= N 0 < 0 W1 0 > < V) o > u1 o 7 C 0 > U1 0 > ZU1
0 H o Z M O .J H 0 o < M 0 J < H o < M 0 J Lit
O J 0 W 0 CO C CD 0 00W Cr ul CO V) 0 <
LL N N LU M < CS J < W 0 d C M SQ W LCl . HHJ
Z N N N H H < 0 <0 .0 N H W.> N < U W 0 N H > N < Z Z
H C N 0 H =H M ZILLL- H > 111 ZZZ < H W W: 3Z
W M W 0 M a V) U 3 0 M H LL 7 M < CO < M H Z Z M < == W _
} Z NC J Z CLI NOHW0 N07C < Z NN N0 << < Z NNH-F- H
1- 3 I 0 Z I } 0CH I CC HZ I Y = N I C = = H = 1 >- 0 V) > W
CO 00W ocI C0 < H > c0 ZZ CO < WZ C0H ❑ ❑ Z 0 < W W V) >
W ri6H W ria << W H > = } HW H31>d C F- = H > J ..JH W H3 > > 00
O. >- H HO Y H 0. YZ H J0Y H < 4 H W W 0 Y H Z Z Z C
O F- I 0 C C' 6 I 0- 4 = I V) C Q I C W C. 6 I U. LL C G I H H H 0
C C 1 0 S .J S cd ....1 S J H J S < C N H S HJ . Y
0_ W MCO JLLN Mh e+! 0 MN oo >> Mu1W U G Pel u133 > MU1 == W
O. M LL 0 N. J 141 Z N C 0 S C O N N C7 1 H J
> 0 oC.OHXZ C' 00 .07 U1 ') WNZ CUZOY U1 } Y14Z o W 0e ..- 0-
H C c0 o J O O N H < 0` 0 N o N O N N < Cr, < N 0 0 7 N O N N M <
ZCL Mo C.) C.1 co-I No O. O. U1 = N` o -) OUiJ f. 0 ❑ ❑ H3 hO CO0LCIJ Po -) -14, =
0
0 -
U
Z
H
CL
LJ
Z
Z
UJ .
❑W CA N Z .
Z C C .D H
0 Z CO W W H 2
_
u1 H H C0 N W W u1 N } W1 IN 0t. .0
H ❑ H -.0 U1 N C 0 Ui 0 O V) H .0 H W .0 N W .0 M O J J .0
O Z 0 1.1 O < O > L) U ❑ LI) O > Ln O > LU' O > < G S LA
CD W M O Z < < O J w 4 > M 0 < } >- M 0 4 M o J H H M
CL w 61 7 C C CO ZCJ 0 W W 0 0 c0 Z OLCI
N N Ui . < < W Z ‘7 = H al U1 S < JJ W U1 S4 W u1 S W W > LII
NN H NCA CO W > = N < 0 NH W W > NH > N < CCJ
N 0 fA CC4 H00 < ZHH < ZCC < H (0
M W 0 _ M W < < Y M < < C H M H Y Y IA H W W M G H I-
N
N C J N00 C 0 N N = 0 < Z N CD < Z N CD J J < Z N N W W < Z
1 CI = 1 ❑ W G I Y V) U. N IN = I C ZZ H = I C J J H = I } O C) H =
CO O W Cy c0 O 00 ee H 0. c0 < } C CO H = = Z C0 HHH Z 0 < ❑ ❑ <
H < H W H < N HS Z W440W H > OOH W H > Z = H W H377NW
H HO O H COc0co0 H Y3 Y H -) -) CcY ri 0Y H 00YY
I 0 C 0' < I W H I } 4 X a I C < I ❑ O C 6 I < <
S a a J S YY20 S CJSOJ S CNNHJ S H J S JJ-SJ
M0JIA_ N MO W W 0 MMO CO M N < < > MU1 == > MC' W W
o M I.L. 0 k122141 -J LOOM CO HZ = 0 MHH 0 .OZZCTO
o O ad H X Z o O ❑ N O W Z h O Z U1 0 O N Z U1 H H U1 Z o CO G .O Z
CO O J O 0 CO o H H 0 H N N C o o 0 N o = =HI O N O W W M O NNP.-11-10 O
N. 11100 ‘...10:1 -4 M O V) V) M V) N o CD J N O.. J N CHH LII J N. CO Y Y UI J N.o == N J
N
0
H W 0 W C W C W C W C W ^'
O C = 0 C = 0 0 = 0 C= O C = O C = ❑
Lt! 0 ❑ a C 0 ❑ < co ❑ ❑ a C ❑ ❑< C ❑ 0 < C ❑ ❑ G C ❑
H.- Lit OZ W < ❑ ZW < 0Zw < ❑zw < ❑ ZW < ❑ ZW <
< < > \ a Y \ ' < >. \ < > N < Y \ < >N
0 = C < W C <W C < w C < W C < W C<w
U O. W d = CL W C.. = a W LL = d W 0.. = 0 W C. = IL W C_ =
Z H O Z X < O Z X < o z X < 0 z x < 0 z x < O z x <
0 < C S <Z C 3 < Z C 2 6 Z C S < Z 0 2 4 2 C 3 < Z'
C CO 0. 0 H 0. 0 H 0- 0 H 0. 0 H 0. 0 H 0. 0 H
f \
To: Chair Hawn and Planning Commission Members
Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Mayor and Current/New Councilmembers
From: Mike Gaffron, Planning Director 011,,
Date: December 21, 2000
Subject: Update on RPUD Ordinance & Status of Dunbar Project
Attachments
A - Summary of PC Comments 11/20/00 and 12/4/00
B - Summary of Council/PC/Public Comments at 12/7/00 Work Session
C - Draft Council Minutes 12/11/00
D - Fire Chief Preliminary Comments 12/5/00
E - Letter(s) Received from Neighbors
F - RPUD Outline 12/18/00
G - Most Recent Draft,RPUD Ordinance 12/18/00
H - TIF Information Distributed at 12-7-00 Work Session and 12-11-00 Council Meeting
RPUD Ordinance Review January 5
In preparation for your January 5 work session, enclosed is the most recent draft of the RPUD
ordinance,revised to reflect comments of Planning Commission and Council to date. Our goal for
January 5 would be to finalize the ordinance language in order to vote on a recommendation to
Council at your January 17 regular meeting. The Council is also invited to attend this work session.
Also included are recent letters received from the public,summaries of PC and Council comments,
and comments from the Fire Chief.
Dunbar Project Update
On December 11 Council reviewed the latest Dunbar plan revisions, including reduction of the
senior housing building to 62 units, removing the third story on the easterly 1/3 of the building.
Neighborhood support for the project was evident,although Sugar Woods residents still have some
concerns over the impacts of height, massing, and traffic. However. Council was generally very
favorable to the project and voted 5-0 to send it forward to Planning.Commission for a thorough site
plan review. Paul Weinberger will be preparing site plan review information for your January
meeting.
Also enclosed are two memos from Rusty Fifield of Ehlers & Associates, the City's financial
consultants,regarding financial aspects of the project. Staff plans to meet again with Rusty prior to
the 5`h to tie down details and scheduling of the various aspects of the financial end of this project.
_ 1
RPUD ORDINANCE
SUMMARY OF 11/20/00 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
Most comments were in regards to the issue of building height, primarily in regards to attached
dwellings: should there be a height limit, and what should it be; if no height limit, should there
be guidelines or criteria for determining an appropriate height, or should it be entirely at
discretion of Council based on the individual proposal.
Individual Comments:
❑ Should be standards, but in terms of stories
❑ Perhaps should be a limit on number of stories rather than on height in feet
❑ Limit the# of stories on lakeshore single family residential
❑ Don't rule out taller commercial
❑ Aesthetics need to be considered in determining appropriate height
❑ Taller is maybe OK with mitigation such as greater setbacks, etc
❑ Should be finite limits, clear standards
❑ Limit to treetop height
❑ Standards needed, with flexibility
❑ Need to review guidelines; we need guidelines, developers need guidelines if not
a defined limit
❑ There should be no restrictions, let Council decide on a case-by-case basis
❑ We perhaps should consider whether current SFR height standard is appropriate
❑ Possible limits could be based on:
- Proximity to single family homes
- Topography
- Comparison to adjacent uses
- Proximity to lakeshore
Clearly, there is not a strong concensus on whether or how to limit the height of attached
dwellings in the RPUD district, nor on whether we should have guidelines for determining an
. appropriate height if we have no limit.
Further discussion was tabled to a future works session to be held in Nov or Dec. Tabled, 6-0.
Also tabled#2638 and#2639 to work session, 6-0.
�q- -2
RPUD ORDINANCE
SUMMARY OF 12/4/00 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
(See also draft ordinance attached with pencilled notes)
❑ Add language - "the only place where more than 2-1/2 stories/more than 30' defined
height will be allowed is where commercial property is rezoned to residential..."
❑ Need financial numbers from Dunbar to justify 70 units vs lesser number (see Rusty)
❑ Based on parking need, site works better for lesser number of units at 2/1 ratio
❑ Any way to make this into two buildings of 25-0 units each?
❑ Massing is an issue due to height and length of building
❑ Also concerned about firefighting issues
❑ Add a preamble to better describe what our goals and intents are
❑ Limit 2 and 5-acre zones to single family, no multiple
❑ Limit the locations where apartments can be developed
❑ RPUD should not be allowed in Shoreland for now(but maybe consider it later...)
❑ Consider relating height to setback, or to sun angle related to adjoining lot lines, such as
maybe consider limiting multiple family to 2 stories, but allow 3 stories if no winter sun
blockage at adjoining lot lines; or if 3 stories, setback must be 1.5 times the peak height
Summary of Comments - December 7 Work Session
Density Issue
- Limit density per the Comp Plan guidelines in areas guided for residential uses
Only allow higher residential densities in areas now zoned/guided for commercial use
- Because conversion of commercial property to residential use is essentially a
downzoning, which potentially reduces the value of the land, `subsidies' such as allowing
increased density are needed to maintain the value of the property and avoid `taking'
claims
Building Height
Dunbar: Fixed costs (typ 65% of unit value) go up if limited to 2-story building
- Residents: Height is an issue along with the massing
Apparent Concensus: Limit height in residentially guided areas to 2-1/2 stories, limit
residential building height on commercially guided properties to 3 stories
Dunbar will lower the east wing to 2 stories, and decrease to 62 units
- Roof pitch is shown at 5/12; could lower to 4/12 but will look more institutional or
commercial in nature
Elimination of end-loaded garage at east end helps reduce the visual height perception
from Brown Road
Financial and Use Control Issues
Residents suggested going with higher rents to result in fewer units
- Dunbar noted facility is tailored to this region, with more 2BR/2BRDen units than
normal
- Financing package involves 1)Non-profit ownership; 2) 30-year bonds through Hennepin
County (controls use, renter qualifications, i.e. site control and continuity); and 3) City
TIF (allows for rent reduction to meet needs and affordability guidelines)
- City can restrict unit priority to a certain group; proposed priority is 1) current Orono
residents; 2) relatives of current residents; 3) past residents
- Not a clear consensus as to whether this should be restricted to Orono residents
Need to maintain initial age-group intent- at the end of 30-year bonding period,
covenants could be in place to do this, but always changeable at whim of future councils
- Generally a positive outlook by Council on the financing issues; see also Fifield memo
Another way to increase City control is for city to own the land
/
louncil Meeting A �y) , �•^.s.:r )2 -)1_a n 17
2000 �1 IA, . dr � .� C/
wher• 150 feet is required to lakes classified as NE, Natural Environ ent and to
Section 1; 56, Subdivision 16(C)(3) to permit a 9 foot encroach a ent into the average
lakeshore seta ack for structures w here no encroachment i allowed subject to all
conditions liste II' n the resolution.
Vote: Ayes 5, Nays 1
X11. #2633 Jerome Lague,' 138 Shads •ood Road—Variances—Resolution No.
Sansevere moved, and Pete7 sec ded, to adopt Resolution No. granting a
variance to Municipal Zo mg Code Sec '10.22, Subdivision 2 and Section 10.56,
Subdivision 16(L)(2) o allow 6,784 s.f. (40.9%) hardcover in the 75—250 foot
lakeshore setbac • vhere 6,784 s.f. (40.9%) exists nd 4,137 s.f. (25%) is allowed and
Section 10.22 ubdivision 1(B) and Section 10.56, Su division 16(C)(6) to allow
encroach ent of 8 feet into the average lakeshore setbac to permit a lakeside deck
to beireplaced subject to all conditions listed in the resolution.
V e: Ayes 5, Nays 0.
Items 12 and 13 appear after item 14.
14. #2640/2641 Orono Ambar, LLC, 2060 Wayzata Boulevard—P.U.D./
Subdivision/Rezoning/Commercial Site Plan Reviews
Frank Dunbar, the developer, was present_
City Council Meeting 18
November 13,2000
Weinberger stated that Orono Ambar,LLC submitted an application for a two-lot plat of
a 6.7 acre property, splitting it into a 4 acre and a 2.7 acre site. Proposed is a rezoning for
the two properties from B-1, Retail Sales Business District to B-6/PUD (for office use of
the proposed west parcel) and RPUD/PUD (for multi-family residential use of the
proposed east parcel). The intended uses of the properties are a 2 and 3-story 62 unit
senior housing project and a 23,000 s.f. office building.
Weinberger explained that since the last public meeting,the developer had changed the
plan by sliding the building further to the south, creating a 56 foot setback between the
building and rear property line. He had also lowered one half of the building by 7 feet.
He removed the third story on the eastern third of the building. Mr. Dunbar moved the
service road and rearranged the parking. so that traffic wouldn't have to pass directly
through the lot, also parking along the south side of the road had been removed. The
service road would continue on to the office parking, and through to the property line in
order to allow future access to Brimhall Road.
Three primary issues were discussed at the Work Session: 1. Site plans and use of the
property as residential commercial, 2. RPUD zoning district, and 3. TIF financing.
Mayor Jabbour asked Mr. Dunbar to summarize the project's history. He stated that he
came in over the summer with a concept to put retail on the first floor and senior housing
above it. The proposed building was too high, so he broke the project apart offering a
City Council Meeting 19
November 13,2000
retail/office site separate from the housing site. He tried to preserve a hill between the
two sites,thereby preserving vegetation. To.minimize the impact on the neighbors to the
north, he moved the housing to the south and has reduced the parking. He lowered the
height on the northeast wing to 2 stories, reducing the housing to 62 units. He also
shortened the clock tower. He moved the office building 5 feet to the west and adjusted
the elevator to eliminate variances. He raised the foundation of the senior housing 4 feet
on the east side to keep the natural vegetation and moved the garage entrance to the south
side so neighbors on the east wouldn't see cars coming and going from the garage. He
chose similar building materials for the housing unit and the office building so they will
be compatible.
Dr. Berg, of 2021 Sugarwoods Drive, stated that the homeowners association has
discussed the project, and they approve of the senior housing. They are concerned that
the project is too big and too dense with about 17 people per acre. He submitted a
petition stating that the neighbors feel the project is too big.
Mayor Jabbour stated that the housing project needs enough density to justify the
expense. Orono as a community needs senior housing. He asked the neighbors to realize
that if the site is developed non-residential the parking requirements would eliminate all
existing trees on the site. He asked the neighbors to offer suggestions instead of simply
stating their complaints. Sansevere reminded the neighbors that Mr. Dunbar dropped his
housing plan from 70 to 62 units and dropped one wing from 3 to 2 stories in order to
accommodate the neighbors.
City Council Meeting 20
November 13,2000
Ron Glover, of 2004 Sugarwoods Drive, asked if there was a solution to be found
between the existing plan and the worst possible scenario.
Mayor Jabbour stated that a housing project will produce minimal traffic and parking
needs compared to a retail project. He suggested people offer input toward landscaping
and buffering issues.
Kelley stated that he worked with Sid Weaver, the owner, on developing Sugarwoods.
Because of Mr. Weaver's concern for his property,the neighbors are assured he has
selected a conscientious developer. If Mr. Weaver has to sell, or his estate sells, the
property, the next developer might not be so willing to accommodate the neighbors'
wishes. He stated that when Highway 12 is finished, the property's value will increase
dramatically.
Jim Winter, of 2005 Sugarwoods Drive, stated that he agreed with Kelley, and believes
Sid Weaver and the developer have compromised very well. He did not sign the petition.
Dick Gill, of 2002 SugarwoodsDrive, stated that he did sign the petition to support his
neighbors, but he appreciates the work Mr. Weaver and the developer have done, and he
hopes there is more that can be done to address the neighbors' concerns.
Sansevere asked if the concern over massing regarded the view from the road, or the view
City Council Meeting 21
November 13,2000
from Sugarwoods. Mr. Gill stated it was both. Mr. Dunbar stated that the drawings are
deceptive because they don't necessarily show the effect of the topography. Because the
housing would be set downhill from Sugarwoods, only the very top of the building would
be visible from the neighbors' homes. Mr. Dunbar stated that the development is as
small as it can go: any smaller and it ceases to be financially viable.
Mayor Jabbour stated that at this point the neighbors should offer input as to landscaping
to help disguise the development. Mr. Dunbar stated that he would hold neighborhood
meetings and go on site with the neighbors to work out landscaping issues. Flint stated
that the best way to protect Orono's beauty is to say yes to the right developer. Mayor
Jabbour stated that the project could provide Sugarwoods with a sound buffer to Highway
12.
Steve Schrole, of 2006 Sugarwoods, stated that he is concerned with traffic congestion
and flow. It currently takes a long time to turn left onto Highway 12 from Brown Road.
Mayor Jabbour stated they expect a light to be installed at that intersection, and it will
coincide with the development opening.
• Mayor Jabbour stated that the City will have some control over the development because
they are issuing bonds and possibly TIF financing. He reminded the neighbors that they
will be able to offer input into things like the hours kept. the type of lights used, burms,
trees, etc.
City Council Meeting 22
November 13,2000
Dr. Berg asked about the roof pitch on the housing unit. Mr. Dunbar stated it could be
either a 5/12 or 4/12.pitch. He added that he was prepared to bring in a traffic study to
prove that his development's impact wouldn't be dramatic because seniors are off-peak
hours drivers.
Rosemarie Glover, of 2004 Sugarwoods, asked about increasing the office building size
to accommodate a smaller housing unit. Mr. Dunbar stated that increasing the office size
would require extensive parking that would result in removing all the trees on the lot.
Kelley questioned the application deadline. Mr. Dunbar agreed to extend the deadline up
to 180 days, which is the maximum allowed extension for a subdivision.
Kelley moved, and Mayor Jabbour seconded, to send the application to the Planning
Commission for a commercial site plan and develop an ordinance for the RPUD to
accommodate senior housing on the site.
Vote: Ayes 5,Nays 0.
12. #2634 & G Holding Company, 1122 and 1140 Loma Linda Avenu L't �
Line Rear angement—Resolutions No.
Ms. Herd was present representing I- app '- ts, Mr. and Mrs. Goldberg.
Weinberger . .ted that the applicants requested a vacation of an al e rvice road at the
Mike Gaffron - RE: Fire Department Perspective re: Senior Housing Project at 12/Brown Page 1
From: "Steve.Persian (Exchange)" <Steve.Persian@target.com>
To: 'Mike Gaffron' <MGAFFRON@ci.orono.mn.us>
Date: 12/5/00 10:14AM
Subject: RE: Fire Department Perspective re: Senior Housing Project at 12/Brown
Mike,
Thank you very much for making me a partner on this issue. I appreciate the
opportunity to provide my perspective.
First and foremost, let me qualify my response. I have not seen the
building plans yet, so some of my assumptions may be incorrect. Also, I
would recommend that Billy Meyer(fire marshal) also be brought into the
loop and taken as an advisor. That said:
Assuming that the structure is 35 -45' in height, the structure would be at
risk in the event of a fire. The Long Lake Fire Department currently does
not have "Arial' apparatus unit. Depending upon the type of incident, our
method of attacking or controlling a fire at this structure could be'less
than effective'without the proper fire equipment.
It is my perspective that the Developer should be responsible, in whole or
in part, to fund the expense of an appropriate piece of apparatus for the
Long Lake Fire Department. Namely an Arial unit. Just so you are aware,
the Long Lake Fire Department's 15 year Major Capital planning calendar has
the replacement of an existing engine in 2004. With a structure such as
this, (as well as more on the way I would assume), maybe that need should be
accelerated, but that would require multiple City Council approvals. And
the cost of an new Arial is approximately $550,000. However, there may be
the option of purchasing a used one at a much reduced cost. A unit that
say, is 10 years old. This is not ideal, but is an option.
Do you have any insight on what a Developer may say to this request? Is it
uncommon for this type of requirement to be given to a Developer in order
for a building approval to be granted?
Please don't misinterpret my message. I'm a big advocate for growth and
development and think this type of housing has great value to the Community.
I just want to make sure that the people that live there are adequately
protected.
I may be able to attend on Thursday AM, if it is truly value added for me to ..
be there. Please advise.
Talk to you soon.
Thanks!
Steve Persian
Fire Chief, Long Lake Volunteer Fire Department
(w) 612-375-2240
DEC 2 Q 2000
c:117 Vr
ur*
No
December lcl, 2000 l
To: Mayor Jabour
Orono City Council
Orono Planning Committee
Orono Planning Coordinator
Subject: Rejection of Proposed Development— Brown Road & Rt.12
I am a resident of Orono and am a Sugar Woods' homeowner and taxpayer.
I attended the December 7, 2000, Orono Council meeting and as a result am
outraged that the Orono Council appears to be inclined to approve the
monstrous condominium complex and office building proposed for the
corner of Brown Road and Route 12.
Anyone stopping at the Long Lake traffic signal and visualizing this three
story "sea wall," stretched out curb to curb with all of the trees cut down,
will agree that the proposed structure would make a very uninviting,
unattractive entrance to the beautiful Orono area.
This eyesore, which would be strategically sitting at the curve in the road,
and up on the hill, would become the signature development of Orono. Its
central position and imposing presence would be totally contrary to the goals
and guidelines previously used to create and engender the Orono ambiance,
which we all love and enjoy. I am certain that a mission of the Council is to
preserve the beauty and rural character of this area. I cannot imagine that
• any Orono resident would think that the proposal as stated would come close .
to satisfying that mission.
All of the Sugar Woods' residents invested in their property with a clear
understanding of the existing zoning guidelines. I am not aware of any
overwhelming reasons to motivate the Council to change the zoning in such
a way to allow for the massiveness of this development. Senior housing
would be a welcomed addition to our area. However, it appears that what is
guiding the huge size of this proposal is the developer's unsupported profit
goals. I believe in enterprises making a profit, but not when they infringe
upon, and degrade my own property value and lifestyle.
Other reasons that you should reject this proposal are these:
1. It would significantly increase the already busy, dangerous and
congested intersection at Brown Road and Route 12. A traffic signal
erected sometime in the next 4-6 years will not solve this problem.
2. It would have a negative impact on the property values of all of the
Sugar Woods' homeowners.
3. High density housing (17 '/2 units per acre) of this magnitude in this
very prominent location would completely change the rural character of
our town.
4. The esthetics of this massive building would ruin the beautiful tree
covered landscape and be an eyesore that would highlight an obvious
mistake in town planning for years to come.
It was clear at the December 7, 2000, Council meeting that the developer has
no intention to make this complex significantly smaller in size with much
less density in order to fit in comfortably with the surrounding community.
Therefore, please reject this proposal.
cer- ,
11
. /
w, .4.
•semarie. iiii ,
sv er
2004 Sugar Woods Drive
Orono, MN 55356 .
November 28, 2000
Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator •-
City of Orono
PO Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
Dear Mr. Gaffron,
We are writing this letter on behalf of the undersigned residents of Sugar Woods and, we
believe, in the best interest of the Orono community at large.
Currently there is a proposal to develop the area known as OutLot A of Sugar Woods.
This area represents approximately 6.7 acres and is located directly south of the
residential portion of Sugar Woods. We are concerned about several aspects of this
proposal.
Our concerns include the following:
1. The proposed development consists of 70 living units in an area of approximately 4
acres. This density of 17.5 units per acre is not presently permitted anywhere in
Orono. We believe that a density of this magnitude is contrary to the profile of the
community and is incompatible with the environment that drew the residents of
Orono to our city.
2. The proposed development would be three stories high above ground and have an
average height of over 40 feet. This is not allowed anywhere in Orono. In addition,
because of the topography of the site, the first floor would be over 25 feet above the
grade of Highway 12. This would give the structure the appearance of being 6 stories
tall.
Homeowners purchased property on the south side of Sugar Woods with the
understanding that the property behind them was zoned according to the 30 feet
height restriction permitted for B1 retail commercial development. .
3. We believe that, if approved, the development would be precedent setting for the area
and would serve to promote other high rise development on the South side of
highway 12 in Long Lake.
4. We do not believe that the review of this project can or should proceed without a
concurrent general revision of the Orono zoning ordinances. Thus, any variances for
this project could have the effect of calling into question the zoning ordinances for the
entire area.
5. We have been unable to review the implications of this project on the traffic flow.
This development will impact traffic on Brown Road and Highway 12. Currently,
there are significant safety issues regarding the ability to turn east on Highway 12
from North Brown road. This project will only serve to enhance these concerns and
put Orono residents and others at risk.
6. We are concerned that there appears to be a desire on the part of the developer to
force the city and others to a"rush to judgement" on this project. While we are
sensitive to the issue of the expiration of the option for the land, we believe that the
developer can explore other methods to preserve their interests while the implications
of the project are fully evaluated. We believe that if approved this project will
significantly impact the future of Orono for all of its residents.
7. Lastly, there is a potential safety issue—does the city have fire-fighting equipment
capable of handling an emergency for the proposed height of these buildings?
We respectfully request that these issues be considered at the planning meeting on
December 7, 2000 and subsequent progression on this development be delayed until these
issues and potentially others can be thoughtfully addressed and resolved.
Thank you for your prompt attention and thoughtful consideration on behalf of all of the
residents of Oro l o.
/29
Sincerely. aA ,
(SLK WWE45'tlJ'�L'-
/Pa/ / �� � / (/• 1
Sugar Woods Homeowners Association
Copies: Orono City Council
Orono Planning Commission
5. We have been unable to review the implications of this project on the traffic flow.
This development will impact traffic on Brown Road and Highway 12. Currently,
there are significant safety issues regarding the ability to turn east on Highway 12
from North Brown road.. This project will only serve to enhance these concerns and
put Orono residents and others at risk.
6. We are concerned that there appears to be a desire on the part of the developer to
force the city and others to a"rush to judgement" on this project. While we are
sensitive to the issue of the expiration of the option for the land, we believe that the
developer can explore other methods to preserve their interests while the implications
of the project are fully evaluated. We believe that if approved this project will
significantly impact the future of Orono for all of its residents.
7. Lastly, there is a potential safety issue—does the city have fire-fighting equipment
capable of handling an emergency for the proposed height of these buildings?
We respectfully request that these issues be considered at the planning meeting on
December 7, 2000 and subsequent progression on this development be delayed until these
issues and potentially others can be thoughtfully addressed and resolved.
Thank you for your prompt attention and thoughtful consideration on behalf of all of the
residents of Orono.
Sincerely •
.
/ n
/�Co Q,cr �vd—c 'al .
.
ti,. , C ,9 / Li73 - 7265
FAx : 9.-Z- 973— 979
Copies: Orono City Council
Orono Planning Commission
5. We have been unable to review the implications of this project on the traffic flow.
This development will impact traffic on Brown Road and Highway 12... Currently,
there are significant safety issues regarding the ability to turn east on Highway 12
from North Brown road. This project will only serve to enhance these concerns and
put Orono residents and others at risk.
6. We are concerned that there appears to be a desire on the part of the developer to
force the city and others to a"rush to judgement"on this project. While we are
sensitive to the issue of the expiration of the option for the land, we believe that the
developer can explore other methods to preserve their interests while the implications
of the project are fully evaluated. We believe that if approved this project will
significantly impact the future of Orono for all of its residents.
7. Lastly, there is a potential safety issue—does the city have fire-fighting equipment
capable of handling an emergency for the proposed height of these buildings?
We respectfully request that these issues be considered at the planning meeting on
December 7, 2000 and subsequent progression on this development be delayed until these
issues and potentially others can be thoughtfully addressed and resolved.
Thank you for your prompt attention and thoughtful consideration on behalf of all of the
residents of Orono.
Sincerely.
Copies: Orono City Council
Orono Planning Commission
r
RPUD OUTLINE r"r
December 18,2000
SEC. 10.33 RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
Subd. 1. Purpose.
Subd. 2. Permitted Uses.
Subd. 3. Conditional Uses.
Subd. 4. Accessory Uses.
Subd. 5. Development Standards.
A. Minimum Area; Shoreland District Prohibition.
B. Uses.
C. Sewer Availability.
D. Density.
E. Incentives.
F. Site Coverage.
G. Development Standards for Attached and Multi-Family Dwelling Structures.
H. Development Standards for Single-Family Detached Dwellings in the RPUD District
I. More Than One Building Allowed.
J. Single Housing Type Permitted.
K. Park Dedication.
L. Ownership.
M. Signage.
N. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering.
O. Architectural Standards.
P. Flexibility.
Q. Traffic Studies.
R. Building Permits.
S. General Regulations Applicability.
Subd. 6. Review of Application; Procedures.
A. Concept Plan Review. . .
B. Master Development Plan and Rezoning.
C. Final Site and Building Plan.
D. Substantial Compliance.
E. Simultaneous Review.
F. Basis For Approval; Conditions.
Subd. 7. Term of Approval.
Subd. 8. Amendments.
Subd. 9. Exceptions.
1
RPUD Ordinance- 4th Draft December 18, 2000 Page 1
i
SEC. 10.33 RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
Subd. 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)
district is to provide a district which will allow for the implementation of certain residential housing
goals established in the 2000-2020 Orono Community`tanagement Plan(`CMP'or`Comprehensive
Plan'). The RPUD District is established to accommodate the densities and types of residential
development contemplated in the CMP by incorporating the principles of the Planned Unit
Development concept. The RPUD District will encourage the following:
A. flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize new
techniques of building design. construction and land development;
B. provision of housing to meet lifecycle,and low affordable and moderate cost
housing needs;
C. energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and
sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses;
D. preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection
of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, poor soils and
trees;
E. high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses,
including both existing and planned;
F. sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land
uses and along significant corridors within the city; and
G. development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 2. Permitted Uses. Within the RPUD District, no land or structures shall be used
except for one or more of the following uses:
A. Any `Permitted Use' as regulated in the R-1A District (Ed. Note: this
includes one-family single dwellings; public owned parks and
playgrounds; and municipal buildings).
B. Multi-family attached dwellings only when consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. and only within the areas of the City designated as
Urban Area in the Comprehensive Plan.
RPUD Ordinance- 4th Draft December 18, 2000 Page 2
Subd.3. Conditional Uses.Within the RPUD district,no land or structure shall be used for
the following uses except by conditional use permit:
(Ed Note: Conditional Uses listed in the R-IA District include Schools; Churches; Clubs, Camps, etc.;Public
Service Structures;Greenhouses;Private Recreation Areas;Guest Houses&Guest Apartments;PRD's;Duplex
credit;Farms;Animals;Stables and Barns;Riding Academy;Plumbing in Accessory Buildings. None of the
conditional uses listed in the R-IA District conceptually fit into the RPUD District,except perhaps Public Service
Structures).
A. Public Service Structures.Public service structures,including but not limited
to electric transmission lines,buildings such as telephone exchange stations,
booster or pressure regulating stations,wells,and plumbing stations,elevated
tanks,lift stations and electrical power substations,provided no building shall
be located within 50' from any lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District.
Prior to granting such permit it shall be found that the architectural design of
service structures is compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be
located and thus will promote the general welfare. Public service structures
as defined above that have been approved by the City at required public
hearings for public improvement projects shall not require a conditional use
permit but such structures shall be subject to all other appropriate standards
set forth in this section; amendments to approved plans involving design
and/or placement of these structures will require written notice by the City to
all affected property owners 14 days prior to the adoption of the amended
plans by the Council. Personal wireless services and commercial
broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service
structures. Uses allowed by conditional use permit shall be reviewed for
compliance with the PUD master development plan and with the applicable
conditional use permit standards of this ordinance. Uses allowed by
conditional use permit shall also be subject to site and building plan review
pursuant to this ordinance. -
Subd.4. Accessory Uses. Within the RPUD District the following uses shall be a permitted
accessory use:
A. Any accessory use except for "Roadside Stands" as regulated in the R-1A
District.
B. Privately owned buildings to be used for recreation or social purposes,or for
use as storage areas for maintenance equipment or rubbish.
' II
RPUD Ordinance - 4th Draft December 18, 2000 Page 3
Subd. 5. Development Standards. Within the RPUD District all development shall be in
compliance with the following:
A. Minimum Area; Shoreland District Prohibition. Each site proposed for
rezoning to RPUD shall have a minimum area of five acres,excluding areas
within a designated wetland,floodplain or shoreland district or right-of-way,
unless the . ' . . - • - Council finds the existence of one of the
following:
1. Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding
neighborhood such that development as a RPUD will conserve a
physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or
community;
2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a right-of-way from
property which has been developed previously as a RPUD or planned
residential development and will be perceived as and will function as
an extension of that previously approved development;
3. The property is located in a transitional arca between different land
use categories an area where the proposed development provides a
transition between a commercial or industrial area and an existing
residential area or on an intermediate or principal arterial as defined
in the comprehensive plan;
4. The property contains steep slopes or a substantial number of
significant trees that could be preserved through the clustering of
buildings or other design techniques not generally allowed by the
existing zoning district.
No site located within the defined Shoreland Overlay District shall be
rezoned to RPUD.
B. Uses. Each property rezoned to RPUD shall only be used for the use or uses
for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan, except that the
city may permit rezoning to RPUD on a site designated for commercial use
if the City Council finds that such use is in the best interests of the city and
is consistent with the requirements of this section.
If a commercial site is to be rezoned to RPUD, the city may forward a copy
of the request to the Metropolitan Council for review.
RPUD Ordinance- 4th Draft December 18,2000 Page 4
(Ed. Note:Many of the uses allowed as conditional uses in residential zoning districts, cannot be placed in
areas of the City which are designated residential in the CMP;for instance,only properties currently
containing schools or churches are designated in the CLIP as Institutional rather than residential. The result
is that any existing site that is designated Residential in the CMP cannot be converted to an Institutional Use
such as a church or school use, without a CAMP amendment...)
C. Sewer Availabilitti. A site proposed to be rezoned to RPUD with proposed
density greater than 1 unit per 2 acres must be in the MUSA and must be
serviced by municipal sewer.
D. Density. Each development in the RPUD district shall have a density within
the range specified in the Comprehensive Plan for the specific site.If the site
is not designated in the Comprehensive Plan for residential use, the
appropriate density shall be determined by the City based upon the City
Council's finding that such density is consistent with the intent of this
ordinance and of the Comprehensive Plan. Developments with proposed
densities in excess of the densities contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan
shall be allowed only on properties which are currently zoned and guided for
commercial use. in order to maintain the character and integrity of the areas
zoned and guided for residential use.
E. Incentives. The ci-. may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of
projects which are consistent with the city's housing. goals. Incentives may
include modification of density (only for properties currently zoned and
guided for commercial use) and floor area ratio requirements for
developments providing lifecycle housing and low affordable and moderate
cost housing. Incentives for low affordable and moderate cost housing may
be approved by the city only after the developer and city have entered into an
agreement to ensu:e that the low and moderate cost units remain available to
persons of low and moderate income for a specific period of time.
RPUD Ordinance -4th Draft December 18,2000 Page 5
F. Site Coverage.Hardsurface coverages and floor area ratios(FAR's)shall be
limited as follows:
Comprehensive Plan Designation Maximum Maximum
Hardsurface Floor Area
Coverage(%) Ratio*
Low or medium density residential 50 0.5
(up to and including 6.0 units per acre)
High density residential 70 1.0
(in excess of 6.0 units per acre)
*FAR=Total Building Floor Area/Total Lot Area
Individual lots within a development in the RPUD district may exceed these
standards as long as the average meets these standards.
G. Development Standards for Attached and Multi-Family Dwelling
Structures. Each site rezoned to RPUD and developed for attached or
multiple family dwelling uses shall be subject to the following standards:
1. Setbacks and Separation of Uses. Within the RPUD district he
setback for all attached and multi-family dwelling buildings and their
accessory buildings from any bordering or abutting street line shall be
35 feet for local streets and 50 feet from railroad lines or collector or
arterial streets, as designated in the comprehensive plan, except that
in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building tip
:. ' .. . :: . The setback for all buildings from
exterior RPUD site lot lines not abutting a public street shall be 35
feet except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of
the building up to a maximum of 100 feet. Building setbacks from
internal public streets shall be determined by the city based on
characteristics of the specific RPUD site. Parking lots and driving
lanes shall be set back at least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a
RPUD site. The setback for parking structures including decks and
ramps shall be 35 feet from local streets and 50 feet from all other
street classifications except that in no case shall the setback be less
than the height of the structure. Parking structure setbacks from
external lot lines shall be 50 feet or the height of the structure,
whichever is greater when adjacent to residential properties; 35 feet
when adjacent to non-residential properties. Parking structure
RPUD Ordinance - 4`f' Draft December 18, 2000 Page 6
setbacks from internal public or private streets shall be determined by
the city based on characteristics of the specific RPUD site. Where
industrial uses abut developed or platted single family lots outside the
RPUD site, greater exterior building and parking setbacks may be
required in order to provide effective screening. The City Council
shall make a determination regarding the adequacy of screening
proposed by the applicant. Screening may include the use of natural
topography or earth berming, existing and proposed plantings and
other features such as roadways and wetlands which provide
separation of uses.
Areas Properties rezoned to RPUD which arc dcsignatcd in the
: .. . • . . .. . . - - .
use shall be considered a residential district for purposes of
determining building and parking setback requirements on adjacent
high density residential, commercial and industrial property outside
the RPUD.
2. Height Limitations. For properties guided for residential use in the
Comprehensive Plan, a building height limit of 2-1/2 stories or 30
feet shall apply. For properties currently zoned or guided in the
Comprehensive Plan for commercial use, height may not exceed 3
stories (not including underground parking level) and shall maintain
a residential character by incorporating pitched or hipped roof
structure. No mansard or flat roofed multiple family buildings will
be allowed.
3. Outside Storage Limitations. Outside storage of building materials.
recreational vehicles, boats, RV's, snowmobiles, and other items of
personal property shall not be stored outside within any site used for
attached or multi-family uses.
Development Standards for Single-Family Detached Dwellings in the
RPUD District. Each RPUD site developed for single family detached
dwellings . • b•'• . • . . • - • . . at medium density
•• • . .• (i.e.densities ranging from 1 unit per acre to 6 units
per acre) shall be subject to the following standards:
RPUD Ordinance- 4`h Draft December 18,2000 Page 7
1. Permitted locations: In areas of the City where smaller single family
detached dwelling lots will allow for clustering to preserve significant
natural features, or in areas where a mixture of higher density
attached dwellings and lower density detached single family
dwellings will result in a development that does not exceed the
overall guided density.
(Ed.Note-Example 1:A 10-acre area guided for 1-acre SFR could have 10 individual 1/3 acre lots
clustered at on corner, leaving 2/3 of the site in its natural state for open space. Example 2:A 10-
acre area guided for up to 4 units per acre could have a mix of SFR and townhome lots,for
instance-20 SFR units at 15,000 sf.per lot(6.9 acres total) and 20 townhomes on 2,000 sf.
individual ownership pads with 2.2 acres commons area)
2. Minimum SFR lot size: 15,000 s.f.
3. Minimum lot width at the setback line: 90 feet.
4. Minimum lot depth: 125 feet.
5. Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet on internal streets within the
RPUD site. On exterior or through streets a setback of 35 feet must
be provided on local streets and 50 foot setback on collector or
arterial streets as defined in the Comprehensive Plan.
6. Minimum side yard setback: 10 feet along interior lot lines; 15 feet on
lot lines along the exterior of the RPUD site. Side yards abutting
streets must meet the minimum front yard setbacks as noted above.
7. Rear yard setback: minimum of 40 feet or 20 percent of the depth of
the lot, whichever is less.
8. Building height: maximum of 30 feet or 2-1/2 stories.
9. All dwelling units,including manufactured homes,shall have a depth
of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their width. All dwelling
units,including manufactured homes,shall have a width of at least 20
feet for at least 50 percent of their depth.
RPUD Ordinance- 4th Draft December 18,2000 Page 8
•
10. All dwellings shall have a permanent foundation in conformance with
the Minnesota State Building Code.
11. Accessory structures shall conform to the setbacks established for
principal structures, except as follows:
A. all accessory structures located more than 10 feet from a
principal structure may be located a minimum of 10 feet from
a rear or side lot line, when that line does not abut a street
right-of-way.
B. no accessory structure shall be located closer to the front lot
line than the principal structure, regardless of the principal
structure setback.
12. No accessory structure shall occupy more than 30 percent of the side
or rear yard in which it is located, nor exceed 1,000 square feet in
area, nor exceed 12 feet in height.
13. Off-street parking shall be provided for at least two vehicles for each
single family dwelling. A suitable location for a garage measuring at
least 20 feet by 24 feet without a variance shall be provided and
indicated as such on a survey or site plan to be submitted when
applying for a building permit to construct a new dwelling or alter an
existing garage.
I. More Than One Building Allowed. More than one building may be placed
on one platted or recorded lot in a RPUD site.
J. Single Housing Type Permitted.Any RPUD development which involves
a single housing type shall be permitted provided that it is otherwise
consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the comprehensive plan.
K. Park Dedication. Each RPUD development shall provide a minimum of 8
percent of the gross project area i private -creational uses for project
residents. Such area shall be for active or ..• . e recreational uses suited to
the needs of the residents of the project, including swimming pools, trails,
nature areas,picnic areas,tot lots and saunas. (Ed.Note: This would be in
lieu of park fee...)
.DIC.. - 'rum C,,
RPUD Ordinance- 4t Draft December 18, 2000 Page 9
L. Ownership. All property to be included within a RPUD development shall
be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or
covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved
master development plan and final site and building plan.
M. Signage. Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in a sign plan
approved by the city and shall be regulated by permanent covenants.
N. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering.
1. Landscape Plan Requirements. Landscape plans shall be prepared
by a landscape architect or other qualified person acceptable to the
City, drawn to the scale of not less than 1 inch equals 50 feet and
shall show the following:
a) boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions;
a) locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots,
roads and other improvements;
b) proposed grading plan with 2-foot contour intervals;
c) location, approximate size and common name of existing
trees and shrubs;
d) a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common
and botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition
and special planting instructions;
e) planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new
plant material;
f) locations and details of other landscape features including
berms, fences and planter boxes;
g) details of restoration of disturbed areas including areas to be
sodded and seeded;
h) location and details of irrigation systems; and
i) details and cross sections of all required screening.
2. Minimum Landscaping Requirements.
a) All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for
required parking areas, drives or storage shall be landscaped
with a combination of deciduous and coniferous species
including overstory trees, understory trees, shrubs, flowers
and groundcover materials. The plan for landscaping shall,
include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculpture,
RPUD Ordinance - 4th Draft December 18,2000 Page 10
foundations, decorative walks or other similar site design
features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in
conformance with the following table:
Project Value Minimum Landscape Value
(Including building construction,
site preparation,and site improvements)
Below$1,000,000 2.0 %
$1,000,000- $2,000,000 1.7 %
$2,000,001 - $3,000,000 1.4 %
$3,000,001 - $4,000,000 1.15 %
Over$4,000,000 1.0 %
In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable
species exist on a site prior to its development,the application
of the standards in this section may be adjusted by the City to
allow credit for such material,provided that such adjustment
is consistent with the intent of this ordinance.
b) A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many
existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into
the site plan.
c) All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or
moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees
shall have a minimum caliper of 21/2 inches. Coniferous trees
shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental trees
shall have a minimum caliper of 11/2 inches.
d� All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks,parking
lots,driveways,patios,or similar hardsurface materials shall
be covered with sod or an equivalent around cover approved
by the city. This requirement shall not apply to site areas
retained in a natural state.
e) In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped
areas, an underground sprinkler system shall be provided as
part of each new development, except one and two family
dwellings and additions to existing structures which do not at
RPUD Ordinance - 4th Draft December 18,2000 Page 11
least equal the floor area of the existing structure. A sprinkler
system shall be provided for all landscaped areas except areas
to be preserved in a natural state.
f) Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees
shall be composed of one species. The City shall maintain a
list of prohibited species which shall not be used for
landscaping.
Ed Note: Keep a separate schedule of prohibited species such as this:
No required tree shall be one of the following:
1) a species of the genus Ulmus (elm), except those elms bred to be immune to Dutch Elm Disease;
2) box elder;
3) a species of the genus Populous (poplar); or
4) female ginko.
3. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping.
a) All parking lots containing over 150 stalls shall be designed
to incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in number and
dimension as required by the City. All landscape islands shall
contain a minimum of 180 square feet. Islands which are
necessary to promote the safe and efficient flow of traffic
shall not be subject to the "150 stall" standard and shall be
required by the city when warranted.
b) Parking lot landscape areas,including landscape islands,shall
be reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot area so as
to break up expanses of paved areas. Parking lot landscape
areas shall be provided with deciduous shade trees,
ornamental or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch
and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate by the Planning
Commission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at
the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces
provided, or major fraction thereof. Parking lot landscaping
shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised
concrete curb or equivalent approved by the Planning
Commission.
RPUD Ordinance- 4th Draft December 18, 2000 Page 12
4. Maintenance of Landscaping. The owner, tenant and their
respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the
maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy,
neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants
and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape
plan, and which have died shall be replaced within three months of
notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may be
extended up to nine months by the city in order to allow for seasonal
or weather conditions.
5. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height,and
staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in height or involve
more than 4 tiers, must be constructed in accordance with plans
prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect.
6. Landscaping Performance Security Required. When screening,
landscaping or other similar improvements to property are required
by this ordinance a letter of credit shall be supplied by the owner in
an amount equal to at least one and one-half times the value of such
screening, landscaping or other improvements. The letter of credit
shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by
the city for engineering,legal,contracting or other fees in connection
with making or completing such improvements. The letter of credit
shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and
shall be valid for a period of time equal to one two full growing
seasons after the date of installation of the landscaping.The city may
accept some other form of security in lieu of a letter of credit in an
amount and under such conditions that the city may determine to be
appropriate. In the event that construction of the project is not.
completed within the time prescribed by building permits and other
approvals, the city may, at its option, complete the work required at
the expense of the awner and the surety.
The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all
landscaping if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably
beyond the control of the developer. Extensions which may not
exceed nine months, may be granted due to seasonal or weather
conditions. When an extension is granted,the city shall require such
additional security as it deems appropriate.
RPUD Ordinance- 4th Draft December 18.2000 Page 13
7. Screening and Buffering.
a) The following uses shall be screened or buffered in
accordance with the requirements of this subdivision:
1. Principal buildings and structures and any building or
structure accessory thereto used for residential uses at
a density of greater than 4 units per acre shall be
buffered from residential lots located in any "R"
district.
2. Off-street parking facilities containing six or more
spaces shall be buffered from streets located within 50
feet.
3. Loading docks shall be screened from all lot lines and
public roads.
4. Trash storage facilities shall be screened from all lot
lines and public roads.
5. Access roads serving multi-family buildings shall be
screened as necessary to eliminate the impact of
vehicle headlights shining toward adjacent residential
neighborhoods.\
b) Required screening or buffering may be achieved with fences,
walls,earth berms,hedges, or other landscape materials. All
walls and fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the
principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of
3:1. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which
provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons.
c) All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot
occupied by the use. building, facility or structure to be
screened. No screening or buffering shall be located on any
public right-of-way or within eight feet of the traveled portion
of any street or highway.
RPUD Ordinance- 4th Draft December 18,2000 Page 14
d) Screening or buffering required by this section shall be of a
height needed to accomplish the goals of this section.
Screening methods incorporating roofs over storage,trash or
mechanical facilities to screen from higher adjacent properties
or buildings may be requierd. Height of plantings required
under this section shall be measured at the time of
installation.
O. Architectural Standards.
1. It is not the intent of the City to restrict design freedom unduly when
reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building
plan. However, it is in the best interest of the City to promote high
standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding
structures and neighborhoods. Architectural plans shall be prepared
by an architect or other qualified persons acceptable to the City and
shall show the following for all structures other than single family
detached dwellings:
a) elevations of all sides of the building;
b) type and color of exterior building materials;
c) a typical floor plan;
d) dimensions of all structures;
e) the location of trash and recycling containers and of heating,
ventilation and air conditioning equipment.
2. Unadorned prestressed concrete panels,concrete block and unfinished
metal shall not be permitted as exterior materials for residential
principal and accessory buildings. This restriction shall apply to all
principal structures and to all accessory buildings ea
• • . .. • ' . The city may,at its discretion,
allow architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels.
3. Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with principal
structures.
RPUD Ordinance - 4th Draft December 18,2000 Page 15
4. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and exterior
trash and recycling storage areas shall be fully enclosed or screened
so as to be not visible with materials compatible with the principal
structure. . ..-. . -, . . ..
..' .' . - - - . q I .
cquirenicnt.
5. Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substantially
renovated structures (substantially renovated shall mean when the
renovations exceed 30%of the pre-renovation value of the structure).
P. Flexibility. The uniqueness of each RPUD requires that specifications and
standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be
subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them.
The city council may therefore approve streets,utilities,public facilities and
land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or
ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or
requirements is not required to meet the intent of this section or to protect the
health, safety or welfare of the residents of the RPUD, the surrounding area
or the city as a whole.
Q. Traffic Studies. The City may require a traffic analysis to be prepared by a
registered traffic engineer approved by the City to assess potential traffic
impacts on local streets. If impacts on service levels of roadways and
intersections are anticipated, the project will be approved only contingent
upon a traffic management plan that adequately mitigates those impacts. The
plan may include travel demand management strategies, use of transit
facilities or other appropriate measures to reduce traffic generation, and
necessary improvements to road systems. The developer shall.have the
responsibility to install all necessary road system improvements.
R. Building Permits.No building or other permit shall be issued for any work
on property included within a proposed or approved RPUD development nor
shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the proposed or
approved RPUD development.
S. General Regulations Applicability. The requirements contained in this
ordinance pertaining to general regulations for residential districts and
performance standards shall apply to a RPUD development as deemed
appropriate by the city.
RPUD Ordinance- 4th Draft December 18, 2000 Page 16
Subd. 6. Review of Application; Procedures.
A. Concept Plan Review. In order to receive guidance in the design of a RPUD
prior to submission of a formal application, an applicant may submit a
concept plan for review and comment by the planning commission and city
council. Submission of a concept plan is optional but is highly recommended
for large RPUDs. In order for the review to be of most help to the applicant,
the concept plan should contain such specific information as is suggested by
the city. Generally, this information should include the following:
1) approximate building and road locations;
2) height, bulk and square footage of buildings;
3) type and square footage of specific land uses;
4) number of dwelling units;
5) generalized grading plan showing areas to be cut, filled and
preserved; and
6) staging and timing of the development.
The comments of the planning commission and city council shall address the
consistency of the concept plan with this section. The comments of the
planning commission and city council shall be for guidance only and. if
positive, shall not be considered binding upon the planning commission or
city council regarding approval of the formal RPUD application when
submitted.
B. Master Development Plan and Rezoning. Approval of a rezoning to RPUD
and approval of a master development plan shall be subject to the procedures
outlined in the Zoning Code for a zoning map amendment. The master
development plan shall contain the following:
1) building location,height, bulk and square footage;
2) type and square footage of specific land uses;
3) number of dwelling units;
•
4) detailed street and utility locations and sizes;
5) parking layout;
6) drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water
storage areas;
7) grading plan and drainage plan including 2-foot contours;
8) generalized landscape plan;
9) generalized plan for uniform signs and lighting;
10) plan for timing and phasing of the development;
11) covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of
the development; and
RPUD Ordinance - 4th Draft December 18,2000 Page 17
12) renderings or elevations of t' ___`___c- d- all sides of
buildings to be constructed in the first phase of the
development.
Approval of the master development plan shall indicate approval of the
previously listed items and shall occur in conjunction with rezoning of the
property to RPUD. After rezoning of the property to RPUD,nothing shall be
constructed on the RPUD site except in conformance with the approved plans
and this section. The procedure for notification of and public hearing on the
master development plan shall be the same as required for a zoning map
amendment by this ordinance.
C. Final Site and Building Plan. Approval of a final site and building plan for
the entire RPUD or for specific parts of the RPUD shall be subject to the
procedures outlined in this ordinance. The final site and building plan shall
contain information as required by the city, including the following:
1) detailed utility, street, grading and drainage plans;
2) detailed building elevations and floor plans; and
3) detailed landscaping, sign and lighting plans.
D. Substantial Compliance. The final site and building plan shall be in
substantial compliance with the approved master development plan.
Substantial compliance shall mean:
1) buildings, parking areas and roads are in substantially the
same location as previously approved;
2) the number of residential living units has not increased or
decreased by more than 5 percent from that approved in the
master development plan;
3) the gross floor area of any individual building has not been
increased by more than 10 percent from that approved in the
master development plan;
Ed. Note Items 2 and 3 need additional consideration per Planning Commission
4) there has been no increase in the number of stories in any
building;
5) open space has not been decreased or altered to change its
original design or intended use; and
RPUD Ordinance - 4th Draft December 18, 2000 Page 18
6) all special conditions required on the master development
plan by the'city have been incorporated into the final site and
building plan.
Approval of a final site and building plan shall signify approval of all plans
necessary prior to application for a building permit, subject to conformance
with any conditions on the approval and subject to other necessary approvals
by the city.
E. Simultaneous Review. Applicants may combine the final site and building
plan review with the master development plan review by submitting all
information required for both stages simultaneously.
F. Basis For Approval; Conditions. In evaluating a site and building plan, the
planning commission and city council shall base their recommendations and
actions regarding approval of a RPUD on a consideration of the following:
1) compatibility of the proposed plan with this section and
consistency with the goals, policies, and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan and Surface Water Management Plan;
2) preservation of the site in its natural state to the greatest
extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and
designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general
character and appearance of neighboring properties;
3) creation of compatible relationships between buildings and
open spaces both on the site and adjacent to it, incorporating
natural site features and with existing and future buildings
having a visual relationship to the development, giving
special attention to:
a) an internal sense of order for the buildings and uses
on the site and provision of a desirable environment
for occupants,visitors and the general community;
b) the amount and location of open space and
landscaping;
c) materials, textures, colors and details of construction
as an expression of the design concept and the
compatibility of the same with the adjacent and
neighboring structures and uses; and vehicular and
pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior
RPUD Ordinance - 4' Draft December 18,2000 Page 19
drives and parking in terms of location and number
access points to the public streets, width of interior
drives and access points, general interior circulation,
separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and
arrangement and amount of parking.
4) promotion of energy conservation through design, location,
orientation and elevation of structures,the use and location of
glass in structures and the use of landscape materials and site
grading;
5) protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through
reasonable provisions for surface water drainage, sound and
sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those
aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations
which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.;
and
6) such other factors as the planning commission or city council
deem relevant.
The planning commission and city council may attach such conditions to their
actions as they shall determine necessary or convenient to better accomplish
the purposes of this section.
Subd. 7. Term of Approval. If application has not been made for a final site and building
plan approval pursuant to the approved master development plan for all or a part of the property
within a RPUD by December 31 of the year following the date on which the RPUD zoning map
amendment became effective or if within that period no extension of time has been granted,the city
council may rezone the property to the original zoning classification at the time of the RPUD
application or to a zoning classification consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the
property. In the absence of a rezoning,the approved master development plan shall remain the legal
control governing development of the property included within the RPUD.
If construction on the property included within an approved final site and building plan has not
started by December 31 of the year following the date on which such final site and building plan was
approved or if building construction in a phase of a RPUD approved to be built in phases has not
started within this period or if within that period no extension of the time has been granted,the city
council may rezone the property to the original zoning classification at the time of the RPUD
RPUD Ordinance - 4t1 Draft December 18,2000 Page 20
application or to a zoning classification consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the
property. In the absence of rezoning, the approved master development plan and final site and
building plan shall remain the legal control governing development of the property included within
the RPUD.
Subd. 8. Amendments. Major amendments to an approved master development plan may
be approved by the city council after review by the planning commission. The notification and
public hearing procedure for such amendment shall be the same as for approval of the original
RPUD. A major amendment is any amendment which:
a) substantially alters the location of buildings, parking areas or roads;
b) increases or decreases the number of residential dwelling units by more than
5 percent;
c) increases the gross floor area of any individual building by more than 10
percent;
d) increases the number of stories of any building;
e) decreases the amount of open space by more than 5 percent or alters it in such
a way as to change its original design or intended use; or
f) creates non-compliance with any special condition attached to the approval
of the master development plan.
Any other amendment may be made through review and approval by a simple majority vote of the
planning commission.
Subd.9. Exceptions.This section shall not apply to any residential PUD or PRD which has
received preliminary or final approval by the city council prior to the effective date of this ordinance
unless such is requested by the property owner and approved by the city council.
Additional Topics for Potential Inclusion:
- Phasing and Guarantee of Performance
— More detailed list of submission requirements(such as in 10.53,Highway 12 PUD section)
DEC. 11. 2000 9: 11AM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES NO. 6272 P. 2
HmI
EHLERS -
& ASSOCIATES-INC
CD To: City of Orono
From: Rusty Fifield
Subject: Use of"1114
Date: December 11, 2000
The discussion of the senior housing project has focused on two broad issues: (1) What
development is appropriate at this site; and (2) Is the City willing to participate financially in this
project? As the City Council moves ahead with the planning process, the discussion will shift
from concepts to details. This memo outlines some of the key details related to the City's
financial participation and the use of tax increment financing (T1F).
This memo does not deal with the specific dollar amounts of"1'lb and the City's participation in
the project. These matters will be discussed in a subsequent memo to be provided for the
December 18 City Council meeting.
The City Council should include the following financial factors in the consideration of the
proposed senior housing project.
1. Financial Irr_nlications: It is important to remember that City required adjustments to the
project have economic implications. The frontage road and landscape buffers add to the
project costs. The reduction in number of units eliminates income without a
proportionate decrease in expense. These changes affect the financial feasibility of the
development. At some point, a project can no longer absorb such alterations. TIE
provides the means for the City to invest in the project to achieve these "public"
objectives.
2. Need: My initial review of the project suggests that the use of 1'J1 is needed for the
proposed project to occur. The key to negotiations will not be if assistance is needed,but
rather how much assistance is needed. As the project proceeds, the developer will be
required to demonstrate the need for the financial assistance. The statutory test is"but
for" the use of TLE~ the development as proposed would not occur.
3. Use of'1'1t-: The City cannot simply agree to give the developer a portion of the annual
tax increment revenue. Tax increment can only be used to pay for statutorily eligible
expenses. Typical reimbursable expenses include land, site improvements (grading,
landscaping,parking), public improvements, and city utility charges. The increment can
also be used to pay interest on the expenses when the developer is paid back over time.
This issue becomes more important as the need for financial assistance grows.
A
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE _J
3060 Centre Pointe Drive 651.697.8506 fax 651.697.8555
a-.�o•;no r<�U c7,'.t R-1 1 nS rustyehlers-inc.corn
DEC. 11. 2000 9 : 17AM EHLERS & ASSOCIATES NO. 6272 P. 3
Use of TIF
December 11, 2000
. Page 2
4. Duration: State Law allows housing TIF districts to remain in place for up to 25 years.
The actual term of payment is a key element of every project negotiation. The developer
will push for a longer term with greater assistance. The City typically seeks a shorter
with less assistance and a quicker end of the'fO district. Each project is a balancing act.
5. Local Contribution: State Law requires that the City make a "qualifying local
contribution" to the TIF district. The contribution represents 5% of the annual tax
increment. The City must use its own funds to pay for project relates expenses. These
expenses can include such items as streets, utilities, and traffic controls.
6. Bank Qualified Bonds: The project will be financed with tax-exempt bonds. The City of
Orono may be asked to issue these bonds on behalf of the non-profit owner of the
housing. The bonds are secured solely with the revenues of the project and do not create
a debt of the City. These bonds do, however, count against the City's annual allocation of
"bank qualified" bonds. Under federal treasury regulations,the City may designate up to
$10,000,000 each year as bank qualified. This status results in lower interest rates for the
City's bonds. The spread ranges from 5 to 30 basis points, depending on market
conditions at the time of sale. It appears that the combined total of bonds for the project
and bonds for City needs will exceed S10,000,000 in 2001. In response to this situation,
the City has three basic options: (1) do nothing, (2) have the developer find another issuer
of the bonds, or(3)negotiate a"hold harmless" fee from the developer.
7. Land Control:The City has discussed the potential to acquire the site and lease it to the
developer as a means of having long-term control for the use of the housing. Would the
City finance acquisition through reserves or borrowing? Would the City seek
reimbursement through l'lt-' or from project lease payments?
NANinnsoa\ORONO\7171 as 1211.wpd
EHLERS
- ASSOCIATES INC
CD To:To: City of Orono
From: Rusty Fifield
Subject: Housing TIF Districts
Date: December 7, 2000
This memo provides background information on the creation and use of tax increment financing(TIF) for
housing projects.
1. Meeting statutory criteria for establishing a district.
2. Statutory limitations on use of tax increment from housing districts.
3. Determining"but for"test.
4. Setting terms of financial assistance.
Criteria for TIF District
There are four types of housing tax increment financing districts: qualified multi-family rental housing
district, qualified owner occupied housing district, standard multi-family rental housing district and
single family owner-occupied housing district (See Attachment A on Definitions of the Four Types of
Housing TIF Districts). This memorandum explains rules and regulations of tax increment financing,
relating to housing tax increment financing districts.
QUALIFIED HOUSING DISTRICT—RENTAL.AND OWNER OCCUPIED
In 1993, the Legislature created a new type of housing tax increment district called a "qualified housing
district." The criteria for establishing a qualified housing district are much more comprehensive that
other types of tax increment financing districts in that it must meet federal low income tax credit
guidelines. There are two sets of criteria under which to administer the TIF District(using MHFA Tax
Credit Guidelines). Under the 40/60 criteria, first,40% of the units must have rents at or below$739 per
month for a 1-bedroom unit and $886 per month for a 2-bedroom unit including utilities. Second,40% of
the units must be reserved for residents with incomes at or below 60% of the area median income or
$27,600 per year for one person families and $31,560 per year for two person families,using gross
incomes. Under the 20/50 criteria, first,40% of the units must have rents at or below$616 per month for
a 1-bedroom Unit and$738 per month for a 2-bedroom unit including utilities. Second,20% of the units
must be reserved for residents with incomes at or below 50% of the area median income or$23,000 per
year for one person families and $26,300 per year for two person families, using gross incomes. This
income test actually encompasses a broad range of senior residents because it is generally an annual
income test. The income levels and rent levels are annually increased by the Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency(MHFA).
LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE
3060 Centre Pointe Drive 651.697.8506 fax 651.697.8555
Roseville, MN 55113-1105 rusty@ehlers-inc.com
Housing TIF Districts
December 6, 2000
Page 2
RENT RESTRICTIONS* (QUALIFIED HOUSING DISTRICT)
HENNEPIN COUNTY
No. of Bedrooms 50% of Median 60% of Median
Income Income
1-bedroom $616 $739
2-bedroom $738 $886
3-bedroom $854 $1,025
4-bedroom $952 $1,143
Source:Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
*Rent restrictions include all utility costs
INCOME RESTRICTIONS (QUALIFIED HOUSING DISTRICT)-
HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDIAN INCOME: $68,600
No. of Persons 50% of Median 60% of Median Income
Income
1-person $23,000 $27,600
2-person $26,300 $31,560
3-person $29,550 $35,460
4-person $32,850 $39,420
Source:Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
In 2000, the Legislature established a provision for owner occupied housing to avoid the LGAIHACA
penalty. Generally the initial occupants must have incomes at or below 70% of median income.
70% OF MEDIAN INCOME
STATEWIDE
No. of Persons 70% of Median Income
1-person $28,371
2-person $32,424
3-person $36,477
4-person $40,530
STANDARD MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING DISTRICT
Housing TIF Districts
December 6,2000
Page 3 `
If the City does not want the project to be both rent and income restricted, the district could become a
housing district (not qualified) and would only need to meet income requirements.The income limits for
these districts,however,use HUD numbers and are often lower than those for a qualified housing
district. A standard housing district requires that the rental housing have a certain percentage of its units
with annual incomes less than a certain percentage of the county median income. Housing districts
require that the income is adjusted for family size. The income restrictions are as follows(using HUD
guidelines):
INCOME RESTRICTIONS "ADJUSTED FOR FAMILY SIZE
`:.'(HOUSING DISTRICT) -Henneii i County Area
No. of Persons 50% of Median 60% of Median 80% of Median
Income Income Income
1-person $23,000 $27,600 $35,150
2-person $26,300 $31,560 $40,150
3-person $29,550 $35,460 $45,200
4-person $32,850 $39,420 $50,200
Source:Department of Housing and Urban Development
The three options for income limits on a standard housing district are 20% of the units at 50% of median
income, 40% of the units at 60% of median income, or 50% of the units at 80% of median income.
Usually, at the time we establish a district,the project needs to choose one of the options and meet those
requirements for the life of the district.The income restrictions are not an assets test and most seniors do
not have trouble meeting income restrictions. There are no rent restrictions for a standard housing
district.
SINGLE FAMILY OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING DISTRICT
For single family developments, at least 95% of the houses assisted with tax increment must be occupied
with persons at 100% of median income for a family of two or less and 115% of median income for
families of three or more (rental housing would have stricter income limitations). Median income under
this provision is the greater of the statewide median or the county median. For Hennepin County, the
median income is$68,600 and the statewide median is$57,900. Therefore, the family of three or more
could earn up to$66,585 (115% of$57,900) and still qualify to live in the homes. There is no restriction
on the value of the homes built nor upon the income of the subsequent purchasers of the house. Houses
not meeting the qualifications may be built, but not assisted with tax increment.
Housing TIF Districts
December 6, 2000
Page 4
Statutory Limitations
The use of TIF is subject to a wide range of statutory limitations. Some of the limitations on TIF
specifically related to housing districts include the following.
• Use of Increment: Tax increments from a qualified housing district can only be spent on costs
which are directly related to low and moderate income housing. In other words, tax increments
produced from this facility could not be used to assist a commercial building. The statutes
specifically limit the use of increments cost of housing projects as defined in M.S.469.174,
subdivision 11.The cost of public improvements directly related to the housing projects and the
allocated administrative expenses of the authority may be included in the cost of a housing
project.
• Duration: All four districts have maximum durations of 25 years from receipt of first increment.
• Penalties: A qualified housing district is the only type of district which does not carry a local
government aid/HACA penalty for the sponsoring City without the City using the option of
providing a local match to the project.
Project Justification
All tax increment financing projects require careful consideration of the justification for city financial
assistance. The key elements of project justification include:
• Would the proposed project occur"but for" the use of tax increment financing?
• How much financial assistance is needed?
• What are the nature and amount of project costs eligible for TIF?
• 'What are the terms and conditions of the assistance?
Housing I ItF Districts
December 6, 2000
Page 5
ATTACHMENT A
DEFINITIONS OF THE FOUR TYPES
OF HOUSING TIF DISTRICTS
QUALIFIED HOUSING DISTRICT—RENTAL
This is a housing district for a residential project in which the only properties receiving
TIF assistance meet all the requirements for a low-income housing credit under federal
law,regardless of whether the project actually receives a housing credit. The tax credit
requirements are generally more stringent that the income requirements otherwise
applicable to a housing TIF district. There is NO LGA/HACA penalty for a qualified
housing district.
QUALIFIED HOUSING DISTRICT—OWNER OCCUPIED
In this case, 95% of the homes must be purchased by persons at or below 70% of median
income and be adjusted by family size. Median income is the greater of area median or
statewide median income.
STANDARD MULTI-FAMILY RENTAL HOUSING DISTRICT
Must be a facility intended for occupancy in part by persons or families of low and
moderate income. Up to 20 percent of the fair market value of the improvements may be
for uses other than low and moderate income housing. To maintain qualifications as a
housing district, rental projects must satisfy the income requirements for qualified
residential rental projects under Section 142(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, or 50
percent of the units must be occupied by individuals with income 80 percent or less of
the area median income. The rental requirements apply for the life of the district. If the
income requirements are violated, the district duration is reduced to that of an economic
development district. A housing district is subject to an LGA/HACA penalty, which
may be avoided with a 10% local contribution.
SINGLE FAMILY OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING DISTRICT
For owner-occupied housing, 95% of the units must be initially purchased by persons
with income that is less than or equal to the income requirements for qualified mortgage
revenue bonds under federal law. Generally, those requirements limit income to 100%
of applicable median family income for 1 and 2 person households, 115% of median for
3 or more person households. The applicable median family income is the greater of the
area or statewide median gross income.
44) --
-
"In
o
yN
O
O
1 '
O nn
O ii
M 7
t
1 O
& ..,
0
11,
1
�� ]s'-o-
35.-C 11
_.< 11
SFi \
f _ _ ____i
N �
a LC�1J_ _____i_
— — I�0. I^s I� �I I I
Z. Q r 1— ---i 1
I__ _ d I ° 01 ,72'_1_ '
0 0 0 0
26'-0' 26'-0' 25'4'
0
ct
I 1 I • - C
t ` ` 0
6 _
it 19 I
- /t 4
I i
F ED
.
o C 0 0
.0'-0'
2C-0' 213'-0- 75'-0' e
J
If I
0.
I I
CI I 7
I I
Q - J� - - +L - y---7,
C 7
1 I I I
C 1
C ,,,
ill.H i % ;
At .
I P
- - 3 O
d
Lillo 0°
b
O C 0 0
.0,_o.
26'-0. 76'-0' 2V-0.
J' ' .1 . O
X:
O
Z.
O
. __1_ i O
1 1
1 , 1
1 1 1
X - - - h ._,_ _.!. 4,,
Lib o° - I 1
r
ii[1
�
1.
E _ I\d
m1 ■1
i:1 MI
NI , .
MI ' \
n1 E1
■1 RI
1H
1 - 1 II JI
III
I - '1' 1
■1
■I , "t- ` I "tx,
_?, NI E1 Nm�
=pZ
A
•,
rLJ ,M _.' ,
RI RI
Nu I ■1 111
rd ' II . •
RI
.i .i i
D
ifl ,�, ��� I II I al ,�� ; I ii
'
r , I
^ 1 II
■1 � II
■� jI
1-41 I iti ) - 1 V