Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Work Session 12-7-2000 - Council & PC
ORONO AMBAR, LLC December 7, 2000 Mr. Michael P. Gaffron City of Orono P. O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mike: Enclosed please find informational brochures about The Wedum Foundation. If you need any further information, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, 2 //( rank C. Dunbar Chief Manager Enclosure 5000 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 225 Minneapolis,MN 55422 (612) 377-7090 FAX(612) 377-7089 c- c cn m _, D m 3 O o w o S < w 2 _ ' co D`< w o_ o � ' -(° 7. -6 C (D coo (D 'CO (no CD 5 (Q O -s U � 'r a < • jj m m ° o 0aaCno _0 a < o. 0 ° ` ;=< w � w a3 Z Co- m 7 71 Ax < D P 70 0'- c -0 m w m0 _ m ° m O O= CD — CD D 3 a, ° -: ° O a 5. O CD _ _ � , o o _ �Do ° cr _, mcm = = cn * ° ° ° 0 .3 -° o = CD w (D 5n (n = O° 3o -1OD 0-w -, i O coCDDO77 0(s:2C m A (D * � 5 Oa (D 0 __ v, CNw0 NO Q0c , QO .- (D Fp' O 0- -PoN zCD0 CA _ o w. ocr, cn 0 k<a m 7 (n OC w a cn CQ 4, "R ti m ( , ,,. m. ' 7:3 C7 - nw (n p w D m w ;-' . i0 o (n co (! 3 D a(a e Fc m X Om (_O — CD K 73 D < ' wa < p 7 O O C (D < 0 D m w (D a, C C cnn 5 sGm -a (n -'< a T cco n'8' (n- '8' w 0 3 0 7 w (Q X C m m O n O w _K 0 O 7 a) A) a x m m � 7 m O '-' w 7 .-' l '" ' '� (n Cn CD '-. 5 - ° x w ,, (D �_ p O m OCD -. s _ CD0 O CCD M O n a O 5 m (D (OD (n 3 O CJ) c `n a — m CD a cnr m Cn C) - (J a a CD m O a c a- C T -1 .- , s , ..„ _ 005 .--0 Ft; -pmDoCD < .(D- C a7 6 ao f2 3 � � m m c m ( a m " I 0 Po Ccn003 a a �, -. cn n cn < m u, o �_. °, CD 20 co IIH ; n w `0 7 E I C m ° c L o(Q ' o _ (n O o A, o w 3 a, CD O O `< 0-o 3m D30mm o5oom n — � : K w o cn w (D D cn 0 � �. m C � K A C � o � cwm (DCw � mw (n � � � w < m zCDCQ 1 , Cn a (' - CDD ((DD Cl) a < acn , x N m 00 O 0 (D r. r Z 1Ii O- an wila m .' 0 � _ am 00 — 3 = ° � A- o � ° � - OcNQ _ mw CCo wO 0- 7 3 st 5.(° woo m a < cIII 1w (3 C° -o m cn ° cm -' mOwwm w ° ( w °Owcn (O O 07 3 ,. a ° 7 m Om 3 m (fl = TI - 0o O6m C) m 7' * Im 5' N C -o - (' r CDEs D 0 (�') -• ' 0 Cp- 0 X 0 X a m m n a 0 m - W 0 ;.r . .,.: a No s CD wQ < . O 0 Q Ocn �C N iii rFtm O ` _ wcCD ' +amn26m mw ° 2 (D3 3 D a F c (D m c Q , i cn n N ° ma - o- mw cn o ° 5 o ( mowmo r _ � 441 DJ c 12 TOT n a 3 < o ZrC nC€ i ' io C -0-00 a 7. m ° O ffl CD_a03m ° -° 3 (° 53 * c !on wm CD - 0aD3 o ° DQm oco cn o' a )o. 3 w0- m w C -0 5 4,110 1 1 IN* 0J c � _ p , I r 51) a o 0 � � � v, a � a, m 3 o m o �-6 m � it/i® i I D) m 0 5 `< S o-`< m 3 m m w 0 CD :� um- a ,° — ,-. (D mmo a) aaCC°Fo Q . Fp' ND -, a" ' il l i l 2 � .t; C 36cn w � o Z _O SQ. 0- 5D 1" lit- man Eno lime ii N cn o oa (Q p w r\.) 3 C a Q n O O (m/, • m 6 p Cn .' _3 3 ^Z C O = 0 - 0 ---0 (1) C a 7 -O O m m G p m 2. G O p5- - -sa N O O n o a ¢) (;I , ITS , ; -, a O (D < 00 m << O O (D 3 O c "� 51) •CD w w 3 w w m o 3 CD O m w ' 'Ail 14i:1 a. cf.) 3 x m m m m m 3 ° (, E . _ F ; + a, O O QL c= a) W b d- co -0 c cn p IMMO so a t of L w `a > •m O E-Q O CO al O E 0 r rww U U O 0 CD8 O (n U C Q nv a) a) ...• # u) (1) ZZ Z Z 2 2 o z 2 Ucn Z 2 cCo162 C � a c\I Na - a) >-0QO U O ._i U O - ai irO co-I-0 O O '� U ° 0- O LI) In )J LO O c ,_ }O O 0 = a) u) (ri i O Z ' coO U � CD E C't = ) C, C') �f wia) i ai cz •7) QE Q O O CO r CC U co> i L (.,,/ 0_ Lo ...L Q) i � O CO 0_ •— � U o — — o rn ' X �o � 0_ E EryQLi a) o as cr) ° 2u) U O (ri .i C ( (o C A a) O E F _c 0 i 0 O t -0O c t-c (/) o i0 (L$ Q 7 O u) i--' • 2 C r O _c Q (� -0 z O1•5 C: (n c5 D U O)—cC O (� U QC O cf, E i-' O a) (n O ._ O 4) O > D COU) U •C U) Q) N 0 O C Q) -0 C Q) a LL O a) 0) c O ,L0 N a) Q O--0 a) E (� .� — a) � ( c -2 .; (f)cy, -t •(75 j 0 r 'C O C in o L = 4O C Q 1- E (l O C ) >' cC C- s— C E_cm TD _E O7 cn (J C U) U -0 Q cp LL cn (Z D as (� iJ (� .2 a) .> 0 U0:1 .- 0 2 0) (a9 a) O E Q i O `— () O c c O co T.) O C C O °) o ' +. a) (n Q- u) 0 n o .— .- >, O E -c (5 E C • i O a) c CO 0 , p 0 .� = C N a) O CD > cp 0.)= O O .(7 E U O O C O > U V O a) LL L > _ D >, c� (n = c U_ O c M cn O c_ _ _c cz E E -5 v a) -o _o •- m C -c — O O O +- LL i (z 0 U °) " - ou) — E . ia) ra) cU2 'C >; > -g- ° �' oc al N C i O • a) •i +r O a) +r (� 05 > c _ O `~ a) x � C U c o_r 0 Q c c c }N—, a) GI (n (z c ( -o a) = cn O (n — a) a) a) E O x 0 0 0 (s •— E C U) O cn c O Q 1— _ Q > E -0 -0 cn (n a) Cn 2 li U U Q U c� .E U ° c� CO 0 z foki /2_ -7-� /Scu-e s - /m i T si per- cot-to AI I € / 441, 14f) .4-1A-oto "76/1“....b,t,Nc/rf keec /iv folezaps CIV)440 tf Cfb# M :L U T VSr6 - L ofi t..4 ter' % ..`r / S-73 • 17 ,,sp.S �7 - a ,-t--bra-t /4-61- fierrxr- tellre-ceav • aS 4-51) f« j ( SeFlooltreAl—tot Burr ezin4c,ti— /14)7).s G--o 7 , rc..44-- 5 you N 7D e-AAL C-0CAR-- P .S 1 Y 1 - -v7- sTOS'r— 0 L �� 414 " ice"' Go b aD is 7 / J ,Y w, .r-- /909dewov 4 — foo /2oAt r e9/vol vv7- G01,3 r a re-..S, t ly -- ,/_ u t..-,S 1 - r72.4.AJg, s,.• / z- .>--7-2: -€C,4- . o - ).1'I,t ' -' - lT7 S'L S'e..Q1 /7Xvv c.42=„1- 7--s (7'i/ 0 e r'',% er=z 4-6A4-1,..--- ?) vy° t t 0 51-41 -- 7742 S ,iia--..r tent 1 s ri ►ti;sll,6i - "944- 2.-6'0 44.__Pfx.4. ritlf-Ni PeoftettV-- 'i--g-5/ — 4/z-, Ste,, HZ 67-- w /.M-?ice 7°'.72,11 .- ogen n - /1I 11, 17-- .7i)0^) i) ^) - Pie?3, ! r C s 4'`,, . et,, ,m a(b — 7 T>ior -r-z) 2— S. 1.)0 Al 1,4,-Wet,-.4 Z-e f --- vwr' GJsni,cd Alen 67 2 exav-t.-rX S 7' 044-77ae 34-4- S77411/ _,..,.1 _-_.1__ 0 tA;124-Y-41" /14,5 i A oA)6? 600.14 Coo- . r :7- 5 7.5 m © 2e 3 /7 — 6`)/1,`, 73 7 Gd w .. 57 Z / ems-- 009 f / SV I ,4-(> f 3012 Z 6 a Cl>> 0 rt ; " (60; Se.oet-elk4AX=) sa Ites-iutc., 74\s/eupet,4 * r Y AgEceee - eel) c4ter-4e-- cLAJ <(‘ AJA-6e- kIPA __5/ 7" ) .54aAluoalPt.s AJ /e? -e..-s /lax _ Afe: _ tiogsitoiL) 64,7i/e4sr 6.61"JIA-ssi 7-1Z VreAttrZ (ON) -IS64"C" 77t-t_s Peek.u,r-r JL /A.) Commottl. Ag-e-As `7s. JNOt --&12ct,4P 44, //v/774-L- Fl/Uot C•t-5: - ofu g, , - 30 yet. iivtiL -LazAANaeyz__s 441\. )24501.n2KL 6444,4irs 4'"4:2's /1-de"r". 5 grivi.720c_ (AL cry CpAufcr cA•ry eams c64-7 iTs ift/t // tsie C 0/44/ tioator k105Y- -r/F O -� az,' IN-3 1p 2-- yr ti /2 w r 6,.4 elF- 404442---L— 404'x,2...- r f ,cow egvar p(57Z tel+ f1 4' P144-7- p Pr 4. , 4F 3o-12 elm A 0C o� R /A)/N& V /X ( -) 1049 -` /?roti &) fi7Arluit - 1 7 41").25- ,144-c c41---Er c-eN' /5 - n_ yrt-t c ..)rL +i-111 v li-R6r#K,b — Positive tiveteL a). irci-)4A)c-fi\-)G 1oK 0''r` 1/01-1: ' e. CA` Qom'' 0 GAnuG ,e-s A- r --0ma 6'-`)/ /4-s.-& c--pe, bc,J//€re. 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. B. Uses. C. Sewer Availability. D. Density. E. Incentives. F. Site Coverage. G. Setbacks and Separation of Uses for Attached and Multi-Family Dwelling Structures. H. Development Standards for Single-Family Detached Dwellings in a RPUD. I. More Than One Building Allowed. J. Single Housing Type Permitted. K. Park Dedication. L. Ownership. M. Signage. N. Landscaping. 1. Landscape Plan Requirements. 2. Minimum Landscaping Requirements. 3. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping. 4. Maintenance of Landscaping. • 5. Retaining Walls. 6. Landscaping Performance Security Required. 7. Screening and Buffering. G/ Architectural Standards. 1 ,ec Flexibility. 9 ,10( Traffic Studies. Q. Building Permits. J .Rf General Regulations Applicability. T. POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL STANDARDS TO CONSIDER: Height limits for attached dwellings;screening car headlight impacts to adjacent property;shoreland zone limitations; special outside storage standards 1 1 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. 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) • 2 SUMMARY OF 12/4/00 GENERAL COMMENTS BY PLANNING COMMISSION RPUD ORDINANCE (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 11/20/00 PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS RPUD ORDINANCE 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. 11_I 1,1-00 = "--1 I2_r 1.1-(90 fC_ W c".(-4, `'k"" 57,1jNo.-r No-re c 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 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 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. 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-1A 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-1A District conceptually fit into the RPUD District, except perhaps Public Service Structures). ii 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. 1 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 RPUD 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. Subd. 5. Development Standards. Within the RPUD District all development shall be in compliance with the following: A. Minimum Area. Each 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 . .. ' . • i • - . 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 2 residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development; 3. the property is located in: : . . . : . .' : . • catcgorics 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. B. Uses. Each RPUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan(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 CMP 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 CMP amendment...) , except that the city may permit a 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 used for a RPUD, the city may forward a copy of the request to the Metropolitan Council for review. C. Sewer Availability. A RPUD of proposed density greater than 1 unit per 2 acres must be in the MUSA and must be serviced by municipal sewer. D. Density. Each RPUD shall have a density within the range specified in the comprehensive plan for the RPUD 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. 3 E. Incentives. The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are consistent with the city's housing goals. Incentives may include modification of density and floor are ratio, requirements for developments providing lifecycle housing and how 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 ensure that the+eTand moderate cost units remain available to persons of low and moderate income for a specific period of time. F. Site Coverage. Hardsurface coverages and floor area ratios (FAR's) (Ed. Note: We need to have a definition for this in this section or in the k,0". zoning code general definitions) shall be limited as follows: (, �- Designation Comprehensive Plan Desi nation Maximum Maximum Cq_ , v��� i Hardsurface Floor Area a�• ��� (� Coverage (%) Ratio of t� �n.\n:, 0 ,(; ��o Low or medium density residential 50 0.5 �`'�' ��S G \i 1 (up to and including 6.0 units per acre) (70 :-' High density residential 70 1.0 v� lv� (in excess of 6.0 units per acre) .n J, ( 1 . ,,v t_v , • r - <0" Individual lots within a P.U.D. may exceed these standards as long as the . average meets these standards. ,,,(� G. Setbacks and Separation of Uses for Attached and Multi-Family ` f�, t,C• xis Dwelling Structures.The setback for all attached and multi.-family dwelling t. " e / \t19 buildings and accessory buildings within a RPUD from any bordering or C;,C r ,dE abutting street line shall be 35 feet for local streets and 50 feet from railroad 117 / ``• � lines or collector or arterial streets,as designated in the comprehensive plan, ,l<11 '0 except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building 0(2'0 . up to a maximum of 100 feet. The setback for all buildings from exterior RPUD 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 fcct. Building setbacks from internal public streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific RPUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set back at least 20 feet from all 4 exterior lot lines of a RPUD. 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 setbacks from internal public or private streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific RPUD. Where industrial uses abut developed or platted single family lots outside the RPUD, 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, r S existing and proposed plantings and other features such as roadways and wetlands which provide separation of uses. 1`' `� r' ���' Areas within a RPUD which are designated in the approved master ' 1 development plan or final site plan for residential use shall be considered a ,A07 fr,1 .7 c l ,C residential district for purposes of determining building and parking setback ���� ) ' ) l. + requirements on adjacent high density residential,commercial and industrial T property outside the RPUD. ` � �� ;?> 1 H. 'bevelopment Standards for Single-Family Detached Dwellings in a 4iRPUD.Each RPUD developed for single family detached dwellings on sites 1—RV' guided in the Comprehensive Plan for medium density residential ifi q a=r; development (i.e. densities ranging from 1 unit per acre to 6 units per acre) shall be subject to the following standards: 0) .e, r 1. Permitted locations: In areas of the City where smaller single family 1 k-4* 1 detached dwelling lots will allow for clustering to preserve significant c- natural features, or in areas where a mixture of higher density /039 t �r� , L'� attached dwellings and lower density detached single family �: rk L ` i ark dwellings will result in a development that does not exceed the !� ,�-( 1,7*. \Q overall guided density. (Ed. Note - Example 1: A 10-acre area , ri,_> �% guided for 1-acre SFR could have 10 individual 1/3 acre lots 9 ti G clustered at on corner, leaving 2/3 of the site in its natural state O for open space. Example 2: A 10-acre area guided for up to 4 01 ' t 's units per acre could have a mix of SFR and townhome lots, for '� v 5 instance-20 SFR units at 15,000 s.f. per lot (6.9 acres total) and - 20 townhomes on 2,000 s.f. 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. 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. 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. r %��? ic)l r- c, 9. All dwelling units, including manufactured homes, shall have a depthof 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. 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 6 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. More Than One Building Allowed. More than one building may be placed on one platted or recorded lot in a RPUD. J. Single Housing Type Permitted. Any RPUD 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 shall provide a minimum of 8 percent of the gross project area in private recreational uses for project residents. Such area shall be for active or passive recreational uses suited to the needs of the residents of the project,including swimming pools,trails,nature areas,picnic areas, tot lots and sa asA(Ed. Note: This would be in lieu of parkl`fee..1:. / L. Ownership. All perty to be included within a RPUD 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. 7 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-anTiroundcover 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: J c 8 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 rig ' allow credit for such material,provided that such adjustment i is consistent with the intent of this ordinance. -7 1)J 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 2'/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 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 06 f) Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees shall be composed of one specie . o 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; U 2) box elder; S3) 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 distributed throughout theparkinglot area so as be reasonably g 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 screeningor bufferingshall 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. c PY7-f- 12 0. 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,except-iliese-not--, F' . peie,The city may,at its discretion, allow architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels. 3. Accessory buildings shall be archit cturally compatible with principal (it structures. C, tf ?,r zv 4. All rooftop or ground mounted mecham al equipme and exterior trash and recycling storage areas shall be enclosed ith materials compatible with the principal structure. Lew-rfefilerself-eentainerl. .,e..xPmpt rarrrt cree�i`ing-requirenrent.- , ) 13 5: Underground utilities shall be provided for all ne and substantially/ , renovated structure r _ $ 30 r 64- €-",c-C S 6" 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 nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the proposed or approved RPUD. 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 as deemed appropriate by the city. T. POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL STANDARDS TO CONSIDER: Height limits for attached dwellings; screening car headlight impacts to adjacent property; shoreland zone limitations; special outside storage standards aikfc-t. 14 S V 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; 15 10) plan for timing and phasing of the development; 11) covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; and 12) renderings or elevations of 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 r decreased by more than 5 percent from that approved in the - master development plan; 4\ 3) the gross floor area of any individual building has not been increased by more than 10 percent from that approved in the master develo•ment . . •• ---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 16 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 17 neighboring structures and uses; and vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior 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 omotion 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 18 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 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) 19 4. - 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 u o. ♦ 2 Q Q / Sincerely. /(1, _ AGO Sugar Woods Homeo ers Association Copies: Orono City Council Orono Planning Commission -! November 28, 2000 Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gaffron, I am writing this as a resident of Sugar Woods and I 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 Orono. Sincerely. Copies: Orono City Council Orono Planning Commission L November 28, 2000 Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Dear Mr. Gaffron, I am writing this as a resident of Sugar Woods and I 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 Bl 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 Orono. Sincerely. (0 i�e�r� rij /Dlo „214A- fit. . - - . 3 s Ph. ; (pia / 473 72G s) fRx : 9sz- q73— 9,yy Copies: Orono City Council Orono Planning Commission 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 s o. Sincerely. >c�✓ i 'mss. 4--f, r, Sugar Woods Homeo ers Association Copies: Orono City Council Orono Planning Commission `.a 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 i o. icA. / a Sincerely. ` 9:::5M-E-eersurev- . ()'1-e1/69}151 , , /. 1 Sugar Woods Homeo ers Association Copies: Orono City Council . Orono Planning Commission r , g--.0 City of Orono sg41,44. 9kEsxo4`' 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952) 249-4600 Fax: (952) 249-4616 FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: 2 - 4 - 00 To: reArNr— U ' Fax: 3 - 77-7g9 Re: Le-7e_ le rV6 l-ylo rtt C- g-ticoc 12-x/-00 Sender: YOU SHOULD RECEIVE PAGE(S), INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL (952) 249-4600. 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•o. IL Sincerely. � ` ' cs. , � , - /reets - / . Sugar Woods Homeo ers Association Copies: Orono City Council Orono Planning Commission Mike a ran - RE: Fire Department Perspective re Senior Housing Project at 12/Brown Page 1 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 Mike Gaffron - RE: Fire Department Perspective re: Senior Housing Project at 12/Brown Page 2 Original Message From: Mike Gaffron [mailto:MGAFFRON@ci.orono.mn.us] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 3:47 PM To: Steve.persian@target.com Subject: Fire Department Perspective re: Senior Housing Project at 12/Brown Hello, Steve- City Planner Paul Weinberger and I would like your perspective as Fire Chief regarding the proposed 3-story, 70-unit senior housing project at the northwest corner of North Brown Road and Highway 12. Matt Goldstein indicated he has discussed this with you briefly. We have a planning commission and council work session this Thursday morning (Dec. 7) at 7:30 a.m. to meet with the developer to discuss a variety of issues. Your input before that meeting (or your presence if you can be there)would be of great assistance to us. Please call me at 952-249-4600, or email back, let me know your thoughts. Thanks! Mike Gaffron, Senior Planning Coordinator CC: "Shannon Sweeney (E-mail)" <sweeney@ci.long-lake.mn.us> 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 tca EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC O To: City of Orono From: Rusty Fifield W 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 LGA/HACA 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 1W 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) -Hennepin 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 TIF 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 LGAIHACA 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. EHLERS .z & ASSOCIATES INC O To: City of Orono From: Rusty Fifield WSubject: Housing TIF Districts 2 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 171~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 S616 $739 2-bedroom 5738 $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 LGA/HACA 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) - Hennepin 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 � anc al 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 TIF 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. It • •. • / ("XL-----\ . / '- - - - S o2?19'00'W 188.93' J; ��/ — CD Tout ` ' �Vl bt. —t„ gib% fi .,. /---- 6 In tn,/ • ��/ , (/‘._•••///1 x. ---':,,,,z/---- n � n gi it I iii x il ) ' ; ft,,, ,, ..„. , p , ,,, ji MI co ..3 0 O ZC,,,,________, ; \ ‘ I : \---, N .1-- y 4 ' \\\1 / I .....- --;-. .,... ,ihrs,. ----I ! - . ' / 4111 --______.-- / II! ir ,, .....7.1........... --------. . .PP-- .51r al.r... .3 . v. 1 , , „., _ ...,w,_ i „..._ CO A : oaf aing 5t.) —:, ......LL... t:i.....br5 ,411• 1 kn i 1 ' 4- . I :i° it roti )' ,`-\ I: ' i I ' .1 ,,,_ ( Iji ll_ ru SI_ .J N-_-40.62 is 1 I \ i 111 vizi m „7 Ili ; ___1,_____00/ ,e '1111111, 11 1.1 ' l'" 4Aidg ' --- vino. s 1433.7. �tr'� ±1\1Ji' 11ti\ :ii1I 11 °° 41 600 3.LB. Z 610 S i / \ 1 ; ¶'1IéLji ; \\, <A/ 1 \ \ \ -\\) , ` A .IL4 & I% , i�L 11v 44 1 Gln �' \ III% '/p .e, a, Ili \ ��� � ; ti I 1 , 4., , 04. '' ,' ., ' c b AA,,„,. ,, 1 \\: r9, 1N n 1 ' -4144111111rOiN / r W a 1 lithihs ,l' g-,.`R '32'U!\L` � \...--:'1 . ���^ \ w '/ �;g 1 D �. 51,63 , p \ <a� ' �/ 7 1 g \ m r o v A I A r D = _ Z a 0- J 1 = x a o- SN\41 4. Wr 1.& • . 0 • oJI a 0 = 3 r r r r po _ 0 0- •0 .6 , w a - W a f = 2 II fl , _____II_,..,___4 c, s• 55 rl' CP 4. . ..F_• T 1�l�1111��� or° ram , i'.:1111111 f_ at J H � _33 �rl l �� L� 00....r �ri 140' -Ta.,n r. h-- "'.�1 Illlllfl�lllllll 11 11 ,_.,a.Ai li1i!IilI O II I, M 1 . \ ip 111/11L fam �, .,.... "IIII 1 Alt 4r4,*, 1 - ie. 1 ,1.,# *. \icry / s' �� / ;. ♦, v�� !!� / ,ice NK // fri /".‘,. r / / •-, /4 4,''. ', ' • / / ./ NAti* e Z pi46 11h- .,1* 4' S / ,<' ,„,,,.' N,\gilt, \.„,„7- . ' 4 4,‘.,. all ,,„ ,, , F - 40., ' -II , "XIS INN/ ' / ., 9..'N 74-%/\,,,,,,. 4 VA .,k.'2''lilt Alli-, , / N • 4.-'''';',?..7.N'''Q N Nibiiii- ,,f4k: ,, :‹7*:' O i 4:00, Allop li&I \.. i IP" c_ 1l r> s illitill �i L_ _ A II 4r11— Ac IIIV Inti LI-Mk �n m m m c s,,:.,71 W fi ,i Nw r 1 uj-Z Pi l , 'Away.IF C11 A U , z jI_- ill c g �, _ ,.1 II 4111 `c', . , 1 roT1 i o p-s i pow mi; i�v .L__ ii: :a i • " � -Mirdfnli i iiiiiiir ' ' 1! 0� SII `]� ..-lit II �I —,�j T1J II w _n�� in / N : �� -/-i ; , ` 11 1 \" � ,?> , ,,,,. --;A*-,. .; / I ,INT,„4",/4, 4":10,/:, ,, 4r/A :,, , " / a / mo S ,-' ,- , . .%, •Nek ,/ , N- 4.\.4% .g. 0 i ,;,1 0141** lir z .4%,,,,,/ .41.) 4 N,,v,.N, / N. w., N. 011104 �� , . 4- ate _ ki 7%, N ' A A 11. look- , ',•• 4 :,,-44; _ i Lia 4,, ,;.-:k, ; 1 . .g= 1 f/i�i1i'1 Imo“ ii lipir-,....1.; FtriewEip, 1 Ili`r ,.t 1-0 I o" m g `n F ° D c 1,1-„,- S C m r .. - r , y I_Lk1 li zIb ! :. _ ff �V.ir �►�jJ II :_III_ •d� n —Ps7 I.Ir , •• r7, , . 'int -.. yi a p m r- 0 O N.O 4 ' IIIIIIiIlI(III ir-cry:-i li i. i uir ryillL � JIM litiblim Lj :!impm Ill ! ! ,\I � U . � i om i• 4 -411 . / it .44_ 00ivii - 6..,.. 4, /-jr„"‘ Ne # / . ,.. '5, , . .0, ...., . . .:* „/ s „ , , ..,, ► . N. N,i,,,i / , .1. _ -. ,,,,,y 5, ,/- ,‘.---,...:Ai, 'i _i; / ,,,,'' „/ Sk. IIIPP ..440,„. ..,„„,/t, . "....N, .47 0%I. 'N.4, / • , / .-1 4iit ' '`.'N)N#' N. .4 ..,tr,, ../. • "A .v --Nk N*4 ... :',.,,,, .A. , . ,,.,,,7 '‘4454) '.4/(s.,,p ).,,,,,,,,i c Alit ,K r \ 4,,,, p., 1/4, , --*-$17 .„:,/, /:/. A*, .:A:t.: ., 1 . Ntiiiii ----- - --1 , ow erre' t ;_P II VII-' Ac u, _ Al III ;` J —I 7- °°r_k r r ri iii , < D _J VA I" r rel r -, CO V L ham:/_/ • =ly, W — L� 4 "r— II �: lir." Z � r� J -i rood, . MIKairm II -ii11—,m SEI 4 arm; r-... ..ur N to w A 1.(1 - ii�o — m m r C C z f • .4114‘, <11fir H r r rr p D b h M m m r r C m o -x-I .::I DB om a- HI MD omall DB ,4IH om 0 -a II r I JO m MI�I-1 r i 1 11LL� m p Iii m zi r J ■!!I '.!!I 21 \ D ik imallg[l 1 4 3 i El E. .). CD CD ER 1111 Ca 'M 90 in al in al CM m m I AVON Z m O z in DR ag ii ‘ini in OR all D ■!¢ �a till 111u■''} 0 I 1_= - �iEl ■II��II O z I!!IliiI r: L. MI EMI CM aill Cg 21 0 Li NH Eg CB [CO ■ ,,I ■ .II ■E ■I,\ 11! I11) so4 IN Alm < in ® � in ®I EM LI D 111W-11111 "9 .Em =.I ILI EM mil °; ■EA m mil .11i II M 1->4 11111112 0 z ■Ei■Eel 1!i 1 � ; ■ii I ■!e ICE CM] CM a le. im 0 1■�■I, III Ill ® Sill Illi ii ® � lain 1111 in li?€I II in ® EM :¢ i�.sr i l r ll:Elis) ; rn El ® r€ < D LH ii€I ® - lin lEg CM 9. J wI ® ® p - f I II ...% ii m C®1 ® ME Is I_ .. 1` la onR■P m) O ® i s 17 E■ I ■I i€€I ® ® ■E ■E •I� iiii ® ® .E .E .i n m 1� Iiii in CM ��� AA--�� r m si LEI 21] ® 7 MI ® M r a _ — — 0 onI[ 7.. C O7W O 0 m xg pp ppm ----, r---„, t. . D 1 Y JO x r col i / i V'Ir 0 a A 1L- ... 11 _IC° , > r j 1-----) J —1 6 5x opo 4!.25 a _ =_LII mi 1 E.- ,-< 010 �o < a= olo g. ®i a IOO r IIZ W 1 C — urn . 0 ,,,.: . D _ i.'''. ICU0 Ac Ovl j L o - - . z ,:, :, 1-7, , ,, E IT c: 6 - 4 W ( - - _ — _ pA edm w 6u w,3II 1 20 W D 0 0 - 6„----/ m , 0 1 r_ _-:---) I- .. F ______J 1 I [ O I r I r j (I I x m U � r �z = I 02 II 1 co n � N 1 1 — _\ — ED �j^'- T ...t .c,1 ) //-- m Z I '‘. . _ ,_...,., Li— J Nr i 00 , _0 ,,_,. 33 A Z o- i P w \ \ y ,v ~8 ,,. • • iss4. m F. T!, < o / • • • � 4 \ \ ----- E!, P / / \ / • \- _ - _oma .. J O I li 01 -pM 1 . r =-sre z q A i 1 ::— p P • --1\________' , I 1= bV e Ord P et.