HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-06-2001 Council Work SessionCouncil Work Session
S:00 p.m., Tkursday, September 6,2001
Orono City Council Chambers
2780 Kelley Parkway
AGENDA
1. Proposed 2002 Budget and Tax Levy
2. City’s Response to Met Council Comments Regarding I lousing Element of the City's
Updated Comprehensive Plan
3. Proposal for a Medical Office Building on the City's 2-Acrc Parcel on the Northeast
Comer of Old Crystal Bay Road and Highway 12
4. Discussion Regarding the Sprint Proposal to Lease City Property in Crystal Bay Pork for
a Telecommunications Tower
TO;Mayor and City Council
FROM:Ron Mimrse. City Administrator
DATF.:September 4,2001
SIIIUECT:2002 Preliminary' Budget Update
6)
Al ils August 14 work session, the Council made a number o!\.hanges to both the expenditure and
revenue sides of the proposed 2(K)2 budget. These changes were as folloxs^:
1. Legal serx'ice expenditurcs were reduced by S1 4.000. llie proposed budget included
a $14,000 increase in legal scrx ice expenditures to reflect recent large costs related
to defcndini; and enforcing the city's zoning regulations. The Council revised the
budget proposal to maintain the legal scr\ ice expenditures at the 2001 budget level.
2. The Council eliminated the S1 0,000 expenditure for the Navarre vision process, with
direction that stolT pursue opportunities for funding through grants.
3. Ihe Council eliminated the $45,000 levy for stormwater improvements, and directed
stall to men e forward with the process of establishing a stormwater utility and fee as
on alternate revenue s^iurce.
Revised General Fund Budget and Proposed Tax Levy
After making the changes listed aben e. the revised 2002 budget and lax levy numbers are os follows:
(icneral f und expenditures • $4,557,470
(iencnil I'und expenditures - dollar increase • $267,030
Cieneral I-und expenditures - percentage increase - 6.22%
Pa>posed 2002 lax levy excluding MAC A lew - $2,566,705
lax levy increa.re excluding IIACA lew - $123,355
Tax lc\y percentage increase (excluding HACA lc\y ) - 5.05%
Proposed 2(X)2 lax Icxy including HACA lc\y* - $2,876,335
Tax levy including HACA levy - dollar increase - $432,085
Tax levy including HACA levy - percentage increase - 17.72%
Budget Summary
Although a 6.22% General Fund expenditure increase is a significant increase, it is not excessive
given the competitive but reasonable increases in pay and benefits reflected in the budget, und the
substantial cost increases being required by other agencies that provide ser\ ices to Orono.
2(f02 Preliminary' Hiuiiict Update
September 4. 200!
Paj^e 2 _____
Tax Reform and Tax Levy
l^c lax reform package adopted by ihe 2001 legislature included ihc climinalton of state I lACA aid
from cities as one source of revenue to be used by the state to pay for other elements of the tax
reft)rm package; the most substantial of which is the slate funding of education. Although the tax
reform substantially reduces pn>pcrty taxes through the state’s increascxl funding of education, the
reform package also assumexi the property lax reduction would be s^miewhat offset by increased
municipal levies to offset the loss of IIACA aid. Although taxpayer groups ore tr> ing to make an
issue of cities levying for the lost IIACA aid. it is clear the legislature fully expected cities to
increase their levies to ofl’set the loss in IIACA aid. In fact, the levy limit** placed on cities by the
legislature enable cities to levy for the lost I h\CA aid.
If the city’s II AC’A aid had not been reduced, the city’s tax levy w*ould have increased by SI 23.355
or 5.05%. Ihe additional levy to oIVset the loss of S300.630 of IIACA aid results in a total levy
increase of $432.*)K5 or 17.72%.
Certification of Tax Le% y
The city must certily a levy to the county by September 14. 4 his levy amount may he reduced but
may usil K* increased, fhe final budget and levy are adoptexi in late November or early December
of each > ear. litis certified lew will be used for the "truth in taxation” pioperty tax notices providexi
by the County to all property owners.
fhe Council w ill be asked to approve the potposed levy at its regular meeting of September 10.
Truth in Taxation Hearing
liach year the various levels of local government, i.e. city, county and .school districts, are required
to hold trulli in taxation hearings, w hich arc ati opportunity for property o w ners to obtain information
regarding the proposed budgets and tax levies. Ilie truth in taxation hearings nonitally occur in late
November or early December afier the property owners have received property tax statements
indicating the proposed levy increases, llie final budget and tax lew are then adopted subsequent
to the truth in taxation hearing.
Because the tax reform package resultcxi in so many changes to the property tax system, the holding
of a truth in taxation hearing in 2001 has been left to the discretion of each individual jurisdiction.
On one hand, a truth in taxation hearing could be a ginnl opportunity for the city to explain the
properly tax reform package and how it alTects the city’s finances, particularly the tax levy, and to
explain the proposed budget. On the other hand, in past years, tlie city has not had any public
participation in its truth in taxation hearings. Ilowxrvcr. the city has included articles regarding the
proposed budget and lax levy in its city new sletter. StalT is in the process of preparing on article for
the upcoming fall newsletter w hich will explain the major elements of the lax reform package as well
as provide information regarding the propo.scd budget and lax levy.
0
Mayor Peterson and Councilmembers
Ron Moorse. City Administrator
From: Mike GafTron, Planning Director^
Date: August 23.2001
Subject: 2000-2020 Comprehensive Plan (CMP) -
Met Council Housing Plan Requirements Update
List of Exhibits
A - April 20,2001 Guy Peterson Memo
B • Excerpts from 2000-2020 CMP
In November 2000, Met Council staff sent the City a letter outlining 4 items that \^'ere needed in
order to complete their review of uur Plan, none of which were in relation to the Housing Plan (but
all of which have now been submined). In April 2001 1 hoif'phon^ discussion with Guy Peterson,
(MC staff) regarding the Housing Plan. That discussion led me to believe that our ploii os presented
would likely meet their guidelines/goals for lifecycle and affordable housing. Last week in
discussions with Phyllis Hanson (our Sector Rep.) she indicated 1 should talk to Peterson, he still had
some issues. I met with Peterson on August 16 at which time he advised me that:
1 . Our plan doesn ’t appear to meet Met Council ’s numerical benchmark goals for rental and
affordable housing in Orono.
2. Our participation in the Livable Communities program without having negotiated numerical
goals is unusual; there are only a handful of metro area cities in the same circumstance.
3. Met Council staff will not recommend approval of Orono ’s Plan without acknowledgement
and acceptance of some specified numerical goals. In addition to establishing such goals, we
need to show that there arc no Plan barriers that would inherently keep them from being met,
and we must indicate which specific areas we plan for this growth.
Peterson ’s actual expectations in terms of numerical goals were not specifically identified to staff
unti I last w eek. For our planned sewered growth of 409 new households during 2000-2010. he has
indicated we must attempt to meet at least the low range of the benchmark goals for affordable
townhomes and rental dwellings in the ‘'Southwest of Minneapolis Planning Sector ”. These goals
are as follows:
«*■ Of the aproximately 400 sewered housing units to be built in 2000-2010, 1/4 (or
approximately 100) should be rental units at densities of 10-1 5 units per acre.
*r Of the approximately 300 ownership units, 60% (or 180) should be constructed as
“affordable" units. By affordable, Peterson suggests that the density at which such
units become affordable is at least 6 units per acre.
Housing Plan
August 23.2001
Page 2
How Do We Stack Up?
The 62*unit Dunbar senior housing project at approxiniately IS units per acre leaves us needing to
identify another 4-S acres where the City would allow density of at least 10 units per acre.
Under the current zoning code, the only properties eligible to get this high a density would be
Commercial sites that Council would agree to convert to apartment-type use via the RPUD
ordinance. Potential sites along Highway 12 currently guided for Commercial use might be
considered in a way similar to the Dunbar senior housing project.
Our 2000-2020 CMP may accununodate tliese higlier density uses in U>e Highway 12 conidor,
specifically along the north side of Kelley Parkway (mix of multi- and single family at “3-6 units per
acre”) and the Dumas/James sites SW of 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road (mix of multi- and single
family at “2-4 units per acre”)- The key to this is whether Council would allow deirsities of a portion
of either area to be in the 6-10 units/acre range if the remainder was at a low er density.
Two Highway 12 Areas Guided fo r Higher Density.
a. The Dumas/James properties contain a total of about 49 dry buildable acres, w ith only
minimal wetland areas, allowing for a wide variety of possible development layouts. The CMP
suggests a mix of SF and MF uses at 2-4 units per acre, and specifically lists various residential
development options ranging up to 3 units per acre. In order to meet the aflordability standards, a
minor portion of this site might be developed at 6-10 units per acre, with the remainder developing
at lower densities as a balance. Various ways to do this might include:
Scenarios A-D: 2.5 Uni(s/Ac. Average Density (120-125 total units on 49 acres)
4 ac. at 10 units/ac. * 40 unit apt bldg, on a 4 acre site
A 6ac. at 6 units/ac. ■> 36 affordable townhomes on 6-acre site
39 ac. at 1 .2 units/ac. ■ 46 single family homes on 0.8 acre lots
OR
1 5 ac. at 6 units/ac. ■ 90 alTordablc townhomes on 1 5 acres
B 34 ac. at 1 unit/ac. ■ 34 single family homes on I-acre lots
OR
C 1 0 ac. at 4 units/ac. •• 40 mid-range townhomes on 10 acres
39 ac. at 2 units/ac. ■ 78 single family homes on '/j acre lots
OR
D 49 ac. at 2.5 units/ac. ■ 122 single family homes on 0.4 ac. lots
p
Housing Plan
August 23,2001
Page 3
Scenarios E*H: 4 Units/Ac. Average Density (200 total units on 49 acres)
(Note that the Comprehensive Se^er Plan allots up to 200 sewer units for this parcel group)
E 49 ac. at 4 units/ac.
F Sac. at 10 units/ac.
5 ac. at 6 unils/ac.
39 ac. at 3 units/ac.
G 10 ac. at 6 unilsac.
20 ac. at 4 units'ac.
19 ac. at 3 units/ac.
II 6ac. at 10 units/ac.
20 ac. at 6 units/ac.
23 ac. at 1 unit/ac.
= 196 mid-range lowiihomcs
OR
» 50 unit apt. bldg, on 5 acre site
« 30 afTordable lownhomcs on 6 acres
* 117 single family homes on 1/4 acre lots (t>p. 100*.xl20')
OR
= 60 afTordable lovvnhomes on 10-acrc site
^ 80 mid-range townhomes on 20-acre site
® 57 high-end townhomes on 19-acre site
OR
“ 60 unit apartment bldg on 6-acre site
» 120 affordable towiihomes on 20 acres
« 23 single family homes on I acre lots
Scenarios A, F & H would provide the rental housing needed to meet the Rental Housing goal.
Scenarios A, F. G H would go a long way towurd meeting the Owner-occupied Affordable
Housing goal,
b. The 40-plus acre area north of Kelley Parkway has about 27 acres of dry buildable land. The
interspersed wetlands provide natural separation and buffering; this could result in many small
scattered groupings of touiihomes as opposed to one or two larger many-unit buildings, although
providing high density in a few larger buildings might allow for better preservation of some natural
wooded/wctland areas. At a density of 3 units per acre. 75-80 comfortably scattered townhome in
groups of 2,3 and 4 attached units ore feasible. At a density of 6 units per acre, 150-160 units would
certainly be feasible; the trade-off is that a portion would have to be in buildings containing more
than 4 attached units. Various scenarios similar to those noted for the Dumas/James properties could
be devised to assist in meeting affordability goals.
Council Direction Requested
Council is asked to consider whether densities of 6-10 units per acre would be acceptable for
portions of the Highway 12 areas identified for higher densities in the CMP. An average density of
4 units per acre on the Dumas/James property, could allow for a mi.x of 6-10 units^acre housing t>pes
and I-2 units/acrc housing types. Similarly, on the Kellev Parkway site, an average density of 6 units
per acre would allow for a variety of townhomes as well as a limited number affordable rental units.
^^Metropolitan Council
mA Improve regional competitiveness (n a globed economy
){i 1 y?- /c o-
Intemat Memorandum
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
April 20.2001
Linda Milashius
Guy Peterson
SUBJECT: Orono Comprehensive Plan - Housing Element
Orono is a unique situation because although they have been LCA participants since 1<W5, they never
negotiated qjecific numerical goals with the Council.
However, now when we find ourselves implementing the LPA and needing to use the benchmarks in our
LCA goal-setting system to tell Orono the numbers we need to see in their plan which essentially deal
with land availability and permitted densities of development
Given the seweted-household growth numben jn the plan, it looks like the plan is saying Orono will
grow by 409 households between 2000 and 2010. According to the benchmarks for cities in the
Southwest of Minneapolis Planning Sector, Orono should at a minimum have'/«of these units be rental,
and 60 percent of the ownership units be affordable.
We all know that this will not happen given land costs; however, it doesn ’t give the city license to then
go ahead with all low*deiuity development My calculations show that we should see future residential
land uses in Orono that would do the following:
> Identify7to 10 acres ofland on which rental housing could be built from I Sunils per acre, down to
10 units per acre if 10 such acres are available.
> Identify 30 acres of land where medium density residential develop; ent may occur at at least six
units per acre.
I don ’t think the plan as submitted does this, and I would be happy to work with city staff to try to
resolve these issues.
CMP Part 3B. LaodUtePlaa
URBAN LAND USE
Urban Residential Land Use
Urban residential development will retain the basic single family character
of the community but will also provide fora wider range of housing types at
generally low densities consistent with available services, the natural
amenities of the land, and environmental protection. Planning devices such
as clustering will permit a limited amount of multiple dwellings such as patio
homes, townhouses and garden apartments to be located near commercial
areas within the overall planned density of the neighborhood.
Urban residential development requires municipal sanitary sewer, an
adequate transportation system, neighborhood recreational facilities and other
typical urban services. The location of urban residential uses depends to a
substantial degree on the environmental impact on Lake Minnetonka and the
protection of the natural wetlands system for storm water filtration and
purification.
All urban residential land within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka will require
special environmental restrictions and lower land use densities in order to
assure shoreline protection and minimal direct storm water nmoff pollution.
URBAN RESIDENTIAL • 1 DWTLLING PER ACRE
This Is the tspical urban residential density developed and planned for
areas which arc within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka and which
have particular environmenul impact on the lake.
URBAN RESIDENTIAL - 2 D^^ELLINGS PER ACRE
This is the typical land use density of the historic development in
Navarre and the older residential neighborhoods. Certain other
residential areas are planned for this density where ^rvices are
available beyond 1,000 feet from the lakeshore. Municipal water is
generally provided to these districts for supply and fire protection, in
addition to the necessary sewer service.
URBAN RESIDENTIAL. 2 to 6 DWELLINGS PER ACRE
These densities are provided for along Highway 12 as shown on the
Land Use Plan. Development at these densities will be limited to
properties wiiere special conditions such as abutting land use, as well
as proximity to urban utilities and services, would make the parcel
appropriate for housing clusters or multi-family development. Since
the areas identified for this higher density development are to some
City ofOroDO Comnunily Management Plan
S«a«Mib(r_,»)00
Page3B-33
L
CMP Part 3R. LaodUitPlaa
Table 3B~»: Arc^ for Hi^Dw RcsMatel De^^cat.?Site B•** *«.^' . ,-r \'c:
Site I>cfciiptioo:S5 acres located betweeo Highway 12 and the Burlington Northern Railroad
prop€ity»abuttingaad Just west of Old Crystal Bay Road. Property includes
SITE B 5 separate tax parcels with 5 existing residences plus outbuildings, and is
(Parcel Group 2, currently zoned for single family rural development at a density of 1 unit per 2
Map 3B-7) acres, llie new Highway 12 route is planned to abut the south side of this
property, paralleling the railroad track.
SmClnra^traUai
Gross site area east of major wetland: 35 Kres l
Area of additional wetlands In e^ half of site: • 4 acres t
AreatobelostductoHwy I2b>'pass: ■ 2 acres ♦
Net dry buildabte for development: 49 acres t
Easterly 25 acres b relatively flat will, high-watertable solb
and interspersed wetland pockets. Not easily developable
with septic systems. Mostly open fields that have been
firmed previously.
Westerly 30 acres has 5V^•\5V^ slopes, eventually dropping a
total of 50* down to major wetland basin. Soils are better
suited for use of septic systems, but slopes may be a factor
for individual sites. Thb area is more wooded and contains
apple orchard.
This site has a number of factors which make it unattractive
for 2-acre rural residential development as currently zoned,
including:
• Location between two highway corridors b not conducive
to rural development,
- Location across from Indus^l Park b not conducive to
rural development.
• Site abutt one of the busiest Intersections In Orono.
• East half of site b poorly suited for development w ith
septic sy stems
Municipal sewer and water are relatively available as
compared to most other areas of the City; the site b adjacent
to exbting MUSA and b a logical MUSA expansion point.
Thb site has d’lrec' access to iilerial and collector road
system, and b relatively near urban services as compared to
most other areas of the City. Furthermore, thb site b
separated fn>m existing rural neighborhoods by the Orono
Schools, by existing wetlands, by the existing railroad, and by
e.xbting and future road/railroad corridors. Because of these
separations, development at higher densities will have little
impact on adjacent rural character neighborhoods.
Site B Residential Development Options!
pnEMUtir PgtlHngVnm PimltY.
Current 2-acre zoning 16-18 Uniu OJunits/ac.
(septic s> stems)
2-acre zoning 20-22 Units 0.4 units/ac.
(sewered, standard plat)
2-acrc zoning 24 Uniu 0.5 units.ac.
(sewered. PRD)
1-acrc zoning 42-44 Units OJ units.^ac.
(sewered, standard plat)
1-acre zoning 47-48 UniU 0.9 unilSr^ac.
(sewered. PRD)
l/2-acrc zoning 80-85 Units 1.5 units/ac.
(sewered, standard plat)
l/2-acrc zoning 95-100 Units lJunIts'ac.
(sewered, PRD)
3 uolt/acre PRD 140 Units 3.0unlts/ic.
Preferred Development Option:
MixofO.5 units/ac SFR
4k 4 nnlts/ac townhomes 120 Units 2.5unlt^'ac.
City of Orono Comnonity Management Plan
Scpit«bcr_.2Ma
rage3B-35
fTMUm dtnify ratiBtfWI uM Hw
PrapoMdOuMiPUn Omhjmim
offlcrferniitd Mrv«c« uM«, and rtta« uM« aocaMOfy Ip Pit offic* uM UA
mijli4«fidy u%m at a danairy c014 unM par pora
‘ ‘•’^'vaffassa.v.’sstsss'
fgslfsf' >i.^ugr.
bMngOuldaRan (lM0)8ing^fMya<rBlraaidantaluM«adana«yof 1 iMpar2acfW
PropoaadOuidaPIpn Mubaa of uftan lingla and rrUlfatriy raaidanlial uaaa at ■ danaKy of 24 un^ par acrt
gd^QroM03
m*ia ftngto Fandr^aH naadandH. 2^ki« llniwi
EaMr« Outdo Plan (19t0) Saigta tamPy rural ra iida naal uaa at a danady oM uat par 2 ocfoa
PrapoaadOiddoPlan Saigtafamiy utanraaidonoaiuaaatadarMayoriJiMparacra
I Afaa Bdlwdn VWiow Dr and Bwwi fM.:________________
Oamct
bdoMig Oi^ Plan (lM9)OfSca/corr«rarDaluaaoaccaaaaig Highway 12 via a aarvica road from aro«n RoadloWaiomOdi>a.«d«inedaact a
Pfapoaad Outdo Plan rru oi gWca. rKail and aarvica corrponan» focuaad on co
■ l0Hi|h«ay12
manong
Highway 12 Areas Proposed for Change
City of Orono
Minnesota
Moe M
/S^ “Vj map 3B-7
______^
flUG-30 01 12:43 noi:TOt 49500494616 Pn3E:00>00
^^Mctfopolitu Council
Buik<tng convniinirtes that work
Internal Memorandum
DATE: August 30.2001
TO: Robin Cauffw
PROM: Guy Peterson\j\^A
SUBJECT; Orono Housinit Element Questions
Mike Gaffron faxed this to me yesterday. It helps some but still leaves us with some questions.
1. We still need to resolve the housing numerical foals issue - will the plan include the city's
concurrence with the low end of the benchmarks ranges as its goals (for at least the affordability and
divcfsification metsiim)?
2. Regarding Parcel Group 1 - my notes say this parcel “could" be developed at up to 6 units per acre.
From Mike’s table 1 take it the parcel will be guided at up to six units per acre.
3. Regarding Parcel Group 2 - my notes say that as many as 20 acres here "could" be developed at
six units per acre. The information Mike provided a few days earlier only up to four uniU
per acre in this area. Is it only four uniU per acre or is it six?
4. Wifli the seiuor housing project, the city is still left with a balance of 38 additional rental units. We
still need to identify at least four or five acres elsewhere where development can occur at at least ten
units per acre, or is it possible that if both Parcels 1 and 2 permit up to six units per acre, that four or
five ofthose acres could be inoeased to ten uniU per acre in a PUD?
5. The (and use tables and information you picked up a few days ago are labeled applicable to 2020. 1
don’t care if it takes that long for the development to occur, but I do need to know that the land is
available for developnteni/rtdevelopment before 2011. The housing goals and land uses necessaiy
to implement the goals are through 2010.
Can you fax these questions to Mike or do you want me to? Virkaw a»d where do we meat on
^apt^bcr i*?
CITYorORONO
MMkIpil Olllco
Oram, m S5356
P.O Bn 6«
Ciyjtal Bay. W SS323^
TELECOPY COVER LETTER
Please deliver (he following page<s) to:
/W-z-
Name: GUY PETERSON (6SI-602U4W)
From: Mike GalTron
Total number of pages including this cover letten 2
Date: August 29.2001
IF you DO NOT HECEIVE ALL T»r PACPA PI.PASK CALL US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
Phone: (612)249-4600 and ask for Mike. Our fa.\ number is: (612)249-4616
Additional Message:
Guy, attached b my analysb of where we stand with our current submittal in terms of your
stated goab for Orono. We are not far apart. Robin Caufman has indicated she would like
to meet on (he Sth, and I can do that if you wbh. However, our City Council U planning to
dbcuss (hb topic at a work session the week of the 4lh-7th (not yet Kheduled) and (he Council
may want to then meet with you to discuss our housing plans and strategics, perhaps on the
I2(h, 13(h or I4lh if that works for you. Please call me at 952-249-4622 to dbcuss.
lUcpheoe (9S3) a«» WBB • Fas (952) 249-4414
Aflbrdability Analysis -Orono 2000-2020 CMP (for period 2000-2010)August 29,2001
CITY
INDEX
(ORONO)
MET
COUNCIL
BENCH
MARK
Guy Pclerson’s Indicated Goal for
409 Sewered D.U/s Expected To Be
Added Durina 2000-2010
2000-2020 CMP As Submitted
(Incl. Senior Housing Amendment)-
for period 2000-2010
AfTordabilily
OwiKrship 30%60-69%180 Affordable TownhonKs
(±60% of 309 ownership Units)162/309= 52.5% (1)
Kcnlal 18%35-37%100 AITurdablc Rental Units
(iI/4 or 25% of409 total units)62/409=15% (2)
Life-Cycle
Type (% non-SF detached)2%35-37%(no indicated goal) 280/409 = 68%224/409 = 55%
Owner/Renter Mix VI/9%(67-75)/
(25-33)%
(no indicated goal) 309/1(K) =
76%/24%347/62 = «5%/15%
Density
Single Family Detached O.V/aerc 1.8-1.9/acre (no indicated goal)Range: 3 units/ac. • 0.2 units/ac.
Mulliramily
6/acrc 10-14/acre
Rental: At least 10 units/ocre
Ownership: At least 6units/acro
Rental Range: 6t-4 units/acre (via
RPUD)
Ownership Range: 2-6 units/acit
(Townhomes)
(1) AfTordable ownership units denned os owner occupied townhomc units developed at density of at least 6 units per acre:
Kelley Parkway (north side) guided 3-6 units per acre; 27 dry buildable acres x 6 =* 162 units
(2) AfTordable rental units defined os attached MF rental units developed at a density of at least 10 units per acre:
Proposed 62-unit Senior Independent Living project at 12/Brown Rd.« 62 units on 4 acres IS units per acre