HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-22-2001 Council Work SessionCouncil Work Session
3:30 p.m., Thursday, February 22, 2001
Orono City Council Chambers
2780 Kelley Parkway
AGENDA
1. Appointment to the Planning Commission and Appointment of Alternates
2. Long Lake Fire Station Preliminary Design
3. Ambar Senior Housing Project Financial Assistance Package and Long Term Control of
the Use of the Property
4. Ambar Senior Housing Project - Site Plan Issues, Particularly Access Issues
5. RPUD District Ordinance
NOTE: This work session has a very Poll agenda. It will be important that while we need to
fully address each item, we will also need to manage the amount of time spent on
each item.
To: Ron Moorse, City Administrator
From: \like Gaff en, Planting Director
Date: February 20, 2001
Subject: Planning Commission Appointment; Alternates
Planning Commission Terms
Planning Commission terns run 3 years, with each appointee eligible for up to three 3-year terms
in addition to their first term if it was tilling out an unexpired vacancy of less than 3 years duration.
The current vacancy is the remaining yearof Nygard's term, so Council will be appointing someone
to serve from 2-xx-01 to 3-31-02. Note that the terms of the 7 members are staggered: two expire
3/3 1/01 (Smith and Hawn, both ofwhom arc eligible fur another term); three expire 3131/02 (Nygard
vacancy, Stoddard and Kluth); and two expire 3/31 /03 (Lindquist and Berg, both of whom will no
longer be eligible for reappointment). See the attached grid for current membership status.
Size and Makeup of the Planning Commission
The Code -authorized 7-member commission is a reasonable size for reviewing land use applications.
A commission larger than 7 members likely would result in longer meetings, as each member would
be expected to weigh in on an issue. I have found that the Planning Couunission is fairly efficient
at 5-7 members. While 4 of 7 members is legally a quorum, it is preferable to have an odd number
present to avoid tie votes.
Note that the City Code requires two Rural members, two Urban members, one Lake Minnetonka
lakeshore member and two at -large members. The current makeup of the Commission is:
Rural: Liz Hawn, Sandy Smith, Dale Lindquist, Dan Kluth
Urban: Jan Berg, Bill Stoddard
Lake Mike: (Bill Stoddard)
Since Bill technically should not be both the Lake Minnetonka and Urban representative, we should
appoint either a Lake Minnetonka owner or an Urban owner to replace Jay Nygw d. However, the
Council can deviate from this policy by majority vote.
Planning Commission Alternates
It is necessary to maintain a roster of qualified Planting Commission alternates who can step in at
relatively short notice. Last-minute cancellation or postponement of Planning Commission meetings
due to lack of a quorum results in an imposition to both applicants and staff. In the past the City
Council has appointed alternate Planning Commissioners to take the place of absent regular
members when needed to maintain a minimum quorw� (4 of 7). In a typical year, we have had to
call on an alternate perhaps only once, although in 2001 so far we have needed two alternates in
January and one in February, in order to maintain the 4-member quorum. Currently, the City has
only two appointed alternates, Jeanne Mabusth and Maureen Bellows, both of whom arc very
capable by virtue of past experience as a member of, or as staff for, the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission
Page 2
Our goal would be to procure an alternate at least two weeks in advance when we know we will be
short of a quorum. It also may be prudent to have an alternate attend when we have just 4 regular
members scheduled to attend. The alternate would be a 5* member who would have an equal vote
and the result would be no deadlocked votes. The 5" member would also avoid the need to cancel
a meeting if one of the 4 regular members had a last-minute conflict.
Alternate Qualifications
Staffs preference would be to have alternates who were Planning Commissioners or
Councilmembers in the relatively recent past (perhaps within the last 10 years or so). Such a group
would likely contain people who could step in and understand the background of the typical issues
addressed by the PC.
An alternative (or supplement) to this group would he to recruit new alternates from the current
candidate list, who would be expected to attend a number of PC meetings each year either as the
appointed alternate or as a member of the audience. An option is to bring in an alternate whenever
a regular member is absent, which would provide more hands-on experience and eventually result
in a larger group of trained alternates who could be appointed to a regular member position as
vacancies occur. One caveat to this: I would not want at any time to have a majority of the quorum
be made up of such "new recruits".
If Council feels it would be appropriate, staff will come up with a proposed pool of alternates,
including past PC/Council members and new candidates, for Council approval.
Summary & Recommendation
I. Council should appoint one of the 9 interviewed candidates to fill out the remaining year of
Jay Nygard's 3-year term (expires 313112002).
2. Council should direct staff to assemble a pool of alternate Commissioners made up of past
PC or Council members plus a number of the current candidates.
3. Whenever a meeting is expected to have less than 5 regular members in attendance, staff will
procure alternate Commissioners from the alternate list so that the combinea number of
regular members and alternates attending will be not less than 5 nor more than 7.
4. Whenever a quorum (4 of 7) is in doubt, staff will initially attempt to procure alternates from
the pool of past PC or Council members so that at least 4 of the attendees are regular
members or past PC/C members.
5. Alternates will be encouraged to attend meetings as an audience member to become more
familiar with the City codes, policies and philosophies.
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1"9
2000 1
2001
2002
2003
Dale
lnitiel` ° First 3-yearTea,eirTertn TbW3Y&Tenn
Lindquist
1-Year 2/14/94 -4/y.: I/2000 4 -//132000 3/312003 a(I
iApptmt
5110l93
Initial Fust 3-year Term ''�• 8;a -.ear Te qk." Third3Year Term
Y 14/94-4/28�9 {31R000 3,'I3200o 3131R- 1 -
Jan Berg
pp.�i
YK�/i tm,
Oft n
Ntt AFust S
Sandy
r ar Tcnn cond - e`mr
Smith
"A m a ` 4/1/95 31J98 2/9198=9 1'
1,
S �
Liz Hawn
Firsf� Term -Second - aim
724 •2/9/9:
x
3. d�3 "I, arm
Bill
Stoddard
((9 orrr 1 t led, '
3 0061��
/31,99„y3/312002
Jay Nygard
r 3-Year Term
Began
9 -
Council
J
t-t-ot
n__vi....
7-Veor Term
_
• /99 - i 312002
The code requires the Planning Commission to be comprised of:
2 Rural Service Area members
2 Urban Service Area members
I 'Lake Minnetonka shoreline owner' member
2 At-Larg members
7 Total
The current make-up is
Rural Urban
Liz Hawn Jan Berg
Sandy Smith Bill Stoddard (Also Mtka Lkshr Owner)
Dale Lindquist (Nvaard Vacancvl
Dan Kluth
Stoddard currently serves a duel role as both Urban and Lake Minnetonka Lakeshore, as did Nygard. While
it would be to keeping wuth this policy to appoint either an Urban or a Lake Minnetonka lakeshore
representative, the Code allows Council by a majority vote to appoint persons not fulfilling this criteria.
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator
DATE: February 20, 2001
SUBJECT: Long Lake Fire Station Preliminary Design Concept
A preliminary design concept for a new Long Lake Fire Station has been developed and is being
forwarded to the City Councils of the cities served by the Long Lake Volunteer Fire Department.
The Councils are being asked to review the proposed preliminary design concept, and to determine
whether to approve the preliminary design concept and authorize the design process to move to the
next stage. The Councils are being asked for approvals in two areas:
A. Size of the building.
B. The type and quality of building as reflected in the constmctioncost-per-square-foot.
The City of Long Lake currently has a fire station with approximately 6,000 square feet of space.
In addition, they share space with the Long Lake City Offices and store some equipment in a portion
of a Public Works pole barn. The existing fire station, as well as the Long Lake City Hall and Public
Works building, will be lost when Mn/DOT acquires the property as right-of-way for the Highway
12 upgrade project. Mn/DOT has agreed to replace all of these spaces. Long Lake is in the process
of planning for the replacement of these spaces. The new spaces will need to be ready by late 2002
because construction is scheduled to begin on Highway 12 in 2003.
Planning for the replacement of the fire station has been underway for a number of years. This
process has had two focuses.
1. Working with Mn/DOT toward agreement regarding what constitutes replacement
of the existing fire station, as the basis for determining the amount of funding to be
providee by Mn/DOT for the new fire station.
2. The design of a new fire station that will meet the needs of the Long Lake Volunteer
Fire Department well into the future.
The final meeting with Mn/DOT regarding the level of funding to be provided will be held on
Friday. February 23. It appears the funding from Mn/DOT will be equivalent to a 16,000 - 17,000
square foot building at a construction cost of $145.00 per square foot.
The process of developing a preliminary design for the new fire station has involved the Lone Lake
Volunteer Fire Department Building Committee working with an architect to identify space needs,
and periodic review by the Long Lake Fire Committee, which is made up of representatives of the
three cities served by the Long Lake Fire Department.
Long Lake Fire Station Preliminary Design Concept
February 10, 2001
Pie 1
The building has been designed by identifying a set of needs and determining the amount of space
needed to meet each of those needs. The building size was determined by then adding up the square
footage of all of the spaces identified. This has resulted in a 22,500 square fool building, which is
a large building in relation to the size of the Long Lake Volunteer Fire Department and the area it
serves.
I have attached a memo outlining questions regarding a number of spaces in the proposed
preliminary design, and a memo summarizing the discussion with the Long Lake Fire Department
Building Committee representatives and the architect regarding these questions. Without expertise
in fire operations and fire department design, it is difficult for the city representatives on the fire
station committee to know where or whether to draw the line regarding space needs. Charles Kelley
did suggest that to assist the City Councils in reviewing the station's size, particularly the number
of bays needed, an enlarged plan of the bays should be provided along with scale -sized cutouts
representing each piece of equipment to be stored in the bays, which would make it easier to
determine whether there were options available for storing the equipment without a sixth bay.
Given the level of funding to be provided by Mn/DOT, it is possible to get a large building at a cost
to the cities of a much smaller building. However, regardless of the cost, we need to ensure we are
constructing a building that is sized in relation to the size and needs of the Long Lake Volunteer Fire
Department.
To get another perspective on both the building size and building cost issues, Paul Robinson, the
Medina City Administrator, reviewed the proposed building size and cost with Bob Russick, who
is an architect with Bonestroo Associates who has experience in the design of fire stations. Mr.
Russick did not analyze the design or space needs analysis in detail and did not comment on the
specific design. What he did indicate was that the building was substantially larger than fire stations
he has designed in the metro area, and :hat the proposed cost -per -square -foot was at the upper end
of construction costs for fire stations. I have asked Mr. Russick to attend the Council's February 22
work session to provide his perspective regarding the size and cast of the fire station. He has
reiterated to me that he does not want to be in the position of evaluating another architect's work;
rather, he will share his knowledge regarding sins and costs i r fire stations with which he is
familiar.
TO: Mayor Peterson and Comcilmembers
FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator
DATE: February 12, 2001 /
SUBJECT: Long Lake Fire Station Update
The Long Lake Fire Committee met on February 5, 2001 to discuss the proposed design of the fire
station, particularly the proposed size of the station. The focus of the discussion was my letter to Steve
Persian, Long take Fire Chief, raising questions regarding a number of the spaces in the proposed
station. The result of the discussion was agreement that the preliminary design proposal, with a
building size of approximately 23,000 square feet, would be brought to the City Councils to determine
if there was support for moving to the next step in the design process.
Prior to summarizing the discussion at the meeting, it is important to be clear that the substantial
funding to be provided by Mn/DOT is making it possible for the building to include a number of spaces
that would have been eliminated or reduced in size under a different funding scenario. When the
process of planning the fire station began, I don't think anyone envisioned a fire station even as large
as 20,000 square feet. As the building is currently proposed, Orono's share of the annual debt service
would be approximately $100,000. Without the Mn/Dot funding, Orono's share of the debt service
for the same building would increase by four times. Under that scenario, the building being designed
would be much different.
e Committee Discuss?on of Fire Station Soace Issu
1. Sixth Bay -Wash Bay
The key question regarding the sixth bay was the future equipment need, particularly if bay 45is already
providing space fora future aerial truck. The Fire Department representatives indicated le Department
has plans to purchase, with funding from various fund-raising efforts by the Fire Department, a number
of smaller vehicles to assist in the Department's rescue efforts, such as jet ski s, snowmobiles, a new
boat, and an all -terrain vehicle.(Please see the attached small equipment purchasing plan). Without the
sixth bay, these vehicles would be difficult to store. It was discussed that if these vehicles are important
to the Department effectively carrying out its fire and rescue responsibilities, the fire station should
include space to store them.
There was discussion about whether a separate wash bay was needed, vs. moving one piece of
equipment out of a bay, and using that bay as a wash bay. The Fire Department representatives indicated
it is important to have an unused portion of a bay that can be used as a wash bay and a repair bay.
2. Shared Spaces
A number of large spaces that are fully used only infrequently , and that have the potential for shared
usage, are proposed as part of the concept design. These include the training room, conference room,
kitchen, and lounge. Discussion focused on using a moveable wall system to create two or three rooms
from the large training room space. The architect indicated the concept of shared spaces and wall
systems is a good one, but we need to be careful that building in Flexibility doesn't have a negative
impact on the ability of the room to serve its priority function.
The Fire Department representatives indicated in the future, the large training room space and the
conference room space could both be used frequently, causing a problem if there was not a separate
conference room. Chief Persian indicated that rather than eliminating the separate conference room
space, he would agree to reduce the sin of the training room from 1770 square feet to 1200 square feet,
which would seat 60 persons vs. 75.
The sin of the kitchen was also discussed. A basic kitchen would have 280 square feet. The proposed
design concept includes a 560 square foot kitchen. The Fire Department indicated a large kitchen with
room and equipment for larger food preparation capability is needed for community events, such w the
Department's pancake breakfasts. The architect did not have a detailed plan to show how the larger
kitchen space would be used.
3. Increased Lobby Space -Historic Fire Engine
Chief Persian indicated this was not a priority, and could be eliminated. Charlie Kelley and Mayor
Peterson both believed creating a historical space would be very beneficial in terms of the morale of
the current firefighters, recruitment of new firefighters, and creating a positive image for the general
public as they visit the station. They believed these benefits were worth the cost of the additional 336
square feet of space.
The Committee members agreed that; based on the information provided by the Fire Department
representatives and the architect; it appeared the proposed design concept ,with the reduction in the sin
of the training room, was reasonable, given the expected funding scenario( in terns of both projected
costs and projected Mn/DOT funding). It was also strongly suggested that, at the next stage in the
design, as the spaces are actually laid out, the architect work to identify opportunities for space
efficiencies in relation to adjacencies of related uses, and potential sharing of spaces for dual uses.
The next step is for the full councils of each city to review the design concept, and to determine whether
this concept should be taken to the next stage of the design process.
Iona V4 Yolunl—wrt M111-1
10/n/a 7:Wp Kl
Long Lake Volunteer Fire Department
Minor Capita Outlay
ro
e
.vReS Y.
Fabnnted
1(erolllnlelteaa euna
sans
or Add
a Item
1 1. RMI.
Coat
Gommenb
1
6Door Wdl Up
UdUty ll
Vehicle for Ma)or Incident Support
20 Years
2000
$
25,000
Wnatc/2nd Call/SFF
Meetings and Confaeae Vehkle
2
6Wlwdw
N/A
Response/Wi.W.dSummer
15 Yars
2101
5
12000
Donee/2nd Ca0/SFF/DNR
3
3Mwnlobb
N/A
Better Wins Response
10 Y.
2002
$
12000
Donate/2 Ce11/5FP/DNR
S.W flau ounmt winter aulpment
6
Urwpoled
N/A
New Station payawa
20 Years
2002
5
100.000
Dmule/2nd Call/SFF
6
loaf
N/A
take MfKA lapWwe
15 Years
5
60,000
Doneb/h Cell/SFF/DNR
Mole dfida t wle boat
More lake WMA kvidmb/asdab
6
OpBfan
N/A
Sekry
Ufeul Vehkle
ZIW
$
5,000
Donate/2nd CW/S"
6
colkskls
N/A
More ef6dent oalch arld rt e
25 Yean
200e
5
M,0W
M.W/2mt Ca11/SFF
WeSavinRtool/solely
{hnpal W
NA
UNolaaar.pnm/..NWpment
23kF2MN
$
130,000
(58.000 pa yes 2n0.2D1)
($l0,= per yar 210S-2113j
•21V1-100AW in new station pmchaso
f. enses
�
J�a .006�
:an-I6-2001 02:52,m Ficm-CITY OF GA:NG
+2t22461616 T-m - 1-ans 5-26:
,
January 16, 2001
Steve Persian
Fire Chief
Long Lake Volunteer Fire Department
19S4 park Avenue
P.O.- Box 606
Long Lake, DAN 55356-0606
Dear Chief Persian:
CITE' of ®ISONO
5tmnleipal offices
Street Address: Mr.:ri Address:
MO Kelley ParkAy P.O. Box 66
Orono. MN 55356 Cpral eay, MN 55323{C36
When the Long Lake Fire Committee inirially discussed the information developed by tl Fire
Department's building committee and the architect regarding space needs; questions and concerns
regarding several spaces were raised. Since then, the committee has not had an opportuniry to
discuss the space needs in depth, particularly opportunities for shared use of spaces
The specific spaces where additional discussion is needed are as follows:
1. Shared spaces.
a. Training room.
b. Conference room.
.c. Breakroom/lounge.
d. Physical training room.
2. EntryAobby (space for Studebaker).
3. Kitchen.
4. Hose storage space (in addition to the hose tower)
5. Sixth vehicle bay.
Shared Snac-s
In dte early discussions, the potential for shared use of spaces was discussed, partic�'-i in relader.
to the zairing room and related uses. It was indicated that when the preliminary design 1vas
developed, the relationship between the spaces would be reviewed to find efficiencies related to :he
shared use of spaces. Although :he 23,000 square foot pre-osal reflects some share.d use of spaces,
it aocears there are significant additional orpommities for efficiencies through ad6ronal share.:
space usage.
Telephone 05]) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 3d9-4616
www ri.omno.maus
W-I6-00ei Ot:iiGm from -CITY Of OP.CNO •e5 UNS1S Ti P.9C3/.N f-2SI
Steve Persian
January 16, 2001
Page 3
The total square footage of space pr==ed for &e conference neon. training room, break
roeni'lounge, and physical trairirc rcz = is 3,165. This is the best onto-_niw for shared soace,
particularly since the full 1,771 square fee of the eainine room hill be used only a few times during
the year. The 1,771 square foot training room could be ditided into three rooms -- one for a 35-
person training room, one for a conference room, and one for abrcak roomlounge. The room could
be My opened to accommodate 75 persons for training when needed.
The relationship between the physical __fining room and the break- rocr.-lounge should also be
reviewed to determine first, whether there are any opportunities for shared space between those two
uses, and secondly, whether it makes serse to have some connection between the two rooms.
En"Acibbv (Space for Studeba4er1
Because this is not an operational amerce', the decision regarding this space will need to be based
on other factors. When a similar space was approved in the Chaska fare station, it was based on an
understanding that as the city and Fire Drartment moved into the funtre, they would do so as one
team. The city recognized the long tradi=en of the Fire Depamment and the major benefits provided
to the city by the Fire Department it, ::ems of cost-effective, quality fire service; and the Fire
Depirtmemrecognized the fiscal respors:bi!iry and constraints of the city, a-..: the Fire Department's
relationship to the other services the city -xis responsible for providing. The lobby area symbolizes
this reciprocal recognition, and the c-Mmitmert to work together in the best interests of the
community.
Kitchen
It appears the kitchen size generally necessary to serve the needs of the department is 280 square
feet. The proposed size of 560 square fee: doubles the minimum size to a space that is nearly 30 feet
by 30 feet to enable the kitchen to be used for community events. It would be helpful to review a
detailed layout that shows specifically how the 560 square feet of space would be used versus the
280 square feet.
Hose Storage
Toe proposed design includes 360 sq`e `aet of space as a hose drying towevaaining stair. In
addir-on, there is a separate space for F.cs- stomge. This arrears to be a d=11carer-. it woc!d be
helpful to discuss •ate purpose of the hose '— ing tower versus :he purpose of —Ic hose storage space.
cirh Bav
The current design shows :hat there is sufEcient space in eve bays to store ail carrem equipment,
including three pumcers and a future ae=a' truck. The proposal indicates 'be sLnh bay is for a
second LL•ture crack :and a wash bay. At : ESQ square feet. the projected cost cf :his bay is 5230,000.
Jm-Is-2901 02:5tpe Frce-CITY CF CVNO +;3ZZ494e10 7-34i P.0000Ce F-Zt:
Steve Persian
January 16, 2001
Page 3
Although the cities of Orouo and Long Lake will have some additional commercial development
along Highway, ]., the general character and population of the cities will not change significantly
in the future. It would be helpful to have a discussion about what eeccpn additional major piece of
apparatus might be needed in the future, and what the probability is that a second additional major
piece of apparatus would in fact be needed.
If you have any questions regarding any of the items in this letter, please call me. Thav16 for vote
help.
Sincerely,
'®�
Ronald J. Moorse
City Administrator
i141MM
cc: Long'Lake Fire Cor..-i—e \:cmScr
on oorse - long a e-sumspacepropldoc - �T —"' T Page 1
Long Lake Fire Station
Summary Space Proposal
Committee
Recommendation
Square Foot Veriuux
Committee Comments
Chiefs OBia
169
Nam
Axislant Chiefs Once
120
None
C WnsG1Ba
IkO
None
Sareurial
N
64
8 a 8 Workstation
Training
64
64
8 e 8 Workstation
Relief Association
0
Nom
Shued Workstation
Liahmnt
0
No"
Shared Workstation
Luaverrant
0
Neese
Shared Workstation
Luutmau
0
Never
Shared Workstation
ConMena Room
294
114
tlncreax to cilreelty of to
Coff/Su"ly Work Room
ISO
None
Training Room
1560
721
tincreax to Cagessity 01`60
Entry/LobbyEntry/Lobby
680
256
OS,,ace for 1926 Studebaker
Public Renmoms
[is
Nom
GemN Stonsize
600
None
Kitchen
560
280
tlmrease for Cosearrovity Events
Break RaamrLoun
so
$60
-Stain Ara Dunne Calls
Physical Trimin Roan
540
5e0
Critical to Physical Tulnin
Men i Locker Room
660
None
We.'e Locker Room
221
No.
Burk Room
0
None
Deusisch Room
226
None
Tumoat Geu Room
560
None
Apparatus Roonelltry
96A0
1600
•Sruh Bay for Futum Apparatus
v
SCBA Room
471
Nam
Wort Sbo -Hox Stor a
216
%
8Hose Repait/Swasee
NateT.AT' Suir
360
560
Double, a How i mini Suer
Tumcw Geat Mauuneeue
107
Nam
Liquid Room
1 80
Non
Mahmieal Room
1 43U
Nom
ElecoeW Room
IISO
Nom
lmimr'sMust
I 80
None
Emergency, Generator
T.w Nat nn Ynr FtA
1 IK
4,324
80%orvmd S.F.
ClaYatln Fastor 20%
32jG95
5,405
20%of total S.F.
Notts;
i aRevixd/Approved per joint city committee recommendation 02/05/01
2. Firm MNDOTRepleament S.F.lobadetemiimd. 11,290S.F.Propoxd.
G dMonglYtt-surrspuepmp2 doe
.c.axnara w'raswra:fbwa'nate.t?F.xit'V�"it.4C al
Long Lake Fire Station
Summary Space Proposal
MNDOT
Replacement
Cotnnuttee
Recommendation
Square Foot
Variance
Committee Comments
Chiers Ofrice
168
668
None
Assistant chiers Omce
120
120
None
Captain's Office
120
120
None
Secretarial
0
64
64
8 x 8 Workstation
Tainina
0
64
64
8 x 6 Workstation
Relief Association
0
0
None
Shared Workstation
Lieutenant
0
0
None
Shined Worksunion
Lieutenant
0
0
None
Shared Workstation
Lieutenant
0
0
None
Shand Worksation
Confermtt Room
180
29J
114
Inc reau to Ca uir of 10
Copy/Sumly Work Room
Is0
130
None
Training Room
1050
1771
721
Inammut Ca i of75
0—
Envy/Lobby144
4SO
336
S ne for 1926 Studebaker
Public Resnooms
115
115
None
General Stout a
600
600
None
Kit:M1en
280
560
280
Increase for Cammuni Evenn
Break Roorn'Loun e
0
560
560
Sts in Arc&Dunn Calls
Physical TrainingRoom
0
5J0
540
Critical to Physical Tre!nine
Men's Locker Room
440
JJO
Nane
Womens Laker Room
221
2s1
None
Bunk Room
0
0
1 None
DispachRoom
226
ss6
None
Turnout Gear Room
560
560
Non<
ApIxuatu RoonvIlay
8000
9600
1600
Wash Ba /Furore Truck Ba
SCBA Room
471
471
None
Work Shop -Have Storage
120
216
%
Note Toaer A Training Suir
0
360
360
Double as Hose DtOnjurrrainina Stair
Turnout Gar Maintenance
107
107
None
Liquid Storage Room
80
SO
None
Mahanial Room
450
450
None
Electrical Room
ISO
150
None
Janitor's Clem
80
s0
None
Entemency Genenuor
T.Ul MI Fire 5uMo Fle111tr
13,832
18.567
4735
Claul&Oon Factor SOK
17.290
23.209
5919
I I
I
I
� ul
i e
I
I
I
1 ,
1
I
C CCPS SRC PLAN
SfµL 1••EO'
MAY &
BLOCK PLAN
LONG LAKE FIRE STATION STUDY
00"P KROO5R65ERVOGEl6ASSOC1AIU.WC ARCMEECIUREMEM DEYCNENGNEERWG
MNORWSWC SSREE, M EIP0M6 NESOTAMS l . 612-339-3I53
I
I
I
I
1515.01
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator !//l'ei
�( r
DATE: Febmary 16, 2001
SUBJECT: Senior Housing Project - Financial Package and City Control
The City's number one priority in relation to the financial package for the senior housing project is
to ensure to the greatest extent possible that the project will continue to serve seniors, and will
continue to provide units with affordable rents for the longest period possible. Two approaches to
this have been discussed.
Put in place adevelopment agreement based on a TIF financing package, put in place
covenants that run for the 40-year term of a tax-exempt bond, and put in place a
number of financial disincentives to converting the senior housing use to another
housing use.
2. City purchase the property and lease it to the nonprofit corporation for the senior
housing use.
Basic TIF Approach
The provision of financial assistance through a TIF district enables the City to control the use and
the rents for the period of the TIF assistance, which in this case is 20 years. In addition, the City
could place covenants on the property that are tied to the 40-year term of the tax-exempt bonds being
used to finance the project. These covenants can require the senior housing use and affordable rents
to remain in place for the tens of the bonds. In addition, there are a number of up -front costs the
City could choose to defer with interest that would be payable at such time as the senior housing use
or the affordable rents were discontinued. These up -front costs could include items such as park
dedication fee, water and sewer fees, the cost of burying the electrical lines, and the cost of installing
streetlights along Highway 12. These costs would total approximately $300,000. If the nonprofit
corporation would choose to change the use at the end of the 20-year TIF district, it would have to
pay these up -front costs with interest accrued over the initial 20-year period.
City Purchase of Property
The second option for giving the City control over the use of the property over the long term is the
City's purchase of the property and leasing it to the nonprofit corporation. Mr.Dunbarhasindicated
two concerns with this option.
The cash Flow for the project would change significantly. Under the basic TIF
package, the developer pays for the land over 40 years but receives TIF payments
during the first 20 years that are significantly greater on an annual basis than the
Senior Housing Project - Financial Package and City Control
February 16, 2001
annual payments for the land. If the City buys the land, the land payments are
eliminated from the developer's cash flow but so are the TIF payments. This has a
negative impact on the developer's cash flow. Rusty Fifield is working with Mr.
Dunbar to prepare cash flow information that shows the extent of the negative
impact.
2. Mr. Dunbar also indicated, in his experience working out the details of the financial
package and lease arrangement is very time-consuming and expensive, as opposed
to the basic TIF package which is very straightforward.
Rusty Fifteld and I will be discussing the pros and cons of these two main options with the City's
bond attorney, who has considerable experience regarding these issues, prior to the February 22 work
session.
TO: Mayor and City Council ����I^/////q////
FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator ✓ 11
DATE: February 16, 2001
SUBJECT: Frank Dunbar Senior Housing Proposal - Site Plan Issues
The issues to be resolved regarding the site plan for the senior housing project are as follows:
I . Visual impact to the residences to the north.
2. Visual impact when viewed from the east on Highway 12.
3. Tm11H.idewalk.
4. Frontage road.
Visual Impact to Residences to the North
In addition to reducing the easternmost portion of the building from three stories to two stories and
moving the entire building to the south, the most recent site plan now reflects moving the office
building and office parking lot to the south to create a larger buffer area adjacent to the residential
property to the north. Dunbar has also indicated he will develop a screening plan through
discussions with the adjacent property owners.
Visual Impact at Highway 12 and Brown Road
Throughout the review of the project, staff have indicated the importance of retaining as much of the
existing vegetative screening as possible adjacent to the pond in front of the proposed building. In
the most recent site plan, Dunbar has indicated the entire area in front of the building will need to
be regraded, and new vegetation will need to be planted. Staff have indicated he needs to direct the
grading contractor to save a strip of existing vegetation nearest the pond if at all possible.
Trail/Sidewalk
The developer was directed to add a trail to the site plan to serve two purposes.
A. To provide a pedestrian connection to the office building, which was initially
projected to be a medical building.
B. To provide a connection from the senior building to the trail on Brown Road and the
trail on Highway 12.
In the most recent site plan, which eliminated the separate frontage road in favor of routing the office
building traffic through the parking area of the senior building, the trail was added along the south
side of the parking lot. In reviewing the site plan, staff believed the trail in this location would not
be used and was duplicative of the sidewalk on the north side of the parking lot. Dunbar is revising
Frank Dunbar Senior Housing Proposal - Site Plan Issues
February 16, 2001
Page 2
the site plan to eliminate most of the trail on the south side of the parking lot, and to provide a
sidewalk/trail connection to the Brown Road trail and to the Highway 12 trail. The trail connection
to the office building is not included because it now appears the office building will not involve uses
the seniors will regularly want to visit.
Frontage Road
The original site plan included an access connection to the office building from Brown Road through
the parking area of the senior housing building. The City's traffic engineer expressed significant
concerns regarding routing the office building traffic through the senior housing parking lot, and
suggested an efficient way of separating the frontage road from the parking area. A site plan was
developed that appeared to make this frontage road work. Most recently, more detailed site planning
work has shown that because of the grade in the area of the frontage road, retaining walls 10 feet in
height would be needed along the entire southern edge of the frontage road. To eliminate the need
for the retaining wall, the developer is again proposing to eliminate the frontage road in favor of
again routing the office building traffic through the parking area of the senior housing building. A
revised site plan reflecting this charge has been forwarded to the City's traffic engineer for a review
of its safety and workability.
Background regarding access needs. The key access parameters for the proposed
development are as follows:
a. Prohibit the creation of an additional left turn access on Highway 12.
b. Provide left turn access to the senior housing building from the Brown
Road/Highway 12 intersection.
C. Provide right-in/right-out access on Highway 12 at a roadway directly south of the
office building to serve both the senior housing building and the office building.
d. A left turn access i� needed to enable eastbound traffic to access the office building
without making a U-turn at Brown Road and 12, and to enable traffic to exit the
office building to go east. Under the current plan, this left turn access is at Brown
Road and Highway 12, whici is the correct location. However, this requires the
traffic from the office buildim, to pass in front of the senior housing building. This
works very well if the traffic is using an access road that is separated from the
parking area of the senior housing building. This does not work as well if the traffic
is routed through the parking area of the senior housing building. It is preferable to
separate the "through" traffic from the senior housing parking lot traffic.
Frank Dunbar Senior Housing Proposal - Site Plan Issues
February 16, 2001
2. Options.
a. Require a separate access road from the office building to Brown Road and direct the
developer to find a way to lay out the access road in a way that does not require a
substantial retaining wall that would be visible from Brown Road and Highway 12.
b. Route the traffic from the office building through the parking lot of the senior
housing building.
C. Route the office building traffic through the parking lot of the senior housing
building, but also plan to make the connection from the office building to an access
road that connects to Highway 12 at Brimhall or that connects to Willow Drive.
d. Require all office building traffic to use only the right-inlright-out access and make
U-tums at Brown Road, Willow Drive, or other intersection along Highway 12 to
enter from the west or to exit to the east.
Staff will work with the City's traffic engineer and the developer to analyze the various options in
more depth prior to the February 22 work session. We have also requested the developer to provide
revised site plans by Tuesday, February 20 so that the Council can review them prior to the work
session.
To: Mayor Peterson and Cotmcilmembers
From: Ron Moorse, City Administrator
Mike Gaffron, Planning Director
Date: February 16, 2001
Subject RPUD Ordinance
Council tabled this item on February 12 for additional review at the February 22 work session. A
number ofconcems were raised about the applicability ofthe RPUD District to Shoreland properties,
and about whether the RPUD potentially has such wide applicability as to have a significant impact
on future development throughout the City. We have reviewed the ordinance and make the
following observations and suggestions:
1. A rezoning to RPUD, and the approval of a development plan under the RPUD, does not
enable an increase in density (# of units per acre). The City's Comprehensive Plan controls
density.
2. The RPUD does allow clustering of units in both urban and rural areas. An example is a 20
acre rural site where the density allowed by the Comp Plan (whether it is rezoned to RPUD
or not) is 1 unit per 2 acres. Under the RPUD rezoning all 10 possible units could he
clustered on half of the site, with the other 10 acres being kept in permanent open space.
3. The RPUD allows attached housing, i.e. townhomes, only in Orono's defined Urban area.
Although the RPUD district could be used to cluster single-family homes in the Rural area,
it could not be used to develop townhomes in the Rural area.
4. Another type of attached housing is apartment buildings. Staff recommends the RPUD
ordinance be clarified to indicate the only location where an apartment building could be
developed is property that is being rezoned from "commercial" to RPUD.
5. The only land on which a rezoning to RPUD would presume a different density than
currently reflected in the Comprehensive Plan, is land currently guided for comrnercial use
that is rezoned to RPUD. Because commercial use is a relatively intense use, it makes sense
to allow a higher residential density if the land is to be used for residential use. The adjacent
properties will already have a higher intensity use expectation, and the owner may realize a
minimal (or no) loss in value as a result of this "downzoning".
6. The cum.nt draft of the RPUD ordinance does not allow use of the RPUD zoning in the
Shoreland district. However, the Shoreland district extends well into the land at the
southwest comer of Highway 12 and Old Crystal Bay Road. This area has been discussed
as being particularly suited for development via the RPUD district. Staff recommends the
RPUD ordinance be revised to enable it to be used on land that is at least 200 feet from the
lakeshore. From staffs perspective, this would protect the lakeshore, and effectively
eliminate use of the RPUD for properties abutting a lake, while allowing creative residential
development options on lands new lakes where RPUD would be appropriate.
RPUD Ordinance
February 16, 2001
Page 2
It is also important to realize that wherever clustering or attached housing might be allowable
both under the City's existing PRD ordinance under existing zoning, as well as under the
new RPUD zoning, Shoreland PUD/PRD standards of Section 10.56 (Sub. 19) will
govern development near the lakeshore. These standards apply to all Planned Developments
abutting the lakeshore, and include limits on density within specified "tiers" along the lake.
The impact of the Shoreland PUD/PRD standards is similar to that of our hardcover
ordinance: it disallows clumping of huge numbers of units close to the shoreline, but forces
them to be spread out away from the shore. Also note: The current PRD ordinance would
allow attached units in the Urban'/2-acre zones (R-I B. LR-IC, and LR-IC-1) on lakeshore
sites, but at the zoned density. The PRD ordinance is attached.
Two examples are attached: one showing a 25-acre rural lakeshore site on North Brown
Road, the other showing the urban Camp Teko site on Tonkawa Road. In both cases, even
though the site has significant acreage, only a small fraction of the possible total units can
be within the fast 200-250'tier along the lakeshore. Also note that in Orono's defined Urban
area, there are only a very small number of existing parcels of T or more acres on the
lakeshore and in the Shoreland. These include:
Camp Teko on Tonkawa Road
Curt Carlson Family property on Tonkawa Road
Rick Bom homesite on Bohn's Point
Dumas Orchard site
The current draft of the RPUD ordinance does not put a limitation on the number of units per
building in a development plan for attached housing. Generally, townhomes are constructed
with 2, 3, or 4 units per building. Some have more units per building. The Council may
wish to place a limit on the number of units per building. The LR-1C-1 District has a limit
of 4 units per building, as does the M-6 District.
The only exception to this limit would again be on land that is currently zoned for
commercial use that is rezoned to RPUD. This is the only land that could potentially be used
for an apartment building. In this case, the Council would determine both the density allowed
and the number of units allowed per building, as pan of the RPUD review process.
Attachments:
A - Two examoles of potential RPUD development in lakeshore areas (these are not
possible under the current RPUD draft, and are not feasible even if RPUD is allowed
as new as 500' from the lakeshore, but might be feasible under the existing PRD
ordinance).
B - Shoreland Ordinance 10.56 Subd. 19
C - Existing PRD Ordinance 10.32
D - Current draft of RPUD ordinance
&Su,.+r4
Age* Cat&-AAerlGN
(�o,�-Gswat. Igee)
E�eAMPLE 1
(&PrRo)<�
APP r-)X.
''lrPPaoX. i P•Z
(�ILSS A2xP
— we-nu�,�s =
',Su,rn.Cµ�,Q/tE•pV
TIefZ
2 5.(o Ac
IT7
3
A'Lto_wAAt,tY" DeNs ITy �Vk•a.Wt�7oP� Cswso 14 (F�)
ZLt�@ w�N- A-trowa,l4- �;ecer
-T7M2—
—
/p
Wl�fl/n, 77E'� / wour D B� A-44-owl A CL-NsrerZ- oG /Jo rroa
"'�{pr(J 5 5FK' DETitGFi�c�� ��C= �rIET•—E�) �°T GFAfT %S FrCOM
OHWL os p Iwo Ar Lirw;T 75' Fee— 7zr.�rat�l,,a� 4r
INIT}hn� T/�2 Z &+LLD Br` FLLnG >G fl 3 *�kT?vtja Un,1 rs
Ty714�NCa
IA) Irk,.' Ti/E+'i
Q'94Qw+�(.E Z
—_�1 Su �r t.€ A14`A ur7otil 1141'v
1it�OWAat ptN]1ty :41tr/Wi IA7-sIZ6' p
7. /,Doc
__.�L�7e-_3 . .7.•. I/p AL1CY-L 1 • O Aa' kN! TT \ •�/
40 wji-s.
{ll,S Mk&+'rAVWCO TO AS FepO A-% 1-2_ L4N1rr Doe 7-0 /
SC&NIFt tA,^T' fdw( PF% ON -om s PTV to t * mm,-r- c ew-"btt. .
.. De(i4Ksf TWrs l�Gu�rlynr btltv_a/, /9RtA� tANIK C6w4'a gf
CNaSrNMcD. 4XL"4I/NC. 2PtAb wlrti IttIII C44t L� rr_a:! �tr
M N 17S Pea- Sul! -Sri ` ) cola" A4eme� 7-
L T7fNt2 -un�er gtDv:� ':I -7c#= Z.
rN 7IFR- fbvoe-L,NIrtWILWtJr
JOJ -here sr-ie-PuDU,,-I.,
' T4 C.tktrC td OAIC S , Cou`D oN Ly ii A jf /O Akw k-Ov-• v s W I rP /"J
_ ZOL71 OF kA-w-e kc A DIAL ,, , {I eve l-ePre WOtit.O L-w-e t,y
QPr PW—A flz"nbo a PI -4r — 5o Mom C err wo,., n Alive
l.Ale,v5 CIU6 t IYO• r 9 46.e (e[t;: w: -- /IOO /&/0 - 7
To:
Mayor & Council
From:
Mike Gaffron, Planning Director
Date:
February 21, 2001
Subject:
6' Version of RPUD
This latest (6') version of the RPUD ordinance incorporates a number of suggested changes from
Councilmember Flint. Staff agrees with these changes. It also indicates areas for additional
discussion. Changes since the 5 ° draft, and suggested discussion points, are highlighted in yellow.
Also attached are a few sample ordinances from other cities regarding landscaping materials
(quantity and type related to building and site size, rather than to project value); and lielning, which
might be better as general performance standards amendment affecting all districts instead of merely
applicable to the RPUD district.
ORDINANCE NO. , SECOND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 10 OF THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE
BY ADDING SECTION 10.33,
RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
The City Council of Orono ordains as follows:
Section 1. Municipal Zoning Code Chapter 10 is hereby amended by adding Section 10.33,
RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District, to read as follows:
'SEC. 10.33 RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
Subd.l. Purpose. The purpose ofthe Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD)
district is to provide a district which will allow for the implementation of certain residential
housing goals established in the 2000-2020 Orono Community Management Plan ('CMP' or
'Comprehensive Plan'). The RPUD District is established to accommodate the densities and
types of residential development coutemplated in the CMP by incorporating the principles of
the Planned Unit Development concept. The RPUD District will encourage the following:
A. flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize
newtechniques 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 ofmore 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
and 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:
Page 1 of 22
A. Any 'Permitted Use' as regulated in the R-IA District.
B. Multi -family attached dwellings only when consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and only within the areas of the City designated
as Urban Area in the Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 3. Conditional Uses. Within the RPUD district, no land or structure shall be
used for the following uses except by conditional use permit:
A. Public Service Structures. Public service structures, including but not
limited to electric transmission lines, buildings such as telephone
exchange stations, booster or pressure regulating stations, wells, and
plumbing stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electrical power
substations, provided no building shall be located within 50' from any
lot line of an abutting lot in an "R" District. Prior to granting such
permit it shall be found that the architectural design of service
structures is compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be located
and thu- 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 ofthese structures will require
written notice by the City to all affected property owners 14 days prior
to the adoption of the amended plans by the Council. Personal wireless
services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be
considered public service structures. Uses allowed by conditional use
permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the PUD master
development plan and with the applicable conditional use permit
standards of this ordinance. Uses allowed by conditional use permit
shall also be subject to site and building plan review pursuant to this
ordinance.
Subd. 4. Accessory Uses. Within the RPUD District the following uses shall be a
permitted accessory use:
A. Any accessory use except for "Roadside Stands" as regulated in the R-
IA District.
Page 2 of 22
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; Shoreland District Prohibition. Each site proposed
for rezoning to RPUD shall have a minimum area of five acres,
excluding areas within a designated wetland, Floodplain or shoreland
district or right-of-way, unless the Council finds the existence of one
of the following:
1. Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the
surrounding neighborhood such that development as a RPUD
will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance
to the neighborhood or community;
2. The property is directly adjacent to or across a right-oFway
public steel from property which has been developed
previously as a RPUD or planned residential development and
will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that
previously approved development;
3. The property is located in 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 tees that could be preserved through the clustering
of buildings or other design techniques not generally allowed
by the existing zoning district.
No site located within the defined Shoreland Overlay District (areas
within 1000' of designated lakes and within 300' of designated
tributaries) shall be rezoned to RPUD. (SEE DISCUSSION IN
MEMO OF 2-16-01)
B. Uses. Each property rezoned to RPUD shall only be used for the use
or uses for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan.
except that the city may permit rezoning to RPUD on a site designated
for commercial use if the City Council finds that such use is in the best
Page 3 of 22
interests of the city and is consistent with the requirements of this
section. If a commercial site is to be rezoned to RPUD, the city may
forward a copy of the request to the Metropolitan Council for review.
C. Sewer Availability. A site proposed to be rezoned to RPUD with
proposed density greater than 1 unit per 2 acres must be in the MUSA
and must be serviced by municipal sewer.
D. Density. Each development in the RPUD district shall have a density
within the rar Sn specified in the Comprehensive Plan for the specific
site. If thr site is not designated in the Comprehensive Plan for
residential use, the appropriate density shall be determined by the City
based upon the City Council's finding that such density is consistent
with the intent of this ordinance and of the Comprehensive Plan.
Developments with proposed densities in excess of the densities
contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan shall be allowed only on
properties which are currently zoned and guided for commercial use,
in order to maintain the character and integrity of the areas zoned and
guided for residential use.
E. Incentives. The 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 (only for
properties currently zoned and guided for commercial use) and Floor
area ratio requirements for developments providing lifecycle housing
and affordable and moderate cost housing. Incentives for 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
low and moderate cost units remain available to persons of low and
moderate income for a specific period oF th ic at least 20 Years.
F. Site Coverage. Hardsurface coverages and Floor area ratios (FAR's)
shall be limited per the following table:
Page 4 of 22
Comprehensive Plan Designation
Maximum
Maximum
Hardsurface
Floor Area
Coverage I%)
Ratio -
Low or medium density residential
50
0.5
(up to and including 6.0 units per acre)
High density residential
%
1.0
(in excess of 6.0 units per acre)
•FAR = Total Building Floor Area / Total Lot Area
Individual lots within a development in the RPUD district may exceed
these standards as long as the average meets these standards.
G. Development Standards for Attached and Multi -Family Dwelling
Structures. Each site rezoned to RPUD and developed for attached or
multiple family dwelling uses shall be subject to the following
standards:
Setbacks and Separation f Uses. Within the RPUD district the
setback for all attached and multi -family dwelling buildings
and their accessory buildings from any bordering or abutting
street line shal: be 35 feet for local streets and 50 feet from
railroad lines or collector or arterial streets, as designated in the
comprehensive plan, except that in no case shall the setback be
less than the height of the building. The setback for all
buildings from exterior RPUD site lot lines not abutting a
public street shall be 35 feet except that in no case shall the
setback be less than the height of the building. Building
setbacks from internal public streets shall bedetermined by the
city based on characteristics of the specific RPUD site. Parking
lots and driving lanes shall be set back at least 20 feet from all
exterior lot lines of a RPUD site. The setback for parking
structures including decks and ramps shall be 35 feet from
local streets and 50 feet from all other street classifications
except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height
of the structure. Parking structure setbacks from external lot
lines shall be 50 feet or the height of the stru,ture, whichever
is greater when adjacent to residential properties; 35 feet when
adjacent to non-residential properties. Parking structure
Pagc 5 of 22
setbacks from internal public or private streets shall be
determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific
RPUD site. Where industrial uses abut developed or platted
single family lots outside the RPUD site, greater exterior
building and puking setbacks may be required in nrder 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 berning, existing and proposed plantings
and other features such as roadways and wetlands which
provide separation of uses.
Property rezoned to RPUD shall be considered a residential
district for purposes of determining building and parking
setback requirements on adjacent high density residential,
commercial and industrial property outside the RPUD.
2. Height Limitations. For properties guided for residential use in
the Comprehensive Plan, a building height limit of2-1 /2 stories
or 30 feet shall apply. For properties currently zoned or guided
in the Comprehensive Plan for commercial use, height may not
exceed 3 stories (not including underground parking level) and
shall maintain a residential character by incorporating pitched
or hipped roof structure. No mansard or flat roofed multiple
family buildings will be allowed.
Outside Storage Limitations. Outside storage of building
materials, recreational vehicles, boats, RV's, snowmobiles, and
other items of personal property shall not be stored outside
within any site used for attached or multi -family uses.
C. Development Standards for Single -Family Detached Dwellings in
the RPUD District. Each RPUD site developed for single family
detached dwellings at medium density (i.e. densities ranging from I
unit per acre to 6 units per acre) shall be subject to the following
standards:
Page 6 of 22
I. Permitted locations: In areas of the City where smaller single
family detached dwelling lots will allow for clustering to
preserve significant natural features, or in areas where a
mixture of higher density attached dwellings and lower density
detached single family dwellings will result in a development
that does not exceed the overall guided density.
2. Minimum SFR lot size: 15,000 s.f.
3. Minimum lot width at the setback line: 90 feet
4. Minimum lot depth: 125 feet.
5. Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet on internal streets within
the RPUD site. On exterior or through streets a setback of 35
feet must be provided on local streets and 50 foot setback on
collector or arterial streets as defined in the Comprehensive
Plan.
6. Minimum side yard setback: 10 feet along interior lot lines; 15
feet on lot lines along the exterior of the RPUDsite. Sideyards
abutting streets must meet the minimum front yard setbacks as
noted above. Structures in side yards abutting another
residential zoning district $hail meet the side yard setback
rSyuirement of the adjacent zoning district.
7. Rear yard setback: minimum of 40 feet or 20 percent of the
depth of the lot, whichever is less.
8. Building height: maximum of30 feet or and no more than 2-1/2
stories.
9. All dwelling units, including manufactured homes, shall have
a depth of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their width.
All dwelling units, including manufactured homes. shall have
a width of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their depth.
10. All dwellings shall have a permanent foundation in
cot: formance with the Minnesota State Building Code.
Page 7 of 22
11. Accessory structures shall conform to the setbacks established
to- principal structures, except as follows:
A. all accessory structures located more than 10 feet trues
a principal structure may be located a minimum of 10
feet from a rear or side lot line, when that line does not
abut a street right-of-way.
B. no accessory structure shall be located closer to the
front lot line than the principal structure, regardless of
the principal structure setback.
12. No accessory structure shall occupy more than 30 percent of the
side or rear yard in which it is located, nor exceed 1.000 square
feet in area, nor exceed 12 feet in height.
13. Off-street parking shall be provided for at least two vehicles for
each single family dwelling. A suitable location for a garage
measuring at least 20 feet by 24 feet without a variance shay 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.
1. More Than One Building Allowed. More than one building may be
placed on one platted or recorded lot in a RPUD site.
J. Single Housing Type Permitted. Any RPUD development which
involves a single housing type shall be permitted provided that it is
otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the
comprehensive plan.
K. Private Recreational Area. Each RPUD development shall provide
a minimum of 10 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 cools, trails. nature areas, picnic areas, tot
lots and saunas. Private recreational area requirements are in addition
to the standard park dedication requirements.
Page ll of 22
L. Ownership. All property to be included within a RPUD development
shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal
restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance
with the approved master development plan and final site and building
plan.
M. Signage. Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in a sign
plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by permanent
covenants.
N. Landscaping, Screening and Buffering.
I. 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 I inch
equals 50 feet and shall show the following:
L) boundary lines of the property with accurate
dimensions;
a) locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking
lots, roads trails and omer improvements:
b) proposed grading plan with Moot cont, it intervals;
c) location, approximate size and common name of
existing trees and s`.ubs;
d) a planting schedule containing symbols, quantities,
common and botanical names, size ol'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.
Page 9 of 22
2. Minimum Landscaping Requirements.
a) All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved
for required parking areas, drivestDII]l or storage shall
be landscaped with a combination of deciduous and
coniferous species including overstory trees, understory
trees, shrubs, [lowers and groundcover materials. The
plan for landscaping shall include ground cover,
br-hes, shrubbery, trees, sculpture, foundations,
,xorative walks or other similar site design features or
materials in a quantity having a minimum value in
conformance with the following table:
Protect Value
Minimum Landscape Value
(Including building construction, site preparation,
and site improvements)
Below $1,000,000
2.0 %of Project Value
SI,000,000-52,000,000
$20,000+1% of Project Value in excess of
$1,000,000
52,000,001 - $3,000,000
$30,000 + 0.75%of Project Value in excess.
of$2.000,000
$3,000,001 - 54,000,000
537,500 + 0.25%of Project Value in excess
of $3,000,000
Over $4,000,000
1.0 % of Project Value
OPTION: DELETE VALUE TABLE, REPLACE WITH A TABLE RELATING QUANTITY
AND TYPE OF TREES TO BUILDING SIZE AND SITE PERIML r EP—SEE EXAMPLES
In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable
species exist on a site prior to its development, the
application of the standards in this section may be
adjusted by the City to allow credit for such material,
provided that such adjustment is consistent with the
intent of this ordinance.
b) A reasonable attempt stall be made to preserve as many
existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them
into the site plan.
Page 10 of 22
c) All new overstory trees shal l he balled and burlapped or
moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous
trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2%: inches.
Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six feet in
height. Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper
of I% inches.
d) All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks,
parking lots, driveways, tm9ls 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
ba 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.
Not more than 50 percent of the required number of
trees shall be composed of one species. The City shall
maintain a list of prohibited species which shall not be
used for landscaping.
3. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping.
a) All parking lots containing over +5010 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" t56],QQ stall" standard and shall be required by the
city when warranted.
Page 11 of 22
b) Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape
islands, shall be reasonably distributed throughout the
parking lot area so as to break tip expanses of paved
areas. Parking lot landscape areas shall be provided
with deciduous shade trees, omamental 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 ou.ter, tenant and their
respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for
the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a
healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and
debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an
approved site or landscape plan, and which have died shall be
replaced within three months of notification by the city.
However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine
months by the city in order to allow for seasonal or weather
conditions.
5. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls exceeding four feet in
height, and staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in
height or involve more than 4 tiers, must be constructed in
accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or
landscape architect.
6. Landscaping Performance Security Required. When
screening, landscaping or other similar improvements to
properly 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
Page 12 of 22
engineering, legal, contracting or other fees in connection with
making or completing such improvements. The letter of credit
shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit
and shall be valid for a period of time equal to one two full
growing 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 otherapprovals, 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.
7. Screening and Buffering.
a) The following uses shall be screened or buffered in
accordance with the requirements of this subdivision:
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. Parking facilities shall be
buffered with landscape zones.
Page 13 of 22
Loading docks shall be screened from all lot
lines and public roads.
Trash storage facilities shall be screened from
all lot lines and public roads.
5. Access roads serving multi -family buildings
shall be screened as necessary to eliminate the
impact of vehicle headlights shining toward
adjacent residential neighborhoods.
b) Required screening or buffering may be achieved with
fences, walls, earth berms, hedges, or other landscape
materials. All walls and fences shall be architecturally
harmonious with the principal building. Earth berms
shall not exceed a slope of 3:1. The screen shall be
designed to employ materials which provide an
effective visual barrier during all seasons.
c) All required screening or buffering shall be located on
the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or
structure to be screened. No screening or buffering shall
be located on any public right-of-way or within eight
feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway.
d) Screening or buffering required by this section shall be
of a height needed to accomplish the goals of this
section. Screening methods incorporating roofs over
storage, trash or mechanical facilities to screen from
higher adjacent properties or buildings may be requierd.
Height of plantings required under this section shall be
measured at the time of installation.
O. Architectural Standards.
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
Page 14 of 22
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. The city may, at its discretion, allow architecturally
enhanced block or concrete panels.
3. Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with
principal structures.
4. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment and
exterior trash and recycling storage areas shall be fully enclosed
or screened so as to be not visible with materials compatible
with the Principe, :-ructurc.
5. Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and
substantially renovated structures (substantially renovated shall
mean when the renovations exceed 300%of the pre -renovation
value of the structure).
Page 15 of 22
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 hea.Ith, 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 registered traffic engineer approved by the City to assess potential
traffic impacts on local streets. If impacts on service lev,is of
roadways and intersections are anticipated, the projectwill be approved
only contingent upon a traffic management plan that adequately
mitigates those impacts. The plan may include travel demand
management strategies, use of transit facilities or other appropriate
measures to reduce traffic generation, and necessary improvements to
road systems. The developer shall have the responsibility to install all
necessary road system improvements.
R. Building Permits. No building or other permit shall be issued for any
work on property included within a proposed or approved RPUD
development nor shall any work occur unless such work is in
compliance with the proposed or approved RPUD development.
S. General Regulations Applicability. The requirements contained in
this ordinance pertaining to general regulations for residential districts
and perfortm-ice standards shall apply to a RPUD development as
deemed appropriate by the city.
T. Lighting Standards - To Be Added
IL Tails When any portion ofthe project is within 1000 feet ofaoublic
tmil system pedestrian ncre%% %hall be provided to the trail %v%tem by
means of a public trail constructed at the develoner's expense Where
public rights -of -,way are are available at the Citv's discretion the trait
Page 16 of 22
may utilize the public right-of-way. Trails shall be of bituminous
construction. or such other material as may be approved by the City and
shall be not less than 8 feet in width.
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 and trail locations;
2) height, bulk and square footage of buildings;
=) 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 plarming 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:
I ) 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;
Page 17 of 22
6) drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and
water storage areas;
7) grading plan and drainage plan including 2-foot
contours;
8) generalized landscape plan;
9) generalized plan. for uniform signs and lighting;
10) plan for timing and phasing of the development;
11) covenants or other restrictions proposed for the
regulation of the development; and
12) renderings or elevations of all sides of buildings to be
constructed in the first phase of the development;
13) Trail am aQd
>_4) Liglitine Pan.
Approval r f the masterdevelopment 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 ofand public hearing on the master development plan shall
be the same as required for a zoning map amendment by this ordinance.
Development Agreement/FinancialGuarantee. Following the approval
of the Master Development Plan but prior to final plan approval, me
applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City relating to the
terms of the RPUD development, and shall also provide such financial
guarantees as the City requires or deems necessary. Such agreement
may take the form of, 1) a development contract; and/or 2) a Site
Improvement Perfommnce Agreement; and/or 3) another form of
binding instrument as may be required by the City.
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:
I ) detailed utility, street, grading and drainage plans;
2) detailed building elevations and Boor plans; and
Page 18 of 22
3) :Nailed landscaping, sign and lighting plans; and
4) detailed trail plan
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 and trails are in
substantially the same location as previously approved;
2) the number of residential living units has not increased
or decreased from that approved in the master
development plan;
3) the gross Floor area of any individual building has not
been increased from that approved in the master
development plan;
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
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 mid city council shall base their
recommendations and actions regarding approval of a RPUD on a
consideration of the following:
I) 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;
Page 19 of 22
2) preservation of the site in its natural state to the greatest
extent practicable b) 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:
1) 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;
2) the amount and location of open space and
landscaping;
3) materials, textures, colors and details of
construction as an expression of the design
concept and the compatibility of the same with
the adjacent and neighboring structures and
uses; and vehicular and pedestrian circulation.
including walkways, interior drives and parkin
in terms of location and number access points to
the public streets, width of interior drives and
access points, general interior circulation,
separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic
and arrangement and amount of parking.
4) promotion of energy conservation through design,
location, orientation and elevation of structures, the use
and location of glass in structures and the use of
landscape materials and site grading;
5) protection of adjacent and neighboring properties
through reasonable provisions for sunace water
drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of
Page 20 of 22
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 RPIJD 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 c—mrol governing development ofthe property
included within the RPUD.
if construction on the property included within an approved final site and building plan has not
started by December 31 of the year following the date on which such final site and building
plan was approved or if building construction in a phase of a RPUD approved to be built in
phrses has not started within this period 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 rime of the RPUD application or to a zoning classification consistetr 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 di, legal control
governing development of the property included within the RPUD.
Subd.S. Amendments. Major amendments to an approved masterdevelopment plan
may he approved by the city council after review by the planning commission. The
notification and public hearing procedure ror 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 goads:
2) increases or decreases the number of residential dwelling units:
c) increases the gross floor area of any individual building
Page 21 of 22
d) increases the number of stories of anv building;
e) decreases the amount of open space 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 Council.
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."
E ection 2. Adoption and Publication. A summary of this ordinance shall be published in The
Pioneer and The Laker newspapers, and this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon
,mblication.
Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota on this 26th day of February, 2001 by a
vote of _ayes and — nays.
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Barbara Peterson Mayor
Page 22 of 22
American Legal Publishing
Page I of 2
�2eDKtyn1 (f�R..k
§ 152.374 MINI>ILM TREE AND SHRUB QUANTITIES.
(A) All developments required to submit a landscape plan must be required to install the
minimum number of trees and shrubs as specified in the following table, or the development
contract, prior to the release of the financial guarantees:
Figure 152.374.02 Minimum Tree and Shrub Requirements
v'Md.n Typo
sit
Quunriry
Oventory Deeiduom Trees
2.5' WCul*0
I pt per l,dW Bro.:,q. f l of building f.,,inl veu or l vee
per 4011nea1 fm of,la perimefm, whichever a B.1
Conifmm Tm
ebb
ILmn ... of JO%of ngulmd ovemon vms mml6e <oniarom
uMmlm shah
Jpl part".'l&'
Ifi bWM,r... sgw,e f.�eiof build"& foolprml wort
snub pm 501intl fen of rile penmelm
(B) Additional landscape requirements:
(Q Additional quantities required above the inininnun. All properties adjacent to principal
and a -minor arterials, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan, must provide the following adr'itional
trees. These trees may not satisfy the mininlmn tree and shrub requirements as shovm in Figure
152.374.02.
Figure 152.374.03 Additional Quantities for Arterials
-
fper lbp linMrfatfoffronugel
Siu
Ovenbry peekuaur Trte,
I
bb
--IP
Coniferwu Tree,
2
b
Omomenul T.
2(Fonubs11,u0an ofavemop tlmduous only
Nat mquimdl
2'bb
(2) Interior parking areas. One overstory deciduous tree may be required for each ten
parking stalls or two per row of parking whichever is greater.
(3) All portions of a site that are not covered by a building, hardsurface coverage or water on
a permanent basis must be planted with ground cover and I:. ad.. -; p i n.y materials.
(a) Ground cover. All site areas and areas that have been disturbed during construction
must be covered with sod to property lines and/or adjacent rights-of-way. Rock and mulch may be
substituted for sod in lar.d.:a; :ng planting beds and along the perimeter of buildings. Native plant
communities may be reestablished in appropriate portions of the site. Sodding may not be required
in the following areas:
I. Gardens, decorative landscape planting areas, andfor reconstructed or natural native
plant communities.
2. For areas such as berms, swales, drainage ponds, and the like with slopes greater
than 4 to I, where seeding may produce a more effective ground cover.
http://209.48.87.250/brooklyn_park_mnApe... /4mb?f=teinplates&fn=document-frame.htm&2. 2/20/01
American Legal Puslishing
Page 2 of 2
(C) Quantity credits. Existing healthy trees that are not susceptible to disease, new larger or
smaller sized trees, or decorative landscaping may be credited toward the required trees detailed in
this section, and the additional trees required for screening as defined in §152.375. The following
table establishes the Innrkeapina credits.
Figure 152.374.03 Credits
vesewuan i�ec
Sim
lnehonpe CrodV
f vntinp m..
2" Wcelipnl nciduous or
I bee
between 6nM 14' Comferon
4- bb(Caipe4 Deeiduon or 14
2Van
Coniferous or largo
New larger lreca
4' bb(Ceipn) or 1 B
2.
Coniferous
Omurcnal Deciduous Trees or
min 1 5-(OliM,) bb
2 um may be otailh med for I overwr% deeiduoos see (masimum
,.he, ovmmry deciduom
aubabudior- SOn of MuireE overslary trees )
Sh.bs
10 shrvbs for l 1. a- bb avmlon or 6wnifemus) n.. a VAS moy not be used to fulfill the see
rt0uiremmV in divbian (q as Nos ayairod for saecning
necoralve Landscape Yud
Uteri., scMparos, f.Mort, k,oralive walk, cemtyaMs trove,
additional ponds bryoM thew r Wned, she. on a Notion, plan
that meca the intent of this section to the saliefection of the City
Maras" nivo, City Coumil
(D) Intersection visibility. All landscape materials must comply with the intersection visibility
requirements of §§ 152.320 through 152.326.
(E) Utility interference. Overstory and coniferous tins may not be installed underneath
overhead utility lines nor may any landscape materials be installed over utility lines except in
compliance with the City Code and City Policy.
(Ord.2000-936)
http://209.48.87.250/brooklyn_park_mn/lpe... /4ecb?f—�templates&fn=document-frame.htm& 2. 2/20/01
1�LYw 0V,14t eA60 / of $
Subd. 2. Landscaping - New Residential Subdivisions, Semi -Public, Two Family, Townhouse,
Manor Home, Apartment Dwelling Structure, Manufactured Home Park and All Income Producing
Property Uses (Excluding detached single family dwelling units). Prior to approval of a building
permit, all above referenced uses shall be subject to mandatory landscape plan and specification
requirements. Said landscape plan shall be developed with an emphasis upon the boundary or
perimeter of the proposed site at points adjoining other property and the immediate perimeter of the
structure. All landscaping incorporated in said plan shall conform to the following standards and
criteria:
(a) Landscape Design Elements. Elements of landscape design may include:
(1) Existing topographical and vegetative features.
(2) Berming.
(3) Plantings, including the required minimum number of overstory trees,
understory trees, shrubs, (lowers, and ground cover materials.
(b) Types and Species of New Trees.
(1) All tree species shall be indigenous to the appropriate hardiness zone and
physical characteristics of the site, as specified by the City Forester.
(2) To the extent possible, native drought -resistant trees shall be utilized.
(3) All types and species of overstory and understory deciduous and
coniferous trees and their cultiNars shall be consistent v ith the City of
Plymouth's Landscape Tree List. as provided by the City F :ester.
(4) The complement of trees fulfilling the requirements of :his section shall
be not less than twenty-five (2;) percent deciduous and not less than twenty-
five (25) percent coniferous.
(c) Number of Trees. The minimum number of overstory trees on any given site shall be
as follows:
(1) Multiple Family Uses. Tottrthouse, manor home, manufactured home
park and apartment dwelling structures shall contain as a minimum: one (1)
tree per dwelling unit.
(2) Non -Residential Uses. Non-residential uses shall contain at a minimum
the greater of:
a. One (1) tree per one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross
building floor area: or
b. One (1) tree per muv (50) lineal feet of site perimeter.
(3) Overstory Trees. An equivalent of up to fifty (50) percent of the required
number of overstory trees may be substituted with the use of overstory trees
in combination with other landscape design elements as listed in Section
21130.03, Solid. 2.a. above. In such case, not less than three (3) understory
trees shall be provided for each one (1) required overstory tree substituted.
(d) Planting Size.
(e) Spacing.
(1) Required trees shall be of the following minimum planting size:
a. Deciduous Trees. Two and one-half (2.5) inches in diameter
as measured from six (6) inches above the ground.
b. Coniferous Trees. Six (6) feet in height.
(2) A minimum of fifteen (15) percent of the required n.inimum number of
trees for multi -residential developments shall be long-lived deciduous trees,
three and one-half (3.5) inches in diameter m measured six (6) inches off the
ground.
(3) Evergreen shrubs used for screening purposes including those used in
conjunction with berming shall be a minimum of thirty-six (36) inches in
height.
(1) Plant material centers shall not be located closer than three (3) feet from
the fence line or property line and shall not be planted to conflict with public
plantings or public right-of-way based on the judgment of the Zoning
Administrator.
(2) Where plant materials are planted in two (2) or more rows, plantings
shall be staggered in rows unless otherwise approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
(3) The spacing of trees shall be appropriate to the type of tree species
provided. Where massing of plants or screening is intended, large deciduous
shn:bs sF.c11 not be planted more than four (4) feet on center, and/or
evergreen shrubs shall not be planted more than three (3) feet on center,
unless otherwise approved by the City Forester. (Amended by Ord No. 99-5,
01/19/99)
(f) Sodding and Ground Cover. All areas not otherwise improved in accordance with
approved site plans shall be sodded. Exceptions to this criteria may be recommended by
the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council as follows:
(1) Seeding may be provided in lieu of sod in any of the following cases:_
a. Where the seed is applied to future expansion areas as shown
on approved plans.
b. Whare the seed is applied adjacent to natural areas or
wetlands.
c. Where the seed is applied to low maintenance areas along
side principal arterials which are defined by the Comprehensive
Plan.
�Lt/M • P. 3 0 C 2
(2) Undisturbed areas containing existing viable natural vegetation which
can be maintained free of foreign and noxious plant materials.
(3) Areas designated as open space or future expansion areas properly
planted and maintained with prairie grass.
1. Use of mulch materials such as bark and wood chips in support of siuubs
and foundation plantings.
I . For single family residential properties, portions of rear yards which lie
beyond twenty-five (25) feet of the lot's principal building may be seeded,
except in cases where the rear yard abuts a public street. Where a rear yard
abuts a public street, that portion of the rear yard within 25 feet of the lot
line shall be sodded. Proper erosion control measures shall be implemented
and maintained until vegetation is established.
(g) Slopes and Berms.
(1) Final slope grades steeper than the ratio of three to one (3:1) shall not be
permitted without special approval treatment such as ground cover, terracing
or retaining walls.
(2) Bering used to provide required effective screening of parking lots and
other open areas shall have a maximum slope ratio of three to one (3:1).
(h) Landscape Guarantee. All new plants shall be guaranteed for one (1) full year from
the time planting has been completed. All plants shall be alive and in satisfactory growth
at the end of the guarantee period or be replaced.
American Legal Publishing
$(cooll-Lq N f /i/yc
§ 152.110 PURPOSE.
Page I ufL
�J�H�INC�
C�
The purpose of this subchapt r is to provide regulations to balance Lghting needs for visibility and
personal and property safety with the negative impacts of off -site light spill -over.
(Ord. 2000-936)
§ 152.111 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
(A) Wall or roof lighting may be used to illuminate the pedestrian walkways, entrance areas,
loading docks, and yard areas within 20 feet of the building. No wall or roof lighting may be used to
illuminate areas for motor vehicle parking or access.
(B) Any open area used for motor vehicle parking, storage or access must be illuminated with
free-standing luminaires.
(C) Free-standing luminare regulations:
(1) Height maximums, as measured from the average elevation of the finished grade within
ten feet of the structure or fixture to the highest point of the luminaire (including the support
structure) may be as follows:
(2) Within 500 feet of any property zoned residential: 15 feet including any base or support
structures.
(3) Farther than 500 feet from any property zoned residential: 25 feet.
(4) Cut-off angles must be equal to or less than 900.
(D) Low-pressure sodium fixtures may only be used for: single-family, duplex, and townhouse
developments.
(E) Lighting intensity must adhere to the following:
Figure 152.111.01 Required Minimum and Maximum Light Intensities
(as measured in foot candles at the ground level)
U.
Minimum
Imensiry
M.Moo,
Intrn9ry
Mu mlmemiryn
Pro ary Line
Po:klnr era roe lwrvmidrntinl me
2
IS
5
P,ieeteldeuMkx Nd otM, wdextun walk.,
10
10
Building ennuuex AM exit
10
20
-
FatAorstoop Areas
NA
I IS
5
Son-.P Jfiod.,-Fo•tuxmupeeir.111Illud shot, e.light ,ryuirtment-1Wc--PtM by, he CIry M"s'
(Ord. 2000-936)
,a Pp'- � P. Z 4 Z
§ 152.112 GLARE.
All lighting must be arranged so as not to produce glare. All properties must be in compliance
with the following:
(A) All light sources must be controlled and equipped with lenses. louvers, shields, or prismatic
control devices designed to prevent off -site views of the light source.
(B) No flickering or flashing lights except those associated with public safety activities may be
permitted.
(C) Light sources that are integrated into a canopy must be designed to be recessed and flush
with the ceiling of the canopy, and equipped with a flat lens surface.
(D) Any light or combination of lights which cast light on a public street may not exceed one
foot candle as measured from the public right-of-way.
(6) Any light or combination of lights which cast tight on residential property must not exceed
one half foot candles as measured from the residential property in question.
(Ord. 2000-936)
§ 152.113 COMPLIANCE.
Any new lighting installed after the effective date of this chapter mist be in compliance with the
requirements of this chapter. Any lighting in existence L-efore the effe_tive date of this chapter that
does not comply with its requirements may be considered legally nonconforming and may be allowed
to continue in compliance with §§ 152.110 through 152.114.
(Ord. 2000-936)
§ 152.114 EXCEPTION.
Seasonal lighting may not be regulated by this section except for ire provisions in §I52.112(D)
and (E).
(Ord. 2000-936)
�LYhnvKT-� - t4&fe7r,7N G P i gC z
21105.06. EXTERIOR LIGHTING: Except within RSF zoning districts, all exterior lighting shall
comply with the followine standards:
Subd. 1. Maximum intensity of Lighting and Glare:
(a) Any light or combination of lights shall not exceed ore -half (1/2) font candle (meter
reading) as measured from the property line or the center line of a public street.
a. Any lighting shall be arranged so as not to produce glare beyond the property line.
Lenses, deflectors, shields, louvers, or prismatic control devices shall be used to
eliminate glare.
Subd. 2. Minimum Intensity of Lighting:
(a) The following lighting requirements are established for personal and traffic safety
and crime prevention:
Use
Min. Illuminatioul
Maximum/Mini
Uniformity R
Commercial Parking lots
0.9-foot candles
12:1
Industrial Parking Lots
0.6-foot candles
12:1
Residential and P/I Parking Lots2
0.2-foot candles
10:1
Parking structures
5-foot candles
Pedestrian walkways and stairwells
20-Foot candles
Entrances and exits
30-foot candles
Pedestrian access to a building;
5-foot candles
6:1
I The mimmum ligld al llm point of lent dlumiamb"m..Rd in gMmd level
2 Applus la —h. fl tally build..,, xM 12 or more umu
r Arplin W commercial. 'mdumal, and muar1,iW1. buildings umb 12 m MR unia 1T minimum illum.muon,lard,Ws Shall only apply 10 Ne primary
MRMRm pof Wo building
(b) The Zoning Administrator may afprove exceptions to the minimum lighting
requirements based on .he type of use, site characteristics, and the location and type of
adjacent land uses.
Mull
a+jo
?�CfWt v, rf
(c) In no instance may required lighting have a greater maximum/minimum uniformity
ratio than identified in Section 221I05.06 Subd 2 (a), unless approved by the Zoning
Administrator. In reviewing a request to deviate from this standard, the Zoning
Administrator shall consider the type of use, site characteristics, and the location and
type of adjacent land uses.
(d) The minimum illumination levels identified in Subd. 2. (a) above shall apply during
the normal business hours of the building for which the parking lot serves.
Subd. 3. General Performance Standards
(a) Luminaires mounted vertically on a wall or structure shall have a cutoff angle of less
than or equal to sixty-six (66) degrees.
(b) Luminaires mounted horizontally on a wall or structure shall have a cutoff angle of
less than or equal to ninety (90) degrees
(c) All freestanding luminaires must have a cutoff angle equal to or less than ninety (90)
degrees.
(d) The height of a freestanding luminaire shall not exceed thirty (30) feet or extend
above the roof line of the principal building, «hichever is less. When a luminaire is
located within three hundred (300) feet of a residential property, the height of the
luminaire. shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet or extend above the roof line of the
principal building, whichever is less.
(e) Free-standing luminaires used for outdoor athletic fields and recreation areas that
exceed the height limitation may be approved by conditional use permit.
(f) All canopy lighting for motor fuel stations shall comply with Section 21455.07, Subd
2. of this Chapter.
(g) Accent lighting used to highlight building facades, foliage, or selected architectural
features shall be permitted provided the light source is shielded.
(h) Any lighting in existence before the effective date of this ordinance that does not
comply with the requirements shall be considered legally non -conforming. However, if a
Property owner proposes to replace fifty (50) percent or more of the existing exterior
ght fixtures or standards in any one (1) year period, the fixtures or standards must be
replaced in conformance with this Chapter.
(Amended by Ord. No. 1000-06. 02129100)
0,2/21/01 11:18 FAX 763 377 7089 DUNBAR DEVLPffn Q 002/004
Years
years Cash Flow - With TIF
Years
2
(54,789.00)
(44.020.00)
1
(33,230.00)
3
(33,032.00)
2
(19,117.00)
(21,821.00)
3
4
(4,645.00)
5
(10,364.00)
5
10,198.00
6
1,281.00
6
25,413.00
7
13,177.00
7
41,015.00
8
26.305.00
8
57.012.00
9
10
37,668.00
9
73,411.00
90,223.00
11
50,269.00
62,778,00
10
107,456.00
12
75,506.00
11
12
125,120.00
143,224.00
13
14
88,4f'. 00
101,624.00
13
161.778.00
15
115,012.00
14
15
180,794.00
200.279.00
16
17
128,820.00
142,447.00
16
220,247.00
18
156,491.00
17
18
240,705.00
261,666.00
19
20
170,751.00
185,227,00
19
283,140.00
20
305.140.00
Z.
TB4YEV1CASf11'LGW
I1RA6Ta
........_..............I........._........_.__._..
Yv1
_......_._.__...._..__.._...._.._..__._
S 2
YMS
Ysa _______..---.._............._._
runs
Y.6
Y.? _..._-`---__...._..__.............
Via
ri 9
Y. 10 __..._.._
♦♦9111
YNr12
999r15
GHMMOME-Retl6 W
725,464
747,2N
759JM
M,756
0MAN
MI.=
WA0
69225e
912AZI
94kAN
074A00
IA01210
1.a4,la/
1.0
GNGSSINOOME-P v
29.1110
20,655
315M
VAM
SSA05
a1AN
S.w
56.w
rOss
29p0
Nm
41.10
e;01
LESS: VAU (N
IS7.1a2)
(N,a95)
(0,052)
(412"
14MM
(♦O,TTT)
(♦5.090)
(16103)
(CAM
(4%]i1)
(N.IIq
(S12T21
W.0"
(
Ef9EC INOOME
711,402
11."
791.126
181.012
M,532
0l.m
056,711
562A11
MM
OATS]
SNSlo
MAU
IN299T
1,0
lFSS E2 msm
Opy gEe
I♦0,=
1m.m
104M
1411A13
174A1a
1a1AN
160,2T0
INA11
2W.845
211.7119
12op0
M.011
]lope
2
R"EaMNT.
9s'm
99.121
103,1lo
WAN
111.511
11a,M
1".all
125"
150A29
155,TN
141.190
145AV
ISZM
1
RepLrsv9 R.
29,4pa
50'T
31.799
Sl,m1
N;lse
n m
SlpO
35.M
10235
41Ae5
43,510
45,1N
mft
TW E�
271,526
M.619
226.=
M1.755
m.N5
5a2,5Q
SM,161
MAN
mead
340.191
♦N.900
QtTNG
♦1",
NE OPMAVNG WOOME
N2AN
454,M
eV M
476xm
MAN
499,911
510,550
an.me
w.m
W.T61
Nes"
0nm
SNAN
S
O 6eMn.8A
M2R
M,2a2
457,2K
♦Vpi
Mpg
451,292
4572N
4".N2
M2m
157202
M=
W=
451]N
MIP
a5,11fi
02.9m
52.TN
V"
am
a2,N1
31,625
51ASI
51A0
50.9ia
SOAM
N2m
22.202
T.,.
Sp1
apt
kw
SAT
0AT
al V
OAT
e.m
9A9T
0A7
62m
9,2m
Um
LASN PLAY
(5e,7a9)
("AM
150m
(21.521)
(FOAM
tpt
Is.m
25,MS
VAN
50.2"
02.m
15AN
01.♦N
1.
DRAFT
1@!-YEARCA9IFLOW
OFAFTb
Yvl
.. _....__._._...._..........._._«._.._...._.._.._.__...__.._.._.._......._....._..........___._...__..._._...._..__............_._..._.._.__.....____._.._.._...._..........__..._........__._..........____._....
YSv2
Ya3
Yx1
YvS
YwrS
YOW7
Ywo
Ywo
YS3T 10
Ywil
YM12
Y9v13
Y3LM
Yw13
yearm YSaIV Yu�18
Y r19
_.. ..
YVM
.........
72MM
7472I9
TSMM
MM
M830
MIA%
WAS
3$254
919.021
9M,5W
MSAM
1AOIAM
IAM,.IST
1,095,2M
1.07AM
1,10A0 1,M11119 1,191,115
IAM,M6
IMIC
MIM
M.M
31.m
32,510
33.195
MAW
M,m
MASS
SLAW
MASS
MASS,
51.195
42.411
S3.MI
65,M3
5908 47,758 0.10
SOAM
,921M
(33.7W1
(36,59S)
(30.032)
(11AM)
(I{SOM
(03.777)
(85.05131
(M,15S)
(67A%]
(OXII
(50,239)
MM2)
MA"
(M.35S)
(M,11A
(SkM (M.01) (02515)
M.238)
M.21S)
117,M2
M,005
191.116
284,012
30TA33
331,iY
1155,711
M.412
MASS
MISS
951135
W3,153
1.023953
1,053,M5
1.0115.253
1,117A14 1,151,W 1,139.2M
1221,IM
1AM,IW
1b,50
151,T52
ISOAI2
IMAM
17I,OA
151AM
I53]19
MMAII
MASS
211,20
220A80
MASS
2MA34
MT.M3
MATS
3MA0
274100
MM8
M1.441
J138M
MASS
29,191
103,159
107A0
IIIATT
116,OM
IMASI
125"
'MAZY
135]9
4118Y
1MAU
MM0
1MA0
1M.M1
121.2M
MAN
185,751
SOUSA
2W.AI3
29,300
30,51's
31,I19
M,M1
M3M
um
37A110
MAN
IOA%
31AI5
L3A19
35AW
471070
MAM
MAIL
32M5
WA SS
MA58
91,SM
51,M1
112.SM
2MA19
2M,M0
SM.335
YMAIS
33;M3
3M,151
20.OM
371.308
3W,2M
BM,SBO
421158
I3BAM
ISI,MI
I73,735
IMAM
SI2_303
332A92
SM115
SM,M9
M5,M3
I51,MT
I66j16
MBAM
MT,ISS
IM,9M
310,30
SM4114
5M,(Ii
SM.MT
SWAM
57Z M
MI.W
80,In
511510
MASS
MIKS
SSi.919
057AI9
WITS
3MASA
IS
457.262
IMABI
157A0
50A8
IMAM
SHAM
357A52
457.252
ISTAW
MIAM
45Iy52
IMAM
MT,2B2
MTA82
8MA82
MIA92
4ISIA52
IMAS2
33,115
,m
32,M9
32,753
]2AM
2;322
Stwl
]YAMS
31,551
31AW
30,950
MAN
MAM
NAM
WAM
nA M
MASS
MISS
VA15
VAM
29112
BAM
at=
BAT
"T
SARI
5AM
6A57
OAM
9}M
BAST
BAM
I.M
YAM
5AM
IAIT
SAT
I"
BAIT
5,3M
0r
(58,780) (MAM) (%,09 ("A") 001,86) Vol 13,1n MAM M,BM 50.2 S 82,123 —Ts,=— 0.455— IMA24 115,0ss IMM MSMT 1$m IMM 1Mm
0
0
0
0
L
GROW
T194YEAR CASH
FLOW
DRAFTS
._...._._....__................_...............
Y9rt1
I...._.._-... ___................._......_.
YW2
Yrr3 _
Yw4
..... __......_...._.
YM5
.........
Yor6
...........
YW7
..... ...._.__.._..........
YMS ...........
YW9
Y9M19
_..
GROSS INCOME -Resid-W
72SA61
747.249
709.656
792.755
S16A39
641.035
S55,7:6
6P9251
919,021
M5,=
GROSSWCOME-Pe1Ne9
29,760
WAM
31,572
32,620
33,495
34.500
36.535
36,SM
37AW
30.130
GROSSINCOME-TIF
55,139
59272
92,643
S6,S57
100,419
104.436
10SA13
112,951
117,476
iZ1.1R
I FSS: VACANCY
(W.762)
(35,695)
(40.062)
(41,264)
(42,602)
(Q.T77)
(45.090)
(40,443)
(47,136)
(42.271)
INCOME
503,321
526,Z75
054.019
060A66
907.951
930,163
065,324
995,370
1,026,360
1,056.326
Openitp Egwses
ReW E ble T43es
Re9lu nl Res'
T.IW Eepeses
NFr OPERATING INCOME
Deds.r -6.35%
MIP
Trustee
CASH FLOW
141,600 iS4,752 160.90 167,360 174.075 151,035 151,279 195,811 2W,643 211,769
95,3T6 99.191 103,150 107,265 111,5T7 115.040 120,111 125.509 130,529 135,7W
29,400 34676 31,799 33.071 34,394 35770 37A0055,656 40,73E 41.11415
273.. M
264,519
295,90E
367.736
370,015
332,647
346.141
3w.m
374,406
309.301
SM744
543.759
555,119
57 AU
557,905
fiW.346
619.169
05W
651,953
665,912
SIB=
515.201
516.201
516A01
516j01
S16,701
516,201
516.201
316,261
516.201
37.419
37.321
37,299
37A51
31,937
35.775
36,SM
56,395
35.174
35.931
9A55
9,356
9,355
9,355
9.353
9,355
PASS
9A53
9,355
0,355
(33.230)
(19.117)
(4,"
10.196
25,413
41,00
67.012
73,411
9D,723
1WASS
DRAFT
NC
R CASH
ROW
DRAFT 5
Yew 4
_...........................................................................................................................................................
Vew 5
Yur6
Ye4r7
Yew a
Yew9
Y4w 10
Y4w 11
Yer 12
Yw 13 ...............
Yew 14 ......
Yew 15
_....................................._............
Yew 16
Y.r 17
Y4w 10 ..........._...
Yr 19 _..._........
Yew 20
2.756
816,539
MI.035
Mk M
0922S4
019.021
916,%2
974.M
1,004,240
1.034.367
1,055,395
1,097,3M
1.130260
M".159
1.199A15
1235,083
1272,141
2,620
33,495
M.500
35.535
38601
37,699
38,630
39,995
41.195
42,431
43.704
45,015
40.365
47.j.
49.189
90,661
W,184
6,557
100,419
104.436
IN,613
112,950
117.476
122.175
127,052
132.144
137.430
142,927
141.645
154,590
150J74
767205
173,09.3
160.649
1264)
(42,502)
(43,777)
(45,090)
(46.N3)
(47,036)
(49,271)
(50,749)
(52.M)
(53,540)
(55.455)
(57.11;)
(50.534
M.597)
M415)
(64256)
(M216)
0.5"
907,951
935,193
965,324
M.370
1,0 5,360
1,058.325
1.001.298
1125,307
1,160,3W
1,1M,574
12M.900
1272.404
1317,122
1.353,093
1.3M357
I .qm
7,390
174,075
181,030
106,279
195,011
203.643
211,709
M,250
229,071
235234
247,763
257,873
257,980
270.700
269,940
301 N1
313.499
77.266
111,577
116.040
120.601
125.WS
130,S29
135.750
141.1W
MA27
152.700
156,800
185.161
171,767
174519
1M,783
10.215
200M3
3,071
34794
35,770
37200
38,BM
40,215
41.545
43,519
452M
47.070
M.953
SOX
SZ948
59,OM
572M
59,559
61941
i7.730
320.045
332.647
346.161
3W,000
374.408
359,3M
404,9M
421.155
430.004
455,524
473.745
49ZB95
SI7,403
532.099
554.215
57534
:,532
567.905
603.346
619,103
635,367
551,951
565,942
GUAM
704.149
722,383
741.049
780.155
M,709
799,719
620,194
641.142
961,574
6.201
516201
516.201
$16,201
516,201
516201
516.20i
5IOX.
516,201
51620I
516.201
516201
516201
510201
51520/
516201
516"
7,081
38,937
36,775
36,593
36,395
X174
35.931
3S.M3
35.310
35,050
34700
34320
33,907
33,450
32,073
32.447
31,079
9,355
0,355
9755
9,355
9,355
9,355
9,355
R355
2,355
2.355
0265
9.m
9.355
0.355
9,355
;m
5.353
0.195
25.413
41,015
57,012
73,411
90223
/07,455
125.120
143224
151.776
iM,794
200.270
220247
20.705
26I.6M
283,740
=.IW
02/21/01 14: 44 FAX 763 377 7089 DUNBAR DEVLPMNT ®003
OV21101 WED 11:40 FAX 012 5425 MM ARCHITECTS ... DDC Rout
MII,LLH
-'
HA14SON
H
WrSTENC
ItSiCa0. 4[
BELL H
AAtwracn 4 rrwra'Omn
'
Ilel aAwrllaBNa AVamia
Na'IIIHAIOLr. MN r1m
(sill J)f-sfN � rA%Ielr) )]hips
COMM. NO.:
0005
14,g:
Omna Apartment Homes
TO:
Frank Dunbar
BY:
Wilt Batgm
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 06 February, 2001
I reviewed with Bill Shurbono of Loucks the options for potentlally reducing the height of the rec in14 well
along the front of the scnic i building. They are ae fellows:
Option 1: Omitting the path
The path is 6' wide and the otIDeeiOn of the path could mduce the height of the wall along its entire length
by approximately 2'.
Option 2: Move the balding to the nOrtIL
For evor 3' the buiding usovm to the north the well height could be reduced by apprOximetely I'.
Option 3: Reduce the elevation of die building
push it down into the its. Right now the soil on the site is pretty well balanced and reducing the elevation
of the gang, levcl would requite ecportng significant amounts of dirt This would begin to offset the
savings of the retaining wall. The arm down old, is that the units WvAktda the office budding would be
looking mom and mart into a eloped condiRer.
Option 4: Omit the service road and allow circulation to drive tbrough the pig
This could potaWly reduce the wall height by approximately 7'. and allow mom Area in the front for
landscaping
Give me a call if you have may forbor quaeNona.
Ron Moom- Bondsror B-_•__-•--_. age 11
City Financing For Land Acquisition
EMV Per Unit
93,0W
Percent Complete m 2001
40 %
InfleMn of Properly Value
2%
Percent of Increment Availebi
100%
Interest Rale on Debt
7,50%
Costs M Rnance
BOOODO
Yearof
Fiscal xCapacl
Tax
Annual Tax
Nat Tax
Capitalized
Available
Balance
ncremen
Year
Brio
Total Clow
80
Increment
Increment
Intem
Princiwl
Interest
Revenue
94�106
2001
1,200
0
0
1.04
0
0
35.591
0
35,591
0
949.106
2OD2
1.200
0
0
1.04
0
0
71.183
0
71.183
0
949,106
1
2003
1.200
28.942
27.742
1.04
28.851
28,851
42.332
0
71,183
28.851
949.106
2
2OD4
1,2W
72.354
71.154
1.04
74,000
74,DW
0
2.817
71.183
74,000
946.289
3
2005
1,20D
73.801
72,601
1.04
75,505
15.505
0
4.533
70,972
75,505
941755
4
2008
1,20D
75.277
74,077
1.04
77,D40
77.D40
0
6.409
70,632
77,040
935.347
5
2W7
1,20D
76.783
75.593
1.04
MAN
78.606
0
8.455
70.151
78,608
926,892
8
2000
1,200
70,318
77.118
1,04
80.203
50,203
0
t0,6W
69,517
60.203
916,206
7
2009
1.2W
79,6B5
78,885
1.04
B1,832
81.832
0
13.117
68.715
81832
903.089
8
2010
1,200
81.482
90.282
1.04
83,494
83.494
0
15.762
67.732
63.494
887,327
9
2011
1.200
83.112
01,912
1.04
65,7118
85.180
0
18.639
66.550
85.189
868,888
10
2012
1.200
54,774
63.574
1.04
86.917
86,917
0
21,766
65.152
86.917
846.923
11
2013
1.200
06.470
85,270
1.04
88,681
85,681
0
25.161
63,519
88681
821.762
12
2014
1,200
68,199
6Q999
1.04
9D.479
90,479
0
28,847
61.632
90,479
792,915
13
2015
1,200
89.953
88.763
1.04
92.314
92,314
0
32.845
59.469
92.314
76D,070
14
2016
1.200
91.762
90.562
1.04
94.185
94.195
0
37.180
57.005
94,185
722.890
15
2017
1.200
93.595
92,390
1.04
96,094
96.D94
0
41,877
54.217
98.094
681.013
10
Will
1.200
95,470
94.270
1.04
98,040
98.040
0
46,954
51.076
98,040
634.049
17
2019
1,200
97,379
96,179
1.04
1011.026
100.026
0
52,472
47,554
100.026
581.576
16
2020
1,200
99.327
95.127
1,04
102.052
102.052
0
58.433
43.618
102,052
523,143
19
2021
1,200
101.313
100.113
1.04
104,118
104,118
0
54,882
39.236
104.118
458.261
20
2022
1,200
103.339
102,139
1.04
106,225
106,225
0
71,855
34.370
108.225
385.406
21
2023
1,200
105.400
104,2W
1.04
108.374
108,374
0
79.394
28,9W
108,374
307.012
22
2024
1,2W
107,514
106,314
1.04
110.567
110.587
0
87,541
23,026
110.567
219,471
23
2025
1.200
109,05
100,485
1,04
112.803
112.603
0
96,343
16,460
112,8W
123,128
24
2026
1.200
111.658
11008
1,04
115,084
115,084
0
105,850
9.235
115.084
17.279
25
2027
1.200
114,006
112,695
101
117.417
117,411
0
77,279
1,296
117,411
149.106
City Financing For Land Acquisition
EMV Per Unn
83,700
Percent Complete in 2001
40%
Inflation of
Property Value
3 %
Percent of
Increment Availabl
100%
Interest Rate on Debi
-7.00%
Costs to Finance,
800.000
Yearof
Fiscal xCapad
Tax
AnnualTax
Net Tax
capitalized
Available
Balariee
1KINMn
Yar
Base
Total
C� WM
Rate
Increment
Income.
Intenrxt
Principe l
Intense
Revenue
940,055
2001
1.200
0
0
104
0
0
32902
0
32.902
0
W.055
2002
1.200
0
0
1.04
0
0
65,804
0
65,804
a
840,055
1
2003
1.200
25.402
24,282
1.04
25.253
25,253
40,551
0
65.804
25.253
940,055
2
2004
1,200
63,705
62.505
1.04
65,005
65.005
799
0
65,804
65,005
940.055
3
2005
1,200
65.618
64,418
1.04
66.993
66,993
0
1.189
65.804
66.993
938.866
4
2008
1.200
67,595
66.385
1.04
69.040
69,040
0
3.319
65,721
69,040
935.547
5
2007
1,200
69.612
68.412
1.04
71,149
71, 149
0
5,660
65,458
71,149
929,686
6
2008
1,200
71,701
70.501
104
73.321
73,321
0
8.229
65.092
73.321
921,658
7
2009
1,200
73,652
72,652
1.04
75.558
75,558
0
11.042
64.516
75,558
910.616
8
2010
1,200
75.067
74,867
1.04
77.562
77.862
0
14.119
63,743
77,862
696.498
9
2011
1,200
78.349
77.149
1.04
50.235
80,235
0
17,480
62,755
80,235
879.017
10
2012
1,200
80.700
79,500
1.04
82.680
82,680
0
21,148
61,531
82.680
857.869
11
2013
1.200
53.121
81.921
1.04
85.197
85.197
0
25,147
60.051
85,197
832,722
12
2014
1,200
85,614
84.414
1.04
87.791
87.791
0
29.500
58,291
$7.791
803,222
13
2015
1,200
88.183
86,983
1.04
90,462
90.462
0
34.236
56,226
90.462
768,966
14
2018
1,200
90.828
89,628
1,04
93.213
93.213
0
39.384
53.829
93,213
729.602
15
2017
1.200
93,553
92,353
1.04
96.047
96,047
0
44.975
51.072
96.047
654.627
18
2018
1,200
96.360
95.160
1.04
98,966
98,966
0
51.042
47,924
98,956
633.595
17
2019
1.200
99.250
98,050
1,04
101.972
101.972
0
57.621
44,351
101.972
575,963
18
2020
1.200
102.220
101,028
1.04
105,069
105,069
0
64 752
40,317
105.069
511.212
19
2021
1.200
105.295
104,095
1.04
109.258
108.258
0
72.474
35.785
108.258
430.738
20
2022
1.200
100.453
107.253
1.04
111.544
111.544
0
80.832
30.712
111.544
357.906
21
2023
1,200
111,707
110,507
1,04
114,927
114.927
0
89,874
25,063
114,927
268.032
22
2024
1.200
115.058
MAN
1.04
118.413
1t8,413
0
99.650
18.762
118,413
168.382
23
2025
1,200
110.510
117,310
1.04
122.002
122.002
0
110.216
11,787
122.002
58.166
24
2026
1.200
122,085
120.085
1.04
125.700
125.700
0
58,166
4.072
125,700
0
25
2027
1,200
125.727
124 527
1.04
129.508
129,508
0
0
0
129.508
9F ] b'
140.055
Page 3 of 3
Attached is a spreadsheet that highlights the Fire Station space needs. All
information presented within the spreadsheet is based on the agreed upon
Fire Station space needs that were discussed at the Facility Meeting held
on February 5, 2001.
In addition, I was asked to provide approximate size and space need
requirements for pieces of equipment that are planned to be purchased in
the future. These include:
6-Wheeler - approximate size (on a trailer) - 14Lx10 (140 sq. ft)
Jet Skis - approximate size (on a trailer) - 14Lx10 (140 sq. ft)
Snowmobiles - approximate size (on a trailer) - 14Lx10 (140 sq. ft)
New Boat - approximate size (on a trailer) - 30Lx12 (360 sq. ft)
"Gamma Goat" - approximate size - 18Lx12 (216 sq. ft)
If there are any questions, please let me know.
Thank you for your ongoing partnership.
Steve Persian
Director, Anets Protection Operations, Target Corporation
612-375-2240
Steve. Persian@target.com
FOR