Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-2018 Planning Commission PacketFU o Uc ATTENDANCE fMEETMG ®ATE C� COUNUL Ci FLANNN G COKINS oON 1D OTHER Assusfuve Listenng ®evoce avaHabl a upon request. Mease cornpDete the ffoftw g Wormaftn for C6ty records, PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please pftt) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER f 5. e-v&iG('l 'Ajf16tc- 10. 11. 12. 13. Ai- V:\(LEGAL FORMS)\(FORMS)\PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC AGENDA City of Orono Planning Commission Meeting for May 21, 2018; 6:30 PM Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Council Representative: Dennis Walsh Audience Members: Please sign in for the public record if you wish to address the Planning Commission. The sign in sheet is in the lobby. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet — located in the lobby near the sign in sheet. Applicants will be asked to move to the lectern to answer questions after staff presents the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting. A quorum of the City Council may be in attendance of a Planning Commission meeting to hear comments made, though no action or deliberation of the Council will occur. New Business 1. Approval of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2018. 2. LA18-000039 Catherine Meyer, 493 Park Avenue, Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 3. LA18-000040 Matthew & Angela Hopping, 95 Smith Avenue, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 4. LA18-000043 LDK Homes, 1509 Long Lake Boulevard, Variances (Staff: Laura Oakden) 5. LA18-000041 City of Orono, Text Amendment -Gates (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 6. LA18-000042 City of Orono, Text Amendment — Public hearing notice distance and Subdivision requirements (Staff: Laura Oakden) 7. LA18-000044 City of Orono, Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2040 Update (Staff: Jeremy Barnhart) 8. Update on May 14, 2018 City Council meeting. 9. Planning Commission Liaison for June 11, 2018 Council Meeting: Bruce Lemke 10. Other issues for discussion. Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us — follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notifications 0 1,120 Feet © Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 5/17/201812:17 PM BOLTON & MENK Real Peonle. Real Solutions. y KES H OSE Legend ±� City Limits ❑ Parcels (5/1/2018) AGENDA nning Commission Meeting for 21, 2018; 6:30 PM ambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, ono, MN 55356 00 / www.ci.orono.mn.us 3tive: Dennis Walsh Approval of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2018. 39 Catherine Meyer, 493 Park Avenue, Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 40 Matthew & Angela Hopping, 95 Smith Avenue, Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 43 LDK Homes, 1509 Long Lake Boulevard, Variances (Staff: Laura Oakden) Map Name Disclaimer. This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and other s affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Orono is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Bob Erickson, Kevin Landgraver, Bruce Lemke, Dennis Libby, and Jon Ressler. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden, and Recorder Jackie Young. Council Member Wendy Dankey and Mayor Dennis Walsh were present. Chair Thiesse called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. NEW BUSINESS 1. OATH OF OFFICE The oath of office was administered to Planning Commissioners Bob Erickson, Dennis Libby, and Jon Ressler. 2. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 19, 2018 Lemke moved, Landgraver seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of March 19, 2018, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 3. LA18-000033 JEFF MARTINEAU, 1335 ARBOR STREET, VARIANCES, 6:34 P.M. — 6:44 P.M. Jeff Martineau, Applicant, was present. Oakden noted this application is a resubmittal of a variance request for 1335 Arbor Street. The applicant is requesting multiple variances for lot area, lot width, front setback, side street setback, and interior side setback. The applicant had previously requested the same setback variances as well as a structural coverage variance. The Planning Commission at its January meeting denied the request due to the structural coverage variance. The City Council, at its February 2, 2018, meeting, tabled the application and asked the applicant to redesign the home to meet the structural coverage standards and to bring the application back through the public hearing process. The applicant is now proposing to construct a new home, replacing an existing home on the property. The proposed home will be more centered on the lot. The site is a corner and through lot with streets on three of the four sides. The new residence will be a ramble style home with a full basement and a two - stall garage and deck. The lot is located in the RR -1B, two -acre zoning district, and the lot is extremely small at 0.20 acres in a zoning requiring two acres. The applicant is requesting a 40 -foot front yard setback where 50 feet is required. In addition, the applicant is requesting a 7.5 interior side yard setback where 10 feet is required and an 8.5 -foot side street setback where 30 feet is required. The front and interior side yard setbacks seem reasonable for the small lot location. The proposed site plan shows window wells which encroach closer to the setbacks than the Page 1 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. principal building. Per City Code, window wells are permitted to encroach into the setback but not extend more than five feet from the building. Staff finds there are practical difficulties inherent to the lot area, lot width, and proposed setbacks due to the size of the lot. The lot is also unique in that it has street abutting three sides of the lot. Staff recommends approval. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Jeff Martineau, Applicant, stated as the Planning Commission is aware, the previous application requested a structural coverage variance. Martineau stated at first blush he did not believe he could construct the house to meet the structural coverage without building a two-story, but after further consideration and discussions with the property owners, the proposal is for a full basement rambler style home with a two - stall garage and a deck. As it relates to the fireplace, Martineau stated hopefully that can be resolved by calling it a cantilever and working within the setbacks. If that is not possible, it will have to be moved within the footprint. Libby asked if the additional dimensions affect any egress or ingress points. Martineau stated if Commissioner Libby is asking whether they have the ability to service lower bedrooms with egress, arrangements have been made that the lower bedroom windows would be able to be accessed egress -wise by the window wells. The other window wells would be located on the left side of the residence and do not require a variance. Libby stated he was more concerned about egress and ingress versus for exits and entrances versus the egress windows. Martineau noted the door faces Prospect but there is a sidewalk that goes to the garage, which exits onto Arbor Street. As it relates to other egress areas in the house, the patio with a sliding glass door is located off the eating area and is located on grade. To the right side of the house, there would be an access to the garage. Martineau noted the egresses are the front door facing Prospect, the garage door, and the patio door on the main floor. Thiesse asked if he substantially reduced the pitch of the roof. Martineau indicated they did. The approximate height of the new roof is 27 feet. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. Landgraver commented the applicants have done a good job at redesigning the house. Thiesse stated in his view the house will fit the neighborhood well. Page 2 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Ressler stated he does not disagree and that it is compatible with the other homes in the area. Erickson commented it is an attractive design. Landgraver moved, Erickson seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000033, Jeff Martineau on behalf of Barbara Garcia, 1335 Arbor Street, granting of variances to lot area, lot width, front setback, side street setback, and interior side setback. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 4. LA18-000012 MARK STIPAKOV, 2150 SIXTH AVENUE NORTH, SUBDIVISION RESOLUTION AMENDMENT, 6:44 P.M. — 6:51 P.M. Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, was present on behalf of the Applicant. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to the original conditions of subdivision approval regarding the driveway and private road serving the homes located on the driveway. The request is to allow a hammerhead type turnaround in lieu of the typical required cul-de-sac. The turnaround will require the creation of an easement into the subject property. The impetus for the request is the applicant's desire to develop the now vacant property, which is shown as Lot 2. The applicant has provided a plan which creates a private road. Currently there is a private driveway serving two homes. The applicant is proposing to increase the width of the existing driveway from 12 feet to 24 feet until it branches off to the northeast approximately 120 feet into the driveway where a 20 -foot wide hammerhead is shown to provide backup opportunity into the applicant's property. This configuration appears to meet the dimensional requirement for a turnaround. Beyond the 24 -foot width private road the two homes at 2140 and 2150 will be served by a private driveway. The hammerhead will be accomplished by the creation of an easement over the applicant's property dedicated to the public, benefitting the public and the adjacent property owners. Staff recommends approval of the road improvement plan, including the easement as proposed on the survey. Staff further recommends approval of the requested amendments to the subdivision resolution. A separate private road easement should be drafted to address the hammerhead area. Thiesse asked if the hammerhead meets the intent of the City. Curtis stated she believes it does. Lemke asked if there are any issues with emergency vehicles. Curtis indicated she has discussed this with the fire chief and the applicant and that in the fire chief's view it will comply. Mark Gronberg stated he is available to answer any questions. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:46 p.m. Bill Tyler, 2160 Sixth Avenue North, asked whether there will be any trees removed. Page 3 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gronberg indicated the 32 -inch willow tree will be removed and that they are attempting to save as many trees as possible. Thiesse noted the attempt to save some of the trees is the reason for the variance request. Tyler commented that is his biggest concern and that he would like to see as few of the trees cut down as possible. Steve Gibson, 2146 Sixth Avenue North, stated he had the same concern regarding the trees. Gibson asked why the hammerhead needs to be so large. Curtis stated the proposal is an attempt to comply with the requirements of a cul-de-sac and that the hammerhead needs to accommodate emergency vehicles. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. Landgraver and Lemke stated they do not have any concerns with the application. Lemke moved, Ressler seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000012, Mark Stipakov, 2150 Sixth Avenue North, granting of an amendment to the original conditions of subdivision approval regarding the driveway. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 5. LA18-000034 APEX HOLDING, LLC, 2635 KELLEY PARKWAY, FINAL PLAT, FINAL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND REZONING, 6:50 P.M. — 7:11 P.M. Sanjeev Mangalick, Apex Holding, was present. Curtis noted this proposed project for a 70 -unit senior living apartment building went through a sketch plan review in 2016 and received preliminary approval in 2017. The applicants are now seeking final plat approval, final master development plan approval, and rezoning from RR -113 PUD to RPUD. The concept master plan was approved with flexibility from specific sections of the RPUD requirements as it relates to the parking lot and driving lane setback, the private recreational area, and the hardcover. The final plans as submitted are generally consistent with the previously reviewed preliminary plat. The two-story building reflects 70 units, which consist of 22 memory care, 24 assisted living, and 24 independent living units. Per the Metropolitan Council, all units count toward the City's density calculation. The developer should address the comments from the City Engineer prior to placement on the City Council agenda. The parking plan reflects 85 total parking stalls, with 46 surface spaces and 39 underground spaces. This is consistent with the number approved within the concept plan review. The Stonebay development has established a certain design characteristic. During the concept review Staff recommends that the building materials be consistent with the pattern established by the Stonebay development and include architectural shingles, cement/fiber board siding, brick and/or stone. The proposed materials appear to be consistent with the Stonebay design characteristics. Page 4 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. The City's consulting engineer has provided a detailed review and comments on the plan. The developer should address all applicable comments prior to placement on the City Council's agenda. In addition, the developer should comply with the permitting requirements from the MCWD and Hennepin County as necessary. To date, no additional public comments have been received. Staff recommends approval of the master development plan, approval of rezoning to RPUD, and final plat conditioned upon compliance with the requirements of the City's consulting engineer and permitting requirements of the other regulatory agencies. Thiesse noted in a comment received from the Metropolitan Council in regard to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update, they state the City should note that the minimum density of land guided to address this is eight units per acre. Thiesse asked what that relates to. Barnhart stated the Metropolitan Council establishes certain goals, such as work force housing goals, and that the Metropolitan Council looks at those areas that are guided for eight units per acre as meeting those goals. The Metropolitan Council does not identify specific locations within the City for that type of housing. Barnhart noted when the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was developed, the range was six units or more. Landgraver noted that is a 33 percent increase. Thiesse asked whether the 33 comments of the engineer are requirements or whether they are simply desired amenities. Curtis indicated some of them are requirements. Thiesse asked if the grinder pump is a requirement. Curtis indicated she does not know the answer to that at this time but that the motion by the Planning Commission should be conditioned upon the comments of the engineer. Landgraver asked if there was some discussion previously about the stormwater pond needing to be modified. Thiesse noted that was included in the engineer's comments. Sanjeev Mangalick, Apex Holding, stated they did receive a list of the engineer's comments and that their engineer is here and he can answer any specific questions. Mangalick indicated he did speak with the contractor and they do not have any issues with any of the recommendations. Mangalick stated they will make sure they comply to the City's needs and requirements. As it relates to the pond, additional engineering is needed but that it will be designed accordingly. Ryan Bloom, Westwood Engineering, stated they were able to get the existing calculations for the stormwater pond. The pond was designed in 2002 to handle this development as well as one other development but that since that time some of the regulations have changed. Bloom indicated they will need to add some additional equipment if the pond is utilized, but that they will likely handle the water on Page 5 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. the subject site. Bloom indicated they will be working with the City and the Watershed District on those items. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. Mike Licht, 2670 Kelley Parkway, asked if the first elevation was in a northerly elevation and whether he can see that again. Curtis noted it is not in color. Licht asked to also see the site plan for the parking. Curtis noted all four building elevations are shown on the overhead and the first page is a rendering of the building on the site. Licht asked if the parking will be on Kelley Parkway. Thiesse noted there is no parking on Kelley Parkway. Curtis stated there are parking areas along Kelley Parkway as part of the site and then on two sides of the building. In addition, there will be underground parking. Licht asked if the above -ground and underground percentage -wise meets the City's requirements. Curtis indicated it does. Louise Kanive, 2670 Kelley Parkway, asked if they mean parking on Kelley. Curtis stated the parking would be on the property and that there will be 46 surface parking lots and 39 below ground. Kanive asked where the employees will park. Curtis stated she is not sure that has been addressed at this point. Kanive asked how many employees there will be. Curtis stated the parking assumes X number of employees based on the number of beds, which is proposed at 70 units. Curtis noted a portion of the building consists of 22 memory care units and those residents will not have vehicles. Kanive asked if a traffic study has been done on Kelley Parkway. Kanive stated with no left turn onto Kelley from Cascade or off of County Road 6, that has negatively impacted Kelley, and that people going to the school also utilize Kelley. Thiesse stated he is not aware of a study. Thiesse asked what the property is zoned at. Page 6 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated it is currently zoned RR -1 B, RPUD. The property was originally guided for commercial office. Thiesse noted the amount of traffic with this proposal will be less than the commercial building. Barnhart stated a traffic study was not done on this project but there was a traffic study done on a similar project that was guided for office but was proposed for a condominium which found that residential generated less traffic. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission reviewed this application back in August of 2017 and that the developer incorporated the comments of the Planning Commission. Landgraver stated the estimated traffic flows down Kelley Parkway have probably changed quite a bit given the changes down at the other end of Crystal Bay Road. Landgraver noted the residents that will live in this facility will not generate a lot of traffic. Lemke indicated he is in agreement with Commissioner Landgraver and that the traffic generated from the site will not be during peak traffic hours. Lemke stated he likes the proposal and that it fits the location. Ressler indicated he is in favor of the proposal and that anything else proposed for the site would likely generate more traffic than this proposal. Libby stated in August he heard some of the same concerns and that the local residents understand the traffic patterns. Libby stated this type of development has a high need in the community given the aging population and that he agrees with Staff that this is a lower traffic development than a commercial project. Erickson stated the Comprehensive Guide Plan Committee determined that multiple housing was an improvement over office/commercial and that in his view this is a good location for the proposed use. Landgraver suggested the applicants do a parking reconciliation of employees and residents before going to the City Council to give a better idea of the traffic that might be generated from the site. Sally Novak asked if the front of the building is the north side or the south side. Curtis indicated the front of the building is facing Wayzata Boulevard. Novak asked how they would exit from the parking lot. Curtis indicated people can drive around the entire building, but they can only exit onto Kelley. Landgraver moved, Erickson seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000034, Apex Holding, LLC, 2635 Kelley Parkway, granting of site plan approval, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and rezoning. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Page 7 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 6. LA18-000035 K. RYAN HASSE, 3800 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN REVIEW, 7:12 P.M. — 7:52 P.M. Ryan Hasse, Applicant, was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for a dog kennel and site plan review. Kennels are listed as a conditional use in the B-5 district. The applicants propose to use the existing building at 3800 Shoreline Drive for DogHaven, a dog daycare, grooming spa, and training facility. They will offer overnight boarding on a limited basis. There will be staff onsite anytime there are dogs being boarded overnight. A staff member will also always be present if dogs are using the outdoor area. To the north of the site is the Hennepin County garage, to the south is Shoreline Drive, to the west is a retail shop, and to the east is the Navarre Fire Station. The applicants are proposing to update the existing building fagade by painting the exterior gray with white trim and replacing the roof with a dark gray metal to match the proposed building. They are also proposing to construct a 1,932 square foot accessory structure on the site, which will match the color scheme of the existing building. This accessory building will be one large room with one restroom and will be used as an indoor play area for the dogs year-round. The applicants will also add a 6 -foot white vinyl privacy fence around the outdoor dog area with a 10 -foot setback from the property line. There is a small "potty grass" area that will be added to the site between the two buildings. The existing parking lot will change slightly. Currently eight parking spaces exist, with the new parking plan showing seven parking spaces due to the placement of the accessory building, which will remove one space from the lot. The applicant will restripe and maintain the seven proposed parking spots. The ordinance does not anticipate the proposed use so Staff used the ratios for day nurseries, which was also used for The Woofington. Per City Code, day nurseries require four parking spaces, plus one for each 500 square feet in excess of 1,000 square feet of floor space in the principal structure. Following City Code, this use would require five total parking spaces. If the accessory building is added into the calculation, eight spaces would be required. The Planning Commission should discuss the parking on the site. All setbacks and site coverage have been met with the proposal. Oakden stated all uses have impacts on the surrounding area and uses within a commercial district can expect a certain elevated level of traffic, noise, and lighting over residential use. The proposed use may generate additional impacts over these expected impacts due to dog barking and smells sometimes associated with animals and animal boarding. The applicants are well aware of the noise concerns and has taken multiple steps to address these through building design and operations. A comment has been received from Hennepin County today recommending that the gravel drive onto Shoreline Drive be removed. No other public comments have been received on the application. Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit and site plan subject to the following conditions: The operator maintains the annual kennel license. Failure to maintain the kennel license shall Page 8 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. cause the Conditional Use Permit to lapse. 2. Dogs shall be supervised while outdoors at all times. 3. All MCWD requirements are met. 4. Re -strip the parking lot to improve and identify the parking stalls. Lemke asked if there are any elevation views of the fencing. Oakden stated the applicant is proposing a 6 -foot white vinyl fencing and that they have not submitted any samples. Lemke asked if there is a floor plan for the building. Oakden noted there will be one bathroom in the accessory building, which will be used for a year-round play area and will be largely open. Also within the building will be some indoor kennels and offices. Lemke asked if the applicants are proposing overnight kenneling. Oakden indicated they are proposing limited overnight kenneling. Thiesse asked how many animals are being proposed. Oakden indicated the applicant will need to address that. The license granted would be a kennel license and it would have to be renewed annually. Libby asked if there is any information from Hennepin County as to why they propose the elimination of the other drive. Oakden stated if there is an unused driveway access off a county road, they will ask that it be removed. Libby commented he would be interested in hearing information about soundproofing from the applicant. Ryan Hasse, Applicant, stated they worked closely with City Staff to ensure their plan met all of the ordinances and requirements associated for the B5 zoning district. Hasse stated they do expect this business to operate close to what the district allows for with some exceptions. With regard to sound, to the north of the property is the Hennepin County maintenance facility, which is a considerable distance from this property. To the east is the fire department with a number of trees in between the two properties. Hasse stated they will not allow the dogs to just sit there outside and bark. In addition, the street is to the south and the Hope Chest is the closet neighbor and is to the west. Hasse indicated they took all that into consideration when designing their proposal. Hasse stated the accessory building would be a square building and that they have worked with the planners to meet the ordinances and codes to ensure it would be in compliance and to build an appealing structure. Hasse noted a dog park was opened in Orono not too long ago and is very popular and that they are creating a beautiful space for dogs to be indoors during the winter and outdoors during the summer. Page 9 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Nicole Speck, Orono, noted The Woofington is for small dogs only and that there is a need for a large dog space in Orono. As part of this proposal the dogs will be fenced in and will be supervised. Speck stated their clients bring their dogs to them so the dogs can learn to be well behaved and that they want to provide that service in a way that is productive for everyone. Speck stated they are open to feedback from the neighbors, noting that the dogs will not be permitted to bark constantly. If there are dogs that are not able to be helped, they will be let go. Speck indicated she has worked in the dog industry for 20 years and that the goal is to create great canine assistance for the community. Speck stated in her view the way they have structured it achieves that goal. Hasse stated because the ordinance does not necessarily contemplate this type of use as it relates to parking, theoretically by ordinance they will exceed the parking requirements for the proposed business use. The second building will just be used for dogs and one staff member. Hasse indicated people will drive in at the front, drop off their animal, and leave. Hasse stated in their view the parking is adequate, but that they do have a 35 percent hardcover limit so they have the ability to add parking if necessary. As it relates to the second driveway, Hasse stated that is an old, unmaintained driveway that they would be happy to remove since they do not plan on using it. Speck commented their kennel is unique and that they will not be kenneling dogs in the traditional sense. The facility will be a cage -free boarding facility and the dogs will be treated like they are in their own home. Speck noted they will only be kenneling a very small percentage of dogs by reservation only and those dogs will be with a staff member. Hasse stated offering boarding to their existing daycare clientele is the goal and that this will not be the traditional boarding kennel where people can just bring their dog in. Hasse indicated they will be catering to a higher clientele so their dogs can have an at-home experience. Thiesse asked on average how many dogs there will be at the facility. Hasse stated the smaller structure will handle 15 dogs at capacity but that it is not likely all those dogs will be there at the same time. The bigger structure will have around 35 to 40 animals at capacity. Hasse stated in the summertime there might be a greater capacity by using the outdoor area but that they are looking to create a quality experience for the dogs. Speck stated they are primarily a daycare for the dogs during the day and that nighttime boarding of dogs will be very limited. The overnight capacity will probably be ten dogs. The business will primarily be a Monday through Saturday daycare and that they will only be taking the best of the dogs to be kenneled overnight. Speck indicated there will not be high volume on the weekends. Thiesse asked how many dogs there would be per staff person. Speck indicated they are looking at 1 to 15 or 1 to 12. Hasse stated that is considerably better than industry average, which is 1 to 30 is acceptable Lemke asked what the hours will be. Page 10 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Hasse indicated it will be 7:00 to 7:00 Monday through Friday and 7:00 to 2:00 on Saturday. Libby stated given the amount of thought put into sound mitigation, he is less worried about that aspect. Ressler stated if you look at the neighbors, there is County Road 15, the maintenance facility, and that he could probably argue that the neighbors are going to generate more noise than this facility. Ressler stated the concern is at night or when those businesses are not open. Ressler asked if the dogs will be outside at night. Speck stated the dogs will be let outside once in a while for a potty break but that it will be brief and there will be no play time. Speck indicated those dogs will be confined to the potty pen and will not be running around the yard. Ressler asked if The Woofington also has an outside play area. Oakden indicated they do. Ressler asked if the City has received any complaints regarding The Woofington. Oakden stated they have not. Thiesse noted urination will permeate in the warmer months and asked what their plan is to address that. Hasse pointed out the primary area where the dogs will be trained and the potty area. That area will be maintained to a high degree and that potty grass that will be utilized is an industry specific product and is a 100 percent permeable product. Hasse indicated the dog waste will be shoveled and then the solid waste will be gathered essentially as soon as it happens, put in a bag and sealed, put in another bag and sealed and then put in a cart that is then hauled away with the trash. Speck stated the dogs will be put in a potty area that is not the yard before they are brought indoors and that they want to confine the waste to one area as much as possible. Landgraver stated he does not completely understand the business model and that when he hears 55 maximum dogs, he is not sure what the staging or the sequencing of dogs being dropped off will be. Hasse stated Nicole has a good understanding of the traffic patterns and that the idea is to have the employees park in the back and the customers in the front. The goal is to have a quick exchange that will take about two to three minutes, which is what the customers also want. Hasse indicated they can process a lot of drop-offs at the same time. Hasse stated the other element is that all those dogs will not necessarily come in at the same time and that some dogs will be there half time and some dogs are brought to be groomed. Hasse stated in his opinion there will never be 55 dogs there at one time based on their experience but that they would be willing to add more parking if deemed necessary. Speck noted there is no primary drop-off and pickup time, and that based on her experience, the proposed parking is very reasonable. Speck stated the clients will be in and out in a short period of time. Ressler asked if the City has any guidelines as it relates to kennels. Page 11 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Oakden stated as it relates to the conditional use permit, it does not specify a number of dogs and the City does not have any numbers outlined as far as commercial kennels and dogs. Libby asked if there is a way for the dogs to enter into the other part of the yard or get loose. Libby noted Orono has a leashing law that is enforceable and that he does not want any loose dogs running around. Hasse noted they have elected for a 10 -foot setback on the fence and a 6 -foot high vinyl fence. The fence will be 100 percent opaque and the dogs will not be able to see through it. Hasse stated they do not want the dogs to get out because it hurts their reputation and that the fence is designed to be dog -proof. In addition, any area where the dogs will be outside will be fenced. Landgraver asked if there will be a person on site at night. Speck indicated there will be a staff member there at all times. Thiesse asked if anyone would be living in the house. Hasse indicated there will not be. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Thiesse asked if a kennel license is revocable. Oakden stated the City Clerk manages all the licenses, but since this will be a conditional use permit, conditions can be set to be reviewed. Oakden stated to her knowledge there are some standards to revoke a kennel license. Lemke stated he is concerned about the amount of parking but noted the applicants are amenable to increasing it. Oakden suggested the Planning Commission request proof of parking, and if complaints are received, the applicants could perhaps add parking in the future. Landgraver asked what parking was required for The Woofington. Oakden stated it was four spaces and then one space for every 500 square feet in excess of 1,000 square feet of building, which is what the Code reads. Oakden noted the parking has actually been made stricter since The Woofington was approved. Thiesse asked if they only require one more parking space. Oakden indicated that is correct, and if the main building is only counted, they would be required to have five. If the accessory building is included, they would require seven, which leaves them one short. Page 12 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Libby stated he is less concerned about the parking. Libby noted this is conjecture, but that they might be talking about 100 trips a day in and out, with a lot of it going out onto County Road 15, which leads into Navarre. Libby stated the Navarre area has some traffic management problems. Thiesse agreed that there are issues with traffic. Landgraver noted this is zoned for commercial and that he does not know how to evaluate the parking. Landgraver stated it looks like there is ample space to add parking if necessary. Thiesse stated it would be in the applicants' best interests to have sufficient parking for their clients. Erickson commented the closure of the second driveway is a plus. Thiesse asked if the restriping of the parking lot is a request. Oakden stated it would be in their best interests to do so, and if it is removed, the area would be restored to grass. Thiesse asked if the Watershed requirements are being met. Oakden stated Staff has been in discussions with the Watershed District and that Staff will incorporate any written comments received from the MCWD, but during the discussions no red flags were raised. Landgraver recommended the applicants put together a statement outlining the business hours and staff level for the City Council. Lemke moved, Libby seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000035, Ryan Hasse, Nicole Speck, and Gary Johnson, 3800 Shoreline Drive, granting of a conditional use permit and site plan review, subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 7. LA18-000036 ORONO APARTMENTS, LLC, 2745 KELLEY PARKWAY, SITE PLAN, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND REZONING, 7:53 P.M. — 8:45 P.M. John Patch, Applicant, and Neil Weber were present. Barnhart stated the City has received a request for a comprehensive plan amendment, site plan review, and rezoning. The proposed site is currently vacant and is located immediately south of the Orono Public Works garage. The property is currently zoned B-6 PUD and is guided for Commercial Office use. The site is and has been vacant for many years. The property owner is proposing construction of a 56 -unit apartment building on the 2.55 -acre property. Improvements will include the 2.5 story building, underground parking, and surface parking. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required to complete this project as well as rezoning to RPUD. RPUD rezoning requires approval of a master site plan. Building setbacks are met under the proposal. Parking is proposed via an extension of the existing shared parking lot. The north and west parking setbacks are not met but are consistent with the existing parking Page 13 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. setbacks. Setbacks for the parking spaces on the west side are shared with the lot to the west and a 20 - foot setback is impractical and counter to the goals of sharing parking spaces. The building has a proposed defined height of 29 feet. This defined height meets requirements and is lower than the Lofts across the street and the senior housing project next door. During the sketch plan review, some comments were received regarding the height of the building and its impact of blocking views from the condominium building. The applicant has provided a sketch showing the height differential between the subject building and the adjacent Stonebay condos. The apartments will consist of one, one -plus, and two-bedroom units. The site plan includes two driveways onto Kelley Parkway. There is no access to Wayzata Boulevard. One of the accesses already exists and is shared with the medical office to the west and is on the property line. The second access is generally 155 feet west of the northeast corner. This driveway does not line up with the driveway across the street. It was recommended during the concept plan review that the driveway line up with the drive on the north side of Kelley Parkway. From Staff's perspective, it is not critical that the drives line up since the two drives in question are used almost exclusively by city employees and one of the drives is primarily an entrance only. If the driveway is shifted to the east, it appears it will impact stormwater retention options. Parking includes 54 surface stalls and 72 underground stalls. Parking requirements equal two spaces per dwelling unit. Assuming 56 units, 112 spaces would be required per City Code and the applicant is showing 126 parking spaces. Fourteen of those spaces are shared with the medical office building to the west. A trail along the south property line is anticipated as part of the Stonebay project. Preliminary plans by Hennepin County for the upgrade of Wayzata Boulevard include a trail along the north side of Wayzata Boulevard. The applicants should expect that a trail will be required along their south boundary, with a possible connecting link to Kelley Parkway along the west edge of the stormwater pond. RPUD standards include a requirement for 10 percent of the site being dedicated to private recreational purposes. The plans do not show any private recreation and the discussion during the concept plan review involved payment of a fee in lieu of the private recreational requirement. It was originally anticipated that the stormwater from the site would be collected and diverted to the large, regional pond to the east. However, based on new stormwater requirements, the stormwater will be collected and treated on site through three rain gardens along the south and east property areas. The property is not within the Stormwater Overlay District, but if developed as an RPUD, it would be subject to a maximum hardcover per lot of 50 percent. Hardcover is proposed at 55 percent. A portion of the hardcover consists of the shared parking and dumpster enclosure along the west side. To date Staff has received one written comment in opposition to the zone change. Barnhart stated the Planning Commission should address the issues outlined in the staff report. Lemke asked if there was consideration for a walkway along the south or the north. Page 14 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart noted Staff did recommend the sidewalk along the north side of the property be continued to the east. Erickson noted there are overhead utilities along Wayzata Boulevard. Erickson asked if there is any requirement for underground utilities. Barnhart indicated there is not for existing utilities. Neil Weber, Weber Architects and Planner, stated this is a simple 56 -unit apartment building. The intent is to construct quality market rate apartments. Sixteen units will be two-bedroom and the rest will be one bedroom plus a den. Since the concept plan review, soil borings have been taken and they confirm that the water table is approximately eight feet below grade, which is the reason the underground parking is slightly above grade. Weber indicated they are in agreement with the ten conditions outlined in Staff report and that they will add to the landscape plan depending upon what is done with the grading and stormwater. Weber stated they were told in a preliminary sense from the Watershed District that they could use the holding pond but that the rules have changed since the pond was constructed and so they will need to look at that further. Weber stated if the pond is not able to be used, there is an alternative on the site, and that they would have to apply for a permit if they utilize the existing stormwater pond. Weber stated this is a pretty straight forward project. The area of the parking on the west side of the property is owned by the dentist and he would like to maintain the legal easement over the shared parking. Weber stated the only time that parking would be needed by the medical building is at their peak times and the only times the apartment building will need that parking is in the evenings and on the weekends. Weber stated the market is here for this type of housing and that this will be a quality project. Weber stated they are available for any questions. Libby stated he would complement the developer on the ergonomic designs of the floor plans. Libby noted the number of unoccupied units is somewhere in the area of 2 to 2.5 percent, which is very low and makes it difficult for people who want to rent in this area. Libby asked what the market rent statistics are for the units. Libby stated in his view this will be an extremely high -demand commodity. Patch stated they are shooting for the range of $1,500 to $2,200 per month rent. The penthouse units will likely run around $3,300 a month. Patch noted there are no new apartment buildings west of 494. Libby stated that is extremely competitive and that the median rent is $2,000. Weber commented one of the hardest concepts that he has been able to grasp is that there is a tremendous desire in the market not to own a home. Weber stated a number of people want the flexibility of an apartment, are willing to pay the rent to live in a nice place, and that Mr. Patch has identified that as a big market in this area. Libby noted this area is pretty devoid of trees. Libby stated he would like to see some larger scale trees. Page 15 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Patch stated they are willing to work with the City on the landscaping. Weber indicated they have hired Otten Brothers to do the landscape and they have been instructed to match the scale of the existing landscaping of Stonebay. Lemke noted most of the topography around the rain gardens is negative. Lemke asked how the rain gardens will work. Weber stated there will only be water in the rain gardens for a limited time depending on the amount of rainfall. Weber noted they will be altering the landscape plan once they receive direction on the stormwater but that he wanted to point out that the stormwater can be taken care of multiple ways. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Louise Kanive, 2670 Kelley Parkway, stated her concern is traffic on Kelley Parkway and that this project will be adding 56 units and possibly 112 drivers. Kanive stated Kelley Parkway cannot take that much traffic. Kanive stated given the water table, the watershed, and putting up so much more concrete from what is currently there, she is also concerned about runoff. Kanive asked whether there can be any egress or ingress off of Highway 12. Thiesse indicated no. Barnhart stated the overall design of the area prohibited access onto Wayzata Boulevard even before the Stonebay development was completed. Barnhart stated Hennepin County is attempting to limit access onto Highway 112. Kanive asked if there is an occupancy permit in Orono. Kanive asked whether someone can have 14 people living with them in a one -bedroom unit; and if there is a limit on the number of people, who would monitor that. Barnhart stated there is not a limit to the number of people the City classifies as a family. Barnhart stated the Building Code has certain requirements relating to occupancy in a building based on the size of the unit or building. Kanive stated there should be some type of limit on the number of people who can occupy a one -bedroom Apartment. Kanive asked what the City's definition of a family is. Barnhart noted that definition will be discussed later this evening, but that a family does not have to be related and there is no limit to the number of people in a family. Barnhart stated the landlord can establish limits on the number of people. Weber stated his experience has been that the number of occupants is handled by the housing ordinance and is not a zoning issue. Weber stated the number of tenants in this case would be controlled by the property owner and the last thing he would want is to have 10 people in a one -bedroom apartment. Page 16 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Weber indicated that would be handled in the lease arrangement and the bigger cities tend to have housing codes. Libby stated cities do use their housing authority to regulate that and that most real estate agents tend to abide by those. Libby stated the Minneapolis Housing Authority allows up to five unrelated people, and if they were blood family members, then it was a different rule. Libby stated unless there were complaints, it was a rare occasion that the Housing Authority did anything to enforce that. Barnhart noted Orono does not have a housing authority. Kanive stated the Stonebay development is not completed and that there are a number of other townhomes that will go in there at some point. Once that happens, they will be adding more onto Kelley Parkway than what is already there. Kanive stated she sees the need for the apartment building but that she is not sure if the location is adequate enough for it. Mike Licht, 2670 Kelley Parkway, stated he is familiar with some of the people involved in the two projects currently under consideration. Licht stated from sitting in the audience, it seems that the City has taken commercially zoned property piece by piece and turned it into residential property. Licht stated in his view both projects will be good from a construction standpoint but that it seems the City is somewhat setting a precedent for one of the bigger pieces that are left to become a residential piece of property as well. Licht stated in the long-term, the piece on the corner could very conceivably be in front of the Planning Commission for an even bigger building. Licht stated when they are increasing the traffic on Kelley Parkway and the density of the property as opposed to commercially zoned parcels, the City should also be thinking about the infrastructure that is needed and not just focus on the project itself. Licht stated it is already difficult to get in and out of there right now and that they will be adding more units this year and again at some point in the future. Thiesse stated it is his understanding traffic counts and infrastructure were anticipated for this area and that what they have learned from other projects is that residential creates less traffic than commercial. Landgraver stated to his knowledge the traffic studies didn't take into account the school expansion and the left turn prohibition onto Old Crystal Bay Road. Landgraver noted this area has two feeders within 150 feet of each other, which are contributing to the traffic problems. Thiesse stated until the school starts handling their traffic better, there will be problems. John Hovanec, 2670 Kelley Parkway, stated it looks to be a terrific building but that he is concerned about Kelley Parkway. Kelley Parkway is currently a two-lane roadway, there are emergency vehicles periodically, and students and parents using the road as a major thorough way. Hovanec stated he also sees lots of kids on the paths. Hovanec stated safety is a great concern of his, and while he knows Hennepin County is attempting to limit entry onto Wayzata Boulevard and the road from Willow Drive west is a project for next year, it might be worth looking at moving some of that traffic from Kelley Parkway back onto Wayzata Boulevard to make it safer and better for everybody. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Page 17 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated with respect to the comments about traffic on Kelley Parkway, the City Engineer and Staff have been working with the school district regarding the traffic and the road layout. Barnhart stated he will see if he can provide additional information on that subject at the City Council meeting. The City Council and the School District does recognize the concerns with traffic backing up on Old Crystal Bay Road and that they are planning longer term solutions to the traffic problems on Old Crystal Bay Road. Libby asked if it is possible to quantify the traffic in the area and compare it to other intersections in the community to see how it compares. Barnhart stated the City could do that but that he is not sure what that would accomplish. Barnhart indicated part of the challenge on Old Crystal Bay Road is the turning movements, which creates more congestion and slower speeds. Hennepin County is also looking at the City to remove driveways off of Wayzata Boulevard. Landgraver commented Staff has done an excellent job reviewing this application and they have identified the ten major issues. Landgraver indicated he is in favor of the project. Thiesse stated he hears the concerns about the traffic but that it is his belief the traffic is being caused more by the school than it is by the development on Kelley. Thiesse noted this is an important piece to all of Orono in meeting the criteria of the Metropolitan Council. Lemke indicated he is in agreement and the project meets the needs of the City. Lemke stated he does have a concern with the two massive buildings next to each other, especially since there is nothing on this lot right now. Thiesse noted there is a vacant lot to the south, which will help to some extent, but that it will be developed at some point. Ressler commented development of that vacant site is inevitable. Ressler stated development of the roads and other things will come along with that development. Ressler stated he agrees a lot of the traffic issues come from Old Crystal Bay Road. Libby stated he is in favor of addressing the shortage of this type of housing and that Orono really does not have any other places to put this. Libby stated he is glad people feel comfortable enough to bring their concerns about the traffic to the City. Libby stated walkability to services is important and helps to reduce the amount of traffic. Erickson stated last week they talked about a plan for the Navarre area and possibly increasing density in that area. Erickson stated if you compare the kind of traffic problems they have in that area to the kind of traffic problems along Wayzata Boulevard, there really is no comparison. Erickson indicated he is very comfortable with both of the projects as it relates to Wayzata Boulevard, which currently has less traffic than it did when it was Highway 12. Erickson stated he is happy to support the project. Erickson moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000036, Orono Apartments, LLC, John Patch, 2745 Kelley Parkway, granting of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, a Zoning Amendment to RPUD, and recommending approval of the Master Development Plan subject to Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Page 18 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 8. LA18-000024 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 78-1 AND 82-2 RELATED TO ZONING AND SUBDIVISION DEFINITIONS, INCLUDING IN-KIND, DRY BUILDABLE AND OTHERS, 8:45 P.M. — 8:58 P.M. Barnhart noted a wrong word was included in the title of the ordinance and that a revised ordinance has been placed before the Planning Commission tonight. Barnhart noted this topic was introduced at the Planning Commission meeting last month and that Staff is proposing some minor changes to the definitions applicable to the zoning ordinance. Staff has identified seven different additions or amendments. The Planning Commission is being asked to give additional feedback at this point. The following nine definitions are being considered: Animal unit. Staff is looking to amend the definition to identify the number of animals that would equal an animal unit. 2. Building height. Staff is looking to amend this definition to remove the height calculation based on the location of the highest window, which does nothing to impact mass and is addressed by building height. Building cornice. Barnhart noted this would be a new defmition to the code and specifies that the building height calls on the location of a building cornice in certain roof types. 4. Dry -buildable. This term is currently not defined. Dry buildable is useful in determining the number of lots possible given a particular property and is necessary in preparing subdivision plans. Dwelling. Staff is proposing to amend this definition. The change is intended to clarify the difference between renting a couple of bedrooms and a second unit of bed, bath, kitchen, and living areas, which is not allowed under the rental licensing program. 6. Family. The amended definition is intended to clarify the difference between one and two-family dwelling units. 7. In-kind. This would be a new definition and is one that Staff feels is critical in replacing non- conforming structures and buildings. The Planning Commission may adopt all or parts of the proposed ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the draft ordinance. Lemke asked if dogs are included in the animal units. Barnhart indicated it is primarily farm animals and that dogs and cats are not included. Libby asked who set these numbers and whether there is a reference point from other municipalities as it relates to the animal units. Page 19 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis indicated they are a modified state animal unit but slightly more restrictive. Libby noted as it relates to the words in-kind, a certified fee appraiser often uses the words like kind, meaning that it is something that is close, similar or identical as possible. Libby stated the word in-kind does not have a definitive meaning to him and that perhaps Staff should consider revising that. Thiesse stated currently the ordinance has top of the cornice of a flat roof or the deck line of a mansard roof. Thiesse stated to him the deck line is the roofline and the mansard roof extends above that. Thiesse asked if that is a correct reading of the language. Barnhart stated that is not correct and that the deck line on the mansard roof is the top part. Thiesse noted there are fake mansard roofs. Thiesse asked if they are measuring from the top of the mansard roof. Barnhart indicated that is correct. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. Landgraver noted it should read blood or marriage. Barnhart indicated he will strike the word and. Lemke asked if there is a definition for nursing home as opposed to senior housing. Libby commented that is a very antiquated term. Barnhart noted that is existing text and he is not proposing to change that. Lemke stated it could be senior housing or retirement home, and that he would like to see it removed. Barnhart noted the intent there is to quantify similar uses that aid in the understanding of the term nursing home. Lemke asked if a temporary unit would work. Barnhart stated nursing home is a generic term and is fine to be used in this context. Barnhart stated he would recommend keeping it in. Libby asked whether the City Attorney has reviewed the definitions. Barnhart indicated he has. Ressler stated it seems the changes are in line with other cities and that he is supportive of the ordinance. Page 20 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Ressler moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000024, City of Orono, Text Amendment to Sections 78-1 and 82-2 related to zoning and subdivision definitions, including in-kind, dry buildable, and others. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 9. UPDATE ON MARCH 12, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING None 10. PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON FOR MAY 14, 2018, COUNCIL MEETING — JON RESSLER Barnhart noted most of the items on tonight's agenda will be heard at the May 14 Council meeting. 11. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Thiesse asked if the City is going to be sending out postcard notifications of sketch plans. Barnhart stated that likely will be discussed this summer. Libby stated there is a tremendous amount of dissent and concern with Mediacom both at a business level and at a personal home level. Libby stated there is interest by Century Link, who has fiber optic connectively, on coming into the area. Libby stated he has been in discussions with Century Link's regional design engineer and the Fox Hill neighborhood just ponied out $17,000 for high-speed connectively. Libby stated reliability is terrible with Mediacom, especially at the Freshwater building, and that it is difficult to conduct business over the internet at times. Libby noted he has brought this issue up to the mayor and that he would like to see higher speed internet in more places. Libby stated he can put City representatives in touch with representatives from Century Link if they are interested in pursuing this. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS None F1 PiFIli17►1u 1 OWN 11 Landgraver moved, Lemke seconded, to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:05 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. John Thiesse, Chair Page 21 of 21 Date Application Received: 04/16/18 Date Application Considered as Complete: 04/16/18 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 06/15/18 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 21 May 2018 Subject: #LA18-000039, Catherine Meyer, 493 Park Avenue, Variances Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting lot width and lot area variances in order to develop the vacant property in order to take advantage of the Tier 3 hardcover level of 35%. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. Background Until recently, the 493 Park Avenue was made up of two separate PIDs. The property owner recently combined the two PIDs into one property which is still in process at Hennepin County. The combined property is a small lot which qualifies for buildability without area and width variances under the Shoreland regulations. However, a qualifier for taking advantage of the Shoreland ordinance is a hardcover limitation of 25%. The owner wishes to develop the property under the Tier 3 hardcover limitation, which is consistent with the tier assigned based on distance. In order to be able to exceed 25% up to the 35% limit, the lot area and width variance is required. Plans have been submitted which meet all of the LR -113 district setbacks and reflect a proposed hardcover level of approximately 29%. Once the area and width variances are granted, any additional hardcover in the future would be limited to 35%. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-330 - Setbacks: LR -1B Required Proposed Front 35' 42' house 35' porch Rear 30' 36' Side Street (South) 20' 22' North Side 10' 10' FILE #LA18-000039 21 May 2018 Page 2 of 5 Section 78- 330 - Lot Area/Width: LR -1B Lot Area 10,816 s.f. (0.25 acre) Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acres) 140' Actual 10,816 s.f. (0.25 acre) 100' Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 10,816 s.f. (0.25 acre) Allowed: 2,162 s.f. (20%) Proposed: 2,033 s.f. (18.7%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 3,785 s.f. 3,109 s.f. Tier 3 10,816 s.f. (35%) (28.7%) Applicable Regulations: Lot Area and Lot Width Variances (Sec. 78-330 Zoning Code Section 78-72 provides options for the redevelopment of lots which do not meet the minimum area or width requirements for the respective zoning district. Substandard properties within the Shoreland Overlay District, like the subject lot, are able to be redeveloped without variances if specific standards are met; such as: 1. All setback requirements can be met; 2. A Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, can be installed or the lot is connected to a public sewer; and 3. The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square footage restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of hardcover does not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot area. 4. All other zoning district standards can be met. The applicant's request for application of Tier 3 hardcover results in the property's inability to conform to #3 above. Therefore, lot area and width variances are required in order to redevelop the property. The ability to have the same type of hardcover amenities as other existing developed properties in the neighborhood would be limited if the area and width variances are not granted. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties FILE #LA18-000039 21 May 2018 Page 3 of 5 also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. A single family residence is a permitted use within the LR -1B zoning district. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The residential principal structure and associated amenities are residential uses which are consistent with the comprehensive plan guiding of this and surrounding properties for residential use. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner but the size of the lot is below the minimum lot size standards of the Zoning Code. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The plight of the property owner is due to the existing substandard lot size, which is a result of the property being platted long before local zoning codes were in effect. The property owner combined two PIDs in an attempt to make subject property more conforming; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed home will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a single family home is an allowed use in the LR -1B District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The lot area, lot width, setback, hardcover and lot coverage standards applying to this property are similar to those of other properties in the neighborhood, and there are many similar sized developed lots in the neighborhood. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The standards applicable to this property apply to all other property in the neighborhood; however, in order to be allowed the 35% hardcover FILE #LA18-000039 21 May 2018 Page 4 of 5 that other developed similar -sized lots are afforded, a variance to lot area and width is required. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. In the opinion of staff, the property rights of the owner will be diminished if the lot area and lot width variances are not granted, as the new residence would not be able to be developed, nor will it be permitted the 35% hardcover level that neighboring similar -sized lots are allowed. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting of the area and width variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and would not be contrary the intent of the zoning code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The size and width of the property, as well as the corner lot configuration create practical difficulties affecting the subject property; the variances are necessary and will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has provided the Practical Difficulties Documentation attached as Exhibit B, and may be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Staff finds that there are demonstrable practical difficulties supporting the lot area and lot width variance to develop the property. Engineer Comments The City's engineer has reviewed the proposed plan and has identified no issues of concern. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? FILE #LA18-000039 21 May 2018 Page 5 of 5 Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area and lot width variances. This support is based in part on the supposition that the lots are combined. If Planning Commission determines that the practical difficulties test is met for the area and width variances, then a recommendation for approval would be in order. The applicant shall adhere to the required setbacks and 35% hardcover limitations with regards to any additional structures and hardcover proposed for the property. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Summary Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Property Owners List Exhibit G. Plat Map Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 04/16/2018 Address: 493 PARK AVE LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Parcel Number: 0611723410017 Land Use Number: LAI8-000039 Application Submitted By: Property Owner Owner: Name: DONALD L & CATHERINE A MEYER Address: 485 PARK AVE LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Applicant: Name: Catherine Meyer Address: 485 Park Ave Orono, MN 55356 Associated Contact: Keith Christensen Contact Information: Associated Contact: Mark Gronberg Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: 493 Park Avenue Variance Land Use Application Type: Variance Application Applicant Signature: PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LAIR -000039 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: The owner intends to use the property as a residence, building a modest -sized home on the undersized lot meeting property setback requirements. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The hardship in general is common in the area and not created by the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The variance will allow the landowner to remain consistent with the character of the locality. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: Economics is not a factor or consideration. S. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1163.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: N/A 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: N/A 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response:N/A S. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: The special conditions applying to the property are similar to those of other properties in the neighborhood. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: The conditions do apply generally to other properties in the vicinity. 30. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: The property rights of the owner would be diminished if the variance is not granted. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Response: The granting of this variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, or morals, and not be contrary to the intent of the zoning codes. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: The granting of the variance will alleviate a practical difficulty by allowing the property to be developed as other similar -sized lots in the neighborhood. H T �m3AV NtNd II co C14 Z' co I "P. 0 U- 0� ui U-) > CN 0 U) 0 z 0 z -2 (I)o 0 V-! > CN < Co I W c) - Z 0 :D 0 w U) " Z W w U- 0 (D 0 CL 0 < w n u) cr- < 0 < 0- 0 �- co 0 c >N 0 c w 0 -2 (I)o 0- lqr-L-IF 0 0 CL 0 0-0 -f� 0 " 0L 70 -00 .2 -4-1 (D > E 0 W -0 M z 0 co m 0 o 0 04 o -o 0-0 0 WkidD a) w 0 0 �= �p a- F- 0 u) z 0E 0 F- -j w z 3: 0 - LL o z o E z obboom "a 0 0 0 ccccc:fn V) Cl) c C) 70 :3 Q) a) 0 mI- 0 c 5-- C) c -00 U) W 00•a) m >, (j) 0 .... (1) 0 L- > L) co 0 < aL w ca 0 co S_ - w 0 C -j -i F- 00 0 00 w w LL - z lqr-L-IF 0 I m I IWO oil 00 0 -f� 0 .2 -4-1 (D > E (D M 0 co m E 04 o -o -o 0 M (D w a) w 0 -00100-0 �= �p a- CL (D co X 00 w 42 (n (D 0 a) 0 w a) W (D L- obboom ccccc:fn a) a) a) a) a) m .... .. .... co w ca 0 0 C) • IWO oil r l; or -f Drawn r Date: `T'16 -%g L a� a� �L S m u 0 u �O I- 136 a d) E 0 x 3 d 2 0 J9 L CL E N t� Ju C O O i C C Z N � x +,► v C O m O u 0o c ca 'a C N C O O J = Iv - 1/4" =1'-0" AWS Drawn Date: Y L m a .E E m Y C O Cu C C Z O 47 °0 u 00 r- ad ad •E H c (Uu 0 v _ 'o = a a� O _,. Q 3 Y z a° M 41 ti Scale: =1'-0" nPAGE: i U-XY-W,' W �!�D_S3 �H�'Ftp•!#'Nj�..IAtt/�4�itAk�a.���7BS ��� r/M C1i OiJM � /T�CIC- 1 i4611 MSN• y_''__�,Nc. � x.�._1n�:_ -b rr C m rr to S rr H S"x 2 o i. 1 L. a 10 W 10 -roP (JF f:7,v1>Tn4 - ------ -�� p44 11> e J6f;,NAIJOS S-ryA. : -ML) TSOAR p . 71M--'!;!.,%.p�-L- 'Jp -fir - �--- /�,� DG S`i�iDS �4 y✓DO S��RT}�1"1i✓if RA C/✓1 U \A/ALL' ���--��G�� 1,✓ktLAirBnl 7 LI Drawn #-x,-18 Y m a E E m c O a, c c Z N � a °D u cv 00 C C o6 c a, u ° _ C O 4- t; O � a a� O E ;. Q Z 4 Scale: 1/4" =1'-0" 3.0 h tl i ii it it ti i U-XY-W,' W �!�D_S3 �H�'Ftp•!#'Nj�..IAtt/�4�itAk�a.���7BS ��� r/M C1i OiJM � /T�CIC- 1 i4611 MSN• y_''__�,Nc. � x.�._1n�:_ -b rr C m rr to S rr H S"x 2 o i. 1 L. a 10 W 10 -roP (JF f:7,v1>Tn4 - ------ -�� p44 11> e J6f;,NAIJOS S-ryA. : -ML) TSOAR p . 71M--'!;!.,%.p�-L- 'Jp -fir - �--- /�,� DG S`i�iDS �4 y✓DO S��RT}�1"1i✓if RA C/✓1 U \A/ALL' ���--��G�� 1,✓ktLAirBnl 7 LI Drawn #-x,-18 Y m a E E m c O a, c c Z N � a °D u cv 00 C C o6 c a, u ° _ C O 4- t; O � a a� O E ;. Q Z 4 Scale: 1/4" =1'-0" 3.0 City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: 1-1p3 11�llk vF (' "7AleAIA1E' Prepared by: Glo,vdrxC: e .fProc 1A 7F J' YE'R ) 3-2tS .,8 Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 der Tier 4 Tier S Step 2: &ROPOSED HARDCOVE In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Survey(Square Total Feet -(Example) Ga a 24' x 30' 720 S.F. A "vogjxje 'gfgoa S.F. B eaA ra 300S.F. C I fkat.r oOoA r1l 126 S.F. //S S.F. E OX/ S.F. F S.F. G S.F. H S.F. I S.F. S.F. K S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. S.F. P S.F. Q S.F. R S.F. S S.F. T S.F. u S.F. V S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z I S.F. 1 Total PmPosed Hardcover 31,o9 S.F. Excludable Hardcover See CRY Code Sec 78-1684): S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2 Total Excludable Hardcover O S.F. 3 Net Proposed Hardcover Subtract line 2 from line MI/ 4 Total Lot AreaQ, '09 916 S.F. S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [ (3) + (4) ] 2 a, 7Y % Subdivision Application - January 2016 This is an InfornmLiDn packet regarding Hardcover, Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein, however, if any inlbrmation Is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. Page 19 RUN DATE: 03/31/2018 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE: 1 38 05-117-23 32 0005 38 06-117-23 410093 38 06-117-23 410105 TONKAWA INC ERWIN D SMITH ET AL NASIR H RAJA 520 TONKAWA RD 507 PARK LA 455 TONKAWA RD ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 TONKAWA INC E D& M D SMITH NASIR H RAJA 301 CARLSON PKWY 507 PARK LANE 455 TONKAWA RD SUITE 275 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 MINNETONKA MN 55305 38 06-117-23 410016 38 06-117-23 410094 38 06-117-23 410107 DONALD L MEYER ET AL D & D SIEGEL MARTHA E MACMILLAN 485 PARK AVE 4111 OAK ST 415 TONKAWA RD ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 DONALD & CATHERINE MEYER DAVID H SIEGEL MARTHA E MACMILLAN 485 PARK AV 4111 OAK ST C/O WAYCROSSE INC LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 15407 MCGINTRY RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 38 06-117-23 410017 38 06-117-23 410095 38 06-117-23 410108 DONALD L& CATHERINE A MEYER S M WELLMAN & H L WELLMAN B J L HEATON & R L HEATON 493 PARK AVE 4105 OAK ST 445 LINDEN AVE ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 DONALD L & CATHERINE A MEYER SCOTT M WELLMAN ROXANNE HEATON 485 PARK AVE HOLLY L WELLMAN 445 LINDEN AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 4105 OAK ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 410018 38 06-117-23 410096 38 06-117-23 410109 DONALD L & CATHERINE A MEYER B E PETERSON & M J PETERSON BRADLEY KADUE & EMILY KADUE 493 PARK AVE 4075 OAK ST 465 LINDEN AVE ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 DONALD L & CATHERINE A MEYER BRIAN E & MARNIE J PETERSON BRADLEY KADUE & EMILY KADUE 485 PARK AVE 4075 OAK ST 465 LINDEN AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 410040 38 06-117-23 410097 38 06-117-23 410110 LOIS M BREDAHL M S& R DOMBECK M D HUDDY & P T HUDDY 525 PARK LA 499 TONKAWA RD 4119 OAK ST ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 LOIS M FLANNERY MICHAEL S & ROWANNE DOMBECK MICHAEL D HUDDY 525 PARK LA 499 TONKAWA RD 4119 OAK ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 410060 38 06-117-23 410098 38 06-117-23 410111 M MACAULAY & A MACAULAY A O& V A HOLM K WERREMEYER & S WERREMEYER 4100 ELM ST 525 TONKAWA RD 480 LINDEN AVE ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 MARK MACAULAY ARNE O & VIRGINIA A HOLM KYLE WERREMEYER ASHLEY MACAULAY 525 TONKAWA RD SABRINA WERREMEYER 4100 ELM ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 480 LINDEN AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 410061 38 06-117-23 410099 38 06-117-23 410112 LORI ANN MELANDER LORI ANN MELANDER TODD E WOOD & TERI L WOOD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 550 PARK LA 480 PARK AVE ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 LORI ANN MELANDER LORI ANN MELANDER TODD E WOOD & TERI L WOOD 550 PARK LA 550 PARK LA 480 PARK AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 410064 38 06-117-23 410100 S M WELLMAN/HOLLY L WELLMAN J M POWELL & C L POWELL 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 458 LINDEN AVE ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55356 SCOTT M WELLMAN JOHN M POWELL HOLLY L WELLMAN CATHERINE L POWELL 4105 OAK ST 458 LINDEN AVE ORONO MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 06-117-23 410072 38 06-117-23 410103 G M ROSCOE & K M ROSCOE HPA BORROWER 2017-1 ML LLC 4030 ELM ST 4085 OAK ST ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 GEORGE M ROSCOE HPA BORROWER 2017-1 ML LLC 4030 ELM ST 180 N STETSON AVE #3650 LONG LAKE MN 55356 CHICAGO IL 60601 38 06-117-23 410092 38 06-117-23 410104 D L FRITZ & P E FRITZ ZACHARY C STALOCH 473 TONKAWA RD 4081 OAK ST ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 DAVID L FRITZ ZACHARY C STALOCH 473 TONKAWA RD 4081 OAK ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases. Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property information available. The viewer should understand, however, that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties, either express or implied, or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 3/31/2018 4165 425 d 415 (88) 4119 107) 445 108) 458 I 455 Q> (100) (105) 7 465 (109) Q 567 (4s) 4 (es) . (los) 577 (48) 88) F 84 4055 583 (47) 594(84) 615 601 601 (48) (1) 605 (49)649 630 607 630 650 645 Buffer Size: 350 feet Map Comments: 493 Park Ave 0 60 120 240 ft I I I I I I I This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us d 4119 J (111) 480 y (112) 480 473(92) 110) 485 (16) 6 4 un' 4111 ( ivi a- 499 (97) 507 4105 r (93) (95) k S t 4085 (103) 520 525 (84) 4075) 537 550 4081 525 (102) C3 537 (61) (104) 5434081 (43) 410 SG �) z) 4030 (72)s 525 (98) F0 ) 559 (44) I m 5 t 584 520 567 (4s) 4 (es) . (los) 577 (48) 88) F 84 4055 583 (47) 594(84) 615 601 601 (48) (1) 605 (49)649 630 607 630 650 645 Buffer Size: 350 feet Map Comments: 493 Park Ave 0 60 120 240 ft I I I I I I I This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us Date Application Received: 04/17/18 Date Application Considered as Complete: 04/17/18 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 06/16/18 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 21 May 2018 Subject: #LA18-000040, Matthew & Angela Hopping, 95 Smith Avenue, Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit for grading over 500 cubic yards. Also as part of this plan the applicant is requesting City Council approval of a 2nd driveway access onto Smith Avenue to access a lower level garage. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the grading plan; the City Council will review the 2nd driveway request at the time of the CUP. Background The applicants are redeveloping the subject property and constructing a new residence. Their grading plan involves the import of approximately 250 cubic yards of soil with a total site disturbance balance of approximately 815 cubic yards. Grading and filling activities in excess of 500 cubic yards require a CUP. The new home is proposed to have an upper, main garage, as well as a lower garage to accommodate their desired number of vehicles on site. The RR -113 setbacks, existing site topography, proposed home and grading plan, and their need to accommodate access to the lower garage results in the request for both the conditional use permit (CUP) for grading and the second driveway onto Smith Avenue. LOT ANALYSIS Section 78-420 - Setbacks: RR -1B Required Proposed Front 50' 50' Rear 50' 51' North Side 30' 30' South Side 30' 80' iection78- 420 - Lot Area/Width: RR -1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200' Actual 30,770 s.f. (0.70 acre) 200' FILE #LA18-000040 21 May 2018 Page 2 of 4 Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 30,770 s.f. (0.70 acre) Allowed: 6,154 s.f. (20%) Proposed: 3,984 s.f. (12.9%) Applicable Regulations: Second Driveway Approach (Section 18-136 (a)) The property is situated along Smith Avenue; the applicants have proposed a second driveway access to accommodate a lower level secondary garage. According to City Code Section 18-136 (a) one driveway approach is permitted per property. In addition to the CUP, the City Council will need to grant approval to allow a 2nd driveway approach. This requirement is not within the zoning code therefore a public hearing for this type of "variance" is not necessary; the City Council shall consider the second driveway request when the CUP is reviewed. Conditional Use Permit (Section 78-91 The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; the intent for the proposed grading is residential in nature, is consistent with the permitted uses for the Property, and is compliant with the zoning code and comprehensive plan. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; the proposed grading is residential in nature which is consistent with the permitted uses for the Property. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; this statement is true. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; this statement is true. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; this statement is true. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; this criteria relates to whether the proposed grades resulting from the earth moment are appropriate and in character with the surrounding land and neighborhood. The re -grading of the Property will be more in conformance with the neighborhood and allow the new home to be constructed within the setbacks. Once completed, the grading will have no impact on surrounding lands. The grades, once vegetated and landscaped should not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; the proposed grades should not result in a negative impact to neighboring properties. 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; the proposed grading will allow for a garage entry on the main level and to accommodate a lower level garage which is not out of character for the neighborhood. It is likely adjacent properties will not be impacted. The site grading will be reviewed and FILE #LA18-000040 21 May 2018 Page 3 of 4 monitored closely by the City's engineer to assure that all existing drainage patterns are maintained and adjacent properties are not adversely impacted. 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; This standard requires that the proposed grading and improvements must not substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the properties in the area or have an adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses. The result of the proposed grading will not change the intended residential use of the Property so there should be no change in the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties resulting from the export of fill materials. However, importing the fill and active grading of the Property may have a temporary adverse impact on neighbors. The grading work on the Property as well as the construction of the proposed home could result in additional noise, dust, vibration and traffic on the haul routes and immediate neighbors. To the degree possible, negative impacts should be limited and mitigated. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; the finished grade will be vegetated and landscaped; it should blend into the Property and the neighboring properties. The project, once completed, should not result in undesirable views requiring mitigation. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; see #9 above. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; the applicants shall be required to keep debris off of the public roadways. The noise resulting from the trucks hauling and equipment moving the material in and around the site should be minimized to the extent possible. The grading and construction project will be monitored by the City Engineer and planning staff so as to minimize nuisances during the project. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; This standard requires that the project be designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact. The long term effect of the project should result in minimal environmental impacts. The project will be monitored by the City, and MCWD to prevent erosion from the site. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; There should be no lighting or glare resulting from the grading project; and 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. The applicants will be required to keep debris off of the public roadways. The noise resulting from the trucks hauling and equipment moving the material in and around the site should be minimized to the extent possible. The grading project will be monitored by the City Engineer and planning staff so as to minimize nuisances during the project. A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally, a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are FILE #LA18-000040 21 May 2018 Page 4 of 4 observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. Conditional Use Permit Analysis The applicant is proposing to change the nature of the property to support a new home. The proposed housing style is more in keeping with the immediate neighborhood. To accomplish the desired home (and the tuck under garage), the grade must be adjusted with fill in the area between the house and the road on the northeast side. The proposed home will have a first floor garage elevated above the current grades by approximately 7 feet; the lower level garage floor will be set within a foot or so of the existing grade. Engineer Comments The City Engineer's comments are attached as Exhibit F. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the CUP, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose additional conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested CUP? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following conditions: 1. City engineer and watershed district shall approve the erosion control plan. 2. The street swept daily, or as needed, to keep debris off of Smith Avenue. 3. The applicant must conform to the City's and MCWD's erosion control regulations. 4. Only clean fill to be imported to the site. 5. Conformance with the City Engineer's requirements at the time of the building permit. 6. Hauling shall occur during allowed construction hours only Monday through Friday 7 am to 8 pm (and between 8 am and 8 pm on weekends and holidays). 7. Contractor shall post a contact number and be able to respond to complaints in a timely fashion. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Summary Exhibit B. Applicants' Narrative Exhibit C. Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed House Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Proposed Retaining Wall Plans Exhibit F. City Engineer Comments Exhibit G. Property Owners List Exhibit H. Plat Map Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 04/17/2018 Address: 95 SMITH AVE WAYZATA, MN 55391 Parcel Number: 0211723210031 Land Use Number: LA 18-000040 Application Submitted By: Property Owner Owner: Name: Matthew E & Angela K Hopping Address: 95 SMITH AVE WAYZATA, MN 55391 Applicant: Name: Matthew & Angela Hopping Address: 95 SMITH AVE WAYZATA, MN 55391 Contact Information: Associated Contact: Mimi Wrob Associated Contact: Paul Schimnowski Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: CUP grading over 500 cubic yards Land Use Application Type: Conditional Use Permit Applicant Signature: Narrative for 95 Smith Ave. Orono Angela & Matt Hopping Matt and I propose to remove the existing house at 95 Smith Ave. and build a new house. The new house is a walkout rambler with above and below garage space. The design of the new house will require two items to be approved by the City of Orono. First item is to have is the cut / fill calculation over the 501 cubic yard allowance approved. The second item is to allow two curb cuts to our property. Our new house design has a fill calculation over the allowed amount by the City of Orono of 501 cubic yards. The footprint of the existing home is not within the required setbacks for building on this lot, therefore the existing footprint of the home needs to be filled in and will make up the majority of the fill being brought into this lot. The new house will be located behind the existing home location. Secondly, we are requesting two curb cuts to allow for the upper and lower garages to both have driveway access. The combination of the proposed driveways is not possible due to the grade changes in Smith Ave. and the proposed house layout. The maximum driveway slope allowed is 10% and the lot depth and setback distances restrict a driveway combination. We feel the two curb cuts will not disrupt the uniformity of the neighborhood since there are already three houses within one block of our property that have two curb cuts each. The address' are 45 Smith Ave., 125 Smith Ave. & 1290 Lyman Ave. With the elevation difference between the two driveways we will have a retaining wall on the north side of the lower driveway. The engineered drawings are part of our submittal for this conditional use permit. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 61, except the southwesterly 15 feet thereof, and Lot 62, ORONO OCHARDS, Hennepin County, Minnesota. SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS: 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed above. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish to be included on the survey have been shown. 2. Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary for the survey. 3. Setting survey markers or verifying existing survey markers to establish the corners of the property. 4. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. We have also provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the survey when determining other elevations for use on this site or before beginning construction. 5. It should be noted that this survey was done under snow and ice conditions and that all improvements may or may not have been shown correctly. While we did our best to locate all improvements under the snow and ice, we can't be sure that all improvements were shown. Please look over the survey to be sure everything you need shown is shown correctly. 6. This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current title commitment. There may be existing easements or other encumbrances that would be revealed by a current title commitment. Therefore, this survey does not purport to show any easements or encumbrances other than the ones shown hereon. 7. Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, are taken from the siding and or stucco of the building. 8. While we show a proposed location for this home or addition, we are not as familiar with your proposed plans as you, your architect, or the builder are. Review our proposed location of the improvements and proposed yard grades carefully to verify that they match your plans before construction begins. Also, we are not as familiar with local codes and minimum requirements as the local building and zoning officials in this community are. Be sure to show this survey to said officials, or any other officials that may have jurisdiction over the proposed improvements and obtain their approvals before beginning construction or planning improvements to the property. 9. While we show the building setback lines per the City of Orono web site, we suggest you show this survey to the appropriate city officials to be sure that the setback lines are shown correctly. Do this BEFORE you use this survey to design anything for this site. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: "0" Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted. GRADING & EROSION CONTROL NOTES: BEFORE DEMOLITION AND GRADING BEGIN • Install silt fence/bio roll around the perimeter of the construction area. • Sediment control measures must remain in place until final stabilization has been established and then shall be removed. Sediment controls may be removed to accommodate short term construction activity but must be replaced before the next rain. • A temporary rock construction entrance shall be established at each access point to the site and a 6 inch layer of 1 to 2 inch rock extending at least 50 feet from the street into the site and shall be underlain with permeable geotextile fabric. The entrance shall be maintained during construction by top dressing or washing to prevent tracking or flow of sediments onto public streets, walks or alleys. Potential entrances that are not so protected shall be closed by fencing to prevent unprotected exit from the site. • Contractor shall install inlet protection on all existing storm sewer inlets in accordance with the city standard details. Inlet protection shall also be provided on all proposed storm sewer inlets immediately following construction of the inlet. Inlet protection must be installed in a manner that will not impound water for extended periods of time or in a manner that presents a hazard to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. DURING CONSTRUCTION: • When dirt stockpiles have been created, a double row of silt fence shall be placed to prevent escape of sediment laden runoff and if the piles or other disturbed areas are to remain in place for more than 14 days, they shall be seeded with Minnesota Department of Transportation Seed Mixture 22-111 at 100 lb/acre followed by covering with spray mulch. • A dumpster shall be placed on the site for prompt disposal of construction debris. These dumpsters shall be serviced regularly to prevent overflowing and blowing onto adjacent properties. Disposal of solid wastes from the site shall in accordance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements. • A separate container shall be placed for disposal of hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes shall be disposed of in accordance with MPCA requirements. • Concrete truck washout shall be in the plastic lined ditch and dispose of washings as solid waste. • Sediment control devices shall be regularly inspected and after major rainfall events and shall be cleaned and repaired as necessary to provide downstream protection. • Streets and other public ways shall be inspected daily and if litter or soils has been deposited it shall promptly be removed. • If necessary, vehicles, that have mud on their wheels, shall be cleaned before exiting the site in the rock entrance areas. • Moisture shall be applied to disturbed areas to control dust as needed. • Portable toilet facilities shall be placed on site for use by workers and shall be properly maintained. • If it becomes necessary to pump the excavation during construction, pump discharge shall be into the stockpile areas so that the double silt fence around these areas can filter the water before it leaves the site. • Temporary erosion control shall be installed no later than 14 days after the site is first disturbed and shall consist of broadcast seeding with Minnesota Department of Transportation Seed Mixture 22-111 at 100 lb/acre followed by covering with spray mulch. • Erosion control measures shown on the erosion control plan are the absolute minimum. The contractor shall install temporary earth dikes, sediment traps or basins and additional silt fencing as deemed necessary to control erosion. SITE WORK COMPLETION: • When final grading has been completed but before placement of seed or sod an as built" survey shall be done per City of Orono requirements to insure that grading was properly done. • When any remedial grading has been completed, sod or seeding shall be completed including any erosion control blankets for steep areas. • When turf is established, silt fence and inlet protection and other erosion control devices shall be disposed of and adjacent streets, alleys and walks shall be cleaned as needed to deliver a site that is erosion resistant and clean. • Contractor shall maintain positive drainage of a minimum 2% slope away from proposed building. X 990•? X 9896 x,990------ 990.0 -__ '\\� \ PROPOSED ELEVA TIONS X g89 9 I FIRST FLOOR (SUB -FLOOR) = 991.40 1 - - -99° - - � TOP OF FOUNDA TION = 989.6 7 X 990.3 I I BASEMENT FLOOR = 981.00 I \ \ I \ - \ � 9890 UPPER GARAGE FLOOR = 989.21 INSTALL SILT LOWER GARAGE FLOOR = 979.54 988.7 \ ; FENCE/B/0 ROLL Fo° 12" » 14" \ \ \ 099016" X 9$\9.4X 987.6 \ I \ \ 6- 991.1 0991. \ vlj � 09918 9915X 9 \ � �"�� 10" 987.1 1 1 Q1-- INSTALL ROCK CONSTRUCTION \ \ \ 099 .7 \ \ \ X 985.5 , ENTRANCE PER NOTES \ 0991.3 6„ \� 9 , \ \ 6" \ 12" �i' 92.1 \ , \8 88.3 ( X 984.8 ' 993.4 , 9 2.1 \ \ � 0993.2 �\ QV f^'+� 0991.6 SF S I � / \ 0� .1 \� 995.0 9Qr 2. 8 \ 9g4, ��? i 14 , n9 v v \ h, -9v \ 6" 9 ` \ � x 982 �s r-- INSTALL SILT 14 \ 129,941 '� 12" \ 0991.5 `< j6 \\` W 983. i 1_ ' FENCE/5/0 ROLL X �5 \ 12" ,' -0990.0 �4" % 91. \ 981.7 ----/ X89 ��,� 6���� CCS „ 10» ( 991.1 \V A \ ,' - ' - - T - THE COMBINA TION OF PROPOSED DRI AEWA YS s \" 979 2 x I IS NOT POSSIBLE DUE TO GRADE CHANGES IN \� o SMITH A VENUE AND PROPOSED HOUSE X30" \ eta 8 09382 �\ , \0990 3 . 8 \ \ \ \ \ 098s.� / \ \ \\ ' ^0988.1 \ 10„ 9B5 \ \ \ \ 9� ��, �� LAYOUT. THE CITY MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY SLOPE \ AND LOT DEPTH/SETBACK DISTANCES ,3B" � � 6„ vvv 10"�09894�� � -18.0__ ���\\A i`1+•�` 92�'�^oa� � OF TRIC T DRI M/NAT/N. 989.6 LSO ES CSD E COB 0 098 \ 6"\8.1 \ / \ \ \ \\✓ / ^ X 989 6 9B6 \ \ 978 4 \ r \ \ \ \ ` - 979. \ \ 0985.4 \ �� 6 \ \ X( 989• \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ SETBACK-�____ - X85 �,K r,s 9 .1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ LINE (TYP)� �- - 9 4 10 - ► 6» \\\\\ 9�R `-PROPOSED X 9 978 i \ INSTALL ROCK CONSTRUCTION 8 84 7 Bey Op 98% ENTRANCE PER NOTES \ \ \ 367 - -iwf �\/ a b X977 ��� 71 \-y82\\� 113 - 98 ^ > �i�' - -�� \ _ �- g0 , 3 3 \ \ \ \\ �&79,1_ `�0 0 \ �� o -,6,37 1� Q\ s 9rn �� 97 A 6l 8.8 8"� �6\886'7\,'6„ �/ - - _ ! ��0 \ ti 3.9 �� \ 9 i�, 97:9t�r- - �Qo 76.4 'S'��'7C,h \ \ \ +,.�' \ 9 5 ep 975.2 9'e 8" 9797 �� 982.1 .1 Q \ . 9 0 997: �brr X76 9�s s \�74 7\ \ \ \ ;� " 98u 9 �� 82 2 �-9,f h0 �' �c 7 7 Sok 97 2 x 975 2 l � 96' .7 V 0" \ \ 9781 i 981.3 16, 2. �� , CD 7,� Y % 0 " 9 1.9 Q On + �97� Oh�r DR��W A �` s s 97s.4 2 0'' \ 0 cy ORIVEWAY�, �. � 6n a �, Q" �� \�Sy4' \9 809 8 ` �QIV 8.5 X 9768PROPOSED 0 X \ V v V vs� \ E97 �,,' e x 77.4 V 01 6 \ \ \� \ \ may\\ \ \ �f,�„�974 � h1y' 9,90 �s� \ \, \ \ � INSTALL SIL T- .i9B9.2t�r \ \ \ \ \ \ FENCE/BIO ROLL9'9 - - - - - _ DWELLING T9.4b�r \ /1 s'c� / �` 9,3.2 x A.984.8t 0 X 979.3 X ` '1'c 0 0 9�9.Ob�r \ x 97- 14- 7 \ 9�s�8 \ \\ �.0 ,'��` �� i 18" 79.4�fi�� \ \ \ i i� 09764 �fi� I\ 12 9 \ \ \ \ y 6'o PROPOSED JV _ _ / \ �\ f' / -INSTALL SILT h `' ' ,� QO / ^� / � / FENCE/B/O ROLL \ X 9794 \ �� V A �.' efly X 9797.9� C)� / ' ywd9 2 ,' �\ , . 978.8 INSTALL SILT- 18' FENCE/B/O ROLL I �?�' ��\ X 979.1 I s� X 979.410 s ao l S� '' 0`i 78.6 10,F` 9 0979, \ /) <--- \ \ X 978.1 17� i \ 9)9 foo \\ EXISTING CONTOUR - - - 9 80 - EXISTING SPOT LLEV,4.rI01V X 980.5 EXISTING HARDCOVER PROPOSED HARDCOVER PROPOSED CONTOUR 960 House 2,281 Sq. Ft. House 3,536 Sq. Ft. Driveway 435 Sq. Ft. Driveways 3,367 Sq. Ft. PROPOSLIJ SPOT L7 EV4TIONf 980.5 Porch 183 Sq. Ft. Front Porch 224 Sq. Ft. Concrete Surfaces 458 Sq. Ft. Rear Screen Porch 224 Sq. Ft. Retaining Walls 64 Sq. Ft. Walk 111 Sq. Ft. P_RAINAGLI ARR0#r - FLOK Shed 85 Sq. Ft. Retaining Walls 50 Sq. Ft. SILT FLNCL/BIO ROLL SF TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 3,506 Sq. Ft. TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 75512 Sq. Ft. AREA OF LOT 30,770 Sq. Ft. AREA OF LOT 30,770 Sq. Ft. TRLL' RLr110DAL 0 DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION 4/17/18 REMOVED PROP. DECK & ADDED DRIVE DIMENSIONS PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 11.40 DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE N SCALE - 1" = 20' 0 20' 40' PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 24.4% CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESS ANGIE HOPPING 95 SMITH A VENUE ORONO, MN Advance Surveying & Engineering, Co. 17917 Highway 7 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 Phone (952) 474-7964 Web: www.advsur.com I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSION AL_E�GINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNES2TA. / /1 , L- I.,CIVor- IVl/. APRIL 13, 2018 DATE DATE SURVEYED: JANUARY 29, 2018 I SHEET TITLE SURVEYED BY ADVANCED SURVEYING. & ENG., CO. DATE DRAFTED: APRIL 13, 2018 PROPOSED SURVEY DRAWING NUMBER 180158 JR SHEET SIZE 22 X 34 CUCCT Kir) S1 SHEET 1 OF 1 LEFT ELE VA TION SCALE: 1/8"- 1 ' KCF HOMF PF516N, INC, HA5 MAPS EVERY FFFOI:T F05503� rO fOPWVIPF A CCW,CT Sff OF WOI?KIN6 Pl AWINGS, THS CONTI'ZACTOP/ NOME OWNF1? MUST VF JKY & CNFCK ALS NOTFS, 17FrAL5, & RAWINGS & NOrIFY KCF HOMF b�51GN OF ANY �FFOS 010, OMISSIONS 13ff01?� CONSTRUCTION, KCI' NOME 12�5I6N A55UW5 NO F,E:5FON51131UITI�5 FOF, 5TI?UCTUM OI? PWN510NAL �10,I'Op5 Of: OM15510N5, NO WA RANM5 E XFFZF55 OF, IMFLIEV INCLUPING COMPIIANC� OF THIS DUAN WITH AFFI CVLU PUU 21NG COPF 1?�QUIRWM NT5 AF,� MAP�XC�F-r TH05F IN W2111NG 51CMP PY THE MAK�p, IL me 13OX our 6A3�F5 6'' WITH (3f?ACKFr5 LF SNAKE 51PIN6 UNPFFI IN 6A6L�5 A5 13OMP & PATTEN SHOWN 51PIN6 104L rojlANlL\ I?OOF V�NrS A5 ,�Q' n 12 �8 ASPNALr 5KNGL�S 8'' LP LAP 51121 NG BA CK ELE VA TION SCALE: 118"- 1 ' FALSU ropWI? 3 30 X 30 5rA, WI NPOWS PAINT IN5112F GI -A55 OPAQUE 8" LP LAP 51171NG A5 5HOWN u �I� F- I Soll MWERM Me KCP HOME DESIGN, INC. 7516 77TH STREET 952-474-4152 CHASKA, MN 55318 CELL: 612-419-7896 e mail: kcpdesignOq. com MIN, 4" NIGH NOUS NUMI3�F,5 FRONT ELE VA TION SCALE: 1/4"-1 ' CULTUI2�17 SrON� V�N�W W-1 P`i N ca - 6 tL 8" LP LAP 51f71N6 RIGHT ELE VA TION SCALE: 1/8"=1' A,UMINUM 5OFFIr ANb FASCIA 6'' VIM 13OAQ25 Ar COPN�125 & AP,OUNP 17001?5 & WIN12OWS 8" LF LAP 511'2IN6 A'OUN12 FEOM�1�p A5 SHOWN 1'I?FLIMINAI?Y PLANS FOf,131b5 ONLY NOr FOP, CON511?UCrION MA TT & ANGIE HOPPING COPYRIGHT C2018 STREET ADDRESS DATE 95 SWITH AVENUE 3-14-18 kapdesign CITY, STATE REVISED ORONO, AIN 4-17-18 SHEET DEVELOPMENT SQ. PT. ORONO OCHARDS ' OP PLAN NUMBER LOT61-INLOCIC COUNTY: HENNEPIN D4953 INDEX OF SHEETS SHEET NO. TITLE W1 COVER SHEET/DESIGN INFORMATION W2 WALL ELEVATION VIEW(S) W3 SECTIONS AND DETAILS DESIGN PARAMETERS AND PROVISIONS DESIGN PROVISIONS: 1. REFER TO BOULDER RETAINING WALL INDUSTRY STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS AS THEY ARE INTEGRAL TO THIS PLAN 2. THE DESIGN OF THIS RETAINING WALL SYSTEM WAS BASED UPON THE EFFECTIVE STRENGTH PARAMETERS SHOWN ON THE "SOIL VALUES" TABLE. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, NO FORMAL SOIL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. IF SOIL CONDITIONS VARY AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, WALL ENGINEER MUST BE CONTACTED TO DETERMINE IF A REVISED DESIGN IS NEEDED. 3. THE WALL DESIGN WAS BASED ON THE INFORMATION NOTED IN THE KEY PLAN. 4. REFER TO WALL CALCULATIONS FOR BEARING CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS. 5. NO PRODUCT/MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CRITERIUM-SCHIMNOWSKI ENGINEERS. 6. FINAL SITE GRADES AND ROOF DRAINS SHALL DIRECT RUNOFF AWAY FROM ANY RETAINING WALL(S). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE WALL(S) HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNED FOR HYDROSTATIC SURCHARGE LOADING. 7. THE WALL DESIGN WAS PERFORMED USING DESIGN GUIDELINES PRESENTED IN THE THIRD EDITION OF THE "DESIGN MANUAL FOR SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS" PUBLISHED BY NCMA. DESIGN LIMITATIONS: 1. THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WITHIN THESE DOCUMENTS IS FOR THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL(S) ONLY. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AND/OR WORK RELATED TO HANDRAILS, GUARDRAILS, OR OTHER LIFE/SAFETY ISSUES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THESE DOCUMENTS AND ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. SITE LAYOUT AND GRADING DESIGN ARE NOT INCLUDED IN WALL DESIGN SERVICES. THOSE SERVICE ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE CIVIL ENGINEER. 3. INTERNAL COMPOUND STABILITY (ICS) HAS BEEN CALCULATED FOR THIS PROJECT BY CRITERIUM. HOWEVER, ICS IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSIS WHICH SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION MAY BE REQUIRED. SUGGESTED QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: 1. A QUALIFIED ENGINEER OR TECHNICIAN SHALL SUPERVISE THE WALL CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY SITE SOIL CONDITIONS. IF THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DOES NOT PERFORM THIS WORK, A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER/TECHNICIAN SHALL BE HIRED TO ASSURE THE RETAINING WALL IS CONSTRUCTED WITH PROPER SOIL PARAMETERS. 2. A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL BE CONSULTED TO VERIFY THE SUITABILITY OF DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS MADE BY CRITERIUM. 3. WALL EXCAVATION AND SOILS SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE PROVISIONS TO BE INCORORATED INTO THE WALL DESIGN. 4. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL BE HIRED TO PERFORM A PRE -CONSTRUCTION SITE VISIT. 5. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER CAN BE HIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SERVICES. 6. THE WALL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING QUALITY CONTROL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. SEE PROJECT CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR SPECIFIC DETAILS ON THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WILL BE PROVIDED BY ALL PARTIES. PLANS CREATED BY: PREPARED FOR: CRITERIUM-SCHIMNOWSKI ANGELA HOPPING ENGINEERS 95 SMITH AVENUE 161 DUNBAR WAY PHONE: 651.779.7700 ORONO, MINNESOTA MAHTOMEDI, MN 55115 FAX: 651.779.7114 pschimno@criterium-schimno,ki.com PHONE: 612-366-2987 RETAINING WALL DRAWINGS FOR 95 SMITH AVENUE ORONO, MINNESOTA ESTIMATED PROJECT QUANTITIES BOULDERS*j 447 SQ. FT. 72 LIN. FT. STRUCTURAL BOULDERS GEO-GRID* 151 SQ. FT. - - - MIRAFI 3XT OR EQUAL *ACTUAL QUANTITIES MAY VARY. RETAINING WALL LAYOUT KEY PLAN (NOT TO SCALE - REFER TO PROJECT PLANS FOR ACTUAL LOCATION) DRIVEWAY HOUSE BOULDER RETAINING x: WALL KEY PLAN BASED ON THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: WALL LAYOUT INFORMATION ON A SITE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY DATED JANUARY 29, 2018. PROJECT NAME LDR nc 95 SMITH AVENUE COVER SHEET/LE: DESIGN AWN BY:PROJECT LOCATION INFORMATIONm_ ORONO, MINNESOTA DOCUMENT ISSUE RECORD ISSUE DATE DESCRIPTION #1 4-16-2018 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS #2 5-6-2018 REVISIONS PER CITY OF ORONO (4-27-2018) TYPICAL ANGLES OF INTERNAL FRICTION & UNIT WEIGHTS OF SOILS FRICTION ANGLE UNIT WEIGHT TYPE OF SOIL* (DEGREES) (lb/ft-3) COARSE TO MEDIUM SAND 37-42 140 FINE/SILTY SAND 33-40 130 CLAYEY SAND 28-35 130 SILT/CLAY 25-32 120 *REFER TO THE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. SOIL VALUES USED IN THE DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT FRICTION ANGLE UNIT WEIGHT TYPE OF SOIL (DEGREES) (lb/ft-3) REINFORCED BACKFILL 30 125 RETAINED BACKFILL 30 125 FOUNDATION SOIL 30 125 IMPORTANT: WALL CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT WALL ENGINEER PRIOR TO BLOCK PLACEMENT. Yi]1 OF 3 1 hereby certify that this plan, spec,ficat,cn, or report was CC�� prepared by me or under my direct supersevision, and that I AS NOTED am a duly Licensed Professorial Engineer under the laws of the. State of Minnesota. PDS ^ 5/6/2018 Signature: llliil p 1 O Typed or Printed Name: Paul D. Schiennowski 18-3189 Date: --L /2018 Reg. No. 40126 SSCYI Or CERTIFICATION BLOCK ...:................................................... ........ START OF WALL END:OF WALL ABUT HOUSE ................................................................................................................................................ TOP OF WALL . = 989.2. 890..................................................................................................................... TOP OF WALL, F = 984.8. TOP OF WALL ............................... I..... .-983.0.......................................................... z T OP OF WALL 880 - . .- -. . - . . . . -.7 . .-. -.. . = . . . ..- . . .. -. . . . . .. . . ... 977:7 . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . ... ... . . ... . . ... . . . . . . ... . . ... . . . a GEOGRID LENGTHS GEOGRID LENGTHS COURSES' AT 10' L ON 2-3 COURSES AT T LONG EACH RADE @FRONT GRADE @ FRONT GRADE @ FRONT . AS SHOWN = 977.2 870 = 979.4. = 979:0. GRADE @FRONT BOTTOM OF WALL . .................. 9978*.0'7612* BOTTOM BOTTOM OF WALL BOTTOM OF WALL - = 978.4. . = 978.0. . . � FEET BOTTOM OF WALL = 977.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 WALL ELEVATION 1 PERPENDICULAR VIEW FROM LOW SIDE OF WALL BOULDER WALL RETAINING WALL SCALE: I " = 10-0" ................................................................................................................... WALL INOTES: 1. NO SURCHARGE LOADING BEHIND WALL. 2. SOIL REINFORCEMENT REQUIRED. USE MIRAFI 3XT OR EQUIVALENT 3. WALL QUANTITY = 447 SQUARE FEET 4. GEO-GRID QUANTITY = 151 SQUARE YARDS 5. MAINTAIN MINIMUM GRADE COVER AT FRONT FACE OF WALL AS SHOWN. ................................................................................................................... 6. SLOPE AT FRONT OF WALL NOT TO EXCEED 10:1 SLOPE AT BACK OF WALL NOT TO EXCEED 3:1 7. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY GRADES W/ GRADING, DRAINAGE, & EROSION CONTROL PLANS/CONDITIONS. ................................................................................................................... NOTIFY ENGR. IN WRITING OF ANY DISCREPANCIES. 8. GRADES ARE LINEAR BETWEEN DEFINED POINTS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 9. SEE SITE LAYOUT DRAWINGS FOR ACTUAL CURVE RADIUS AND LAYOUT INFORMATION. SCALE: I " = 10'-0" PLANS CREATED BY: PREPARED FOR: PROJECT NAME SHEET: W2 OF 3 hereby certify that th's plan, spec,ficat,cn, or report was prepared by me or under my detect supervision, and that I CRITERIUM-SCHIMNOW SKI ANGELA HOPPING 9 S SMITH AVENUE C� SCALE: AS NOTED a duly Licensed Professonal Engineer under the laws of the the.5tatc of Minnesota. WALL ENGINEERS 95 SMITH AVENUEDRAWNBY: ELEVATION(S) PDS 161 DUNBAR WAY PHONE: 651.779.7700 ORONO, MINNESOTA PROJECT LOCATION DATE: 51612018 Signature: MAHTOMEDI, MN 55115 FAX: 651.779.7114 PHONE: 612-366-2987 ORONO MINNESOTA Paul D. Schinnwki Typed or Printed Name: Pschimno@criterium-schhnnowski.com PRODNO. p 1 O 18-3189 Date: 5/6/2018 Reg. No. 40126 REVISION BLOCK NUMBER OF BOULDER COURSES WILL VARY AS NEEDED TOP BOULDERS, TYP. (12" TO 18" BOULDERS ALLOWED FOR FINAL GF ADJUSTMENTS) f2' THICK MIN. DRAINAGE AGGREGATE MID—LEVEL BOULDERS, TYP. SEE BOULDER SIZE SCHEDULE FOR MORE INFORMATION BASE BOULDERS — HEAVY WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC BEHIND BOULDERS WALL EMBEDMENT = 12' MIN. SOIL VALUES USED IN THE DESIGN OF THIS PROJECT TYPE OF SOIL FRICTION ANGLE UNIT WEIGHT (DEGREES) (Ib/ft-3) STRUCTURAL BACKFILL 30 125 RETAINED BACKFILL 30 125 FOUNDATION SOIL 30 125 CROSS SECTION DESIGN BASED ON INFORMATION LISTED IN COVER LETTER. GE❑SYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT SEE PROFILE DRAWINGS FOR LENGTH, TYPE, AND SPACING WALL BACKFILL COMPACTED 95% OF MAXIMUM STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY rl UNDISTURBED �I —r—I 4" DIA. DRAIN PIPE SOIL OUTLET ® END OF WALL OR ® 40' CENTERS MAX GRANULAR LEVELING PAD, OPTIONAL REQUIRED BEARING CAPACITY = 2500 PSF TYPICAL SECTION — BOULDER RETAINING WALL (HEIGHT VARIES) SCALE: NONE SCHEDULE OF BOULDER REQUIRED SIZES EXPOSED WALL BOULDER DEPTH, HEIGHT MIN. 4' 28' 5' 32' 6' 36' 7' 38' 8' 42' 9' 44' 10' 48' FENCE DESIGN BY OTHERS. X DIMENSION BE DETERMINE POST DETAIL FENCE POST OR HANDRAIL POST MIN. CONCRETE BASE USE CONCRETE TUBE FORM TYPICAL HANDRAIL AND/OR FENCE POST SCALE: NONE PLANS CREATED BY: CRITERIUM—SCHIMNOWSKI ENGINEERS 161 DUNBAR WAY PHONE: 651.779.7700 MAHTOMEDI, MN 55115 FAX: 651.779.7114 p. schimno@criterium-sehimnowski.com PREPARED FOR: ANGELA HOPPING 95 SMITH AVENUE ORONO, MINNESOTA PHONE:612-366-2987 PROJECT NAME 9S SMITH AVENUE SECTIONS & DETAILS W3 OF 3 ' heYebyDrury that ",s plan, epco,ficati°n, or report was prepared by — or under my direct supervision, and that I a,natat `l'msedPr°fess°"aE"9'neer°"'der theaws°` the state °f M;�nes��a. - s, nat°re: e —� Paul D. Sc 40126 ski Typed °r Panted Name. 5/6/2018 40126 Date: Reg. No. sC"�: AS NOTED DRAWN 6Y PDS PROJECT LOCATION ORONO MINNESOTA OTA � oATe: 5�6-20I8 PROJ. NO. O ��11 8-3 18 q REVISION BLOCK RUN DATE: 04/18/2018 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) 38 02-117-23 210001 38 02-117-23 210028 S A MELBERG & C W MELBERG THOMAS C HUNT 1290 LYMAN AVE 140 SMITH AVE ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 STEVEN A/CAROLINE W MELBERG THOMAS C HUNT 1290 LYMAN AVE 140 SMITH AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 210002 T J BONNETT/A B BONNETT 40 SMITH AVE ORONO MN 55391 THEODORE J BONNETT ALLISON B BONNETT 40 SMITH AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 210003 ROBERT MILLER 60 SMITH AVE ORONO MN 55391 ROBERT MILLER 60 SMITH AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 21 0004 N O BLACKWELL & R BLACKWELL 80 SMITH AVE ORONO MN 55391 NATALIE O BLACKWELL RYAN BLACKWELL 80 SMITH AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 210016 THOMAS F MILLER 115 SMITH AVE ORONO MN 55391 THOMAS F MILLER 115 SMITH AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 210017 D C QUINN & S QUINN 125 SMITH AVE ORONO MN 55391 STACEY C & DAVID C QUINN 125 SMITH AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 210018 R K JOHNSON/E JOHNSON ET AL 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 KRISTA FRAGOLA 145 SMITH AVE ORONO MN 55391 38 02-117-23 210019 R K JOHNSON/E JOHNSON ET AL 145 SMITH AVE ORONO MN 55391 KRISTA FRAGOLA 145 SMITH AVE ORONO MN 55391 38 02-117-23 210022 RYAN L WEBER 110 ORONO ORCHARD RD S ORONO MN 55391 RYAN L WEBER 110 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 210026 JAMES A FISK TRUSTEE 110 SMITH AVE ORONO MN 55391 JAMES A FISK 110 SMITH AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 210031 M E HOPPING & A K HOPPING 95 SMITH AVE ORONO MN 55391 MATTHEW E HOPPING ANGELA K HOPPING 95 SMITH AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 210032 P S GOSHGARIAN ET AL 100 ORONO ORCHARD RD S ORONO MN 55391 PETER S GOSHGARIAN AMY GOSHGARIAN 100 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 210033 CHRIS SANKEY 120 ORONO ORCHARD RD S ORONO MN 55391 CHRIS SANKEY 120 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 210037 D E & C M WHITELEY 60 ORONO ORCHARD RD S ORONO MN 55391 D WHITELEY/C MYERS-WHITELEY 60 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 22 0005 VILLAGE OF ORONO 265 ORONO ORCHARD RD S ORONO MN 55391 CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 02-117-23 22 0009 T BONNETT & A BONNETT 45 SMITH AVE ORONO MN 55391 THEODORE BONNETT ALLISON BONNETT 45 SMITH AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 PAGE: I APR 1 72018 CITY OF ORONO Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases. Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property information available. The viewer should understand, however, that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties, either express or implied, or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. REGUVVD APR 1 / 2018 CITY OF ORONO From: Adam Edwards To: Melanie Curtis Subject: RE: #LA18-000040 / 95 Smith Ave Date: Monday, May 14, 2018 2:07:27 PM Looks fine From: Melanie Curtis Sent: Monday, May 07, 2018 9:20 AM To: Adam Edwards <aedwards@ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: FW: #LA18-000040 / 95 Smith Ave Adam Can you please take a look at this (attached) revised plan? This is for the PC meeting on May 21St but really for the subsequent building permit per your comments. Thanks. Melanie Curtis 9952.249.4627 �mcurtis(-Oci.orono.mn.us From: Angela Hopping [mailto:ahol2ping(@Iive.com] Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2018 10:31 PM To: Melanie Curtis <MCurtis(@ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: Re: #LA18-000040 / 95 Smith Ave Melanie, I have received the attached plan from the engineer drawing the retaining wall. Please let me know if there is anything else I am missing. I am still working on getting someone to stand in for us on May 21st, due to my Father's funeral. I will let you know as soon as I have someone. Sincerely, Angie Hopping Sent from Outlook From: Melanie Curtis <MCurtis(@ci.orono.mn.us> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 9:28 AM To: 'Angela Hopping' Cc:'Mimi Wrob';'Information' Subject: FW: #LA18-000040 / 95 Smith Ave Angela Please see the comments below from Adam Edwards. Please address #2 as noted. Thank you. Melanie Curtis 2952.249.4627 �mcurtis@)dorono.mn.us From: Adam Edwards Sent: Friday, April 27, 2018 11:12 AM To: Melanie Curtis <MCurtis(@ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: RE: #LA18-000040 / 95 Smith Ave Melanie, I've reviewed the subject grading plan and retaining wall design and offer the following comments: The plan calls for a second driveway serving the home when city code 18-136. The City council will need to approve a variance from the code. The second curb cut appears to be driven by a desire for a two story garage and the grading required to create it. The retaining wall design elevation 1 should but updated to reflect the elevations from the grading plan prior to submission for the building permit. Adam From: Melanie Curtis Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 9:05 AM To: Adam Edwards <aedwards(@ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: #LA18-000040 / 95 Smith Ave Adam Please review the attached information for a CUP for land alteration in excess of 500 cubic yards for the property at 95 Smith Avenue. The purpose for the project is construction of a new home on the property. One question — how come the retaining wall plans don't reflect the actual MSL elevations of the property corresponding with the survey (see sheet 2)? Also, please note they are requesting a 2nd driveway access on to Smith Avenue. Please provide grading review comments and comments regarding the driveway request by or before Monday, May 7th Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Melanie Curtis, Planner Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 4/18/2018 20 40 30 O 0 60 (37) O O c, 100 'Q rm s� (2) 60 (3) 80 (4) 110 (22) 115 (16) 1280 (14) a� 110 \ 125 ttD 120 (a3) 14 120 (181 It9) 145 265 Buffer Size: 350 feet Map Comments: 1290 (') Lyman A 129 iIVr&Pl= 140 1410 160 180 (10) 190 0 60 120 240 ft I i i i I)) i I This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind, and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us Date Application Received: April 18, 2018 Date Application Considered as Complete: May 3, 2018 60 -Day Review Period Expires: July 2, 2018 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner LLO Date: May 21, 2018 Subject: #LA18-000043, LDK Builders o/b/o Thomas Bergstrom, 1509 Long Lake Blvd, Variances, Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting rear and side yard setback, lot area and lot width variances in order to build a new home that will be located 17.9 feet from the rear property line and 10.3 feet from the west property line. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. Background The applicant plans to demolish the existing home. The existing home is located within the 75 foot lakeyard setback and within the 50 foot rear yard setback. The proposed new home will conform to the 75 foot lakeyard, average lake setbacks, and permissions afforded to non- conforming structures. Due to contours and steepness of the lot, they are requesting a rear and side yard setback variances to allow them to be 17.9 feet from the rear (street) property line instead of the standard 50 feet and 10.3 side yard setback where a 11.6 setback is required. This lot is unique in for the LR -1A zoning district where the bend of the shoreline creates a curved 75 feet lakeyard setback which overlaps the 50 foot rear yard setback eliminating a conforming building envelope on the lot. A rear setback variance is requested, therefore lot area and lot width variances will also be needed due to the substandard area and width of the lot. The applicant is proposing to build a deck on the lake side of the property 63 feet from the OHWL. This will be within the footprint and volume of the existing home. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-305- Setbacks: DISTRICT LR -1A Required Existing Proposed Rear 50' 27' 17.9' Side (West) 11.6' 34' 10.3' Side (East) 11.6' 13' 18.8' Lakeshore 75' 54' 75' Home 63' Deck Average Lakeshore Not Met This is met. Section 305 - Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT LR -1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres) 200' FILE # LA18-000043 May 21, 2018 Page 2 of 5 Actual I 16,240s.f. (0.37 acre) 1 116' @ 75' 130' @ OHWL Section 78-1403- Structural Cover Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 16,240s.f. (0.37 acre) Allowed: 3,248 s.f. (20%) Proposed: 2074 s.f. (12.7%) Section 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Proposed Overlay District Existing Hardcover Zone Hardcover Hardcover Tier Roughly 4,060 s.f. 1,524 s.f. 3,054 s.f. Tier 1 16,240s.f 500 s.f. (25 ) 0 (9.38/) w/in 75' o (18.8 /) Applicable Regulations: Rear Setback Variance (78-305) There is a 50 foot rear setback required for this lot. The applicant is proposing to construct a new home 17.9 feet from the rear yard lot line. Side Setback Variance (78-305 There is a 11.6 foot side setback required for this lot due to the substandard width of the lot at the 75 foot setback. The applicant is proposing to construct a new home 10.3 feet from the west side yard lot line. Lot Width Variance (Section 78-305) Zoning Code Section 78-72 provides options for the redevelopment of lots which do not meet the minimum area or width requirements for the respective zoning district. Substandard properties within the Shoreland Overlay District, like the subject lot, are able to be redeveloped without variances if specific standards are met; such as: 1. All setback requirements can be met. 2. A Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, can be installed or the lot is connected to a public sewer; and 3. The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square footage restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of hardcover does not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot area. 4. All other zoning district standards can be met. The applicant's need for a side rear setback variance results in the property's inability to conform to #1 above. Therefore, a lot width and area variance is also required in order to develop the property. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and FILE # LA18-000043 May 21, 2018 Page 3 of 5 anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The lot width and lot area variances requested are consistent with the general intent of the Ordinance. The rear and side yard setback variances are in harmony with the purpose of the ordinance. The lot includes challenges with topography and the curved right of way and shoreline eliminating the building envelope of the property. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a permit for construction of a single family residence in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of the home on the substandard lot, in the proposed location within the rear yard setback seems reasonable as the property is steepness and to protect the 75 foot lakeyard setback. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The sub -standard size of the Property was not the result of actions by the landowner. The location of the home with attached garage on the Property, the steepness of the lot, the curve of the shoreline, the narrowness and shallow depth of the buildable area of the property create difficulties for developing the Property and C. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The lot area and width variances will not alter the character of the neighborhood. It does not appear that the setback variances to permit the new home will adversely impact the adjacent property owners. The neighboring parcel has a home much closer to the road than it proposed. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. FILE # LA18-000043 May 21, 2018 Page 4 of 5 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a single family home is an allowed use in the LR -1A District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The lack of a building envelope with the substandard lot, the curved shoreline and curved right-of-way along the rear property line and the steepness of the lot create a difficulties unique to the property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. Due to the steepness of the lot the home should be set closer to the road to create a manageable access. Moving the home further from the road creates a an encroachment in the lakeyard setback and would require much more grading closer to the lake. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Staff finds this condition to be true. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variances will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; nor will it be contrary to the intent of the Code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The substandard area and width of the Property; steepness of the lot, unique shoreline and the curved road long the rear property line create practical difficulties affecting the Property; the variances are necessary and do not merely serve as a convenience to the owner. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Staff finds that there are practical difficulties inherent to the lot area, width and setbacks. Staff has done a preliminary review of the height with the submitted document. The proposed house looks to meet the 30 foot height requirements with the draft plans submitted. The applicant is not requesting any variances pertaining to height and shows they can meet this requirement. Also, the applicant is not proposing to add any stairs for lake access. Staff asked for clarification with the applicant and they have noted they are not proposing any lake access. The lot poses multiple challenges with steepness on the lot, the curved road, and shoreline eliminates a building envelope. Engineer Comments The applicant will need to address how water will be managed so it will not direct water to any FILE # LA18-000043 May 21, 2018 Page 5 of 5 neighboring properties. This can be addressed in the grading plan. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Commissioners should review the proposed setback variances and may wish to ask the applicant to speak to the practical difficulties on the lot. 2. Given the analysis above, the commission could question the development of a smaller home, better meeting the setback requirements. 3. Commissioners may want ask the applicant about lake access or any future plans to add lake access because of the steepness of the lot. 4. Commission may wish to speak to the applicant about the proposed deck in the 75 foot lakeyard, within the area presently occupied by the home. 5. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 6. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff finds the requested variances to be reasonable. Planning staff recommends approval. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Site Photos Exhibit G. Property Owners List Letter View Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 04/18/2018 Address: 1509 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Parcel Number: 3511823220003 Land Use Number: LA18-000043 Application Submitted By: Builder Name: THOMAS C BERGSTROM Owner: Address: KATHRYN A BERGSTROM 1509 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Applicant: Name: Scott Koppengrayer Contact Information: Associated Contact: Tom Bergstrom Associated Contact: Mark Gronberg Associated Contact: Bruce Lehrer Associated Contact: Greg Kuperus Project Description: New home Land Use Application Type: Variance Application Applicant Signature: file:///or-mail/... 0%233992%20thru/LA18-000043(1509%20Long%20Lake)%20Var/Land%20Use%20Application%20Summary%20(7).htm[5/16/2018 9:24:52 AM] Letter View PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA18-000043 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: Home owner will be using as a primary family home exclusively for their family enjoyment 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The lot shape does not allow for a 75' lake setback as well as a 50' rear yard (road side setback at the same time. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: the home being built will follow building code heights, impervious surface, side set backs and follow the majority of the current grades 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: The only reason for the variance is for the homeowner to construct a very typical sq. footage new construction home that will fit in today's new home market . very common 4 bedroom above grade two story home. S. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1167.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: na 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: Land owners application for variance does not require any special uses. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: na 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: Properties on either side of home in question are both newly built in past 5 years and both required similar variance. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: No other special building conditions are required. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a file:///or-mail/... %20thru/LA18-000043(1509%20Long%20Lake)%20Var/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(5).htm[5/16/2018 9:25:42 AM] Letter View substantial property right of the applicant. Response: Due to current lake and rear yard setbacks variance is required to allow for structure to be built. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Response: Yes, the granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair chealth, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: Variance is required due to current setbacks to be able to construct a typical single family home. file:///or-mail/ ... %20thru/LA18-000043(1509%20Long%20Lake)%20Var/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(5).htm[5/16/2018 9:25:42 AM] CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR THOMAS BERGSTROM IN LOTS 21 & 22, ALBEE'S LONG LAKE ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA CID LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES Lot 22, and the East half of Lot 21, ALBEE' S LONG LAKE ADDITION /X denotes iron marker found (908.3) denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum (985 2) 0 917-- denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum MH .0 V % 0 Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. 0 This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of an existing house, driveway, spot elevations, topography and the lakesides of the two adjoining houses thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. q% NC� P ED SILT SED6� 6 .1W=q9.0 '3 .01 W=97 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS oil (verify) EXISTING 0\ 1) Garage HOUSE #1525 (E) 2) Top of foundation PROPIOED T 79 5� DR�VEWA 3) Basement e� W: W 4:5 981.0 � DECK PROPOS D &L.Ackr RETAININT ROAD, AY WALL (F) W=9972.78.9. =. \�2.0 W g 10 C) 3\5 OOP PROPOSED-, Ln tm .5 H �E\ 0 N 4.5 # 15M 9 1 Cq 1 ..... ......... (A) 97 .............. (980.7) c6 76 0 12.5. MH Z5............... L6 18.0 97 DECK 972.1 ........... ®\ 97 FLOOR POS LEVEL= \ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ �\SILT ENGEM PR D L (971.6) 972.9} ..... .............. EXI IN CONC. DRIVE SE # 509 '�q, SETgAC� LINE GARAGE \t \ \ \ gym` \ \�\ \\ \ \ X X S� o URVEY LINE N EXISTING HOUSE #1505 944.3 CONTOUR'NOTE: THE LAKESIDE DOES NOT LINE (O.H.W.) LONQUALIFY AS A BLUFF SINCE THE U AREA ONLY RISES 22 FROM THE 948 CONTOUR TO THE 970 CONTOUR LAKE 18096REVISED.SCJ 1 4-17-18 JADDITIONAL INFORMATION, REVISED HOUSE 1 4-23-18 JADDITIONAL NOTES 1 5-2-18 IREVISED PROPOSED DRIVEWAY I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, '-,and that I am a duty Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ,.Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota Licenseumber 12755_ SCALE 1 Fr=20' CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR THOMAS BERGSTROM IN LOTS 21 & 22, ALBEE S LONG LAKE ADDITION I HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES ( Lot 22, and the East half of Lot 21, ALBEE' S LONG LAKE ADDITION lR_ • : denotes iron marker found / , (9o8.3) : denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum 28, ,V(� 15 42 / (02> / --- 917-- : denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum I off; Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. I `•=�. '�. y This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, the location of an existing house, driveway, spot elevations, topography and the lakesides of the two adjoining houses thereon. \ ` ` It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. s \c go PROPOSED ELEVATIONS (verify) EXISTING I r- / �y � , �\ 1) Garage HOUSE #1525 I \ t %\(E� ,• �{ �S\ 2) Top of foundation I rw-9�ss1 OR EWA •. / 3) Basement I W- 4.5' \ II Llai () <111\ \DECKi PROPOWALLRETAMMa•� ..\ `\\ \\.0 \� 6 WALK;: \\ ,,� ROADW�— �2.0 \ ew_arLi �••. `• I I \ \\ \ \ c) 4�' 6O PROPOSED\\\ \\H E\ \Llai. \1509. \ \ \ (A) \ ..T ............. i \0.7\ \ �\ ` .i _......�...; E ,so \:0,A-3) �.T ens ..•...\ XISLISNI DFWE us NE GARAGE N-:\ \ 9z (\\ \•(\7 \\ \ �SURVEY \\\\\\\\\ \ \C \ -LINE \\ N -- \ \\ \ \ \ \ \M EXISTING HOUSE \ \\\ \ \ #1505 944.3 CONTOLR""' LME (O.H.W ) LONG \\\\ \\\\\ \ \ \ \ LAKE '9- A :`, \ \ \\ 41 \\ \ 1 (a \ I \ I 18098REV6M= NOTE: THE LAKESIDE DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A BLUFF SINCE THE AREA ONLY RISES 22' FROM THE 948 CONTOUR TO THE 970 CONTOUR DATE DESCRIPTION -- -- G R 0 N $ERG AND I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report SCALE 4 -W -1e ADDITMAL WOMATUR F"SFD IMSE was prepored by me, or under my direct supervision, 1"=20' 4-23-+a ADDna"A` ND,6 ASSOCIATES, INC. and thai I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under 5-2-15 REVISED PROPOSED DPIVEWAv the laws of the State of Minnesota. DATE CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND 3-30-18 SURVEYORS, & SITE PLANNERS 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE JOB NO. LONG LAKE, MN. 5535618-096 952-473-4141 Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755 18-096 L' NSW KE51PEN�E rQK T911 AMD K6THKTN DCKQJTKQM APR z4, 2018 REVIEW ser 1509 Long Lake E3VD, Orono, MN S I T W K E ~ V E T V I E W E; C A L E; 1/ AL50 4 5 = 1- AL50 CALLED FRONT VIEW FOR THESE PLANS M 5/4 x N � J 5/4 x 0 X 6 CONTINUOUS ?E SHOWN REVILION5 FROM: xxxx 5EE ROOF FLAN, SHEET 2, FOR ALL ROOF DITCHES 52UAKt t94TAGt 5AHMENT FIN, TOTAL 1135 MAIN FLOOR 5,E. TOTAL 1276 UPPER FLOOR 5,F, TOTAL 1712 TOTAL FIN AREA ; 4125 5.E, L I A W K E ~ V I E W 5 C A L E; 1/ 4" - 1 - 0 AL50 CALLED REAR VIEW 5 4 x 6 VNO I V=U W W U - ~ Z E m _ 1U a� Q� L V=U Cie'N L Q� L N U •• E 4- a� L Z�. W 5 cv 0 M Q w) W a� o J W L x V �U_ c� D000 oc oC 0 m 0.- M f �0, r - H W W 2 cri L•J `Q W W od O CleW X W 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 L E : 21-0 11 4 " = 1 - Q '' 8 7 9 7 �m MEN v MEN m MEMO MEN m mma"m MEN m v MEN m monv MEN"" VN K O I W G M Z T S 1 D E 5 C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 - Q '' A5 VIEWED FROM THE STREET 8 7 9 7 �m MEN v MEN m MEMO MEN m mma"m MEN m v MEN m monv MEN"" VN L O W W U - ~ Z E m _ 1U \ Q� L V=0 O Cie •• N } Q� L N O V •• ZQ E 4- \ L. H Z�. O W 5 cv cle 0 M <� Q w) W a� o J W L x V �U- c� Dcoo oc oC 0 m 0.- M ©M 2 D J O �o ZQ N L \ H Q O LLJ NJ J YJ 2 <� V1 N o 3-6/4-0 FX 3-6/4-0 FX 2-2x10 1 2 2-2x10 4 5 1'-6" 7 r CANT 6 Z U 7 7 G O Q p of LU w r� a0 = 'L W M W " � W �. >� o W Q = U CA . LU L 0 X 3-6/4-0 FX 2-2x10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 181-011 AT SHEATHING 3 UNITS: 4-6/6-0 FX 2-9.511 LVL 2-9.5" LVL 3-9.5" LVL 1 II 1 II I II I II -0 4•-1 1/2 �jI�4 -9 '-----------r'r---------------------`-- 9" RAISED, BEAMED CEILING DE51bN BY BUILDER ; r -----J L ------------------J L- _--- ----------- -----------' Ca w� GREAT ROOKI FIREPLACE Luq) tS TV, DE51GN �� WOOD BY BUILDER \� N ----------------- - ---- `-----------------� r-------------------, r---�------------ .-------------------I-'L " '-------"-------J-"'-----'---'---'--- 4'-4" CANTED FLUSH ..................3ir...::.........: BEAM 1-7 2 UNITS: 4-6/6-0 FX 2-9.5 L5 ±3'-8 11/16' BEAM MEETS WALL N 2 UNITS 12" AT LOWER LANDING: 3-0/5-0 FX 10'-0" AT SHEATHING 55'-0" 12'-6" AT SHEATHING 10'-611 61-011 AT SHEATHING AT SHEATHING AT SHEATHING 14 X 12-6 DECK 8x8 PATIO DOOR 3-9.5" LVL 0 ------------------- 211 + 3 UNITS: 0 4-0/6-0 FX w j 2- 9.5" L V L _' 0 5" RAISED CLQ%yO cq D.tNING R0O.M(: °� cq s ' p WOOD N C96 Go (S)LU JU� U o q) O m�.: Z0 3'-9" �LL ..: o .................. . .................... o I' 1:::-:. ---- --8x4-6 J N .� FLUSH BEAM ISLAND_ 1:::: iL OPEN TO �(ON A 45° ANGLE) 2-4 ABOVE FLU5H BEAM _ KITCHEN 31-6 1/211 WOOD RECESS III \ - FRIDGE DN OVENS COOKTOP/HOOD \ --- - 0 -- -- U 0 0: ::.:::::L ---- LU H EA II J I .0::.::: ......... :::::.. RAILINGS a o r13EC,NH I a v HgOK5 III i 5-2x6 POST FOYER III N 4'-6" I 4'-611 AT SHEATHING „ t/4" F � � 6&PA 6X6 TREATED P05T i— 5/4 X 12 AZEK MATERIAL MITER CORNERS Stoop Column MAIN FLOOR PLAN * 1278 S.F. SCALE: 1/4" = 11-011 q I 07 d\ o 0 03 � N �LL N O I N 61-011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I I I 8-011 I 13-611 I AT SHEATHING I I I I I 9-0x8-0 O.H. DR. i 2-12" LVL -----------, I ------------------------- GENERAL NOTE!5: ----------------------------------------------------------- TH15 FLOOR HAS A 9'-1 1/8" WALL HEIGHT, INCLUDING GARAGE, WINDOW BRAND TO BE PELLA (51ZE5 NOTED IN FEET/INCHES) ALL WINDOW HEADS TO BE 95 1/8" A.F.F. UNLE55 OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL INTERIOR DOORS AT CORNERS TO BE 4 1/2" (3 STUDS) MIN FROM CORNER UNLE55 OTHER WISE INDICATED BY NOTE OR 51TE CONDITION. ALL INTERIOR DOORS TO BE 8' HIGH EXCEPT A5 NOTED. ALL DIMEN5ION5 TAKEN FROM EXTERIOR WALLS ARE TO THE FACE OF SHEATHING. BRACE WALL FRAMING AS PER BRACE WALL PLAN (BY OTHERS) ALL EXPOSED WOOD TO BE TREATED OR EQUAL, VERIFY LOCATION OF EXTERIOR SPIGOTS. ALL ROOF TRU55E5, FLOOR TRU55E5, GIRDER TRU55E5, STRUCTURAL RIMS, 13EAM5 AND HEADERS TO BE DESIGNED BY SUPPLIERS' ENGINEERS. ALL CABINETRY DETAILS AS PER BUILDER. 61-611 I 51-611 41-611 31-611 AT SH ATHING 3-6/4-6 FX 2-2x10 X11 6., OFFICE I\ WOOD 4 ��6% DESK 6'-8 3/4" 5'-6 1 16" L 0 W In V - ~ Z E i ��m11 V L 0 G � Z� � 1,III LU I , C4 � M W " � W W o CA . LU L 0 X 0 4► 0 LL 0 I..r� 00 0 0 m 01, M a 4'-6" I 4'-611 AT SHEATHING „ t/4" F � � 6&PA 6X6 TREATED P05T i— 5/4 X 12 AZEK MATERIAL MITER CORNERS Stoop Column MAIN FLOOR PLAN * 1278 S.F. SCALE: 1/4" = 11-011 q I 07 d\ o 0 03 � N �LL N O I N 61-011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I I I 8-011 I 13-611 I AT SHEATHING I I I I I 9-0x8-0 O.H. DR. i 2-12" LVL -----------, I ------------------------- GENERAL NOTE!5: ----------------------------------------------------------- TH15 FLOOR HAS A 9'-1 1/8" WALL HEIGHT, INCLUDING GARAGE, WINDOW BRAND TO BE PELLA (51ZE5 NOTED IN FEET/INCHES) ALL WINDOW HEADS TO BE 95 1/8" A.F.F. UNLE55 OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL INTERIOR DOORS AT CORNERS TO BE 4 1/2" (3 STUDS) MIN FROM CORNER UNLE55 OTHER WISE INDICATED BY NOTE OR 51TE CONDITION. ALL INTERIOR DOORS TO BE 8' HIGH EXCEPT A5 NOTED. ALL DIMEN5ION5 TAKEN FROM EXTERIOR WALLS ARE TO THE FACE OF SHEATHING. BRACE WALL FRAMING AS PER BRACE WALL PLAN (BY OTHERS) ALL EXPOSED WOOD TO BE TREATED OR EQUAL, VERIFY LOCATION OF EXTERIOR SPIGOTS. ALL ROOF TRU55E5, FLOOR TRU55E5, GIRDER TRU55E5, STRUCTURAL RIMS, 13EAM5 AND HEADERS TO BE DESIGNED BY SUPPLIERS' ENGINEERS. ALL CABINETRY DETAILS AS PER BUILDER. 61-611 I 51-611 41-611 31-611 AT SH ATHING 3-6/4-6 FX 2-2x10 X11 6., OFFICE I\ WOOD 4 ��6% DESK 6'-8 3/4" 5'-6 1 16" 2-6/5-0 C5MT 2-2x10 :::60B IES Mud Room COATS 3 -0 20 MIN DRWIRE R$5 2'-2x10 , -- - -- -----J 4-0/2-0 FX D WOO5TEP5 HD = OH DR. 71_Q11 0 LULU CO J 17'-6" � o a-- L � N LINE OF 2ND FLOOR •------ --------------------------------------------------------- POSTING POSTING- ; _ ROOF GIRDER _ FX 3 CAP GARAGE HDO/2OH DR. FIN15H GARAGE INTERIOR: 5/811 TYPE 1X1 CEILING 5HEETROCK WALLS: 1/2" WALL SHEETROCK, R-21 FIBERGLA55 INSULATION IN _2x6 GARAGE EXTERIOR WALLS, W/ r 4 MIL POLY V.B. AND R-50 BLOWN I CEILING INSULATION (R-30 WHERE I I 2ND FLOOR ABOVE) I FLOOR: POURED CONCRETE FLOOR SLOPED TOWARDS O.H. DOORS WHERE PRECAST: OVER RUBBER MEMBRANE OVER PRECAST PLANKS, DETAILS I BY SUPPLIER I I I I I 16-0x8-0 O.H. DR, 2-12" LVL EDE 101-011 I 101-011 1. 121-011 I 201-01' _ AT SHEATHING AT SHEATHING N I A N I I 0 _z Q w H N l� z o LU Q 4, 13 8 a VN L 0 W In V - ~ Z E i ��m11 V L 0 G � Z� � 1,III LU I , C4 2-6/5-0 C5MT 2-2x10 :::60B IES Mud Room COATS 3 -0 20 MIN DRWIRE R$5 2'-2x10 , -- - -- -----J 4-0/2-0 FX D WOO5TEP5 HD = OH DR. 71_Q11 0 LULU CO J 17'-6" � o a-- L � N LINE OF 2ND FLOOR •------ --------------------------------------------------------- POSTING POSTING- ; _ ROOF GIRDER _ FX 3 CAP GARAGE HDO/2OH DR. FIN15H GARAGE INTERIOR: 5/811 TYPE 1X1 CEILING 5HEETROCK WALLS: 1/2" WALL SHEETROCK, R-21 FIBERGLA55 INSULATION IN _2x6 GARAGE EXTERIOR WALLS, W/ r 4 MIL POLY V.B. AND R-50 BLOWN I CEILING INSULATION (R-30 WHERE I I 2ND FLOOR ABOVE) I FLOOR: POURED CONCRETE FLOOR SLOPED TOWARDS O.H. DOORS WHERE PRECAST: OVER RUBBER MEMBRANE OVER PRECAST PLANKS, DETAILS I BY SUPPLIER I I I I I 16-0x8-0 O.H. DR, 2-12" LVL EDE 101-011 I 101-011 1. 121-011 I 201-01' _ AT SHEATHING AT SHEATHING N I A N I I 0 _z Q w H N l� z o LU Q 4, 13 8 a VN L 0 W In V - ~ Z E } ��m11 V Q� L V=° O fie •• N } Q� L N O V •• Z 2N E } L 0 � � Z� S0 LU I , C4 � M W " � W W o CA en o LU L 0 X V 4► 0 LL 0 I..r� 00 0 0 m 01, M a L O m J U. W W J Q ao O �O Z 2N � � O W W W " � W CA en o 11-011 11 -^II — — — — • ► • - / -•- N HED FLO( T$6 0.5 )R, WITH 3, GLUE 4 =LOOK JO HED FLO( T$6 0.5 )R, WITH 3, GLUE 4 =LOOK JO n 25+ YEAR FIBERGLASS ROOF SHINGLES FASTEN TO ROOF A5 PER CODES, OVER 15# FELT UNDERLAYMENT WITH ICE $ WATERSHIELD FROM OVERHANG UP ROOF 24" BEYOND FACE OF EXT, STUDS, WITH STYLE "D" DRIP EDGE WITH AIR CHUTES EACH TRU55 BAY. INSTALL WINDWASH, WITH R-50 BLOWN ATTIC INSULATION OVER 4 MIL POLY V.B. AND 5/811 CEILING SHEETROCK 15/3211 0.5.8. ROOF SHEATHING WITH STEEL ROOF CLIPS ON MANUF. ROOF TRUSSES, WITH TIE DOWNS A5 PER CODES ALUM. 50FFIT $ FASCIA 2X6 SUB FASCIA WITH GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS —51DING ON WALLS (VERIFY BRAND 4: STYLE) OVER TYVEK TYPE HOUSE WRAP OVER 15/3211 O.53 WALL SHEATHING R-20 BATTS WITH 4 MIL POLY V,B, UNDER 1/211 SHEETROCK INTERIOR SURFACE. ALL BOTTOM PLATES, DOUBLE 5TUD5 $ OPEN 5EAM5 TO BE CAULKED. 11 THICK CLOSED ELL SPRAY FOAM JSULATION AT RU55 CAVITY RIM YPICAL 311 THICK CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAM INSULATION AT TRU55 CAVITY RIM TYPICAL 2X8 TREATED SILL PLATE OVER 51LL SEALER ANCHORED TO FOUNDATION WITH 1/211 A. BOLTS EMBEDDED 711 MIN. INTO FOUNDATION. FINISHED GRADE (FIELD DETERMINE) R-5 THERMAX "'c --COLOR EMBEDDED ACRYLIC INSULATION FOUNDATION PROTECTION WRAP AROUND THE COMPLETE PERIMETER WHERE RIGID 15 EXPOSED TO EXTERIOR INCL, THEATER, MECH RM, 1/2 BATH, STAIRWAY EXERCISE AND 3/4 BATH ATERPROOF MASTIC INF. CONC, 6 MIL POLY MIL POLY DN 611 SAND FROM TOP OF FOUNDATION SASE TO FOOTING �R-10 CERT15TUD FOUNDATION INSULATION CONC. FTGS, TYPICAL L O W � 5EE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR N 7 L E 0) DF8x20 EXCEPTION!5 Q L L. FORM -A -DRAIN A 7ENLARGED LLJ cv ALL DETAIL M W i SCALE: 111 = 11-011 N o o J VN L O W � U - N 7 L E 0) _ I0 Q Q� L V=0 W,^ Cie .. N } Q� L N W,^ V .. ZQ V E .X. 4- Q L L. H Z�. LLJ cv C J YJ M W i W) W N o o J W L V �u- c� D o /�/ Iii co 0 i O m 0.- M S01 A "N•%k�''% W W O .1Y W ' Vl S LAMO \\ ,I,IIII I I\\\\\ Q W a D J L m ►1. W,^ �o ZQ V N W L Q H ac W LL.= J YJ 2 W D J L m ►1. o �o ZQ N L � H ac W NJ J YJ 2 <� V1 N o City of Orono sono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: �5�, LANG e 41O. 60 r c 7-A C," t7'tfSNO'� Prepared by: Date: Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 1: STING HMi E In the following table items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width SurveyS Total uare Feet (Example) (Garage) (24'x 30' 720 S.F. A 4f - S.F. B S.F. C S.F. D S.F. E S.F. F S.F. G S.F. H S.F. I S.F. i S.F. K S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. 0 S.F. P S.F. Q C '1'r S.F. R S.F. S S.F. T S.F. U S.F. V S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. 1 Total E)dsbng Hardcover / 2 `1 S.F. Excludable Hardcover See City Code Sec 78-1664 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2 Total Excludable Hardcover p S.F. 3 Net Existing Hardcover Subtract line 2 from line 1 I Z S.F. 4 Total Lot Area IC 2 O S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)+(4)) �� ? % (Proposed Hardcover next page) This is an infomrahon packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contained herein; however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. Page 8of9 City of Orono �oNo Hardcover Calculation Worksheet _ Property Address: /Sop �tiC t;� KF 64z,'d (09rkCX7-ACm ) f�K SNO�tPrepared by: ,- Date: Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 2 ROPOSED HARDCOVE In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width -SurveyS Total uare Feet) (Example) Garaa 24' x 30' 720 S.F. A 7 S.F. B S.F. C S.F. D uJ c K to I S.F. E Tao S.F. F T S.F. G S.F. H S.F. I S.F. S.F. K S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. o S.F. P S.F. Q S.F. R S.F. S I S.F. T S.F. u S.F. V S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y I S.F. Z I I S.F. 1 Total Proposed Hardcover o S.F. Exclud" Hardcover See City Code Sec 78-1684 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2 Total Excludable Hardcover tVO S.F. 3 Net Proed Hardcover Subtract line 2 from line 1 cS S.F. 4 Total Lot Area 6 2 Yo S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [ (3) +(4)) /8,81% Subdivision Application - January 2016 This is an inform bon packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein; however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. Page 19 y g � a 38 26-118-23 33 0001 38 26-118-23 33 0020 ANITA L GARDNER KEITH J GASNER 1486 LONG LAKE BLVD JANET M BENWAY LONG LAKE MN 55356 884 DAKOTA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 26-118-23 33 0002 38 26-118-23 33 0021 TRYGVE BJORGEN THE WELLSWOOD GROUP LLC 1490 LONG LAKE BLVD 1444 BALDUR PARK RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 26-118-23 33 0004 38 26-118-23 33 0022 YURIY & MARYNA KOSOVAN SCOTT R & JULIE A KNUTSON 1516 LONG LAKE BLVD 908 DAKOTA AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 26-118-23 33 0005 38 26-118-23 33 0027 MICHAEL A STEWART ANITA & KEITH VANDENBRANDEN 1520 LONG LAKE BLVD 1480 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 26-118-23 33 0006 38 26-118-23 33 0029 GLEN J FLA14ERTY STEPHEN L NEWELL 400 EAST LAKE ST JOHN E NEWELL MINNEAPOLIS MN 55408 1485 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 26-118-23 33 0007 38 35-118-23 22 0001 RACHEL ANN CARPENTER KURTIS A GREENLEY 1540 LONG LAKE BLVD 1485 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 26-118-23 33 0008 38 35-118-23 22 0002 MICHAEL J FEY/STACHIA L FEY LINDA DRISCOLL TAMOSUINAS 1570 LONG LAKE BLVD 430 PLEASANT RIDGE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 26-118-23 33 0011 38 35-118-23 22 0003 CARL AWAIT & NATALIE AWAIT THOMAS C BERGSTROM 1575 LONG LAKE BLVD KATHRYN A BERGSTROM LONG LAKE MN 55356 1509 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 26-118-23 33 0012 38 35-118-23 22 0004 JAMES & CYNTHIA BIGHAM YUEHCHUAN KUNG 1545 LONG LAKE BLVD 1505 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 26-118-23 33 0014 38 35-118-23 22 0005 RABIH NAHAS KEITH & ANITA VANDENBRANDEN 1535 LONG LAKE BLVD 1480 LONG LAKE BLVD LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 35-118-23 22 0006 JOSEPH C CERNY JR INGER O CERNY 1405 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 21 May 2018 Subject: #LA18-000041, City of Orono Text Amendment: Gate Opacity Public Hearing Application Summary: The City is considering an ordinance that would remove the transparency requirement from the entrance gate regulation. Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission should consider the proposed change. Background Staff has been asked to review the regulations regarding entrance gates and the City's required 75% transparency minimum (no more than 25% opaque). Gates at driveways are permitted, but must meet certain conditions, including a five foot setback from all property lines when associated with entrance monuments. Gates and entrance monuments are permitted up to 8 feet in height. Fences are allowed up to 42 inches in height adjacent to the street, except in the yard abutting a County Highway on a lakeshore lot, where the maximum height is 6 feet. Fences may be privacy in nature (100% opaque). Originally, the opacity requirement seems to suggest a concern to prevent rows of 6-8 foot high privacy fences dominating the streetscape along Orono roadways; and to ensure the ability to see through the gate, and adjacent traffic when maneuvering through the gate area. The Planning Commission should discuss whether these concerns are still relevant, if not, a change is in order. After review of gate regulations in neighboring communities, where gates are regulated, the regulations are not consistent. The draft ordinance removes the requirement for transparency. Additionally, the draft ordinance proposes a formatting modification for gates to be permitted where entrance monuments do not exist. In these instances gates would not be permitted to extend higher than the permitted fence. Comments To date, no public comments have been received. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Exhibit B. City Code 78-1405 - Current Exhibit C. Neighboring Cities' Regulations ORDINANCE NO. , THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO GATES THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 78-1405 Nonencroachments shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-1405. - Nonencroachments. (a) The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard setback requirements: (9) Entrance monuments, defined for the purpose of this section as a nearly permanent physical structure or object, natural or artificial, used to depict an entrance to the property, erected in all residential zoning districts are considered non encroachments when they conform with the following standards: a. Each monument, with a maximum of two per approved driveway access, shall be limited to a single pillar with a footprint measuring no larger than 25 square feet and no length to exceed five feet; b. The monument must be setback a minimum of five feet from all property boundaries and never fewer than ten feet from the edge of the paved, traveled roadway; C. Plans and/or elevation views of the proposed monuments are required to be submitted for approval by the planning director; d. All signage proposed for the monuments must comply with section 78-1467; e. The monuments are limited to eight feet in height including any appurtenances. Any monument exceeding the maximum height must meet principal structure setback requirements; When more than one monument is proposed, and serving two or fewer residences, a minimum horizontal width of 16 feet is required between them; g. When more than one monument is proposed, and serving three or more residences, a minimum horizontal width of 22 feet is required between them; Lighting is allowed, in conformance with section 78-1573 and at the discretion of the planning director. i. A building permit is required for installation and the property corners must be located for inspection purposes. 10 Gates,-Fwhen a gate is proposed, must meet the following requirements must be met: a. 4-. The gate must open into the property not outward towards the right-of-way, and b. 2-. Gates serving two or fewer residences shall have a minimum horizontal width of 14 feet in the full open position, and c. 8- Gates serving three or more residences shall have a minimum horizontal width of 20 feet in the full open position, and d. 4. For all properties, gate height may not exceed the height of the monument, measured from grade, unless principal structure setbacks are met (if monuments are not proposed then gate height shall be regulated in accordance with the fence height regulations of section 78-1405(8), and e. 6-. For locked and/or secured gates a knox box, meeting the standards set forth by the police and fire department, must be provided for emergency access, and f. 7-. On major thoroughfares the monuments and gates must be located 40 feet from the paved, traveled road to allow for vehicle stacking. A major thoroughfare for the purposes of this section means any county road or state highway. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this day of , 2018 on a vote of _ ayes and _ nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of 2018. From: Dusty Finke To: Melanie Curtis Subject: RE: Entrance Gates Date: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 11:16:20 AM Hi Melanie, We do not regulate opacity of gates. They have to be out of the right-of-way and easements, but nothing about opacity. From: Melanie Curtis [mai Ito: MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 11:05 AM To: Dusty Finke <dusty.finke@medinamn.gov> Subject: Entrance Gates Hi Dusty Does Medina regulate the opacity/transparency level of entrance gates? Or can a resident install a completely opaque gate? Melanie Curtis, Planner Direct 952.249.4627 Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Email: mcurtis(a)ci.orono.mn.us Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us From: Nickolas Olson To: Melanie Curtis Subject: RE: Entrance Gates Date: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 11:50:37 AM Hello Melanie, Not that I am aware of. A gate would be covered in the fence regulations for which we don't regulate the material, only the height. Thanks Nickolas Olson City Planner I City of Minnetrista 7701 County Road 110W I Minnetrista, MN 55364 Phone: 952.446.1660 1 Direct: 952.241.2524 E -Mail: nolsonUci.minnetrista.mn.us Website: www.cityofminnetrista.com From: Melanie Curtis [mai Ito:MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 9:10 AM To:'dablel@ci.minnetrista.mn.us' <dablel@ci.minnetrista.mn.us>; Nickolas Olson <NOlson@ci.minnetrista.mn.us> Subject: Entrance Gates Good morning! Orono is considering a change to the currently required transparency level in entrance gates. Does Minnetrista regulate the opacity/transparency level of entrance gates? Or can a resident install a completely opaque privacy gate? Thanks! Melanie Curtis, Planner Direct 952.249.4627 Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Email: mcurtis(aa)ci.orono.mn.us Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us From: Sarah Smith To: Melanie Curtis Subject: RE: Entrance Gates Date: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 10:57:26 AM Good morning, Our regulations do not any regulations about entrance gates. If an inquiry came in, it would likely be reviewed related to the applicable regulations that apply (i.e. is a structure, a fence, etc.). If unknown we would likely use Board of Zoning Appeals review process which includes PC review/recommendation and CC action. To my knowledge, I do not believe we have any gated properties in Mound. Sarah S. From: Melanie Curtis [mailto:MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 10:53 AM To: Sarah Smith Subject: RE: Entrance Gates OK. Thanks for your reply! So a resident could have a gate over their driveway conforming with the fence regs? Melanie Curtis W952.249.4627 Mmcurtis(a0ci.orono.mmus From: Sarah Smith [mailto:sarahsmith@cityofmound.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 10:50 AM To: Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: RE: Entrance Gates Good morning, Thank you for your email message. We do not have any regulations specific to entrance gates. We do have fence height requirements within the front setback area(s) which is limited to four feet. Fences within the 50 foot lakeshore setback are limited to 3 feet and must have transparency similar to that of chain link. Feel free to call with any questions. Best regards, Sarah Smith Community Development Director City of Mound 2415 Wilshire Boulevard Mound, MN. 55364 Phone: (952) 472-0604 Fax: (952) 472-0620 Email: SarahsmithPcityofmound.com Mound City Hall is Operating on Its Seasonal Schedule As Follows: Monday through Thursday 7:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Friday 7:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. From: Melanie Curtis[mai Ito: MCurtis(a)ci.orono.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 9:09 AM To: Sarah Smith Subject: Entrance Gates Good morning, Sarah. Orono is considering a change to the currently required transparency level in entrance gates. Does Mound regulate the opacity/transparency level of entrance gates? Or can a resident install a completely opaque privacy gate? Thanks! Melanie Curtis, Planner Direct 952.249.4627 Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Email: mcurtis(a)ci.orono.mn.us Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us From: Pat Smith To: Melanie Curtis Subject: RE: Entrance gates Date: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 3:52:15 PM Hi Melanie, We don't have any opacity requirements for fences or gates. I know when I worked at Chaska, they had a minimum opacity of 50% for fences located in the front yards. Pat ratricL 5mitk, AJCP Planning Director City of Excelsior 339 Third Street Excelsior, MN 55331 Direct Phone — 952.653.3674 psmithC@excelsiormn.org * Please note Excelsior Office Hours are Monday — Thursday, 7:30 am — 5:30 pm, Closed on Fridays* From: Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 9:03 AM To: Pat Smith <psmith@excelsiormn.org> Subject: Entrance gates Good morning. Orono is considering a change to the currently required transparency level in entrance gates. Does Excelsior regulate the opacity/transparency level of entrance gates? Or can a resident install a completely opaque privacy gate? Thanks! Melanie Curtis, Planner Direct 952.249.4627 Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Email: mcurtis(cDci.orono.mn.us Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us General Regulations £t Important Information The finished side shall face abutting property or street right-of-way. Both sides of any fence or wall shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and appearance by its owner and shall not be allowed to become or remain in a condi- tion of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance. No physical damage of any kind shall occur to abutting property during installation, unless allowed under agreement with the adjacent property owner. Walls with a height of more than four feet shall be designed by an engineer and have a fence on top with a minimum height of three feet. A permit is required prior to erecting, altering or relocating any fence or wall (hedges and plantings are excluded). There is no charge for permits or fences not exceeding six feet in height or retaining walls not exceeding four feet in height. Fences shall not be constructed of chicken wire, welded wire, snow fence, branches, or materials originally intended for other purposes, unless approved by the Zoning Administrator. When constructing a fence consider: its function/purpose, the view from neighboring properties and how to maintain both sides. Placement The following fences are allowed in a front yard: • 48 inches or less in height with an opacity under 50 percent (e.g., wrought iron, chain link, split rail) • 36 inches or less in height with an opacity over 50 percent • 6 feet or less in height with an opacity up to 100 percent, provided the yard is considered an equivalent side or rear yard The following fences are allowed in a side or rear yard: • 6 feet or less in height with an opacity of up to 100 percent Fences constructed on comer lots or lots adjacent to railroad rights-of-way shall not be located in sight visibility triangles as set forth in Section 21105.05 of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance. A drawing of the proposed fence location on a survey or a scaled site plan is required. Retaining walls shall not be placed within any drainage or ponding easement, unless approved by the City Engineer. Definitions A fence is any partition, wall, hedge row, row(s) of continuous plantings, or gate erected as a dividing marker, visual or physical barrier, or enclosure. Fence height is the distance from the adjacent finished grade to the big. projection of a fence structure, not including support posts, provided that the support posts are no more than four inches above the fence structure. �te'�5� Planning Division (763) 509-5450 Building Division (763) 509-5430 planning@plymouthmn.gov inspections@plymouthmn.gov 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 From: Erica Henderson To: Melanie Curtis Cc: John Tinalev Subject: RE: Entrance Gates Date: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 10:44:26 AM Attachments: Section 1011.05 fences.odf Good morning Mclanie- I have attached the City's fence ordinance. What do you mean by entrance gate? The ordinance states that driveway entry gates are not permitted. There also is a section regarding visually -impairing elements. I have cc'ed John Tingley, the City Administrator, who will be better able to answer your question about opaqueness of a fence. Thank you -Erica T6rrvik, -.;;- Erica Henderson Administrative Assistant/ Deputy City Clerk City of Tonka Bay 4901 Manitou Rd Tonka Bay, MN 55331 952.474.7994 ehendersonacityoftonkabay. net www.cityoftonkabay.net PLEASE NOTE: City Hall is open 7:00am - 5:30pm, Monday -Thursday. From: Melanie Curtis [mai Ito:MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 9:04 AM To: Erica Henderson <ehenderson@cityoftonkabay.net> Subject: Entrance Gates Good morning, Erica. Orono is considering a change to the currently required transparency level in entrance gates. Does Tonka Bay regulate the opacity/transparency level of entrance gates? Or can a resident install a completely opaque privacy gate? Thanks! Melanie Curtis, Planner Direct 952.249.4627 Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 1011.05 FENCING/SCREENING. Subd. 1. Fence Regulations, General Standards. a. No person shall hereafter construct or cause to be constructed or erected within the City of Tonka Bay, any fence without first making an application for and securing a building permit. b. Each application for a permit under this section shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator on forms provided by the City. Each such application shall include a site plan drawn to scale showing the location of house(s), garage(s), and other improvements on the lot and the location of the fencing to be erected, altered or relocated. A certificate of survey shall be required for all fences. b. All fences within the City shall be subject to the following general provisions: No fences shall be placed on or extend into the public rights-of-way. 2. All fences shall be located entirely upon the property of the person constructing or causing the construction of such fence. 3. That side of any fence considered to be its "face" (i.e., the finished side having no structural supports) shall face abutting property. 4. Both sides of any fence shall be maintained in a condition of reasonable repair and appearance by its owner and shall not be allowed to become and remain in a condition of disrepair or danger, or constitute a nuisance, public or private. 5. Barbed wire, blade wire, and barbed top fences are only allowed in the City by conditional use permit. 0. No person shall construct or maintain or allow to be constructed or maintained anywhere within the City any above -grade electric fence. Z. Driveway entry gates (electric or manual) are prohibited. 8. All fences located in the front or side yard shall consist of materials comparable in grade and quality to the following: decorative masonry, wrought iron or wood, provided the surfaces are finished for exterior use, or wood of proven durability is used, such as cedar or redwood. 1. For the purpose of fence regulations, in the case of a corner lot, both yards abutting a street shall be considered a front yard. 2. For the purpose of fence regulations, in the case of a riparian (lakefront) lot, the yard abutting the lake shall be considered a front yard. 3. In no case shall any fence bordering upon any street or sidewalk be constructed to a height which could obstruct the clear vision of drivers or pedestrians entering or within the public right of way or at intersections. Subd. 2 - Single Family Residential Fence Standards a. Location. 1. No fence or wall shall be located closer than five (5) feet to the paved edge of a street. 2. No fence or wall shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to the Ordinary High Water Level of a lake. b. Height. The height of fences or walls shall be measured from the ground level to the top of the fence or wall. Fence height shall be restricted according to the location as follows 1. Riparian Lots. a) Front yard: Fences in the front (lakeside) yard between the shoreline and the greater of the building line of the house or fifty (50) feet, shall be no more than three (3) feet in height. Fences or walls located within the buildable area of the lot and at least fifty (50) feet from the shoreline may be up to six (6) feet in height. b) Side yards: six (6) feet maximum. C) Rear yard: four (4) feet maximum. For riparian lots whose rear yards face County Road 19 (Manitou Road) rear yard fences may be constructed to a maximum of six (6) feet. d) Visually -Impairing Elements (VIE), 1. No person shall cause to exist, or shall maintain, any Visually - Impairing Element which includes: a. An area consisting of five feet from a property line and within 50 feet of the ordinary high water level or b. The average setback of the two adjacent riparian principal structures on either side of a parcel. 2. All property owners within the City shall be required to, within these areas, maintain all privately -planted vegetation. VIE shall be restricted according to the location as follows: a) Front yard: VIE in the front (lakeside) yard between the shoreline and the greater of the building line of the house or fifty (50) feet, shall be no more than three (3) feet in height. VIE located within the buildable area of the lot and at least fifty (50) feet from the shoreline may be up to six (6) feet in height. b) Side yards: six (6) feet maximum. c) Rear yard: four (4) feet maximum. For riparian lots whose rear yards face County Road 19 (Manitou Road) rear yard VIE may be constructed to a maximum of six (6) feet. 3. Failure to comply with this section shall constitute a public nuisance pursuant to Tonka Bay City Code Section 1130 and Minn. Statute 609.74. 2. Non -Riparian Lots. a) Front yard: four (4) feet. b) Side yards: six (6) feet C) Rear yard: six (6) feet 3. Open wire fences not exceeding ten (10) feet in height enclosing tennis courts, pools, and similar uses, shall be permitted without restriction. C. Swimming Pool Fences. Outdoor swimming pool fences shall be required as follows: All outdoor swimming pools existing and hereafter constructed shall be completely enclosed by a security fence or wall at least four (4) feet but not more than six (6) feet high and located at least four (4) feet from the edge of a pool. The bottom of the fence or wall shall be no higher than four (4) inches above the surface of the ground. Fence openings or point of entry to the pool area shall be equipped with self-closing and self -latching lockable gates. 2. The enclosure for outdoor swimming pools may utilize a wall or walls of a house or building as a part hereof, provided the wall or walls are at least six (6) feet high and the enclosure is completed by a fence or wall conforming to the provisions of 1. herein above. 3. All persons owning or operating an outdoor swimming pool shall comply with this Ordinance within ninety (90) days from the date of publication of this Ordinance. 4. New swimming pools shall not be filled or used until all applicable fencing requirements herein are complied with. 5. This Ordinance does not apply to: a) Above -ground outdoor swimming pools having at least four (4) foot high, vertical or outward inclined side walls, provided sole access is by means of a removable ladder, ramp, or stairs which must be removed when the pool is not in use. b) Swimming pools which are wholly enclosed within a building or structure. Subd. 4. General Landscaping and Maintenance. All exposed ground areas surrounding or within a principal or accessory use, including street boulevards, and not devoted to parking areas, drives, sidewalks, patios or other such uses shall be landscaped with grass, shrubs, trees or other ornamental landscape materials within one (1) year following the date of building occupancy. All landscaped areas shall be kept neat, clean and uncluttered, and where a landscape plan is required by City approval any plant material which is diseased or dies shall be replaced with like kind of the original size. No landscaped area shall be used for the parking of vehicles or for the storage or display of materials, supplies or merchandise. Fences and/or plantings placed upon utility easements are subject to removal by the City or utility company if required for maintenance or improvement of the utility. Trees on utility easements containing overhead wires shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet in height, which it shall be the property owner's responsibility to maintain. Subd. 5. Required Fencing and Screening Multi -Family and Non -Residential Uses. a. Fencing and Screening. Where any townhouse, quadraminium, manor home, multiple family or non-residential use (i.e., structure, parking or storage) abuts property zoned for residential use, the higher density residential or the non-residential use shall provide screening along the boundary of the residential property. Screening shall also be provided where a non-residential use is across the street from a single family residential zone, but not on that side of a non-residential use considered to be the front (as determined by the Zoning Administrator). All the fencing and screening specifically required by this Ordinance shall be subject to Section 1011.05.5 and shall consist of either a fence or a green belt planting strip as provided for below. A green belt planting strip shall consist of evergreen trees and/or deciduous trees and plants and shall be of sufficient width and density to provide an effective visual screen. This planting strip shall be designed to provide complete visual screening to a minimum height of six (6) feet. Earth mounding or berms may be used but shall not be used to achieve more than three (3) feet of the required screen. The planting plan and type of plantings shall require the approval of the City Council. 2. A required screening fence shall be constructed of masonry, brick, wood or metal. The design and materials used in constructing a required screening fence shall be subject to the approval of the City Council. b. Fence Height: 1. Front yard: six (6) feet. 2. Side yard: six (6) feet. 3. Rear yard: six (6) feet. Subd. 6: Landscaping - New Residential Subdivisions. Semi -Public and All Income Producing Property Uses (excluding residential structures containing less than four (4) dwelling u1 nits.) 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. All plants must be at least equal the following minimum size: Potted/ Bare Root Balled/ Burlapped Shade Trees* 2" diameter 2" diameter Half Trees (Flowering Crabs, Russian Olive, Hawthorn, etc, 6-7" high 1-1.5" diameter Evergreen Trees --- 3-4' hi h Tall Shrubs and Hedge Material (Evergreen or Deciduous 3-4' high 3-4' high Low Shrubs — Deciduous 18-24" 24-30" Evergreen 18-24" potted 24-30" Spreading Evergreens 18-24" potted 18-24" Type and mode are dependent upon time of planting season, availability, and site conditions (soils, climate, ground water, manmade irrigation, grading, etc.) b. Spacing. 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 based on the judgement of the Zoning Administrator. 2. Where plant materials are planted in two or more rows, plantings shall be staggered in rows unless otherwise approved by the Zoning Administrator. 3. Where massing of plants or screening is intended, large deciduous shrubs shall 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. C. Design. 1. The landscape plan shall show site amenities (i.e., composition of plant materials, and/or creative grading, decorative lighting, exterior sculpture, etc.) which are largely intended for aesthetic purposes. 2. All areas within the property lines (or behind, if site grading extends beyond) shall be treated. All exterior areas not paved or designated as roads, parking, or storage must be planted into ornamental vegetation (lawns, ground covers, or shrubs) unless otherwise approved by the Zoning Administrator. 3. Turf slopes in excess of 2:1 are prohibited. 4. All ground areas under the building roof overhang must be treated with a decorative mulch and/or foundation planting. 5. All buildings must have an exterior water spigot to ensure that landscape maintenance can be accomplished. d. Landscape Guarantee. All new plants shall be guaranteed for two (2) full years 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. e. Existing Trees. With respect to existing trees in new developments, all trees on the site are to be saved which do not have to be removed for street, buildings, parking, utilities, drainage or active recreational purposes. Trees over six (6) inches in diameter that are to remain, are to be marked with a red band, and to be protected with snow fences or other suitable enclosure, prior to any excavation. The City may further require that the developer retain a professional forester to prepare forest inventory and management plan for the development, in order to control and abate any existing or potential loss. In those instances where trees of over six (6) inches in caliper will be lost due to construction, the City Council may require the planting of new trees in an amount equal to or greater than the total caliper inches which will be removed. Subd. 7. Screening of Mechanical Equipment. Mechanical equipment located on the roof of any building and visible from the street level or from neighboring properties shall be screened with a material designed to blend harmoniously with the building's facing materials. Where buildings have exposure to buildings with higher elevation, roof equipment shall be totally screened or enclosed with a material to blend with the roof surface material. To: From: Date: Subject: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator Laura Oakden, City Planner May 21, 2018 #LA18-000042, City of Orono Text Amendment: Notification Distance for Public Hearings, Public Hearing Application Summary: The city is considering an ordinance that would alter the notification distance for public hearings from 350 feet to 500 feet. Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission should consider the propose changes to the public hearing notification distance. Background The Mayor requested a change to the notice requirements for public hearing, currently 350 feet from the subject property. The Mayor proposes 500 feet. State Statute requires notification of property owners within 350 feet for zoning ordinance amendments. Within the zoning and subdivision chapters, the City also requires a public hearing for all conditional use permits, variances, rezoning requests, comprehensive plan amendments, wetland and subdivision requests. The intent of the notification radii is to inform those property owners that are more likely to be directly impacted by a proposal. All interested parties are notified via the notice in the official paper, and on the city's listserve. Changing the distance from 350 feet to 500 feet would allow for more neighbors to be notified which would increase the chance for more public input. The Planning Commission should consider and evaluate the typical amount of public input they receive for public hearing applications and how the residents hear about the projects. Other items to consider include: • The increased cost for postage and mailings (currently part of the recently reduce application fee) • The impact an application might have on an abutting neighbor verses of neighbor 500 feet away. Comments To date, no public comments have been received. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Clean Copy Exhibit B. Examples of past 350ft notification areas compared to 500ft. PC Exhibit A LA18-000042 ORDINANCE NO. _, THIRD SERIES May 21, 2018 CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE IV LAND USE PERTAINING TO PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION DISTANCES THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 78-43(b) shall be amended to read as follows: Sec. 78-43. - Adoption and amendment procedure. (b) No zoning ordinance or amendment shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held by the planning commission or by the council. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the city not less than ten days prior to the day of the hearing. When an amendment includes changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten days prior to the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 500 Meet of the property to which the amendment relates. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this subsection has been made. SECTION 2. Section 78-48 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows: Sec 78-48. Public Hearing. When required by this ordinance, a public hearing shall be held. (a) A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 500 feet of the property. For the purpose ofig ving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person, and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings_ The failure to give published or mailed notice to individual property owners or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings. (b) In addition, a notice shall be published in the official newspaper once at least ten days before the day of the hearing SECTION 3. Section 78-98 shall be amended to read as follows: Sec. 78-98. - Notice of hearing. (a) A public hearing following requirement of Section 78-48 shall be required for an appeal or i ariance. shall be mailed at leas fefe the day of the hearing to eaeh owner- of a— pr-epeAy and pr-opeAy situated wholly or paMy within 350 feet of the pfepeAy. Fo pur-pose of giving mailed nefiee, the per -son r-espensible for- mailing the notiee may reeer-ds to detefmine the names and addresses of owners. A eepy of t hen a list of an- - _. - --the owners and addresses to whieh the netiee was sent shall be attested to b r-esp nsible per -son, and shall be made a part of the r-eeor-ds of the pr-eeeedings. Hot. ifiv-pilid-pite the pr-eeeedings. SECTION 4. Section 78-227(1)c. shall be amended by removing text to read as follows: Sec. 78-227. - Permitted uses. Within any R-lA one -family residential district, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) City -owned public service structures that have been approved by the city council after the required public hearings for public improvement projects, provided that: a. All buildings are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. b. The architectural design of the structure is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. SECTION 5. Section 78-252(1)c. shall be amended by removing text to read as follows: Sec. 78-252. - Permitted uses. Within any R -1B one -family residential district, no land or structures shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) City -owned public service structures that have been approved by the city council after the required public hearings for public improvement projects, provided that: lit SECTION 5. Section 78-252(1)c. shall be amended by removing text to read as follows: Sec. 78-252. - Permitted uses. Within any R -1B one -family residential district, no land or structures shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) City -owned public service structures that have been approved by the city council after the required public hearings for public improvement projects, provided that: a. All buildings are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. b. The architectural design of the structure is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. SECTION 6. Section 78-302(1)c. shall be amended by removing text to read as follows: Sec. 78-302. - Permitted uses. Within the LR-lA one -family lakeshore residential district, no land or structures shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) City -owned public service structures that have been approved by the city council after the required public hearings for public improvement projects, provided that: a. All buildings are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. b. The architectural design of the structure is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. P PVT H Jilii,10 - SECTION 6. Section 78-302(1)c. shall be amended by removing text to read as follows: Sec. 78-302. - Permitted uses. Within the LR-lA one -family lakeshore residential district, no land or structures shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) City -owned public service structures that have been approved by the city council after the required public hearings for public improvement projects, provided that: a. All buildings are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. b. The architectural design of the structure is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. SECTION 7. Section 78-327(1)c. shall be amended by removing text to read as follows: Sec. 78-327. - Permitted uses. Within the LR -1B one -family lakeshore residential district, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) City -owned public service structures that have been approved by the city council after the required public hearings for public improvement projects, provided that: a. All buildings are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. 9 P PVT .11 71 11.1111 f111111 .1m SECTION 7. Section 78-327(1)c. shall be amended by removing text to read as follows: Sec. 78-327. - Permitted uses. Within the LR -1B one -family lakeshore residential district, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) City -owned public service structures that have been approved by the city council after the required public hearings for public improvement projects, provided that: a. All buildings are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. 9 b. The architectural design of the structure is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. SECTION 8. Section 78-347(1)c. shall be amended by removing text to read as follows: Sec. 78-347. - Permitted uses. Within the LR -1C one -family lakeshore residential district, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) City -owned public service structures that have been approved by the city council after the required public hearings for public improvement projects, provided that: a. All buildings are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. b. The architectural design of the structure is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. �ras!ss:Eers. PREMIUM SECTION 8. Section 78-347(1)c. shall be amended by removing text to read as follows: Sec. 78-347. - Permitted uses. Within the LR -1C one -family lakeshore residential district, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) City -owned public service structures that have been approved by the city council after the required public hearings for public improvement projects, provided that: a. All buildings are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. b. The architectural design of the structure is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. SECTION 9. Section 78-366(1)c. shall be amended by removing text to read as follows: Sec. 78-366. - Permitted uses. Within the LR -1C-1 one -family lakeshore residential district, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) City -owned public service structures that have been approved by the city council after the required public hearings for public improvement projects, provided that: a. All buildings are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. b. The architectural design of the structure is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. 4 PREMIUM SECTION 9. Section 78-366(1)c. shall be amended by removing text to read as follows: Sec. 78-366. - Permitted uses. Within the LR -1C-1 one -family lakeshore residential district, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) City -owned public service structures that have been approved by the city council after the required public hearings for public improvement projects, provided that: a. All buildings are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. b. The architectural design of the structure is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. 4 SECTION 10. Section 78-392(1)c. shall be amended by removing text to read as follows: Sec. 78-392. - Permitted uses. Within any RR-lA one -family rural residential district, no land or structures shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) City -owned public service structures that have been approved by the city council after the required public hearings for public improvement projects, provided that: a. All buildings are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. b. The architectural design of the structure is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. SECTION 11. Section 78-417(1)c. shall be amended by removing text to read as follows: Sec. 78-417. - Permitted uses. Within any RR -1B one -family rural residential district, no land or structures shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) City -owned public service structures that have been approved by the city council after the required public hearings for public improvement projects, provided that: a. All buildings are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. b. The architectural design of the structure is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. 5 M'' 191110 101, SECTION 10. Section 78-392(1)c. shall be amended by removing text to read as follows: Sec. 78-392. - Permitted uses. Within any RR-lA one -family rural residential district, no land or structures shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) City -owned public service structures that have been approved by the city council after the required public hearings for public improvement projects, provided that: a. All buildings are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. b. The architectural design of the structure is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. SECTION 11. Section 78-417(1)c. shall be amended by removing text to read as follows: Sec. 78-417. - Permitted uses. Within any RR -1B one -family rural residential district, no land or structures shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) City -owned public service structures that have been approved by the city council after the required public hearings for public improvement projects, provided that: a. All buildings are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. b. The architectural design of the structure is found to be compatible with the surrounding area. 5 SECTION 12. Section 78-567(9) shall be amended to read as follows: Sec. 78-567. - Permit for private improvements within public rights-of-way. It is unlawful for any person to alter, improve or use for private purposes in any RS district any platted public right-of-way, any platted public park, or any other property owned by the city without first obtaining a permit from the council, as follows: (9) Permit hearing and notice. The planning commission or the council shall hold a public hearing or hearings on each application for a permit as required by section 78-48. Netiee of the publie hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor- mo I--. th—An -1 -0 days prior- to the date of the hearing by pikhea4ion in the legal newspaper- fer- the eity. Stleh fietiee shall eon4ain the deseription of the land and the proposed use. At least ten days before hearing, the city eler-k shall mail an identieal notiee to the applicant and to eaeh o pr-epeAy owners within 350 feet of the outside betindar-ies of the land in question. Failure hearing, the planning eonffnission or- the eouneil shall review the appheation and statements a -ad dfawings submitted with the applie4ien and shall r-eeeive pefti evidenee eoneeming the proposed use and the proposed eonditions under- whiek it woi be operated o Maine SECTION 13. Section 78-913(11) shall be amended to read as follows: Sec. 78-913. - Application. Whenever this chapter requires a conditional use permit, an application in writing may be filed with the zoning administrator, together with such filing fee as may be established by the council and shall be accompanied by a site plan and such information and showing as may be necessary or desirable, including but not limited to the following: (11) An abstractor's certified property certificate showing the property owners within 3-5A-500 feet of the outer boundaries of the property in question. SECTION 14. Section 78-915 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows: Sec. 78-915. - Hearings and notice. The planning commission or council may hold a public hearing on each application for a conditional use permit as required by section 78-48. Notiee of the publie hearing shall be given no been made.—At the public hearing the planning commission or the council shall review the application and the statements and drawings submitted with the application and shall receive pertinent evidence concerning the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained. Any party may appear at the hearing in person or by agent or attorney. Subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the council, the planning commission or the council may adopt rules for the conduct of proceedings before it. Such rules may include provisions for the giving of oaths to witnesses and the filing of written briefs by the parties. The city shall provide for a record of the proceedings, which shall include the minutes of the meetings, the findings, and the action taken on each matter heard, including the final action. SECTION 15. Section 78-1008(c)4. shall be amended by removing text to read as follows: Sec. 78-1008. - Procedure for processing a planned unit development. (c) Schedule. (4) The planning commission shall conduct the hearing and report its findings and make recommendations to the city council.'` otiee of the hearing shall consist of a legal " pow.. deser-iption and a deser-iption of the request, and be p4lished in the offieial newspaper - least ten days prior- to the hearing; and written netifieatien of the hearing shall be mail least ten days prior- to the hearing to ev,%er-s of land within 350 feet of the beundmy of the pr-epeAy in question. SECTION 16. Section 78-1610(a) shall be amended to read as follows: Sec. 78-1610. - Alteration of wetlands. (a) No alteration of land within a wetland overlay district or an existing established wetland buffer is allowed without a wetlands alteration permit, subject to recommendation by the planning commission and approval of the city council. The planning commission must hold a public hearing per Section 78-48.^f*er notifying the pr-opei4y owners within 350 f of of the r pet4 , on Activities that constitute an alteration regulated by this section include changes to the size, depth or contour of the wetlands or its existing established buffer, dredging, or alterations of wetlands or buffer vegetation. Alterations do not include wetland planting or the selective clearing or pruning of trees or vegetation that are dead, diseased, noxious weeds or similar hazards. A wetland alteration permit is not required when a wetland district is rezoned to another zoning classification. SECTION 17. Section 82-2 shall be amended by adding text to the following definition: Sec. 82-2. - Definitions. Public hearing means a hearing to be held by the planning commission to allow for public review and input relating to the proposed subdivision pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 462.358 -and public hearing requirements in Section 78-48 SECTION 18. Section 82-112 shall be amended to read as follows: Sec. 82-112. - Subdivision application. (a) Class I subdivisions. Complete class I preliminary subdivision applications shall include the following: (1) Completion of all items on the preliminary subdivision application form; (2) A location map; (3) A half -section map; (4) A certificate of survey of the property (5) Class I subdivisions that were required to have a sketch plan review may use all required maps submitted with application, provided no changes have been made by the subdivider; and if changes have been required, new maps shall be prepared and resubmitted with preliminary subdivision application; (6) A property owner's list per public hearing requirements in Section 78-48and stamped an-, addressed envelopes for- notifieation of neighbors within 350 feet of the subjeet tr-aet; (7) Any additional information requested by the zoning administrator or planning commission; (8) Payment of the preliminary subdivision review fee; and (9) Written and dated certification by the zoning administrator confirming that the preliminary subdivision application has been completed in compliance with chapter 78 and this chapter. Certification does not mean all information is correct, just that apparently all issues identified in the subdivision have been addressed by the subdivider. (b) Class II subdivisions. Complete class II preliminary plat applications shall include the following: (1) Completion of all items on the preliminary plat application form; (2) All maps and other information submitted for the sketch plan review shall be considered submitted for the preliminary plat review; and if changes have been made by the subdivider, new maps shall be prepared and resubmitted; (3) A property owner's list per public hearing requirements of Section 78-48and stamped and addressed etwelopes for- netifieation of neighbors within 350 feet of the sttbjeet tr-aet; (4) Provision of copies of the preliminary plat in a form required by the CitX; 8 (5) In areas served by public sewer and/or water, a plan showing the existing service ties and the proposed connection sizes and locations ' by 14 inehes) (6) In areas not served by public sewer, an on-site sewage treatment site evaluation report for each lot, and a copy of the current compliance inspection report for each existing on-site system; (7) Any additional information requested by the zoning administrator or planning commission; (8) Payment of the preliminary plat review fee; and (9) Written and dated certification by the zoning administrator confirming that the subdivision has been completed in compliance with chapter 78 and this chapter. Certification does not mean all information is correct, just that apparently all issues identified have been addressed by the subdivider. (c) Class III subdivisions. Complete class III preliminary plat application shall include the following: (1) Completion of all items on the preliminary plat application form; (2) All maps and other information submitted for the sketch plan review shall be considered submitted for the preliminary plat review; and if changes have been made by the subdivider, new maps shall be prepared and resubmitted; (3) A property owner's list per public hearing requirements of Section 78-48and stamped and addressed efwelepes for- notifieation of neighbors within 350 feet of the stibjeet tr-aet; (4) Provision of 25 eepies-o the preliminary plat; (5) Provision of 25 eepies oi the utilities map; (6) A soil survey and report by the Hennepin Soils and Water Conservation District (to be requested by the city if the zoning administrator feels such information is necessary for the subdivision review); (7) A soil erosion and sedimentation control plan; (8) A vegetation preservation and protection plan; (9) Any additional information requested by the zoning administrator or planning commission such as: a. Proposed protective covenants; b. Statement of the proposed use of lots stating type of residential buildings with number of proposed dwelling units and type of business or industry, so as to reveal the effect of the development on traffic, fire hazards and congestions of population; or Where the subdivider is the owner or intends to attempt to acquire the property adjacent to that property which is being proposed for the subdivision, the planning commission may require that the subdivider submit a sketch plan of the remainder of the property so as to show the possible relationships between the proposed subdivision and any future subdivision; in any event, all subdivisions shall be shown to relate well with existing or potential adjacent subdivisions; (10) Payment of the preliminary plat review fee; and (11) Written and dated certification by the zoning administrator confirming that the subdivision has been completed in compliance with chapter 78 and this chapter. Certification does not mean all information submitted is correct, just that apparently all issues identified in the subdivision have been addressed by the subdivider. (d) Application deadlines. The subdivider shall file a complete preliminary subdivision application with the zoning administrator a4 least 30 days prior- to the rvgalaf4y sehedul at the deadline established by the city annually. SECTION 19. Section 82-113(c) shall be amended to read as follows: Sec. 82-113. - Staff and agency review of the preliminary subdivision. (c) Public hearing meeting notice. Notice of the hearing shall be consistent with Section 78- 48. -consist of the time and plaee, the addfess of the propet4y and a brief deser-iption of the proposal, ineluding subdivider's name, the number- of lots proposed, and their- proposed use, a shall be published in the offieial newspaper- at least ten days pfier- to the meeting. Wr-44e notifieation of the meeting shali be mailed at least ten days prior- to all owner -s of land set fe on the pfopeAy e�A%er-'s list within 350 feet of the botmdar-y of the pr-epeAy in "estion. SECTION 20. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this day of , 2017 on a vote of ayes and _ nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of , 2017. 10 Hennepin HennepI Dou 1ty LoI._-,.1te & Notify Map Date: 0 r' ZUy[ �41� �7 2100 O O 210L (17) CIO (44) 2" 2118 "')2130 (20) 2138 3660 (12) O 3640 (48 (48) 2142 3600 2166 To(o R (n1 2172 (10) (9) 2184 2178 0) � 3601 m (21) 2190 22 (34) (33) (6) 2208 (36) `ti,; . lb 2216 Xti (4) 2171 -- 2224 z) 3635 2232 (14) (136) 2177 224 2195(1W 2199 22 2205 (13 (134) (17) 36 0 � � ��y� X22 2229 (138) 2213 (144) 2237 3590 (12D) (126) 2245 22 Buffer Buie: 350 feet Map Comments: 33 p��ri�cs 0 60 120 240 ft I t i I I I i t I This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us 2255 (23) 3593 3640 3477 6603650 3630 2265 3599 ) 3585 3533 3505 3493 3485 34 0) (29) (28) (27) (24) `+ (21)) (27) (26) ( 12) (11) (10) 111 ,l. (140) 2285 (25) 3600 00 3596 3580 3572 3554 3556 3520 3508 3488 3472 (25) (34) (35) (150) (148) (40) (41) (42)(138) (16) 3692 lQ�, 3697 3695 3690 (34) 230s(�) 3599 3585 3577 3559 3551 3541 3533 3525 3505 3495 347B 3Fs Buffer Buie: 350 feet Map Comments: 33 p��ri�cs 0 60 120 240 ft I t i I I I i t I This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us Hennep County Locate & Noffy Map Date: 5/17/2018 Buffer Siwe 500 feet Map Comments: 0 120 240 480 ft I t I I I t II I This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 1 gis.info@hennepin.us s� 4 0 a tri Toys) Rd Crystat %_Tvingstoji Avv P m v N. ynr nu It d Lytic Ave. 2 Buffer Siwe 500 feet Map Comments: 0 120 240 480 ft I t I I I t II I This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 1 gis.info@hennepin.us T%a&=0 f&� M&P , 3-45o Wte,,7% Hennepin H e nne p- County Lc a (..3 e t`�S'( N o ffy Map Date: 5/17/20 2300 n2, 500 2260 540 2300 2280 2180 (141 (5) (27) 2320 (2t) I o 'A 5 1 2285 (3) 2180 � 2110 2325 2160 7(2) (a) 2120 (+o) (4) e 2275 2265 (5) 2185 ' 2175 2095 (3) (2) 2135 Buffer Mzee 350 feet Map Comments: 0 60 120 240 ft I i( t I( i t I This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us ZZ&AC Tbl� 5���Op &�A% H. Hennep�n County Locate Noffy Map 9:D-5 0 Date: 5/17/2018 Y a4 y`,1 Buffer fuzee 500 feet Map Comments: 2� ,Pwp�rt�tss 0 120 240 480 ft I i i I I I I I I This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 1 gis.info@hennepin.us 1�0 M A �P -- �§W I Henneph County Locate & Noffy Map Date: 5/17/2018 y 1 `Ra 2900 291 < (32) 2895 (72) 2905 2910 ) 2' (33) 2917 (55) (34) 915 2925 2940 05) 2927 (49)=933 2948 (36) (46) (as) 2965 2941 (4n (03) 2970 (m 2967(64) 2980 (81) 297 (4) 2990(M �r 0.. (2n h , �r 2987 (' (23) 3005 (24) 3015 p) 3025 03 3045 0250 tt 3045 (12) 3035 3065 3055 (16) (ti> 3085 (to) 306107) (s) (6) 3125 Buffer Foxe: 350 feet Map Comments: (2) (1) (el (2n (76) 355U nn 3548 3546 (78) 3545 A 353 34) 35 (35) <Pl t 3030 3034 (52) 3 "sD it (51) (42) l43 3038 (55) 3287 (44) 3040 3297 310 (M) 05 0 (45) 3287 3040 3297 (48) 3309 ;305 (49) 31 GG Casco PoIntt 3127 r `"r k 0 60 120 240 ft I I I, I I( I I I This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us L 20 CAwSc(-E�-�> Hennepon County Locate Notffy Map Date: 5/17/2018 Buffer f uze. 500 feet Map Comments: 7 zS 0 60 120 240 ft I( t i I( i i I This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us 71'01:. 2900 2) 2 (32) 2895 (72) 2905 2910 2920 (33) 11) (28) 2917 (6) (55) 2930 (3a) 3560 2925 (27) (16)915 940 3550 (35) (17) 3548 (5) 2948 3546 (1� (49) - 793"s (48) (65) 2965 3545 353 (34) 29 (471 (63) 2970 feo) 2967(64) 4 2980 (81) 3535 2975 (45) > 2990(3) (a5) 3525 y 3026 3030 3034 2987 (M) (54 35 9 i (M) l5t) 3005 (24) (� 3277 l43) 3015 3038 (55) 3277 (3) 3287 A 3025 03 3045 3040 3297 310( 025(2) (35) 0 (45) ^2g 3045 (12) 3040 (1) 3 , 3035 Hyj 3065 3055(181 111) 3309 33 (49) 3085 (1o) 6107) 5 3100 (6) 3105 3125 3127 } }'041211 Buffer f uze. 500 feet Map Comments: 7 zS 0 60 120 240 ft I( t i I( i i I This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: May 21, 2018 Subject: #LA18-44, City of Orono, 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update, Public Hearing Application Summary: The City requests authorization from the Planning Commission and City Council, following a public hearing at the Planning Commission, to submit the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan update to the Metropolitan Council. Formal approval will be requested in November, following the public comment period. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends authorization of the document to be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council. Background The City officially started the development of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update in March 2017 with the appointment of thirteen members (and one alternate) of the community to advise staff. The members are: Jennifer Smiley, Resident Meg Cowden, Resident Chad Olson, Planning Commission Candice Nadler, Resident Paul Pesek, Park Commission Jon Schwingler, Planning Commission Bob Erickson, Resident Dennis Libby, Resident Phil Lusardi, Resident John Morast, Resident Jan Berg, Park Commission Rick Meyers, Park Commission (Alternate) Dennis Walsh, Mayor Richard Crosby, Councilmember Since April 2017, this Committee met monthly and reviewed specific chapters of the draft plan, and proposed changes to the document. The meeting information and agendas are posted on the city's website for public consumption. The Committee operated under three primary goals: 1. Retain rural character and natural resource protection policies established in previous plans FILE #18-44 May 21, 2018 Page 2 of 4 2. Satisfy Met Council requirements 3. Improve the readability of the document. The changes recommended by the Committee along with formatting and updated maps are included into a final document, and on April 26th the Committee authorized the publication of the plan for public comment. The public comment period includes the distribution of the plan to affected communities. These agencies are allowed 6 months opt provide comment. On May 10th, an open house was held to introduce the plan to the public, comments were invited but none were received. The Plan. The complete plan in .pdf format has been uploaded to drop box. The complete plan, and the individual chapters, and exhibits, is available on the city website. The plan retains the general development and land protection philosophy's established by earlier plans. Preservation of rural character and preservation of water quality was very important to the committee. Metropolitan Council estimates. The Metropolitan Council requires the plans to reflect growth in population, households, and employment over the next 20 years. The Committee, in meeting the Met Council predictions, noted that the City retains its' right to review development proposals for consistency with the Comprehensive plan (not just land use) and applicable zoning ordinances and to ensure a development is the right fit for the neighborhood and city as a whole. Points of interest. Utility Plans. Utility Plans were updated to reflect new regulations and rules establishec since the 2008 plan and to incorporate plans adopted since 2008. Of note, the comprehensive plan does not propose the expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary. The MUSA boundary generally identifies those parcels where access to the sanitary sewer system is possible. City Code requires connection to the sanitary sewer system with the utility is available (adjacent) at the time of subdivision and/ or failure of the existing system. Expansion of the MUSA comes with a Table 313-1: Orono Population and Households 1970 - 2040 (Sewered and Unsewered Forecasts) Population Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 2020 2030 2040 Sewered -- -- -- -- 4,429 -- 5,150 6,170 6,740 Unsewered -- -- -- -- 3,008 -- 2,950 2,630 2,760 Total City 6,787 6,845 7,285 7,538 7,437 7,691 8,100 8,800 9,500 Household Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 2020 2030 2040 Sewered -- -- -- -- 1,780 2,253 2,105 2,455 2,785 Unsewered -- -- -- -- 1046 784 1,095 1,105 1,115 Total City 2,146 2,291 2,613 2,766 2,826 3,037 3,200 3,560 3,900 Persons/HH 3.16 2.99 2.79 2.73 2.63 2.53 2.53 2.47 2.44 Source: Metropolitan Council System Statement The Committee, in meeting the Met Council predictions, noted that the City retains its' right to review development proposals for consistency with the Comprehensive plan (not just land use) and applicable zoning ordinances and to ensure a development is the right fit for the neighborhood and city as a whole. Points of interest. Utility Plans. Utility Plans were updated to reflect new regulations and rules establishec since the 2008 plan and to incorporate plans adopted since 2008. Of note, the comprehensive plan does not propose the expansion of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary. The MUSA boundary generally identifies those parcels where access to the sanitary sewer system is possible. City Code requires connection to the sanitary sewer system with the utility is available (adjacent) at the time of subdivision and/ or failure of the existing system. Expansion of the MUSA comes with a FILE #18-44 May 21, 2018 Page 3 of 4 requirement that parcels located within the expanded area be developed at 3 units per acre or greater. The MUSA boundary is shown on Map 313-4, Development Sites. Land Use. To meet the growth projections of the Metropolitan Council, the Land Use Map was updated. The map (313-3) reflects a revised listing of land use categories. These 10 categories are used throughout the document per Met Council requirements and include 7 residential, 2 commercial/ industrial, and a park/open space land use. Island residential is a new land use and is employed for the residences on Big Island and Deering Island. For the majority of the community, land use did not change. In the Navarre area, residential land uses was removed from the west side of Shadywood in favor of straight commercial uses. The remaining mixed use or high density residential land uses along Shoreline were adjusted from 6-15 units per acre and 7-10 units per acre to 10-20 and 20-25 units per acre. These areas are predominately currently developed and therefore the result of a significant redevelopment project. In the northern portion of the community, residential land uses were introduced to the Kelley Parkway and Wayzata Blvd areas. In order to prevent expansion of the MUSA, and therefore introduction of density in our rural areas, increased opportunity for density had to be added in the Navarre and northern Orono areas. The Committee applied density in areas where they felt it was most appropriate, given transportation networks, neighboring land uses, and services available. Planned Development Sites. As part of our requirement that sites be identified for potential growth in the next 20 years, the Committee updated the Planned Development Suites map, originally developed as part of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Map 313-4 is the revised version and shows 5 areas that could be the subject of development proposals. These 5 areas provide 'growth' in a range of densities, from 2 acre lots (green) to High Density Residential (Yellow). Navarre Area Plan. The Navarre Area Plan, conducted by the Planning Consultant WSB and Associates was incorporated in the Land Use Chapter, 3B and influenced some of the land use in that area. Editing. The Committee worked hard to reduce the length of the document, removing redundant statements, in the hopes of making it more 'readable' while retaining the major policy discussions outlined within. Maps. The maps were updated to reflect new roads and parcels established since the 2008 plan. The Park Commission reviewed the park Trail and Open Space Chapter at their meeting in March Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Public comments will be collected over the FILE #18-44 May 21, 2018 Page 4 of 4 summer and fall, and provided to the committee who will review, take appropriate action, and resubmit the plan for formal Planning Commission and Council action in November. Issues for Consideration. The Commission could contemplate the following policy questions identified through the review of the document and discuss in the following months, or at the final review of the document. These policy questions may include: 1. Should the city more aggressively require connection to sanitary sewer services when these services are available at the time of house construction or at the time when a existing system requires replacement. 2. The public has several rights of way, many of which are unimproved. Some of these rights of way terminate in the Lake. Should the City continue to retain these rights of way when no clear present use is known, recognizing the ability to reacquire these parcels is challenging? 3. Should the city expand the MUSA boundary to add additional sewered density in favor of keeping existing sewered areas lower density? 4. With respect to dwelling size, should the city explore minimum dwelling sizes or minimum amenity installations or continue to view these requirements as arbitrary and serve to drive up the cost of housing while limiting the buyer's freedom of choice. 5. Any additional issues or topics developed by the Planning Commission. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Existing Land Use Map Exhibit B. 2030 Planned Land Use Exhibit C. 2040 Planned Land Use Exhibit D. 2030 Planned Development Sites Exhibit E. 2040 Planned Development Sites Exhibit F. Planned Development Sites Table Exhibit G. Full Plan Draft Turner Road w Drake Dr 0 U 2040 Comprehensive Plan Orono, MN JKatrina 12 t 7-si _.. _ �wr d�nter C� � o � .aG Moline Road to W CL � r 19N r r � ��dys�de r �Oaa 1 Lake Classen z v to 0 m m a .n s 0 U) Stubbs �µoad a Bay Painter W Branch Road 1 a Road Dutch Lake Legend City Limits Road 151' L e Forest Lake North Arm Y 6t1i o hq� E o r QN, Lake 7 Inset 1 12 U � 1 �• o i Watertown Road Y) 0 0 m T R m 2 a �o Long m "� • Lake it • t, y.l Orchardq t WayyZ4 N� OI n Aver:'�a_ 12 Existing Land UseBOLTN � & E N K April 2018 Real People. Real Solutions. L ._. Z 0 �� ,,°1 I _ Residential (20 i I T m tq - 25 units / acre) zl i 0 U m. 0Kelley Pkwy �1 Office Island Residential Industrial Inset 1 3rd,Ave N U aaaJJJ o 0 - Fox St , eg d VJ Ln � 1 as Laky rv�e netonk, Browns I enc Tanager Bay i Maxwell Lake Bay i" French i Inset 2 Marsh I � Jenning's I /, OI Bay � i • 1•• ♦ y�° Smith Bracketts • Point � " I F Nest ♦• ' Crystal Bohns ••�.• (y Bay Pnint�•♦ 1 Harrison .. — �.♦ • �' Bay 1 4f'• iline Ur Lafayette Bay Inset 2 �% �.• ,♦'� ♦�. Lakes & Ponds /; •• Carman's 1 Bay '� ♦•• �° Wetlands Rivers & Streams ♦ ,♦ . '•` ♦.' F'/ 0 3,500 ♦ ♦ M. W Feet • • Casco : �0 '0 • • Point y ° Source: Met. Council, City of Orono, •. �•. _ z si,,,oI Hennepin County, MnDOT ro ,orn pve z 0 ..— ....-.. W . Land Use Classes z 23rd Ave N z 0 0 W 0 0 m� c` Rural Preserve (1 unit/ 5 acres) Urban High Density _ Residential (20 - 25 units / acre) Rural Residential (1 unit / 2 acres) Commercial / Office Island Residential Industrial Urban Low Park, Density Residential (0.5 Recreational, - 2 units / acre) and Open Space Urban Medium Density Undeveloped Residential (3 - 10 units / acre) _ Right -of -Way Figure 313-2a 0 M G Turner Road c� tr w Drake Dr 3 0 U Vtoad Painter W Branch Road Dutch Lake Legend 2040 Comprehensive Plan Orono, MN mllii-. n J sinter C;, G7 Moline Road]o W CL City Limits Katrina Lake . \ #- C31 1 Star .. z o ' sthq� E t° Lake Classen z �a z lob��� T, R � m 0 � T � i m U a "a n O s Lake 19 N } 012. . in Watertown Road_.._}• r U) o °aa N C-0 l m i J m r Stubbs Long " •' • Lake 7 Future Land Use March 2018 r=-�'-' L -Z m 0 o: � � m ad I Spripg��� z I+ Lydiar: M: � ke X01 Kelley m. 01 I LL I #I-- -oia 9�ake,Q Inset 1 3rdA+N o Northern Ave Bay I U Fox St ity Road 151 0 2 t - Browns 0 North y �I. Tanager gay r ��^ Arm Maxwell _ Lake wBay � � French Forest Marsh R Lake Jenninc I O� Bay I•., yc° Smith Bracketts •` Point r Nest ♦•• •' �• c I CrystalBohns �. o ♦ C9 Bay Point •• • . 1 Harrison • • — •.I • • ` • amu„ Bay 1 '� iline Dr `Jd 0s �* _ O g • Lafayette 1 Bay �' 1 Inset 2 �%. _ �. ♦' ♦�. e y Lakes & Ponds / Carman's I• 1 Bay •� A. z 0 0 Wetlands Rivers & Streams ,♦ . •` ♦.• F'/ 0 3,500 •' ♦' Feet Casco ' . • , • Point 1 Source: Met. Council, City of Orono, •. • . _ Z Hennepin County, MnDOT ' • — • ' — a�t�, ami Lak( netonk, Inset 2 PI BOLTN /1 & MENK Real People. Real Solutions. Dickeys r '1" z 23rd Ave N z 0 0 tr c 3 0 m D Land Use Classes Rural Preserve (1 unit/ 5 acres) Urban Medium High Density Residential (10 - 20 units / acre) Rural Residential (1 unit / 2 acres) Urban High Island Density Residential (20 Residential - 25 units / acre) ighIan dAv Urban Low Road Density Commercial / Residential (0.5 Office - 2 units / acre) Urban Medium Industrial Density Residential (3 - Park, 10 units /acre) Recreational, and Open Space W R 0 s Figure 313-3a a 2040 Comprehensive Plan Orono, MN 26 k--- ad pter R° W Branch Road Sunnyfield Road E 0 0 m m Game Farm ROad E'y Dutch Lake ii Planned Development Sites BOLTON April 2018 & MEN K Real People. Real Solutions. Cl) co rn Turner Road c \ 0 0 T 22 Oo P°e Drake Dr 3 3 0 o U U 1 teA �G Q 26 k--- ad pter R° W Branch Road Sunnyfield Road E 0 0 m m Game Farm ROad E'y Dutch Lake ii Planned Development Sites BOLTON April 2018 & MEN K Real People. Real Solutions. Jenning's 1 Development Areas pal ^ Katri=a.. 12 Lake \ y o Y� r Moon High Density / Mixed Use Sites 22 Oo P°e C - Fire Station Area ..`kp 1 1 Stam E - Navarre Mixed Use Area N Shore Dr •,, .. m 6 110 .. .... .. (� .......,a.. .._ .� .... ... ...........� ....... c Lake Tr ...� . ..... ... , .. .� ..... �y _ '' f 19th J th Av 10 I t � 1 West �•• � Ave J Arm Crystal Bohns •• Bay �.1 •�•.�• d aO Point.- Z `o �2; ~� 6th Ave Z YC •.� �' • � , Bay 1 - Lake , A Lickea Lake c aa �oW z ve N ,c P >line Dr Classen m 3 ° m g P �`r Lydiard z : c c Lafayette p rO� - Bay Long Lake mol - 3 0 ♦ •�' '. °a z `' Lake ' 'c N N Ave Stirr 1 '" ' Y o -O Daniels St � I �' 8th Ave, � . �' Je � �� d R i Orchard,Ln WayZa�d� Cay L4th 3 Moline Road a t w ott,A m � Grand Ave �� . . � � ` °�9 � w � i Ave N � Ro as n j a G = L o Lake ,P 3rd,Ave N Rte: ;19 N 411 in a ,, Od 0-, M. co cyg° —� 12 pa k St d .�T m 1 F Rice SWey2afa Blvd E M Stubbs rn lam— ke w La StF F Hi ghwayl12 E 0 Bay O Fox St o' 0 E 1 as w County Road 151 North Tanager Browt - '� Fe�c Wayzata Bay Arm Bay Maxwell` Bay Lake French i 1 \ Forest Z Marsh J - Lake Jenning's 1 Development Areas pal ^ A - Orchard Area Y i a O� Bay High Density / Mixed Use Sites `iQ ar C - Fire Station Area ..`kp 1 1 D - 2 Acre Sewered Lots E - Navarre Mixed Use Area N Shore Dr •,, yc Smith Bracketts • • Point `s •• ' I t � 1 West �•• � J Arm Crystal Bohns •• Bay �.1 •�•.�• c9 1 Point.- Harrison �, .. •.� �' • � , Bay 1 1 • • 1 >line Dr o"e�0 Lafayette 1 e —.• Bay - I 0 ♦ •�' '. Legend e ''� .•' City Limits Lakes & Ponds Sprint ► i Pa Carman's •.� c ► Ba v j • Ade 2040 MUSA Rivers & Streams f%° •.� 'apt 0 3,500 Oc ' Feet ew '.,• Ca: ' Poi) 1 Source: Met. Council, City of Orono, •�• 'its Hennepin County, MnDOT Figure 3134 Development Areas A - Orchard Area Y i a B - Kelley Pkwy. / Wayzata Blvd. Lak High Density / Mixed Use Sites `iQ ar C - Fire Station Area D - 2 Acre Sewered Lots E - Navarre Mixed Use Area Figure 3134 Table 313- 4 Planned Development Sites Land Use (Planned Dev. Areas) Acres Gross Resid. Net Residential Acres Guided Density Range (Low) Guided Density Range (HIgh) # of units (Target, based on low density) Growth between 2016 and 2030 Growth Growth between 2030 and 2040 MUSA Part TAZ Zone Area A 921 Eisinger (Medium) 28.7 3.7 3 10 11 11 L 921 Dumas (Medium High) 52.9 23.52 10 20 235 235 XXXII 921 Area A Total 81.6 27.22 246 246 0 Area B 922 2745 Kelley (High) 2.55 2.55 20 25 51 51 X 922 2635 Kelley (High) 3.5 3.5 20 25 70 70 X 922 St. Thomas Prop (High) 3.69 3.69 20 25 74 74 X 922 2060 Wayzata (High) 2.51 2.51 20 25 50 50 Area B Total 9.74 9.74 245 171 74 929 Area C XXX1V 929 Hwy 12 frontage (Med-High) 1.71 1.71 10 20 17 17 XXXN 929 Garden Prop. (Med- High) 3.41 3.41 10 20 34 34 XXXN 929 Glendale Drive (Med) 3.82 3.82 3 10 11 11 Area C Total 8.94 8.94 63 62 0 923 Area D Rural Residential (Sewer extension into large lot areas/ Lake protection) 927, 931, 954,955 690 Brown Rd 26.9 23.8 0.5 12 12 XL 927 740 Brown Rd 3.18 3.18 0.5 2 2 XL 927 3400 Fox 7.36 5.26 0.5 3 3 XXXI 954 3295 Fox 4.23 4.23 0.5 2 2 XXXI 931 3345 Fox 4.69 4.69 0.5 2 2 XXXI 931 3350 Fox 7.12 7.12 0.5 4 4 XXXI 954 3320 Fox 3.06 3.06 0.5 2 2 XXXI 954 3300 Fox 4.55 4.55 0.5 2 2 XXXI 954 3280 Fox 4.95 4.95 0.5 2 2 XXXI 954 3250 Fox 5.31 5.31 0.5 3 3 XXXI 954 3200 Fox 4.12 4.12 0.5 2 2 XXXI 954 3175 Fox 7.49 7.49 0.5 4 4 XXXI 954 3125 Fox 7.44 7.44 0.5 4 4 XXXI 954 825 Old Crystal Bay 21.23 17.61 0.5 9 9 XXXI 954 1700 Shoreline 20.14 20.14 0.5 10 10 XXXXVII 955 1100 Millston Rd 12.7 12.7 0.5 6 6 XXXXVII 955 Area D Total 144.47 135.65 68 16 53 Area E 956,958 3880 Shoreline (Hennepin County) 9.37 9.37 10 20 94 94 I 958 3890 Shoreline 0.68 0.68 10 20 7 7 I 958 3860 Shoreline 0.64 0.64 10 20 6 6 I 958 3850 Shoreline 0.78 0.78 10 20 8 8 I 958 3800 Shoreline 0.7 0.7 10 20 7 7 I 958 3596 Shoreline 0.62 0.62 10 20 6 6 1 958 2389 Blaine 1.11 1.11 10 20 11 11 I 958 3574 Shoreline 0.47 0.47 10 20 5 5 1 958 3572 Shoreline 0.31 0.31 10 20 3 3 I 958 3542 Shoreline 0.46 0.46 10 20 5 5 1 958 3502 Shoreline 0.31 0.31 10 20 3 3 I 958 3496 Shoreline 0.31 0.31 10 20 3 3 I 958 3480 Shoreline 0.15 0.15 10 20 2 2 I 958 3472 Shoreline 0.15 0.15 10 20 2 2 I 958 3468 Shoreline 0.15 0.15 10 20 2 2 I 958 3465 Lyric 0.62 0.62 10 20 6 6 I 958 3440 Shoreline 0.15 0.15 10 20 2 2 I 958 Forfiet Land 0.15 0.15 10 20 2 2 1 958 Fortier Land 0.1 0.1 10 20 1 1 I 958 Parking Lot 0.86 0.86 10 20 9 9 I 958 2520 Shadywood 2.63 2.02 10 20 20 20 1 956 3770 Shoreline (Firestation) 4.33 4 10 20 40 40 1 958 Area E Total 25.05 24.11 241 31 213 Planned Development Totals 269.8 205.66 863 526 340 Sewered Households required 863 523 340 Deficit 0 3 0 Net Residential Density 4.20