The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-15-2018 Planning Commission Packet PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE1( A5—A g O COUNCIL /I PLANNING COMMISSION ❑ OTHER Assistive Listening Device available upon request. Please complete the following information for;:City records PRESENT FOR(from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1. J R w J v""/_+ h'-155 55 V{k 1 1)4 EL LAtf.. 3 c t...e ts sicia (42-( 0 btt/\72t1/e„ 2_.. 3. CS. Ct 9,----' 4. ),.) 5T1 /1, l/l>fY�4W„ 6 ( 5. ArJr -4- -0.s-to jra„4,14,„ /2 ( 6. 1,6f/ U.,/41,--, Oto Of l-- kik. 4, 7 7. Usra-/ Led---)? rQ . 3 8. 460Sel (Z1,1A.6411 3i t-ONA4Att‘Vith.,1ZeC 9. -- C-C•,--c -ICk- 7 ce /\,--V -,.\\J -4 --)tivrYvt ALI,c\\I\ - 1--\ a 10. LctC Q-Q IJ1c, Lh L 5(9 S CowA-9 lP d 11. 1)1'a-n.,e rql ia.ti 3 515 0_dv0y LA 12. ( 1( ‘,'V° c'\-\--n_ P6 r-jz ) L-EQ (/i/lC. l 13. i—ji ,(`c 01)1e.._ 51(f S :fa vvL03-1131,u1k_ _ 14. 7-1100aS Sq frl 3/10� • kri 6' 3 15. Sferkk(\ 'le— ?-11-6`1. ?) \--) S- , V:1(LEGAL FORMS)1(FORMS)1PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE ❑ COUNCIL ❑ PLANNING COMMISSION ❑ OTHER Assistive Listening Device available upon request. a - a � n:2�+" ass �rR 14 pZJ Pl aie co,n lets t0.091ii0W10 �00111ati91110 ,Ci rec0i;d 3: " PRESENT FOR(from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. V:\(LEGAL FORMS)\(FORMS)1PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC �� Agenda Planning Commission Meeting Monday, October 15,2018, 6:30 P.M. �� GE Orono Council Chambers,2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono,MN 55356 l�ctsxo�``` 952-249-4600 /www.ci.orono.mn.us 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. Council Representative: Dennis Walsh Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes 1. Planning Commission minutes of September 17, 2018 New Business 2. LA18-000081 Brian Haas, 4260 Sixth Avenue, Variance (Staff: Laura Oakden) 3. LA18-000083 Scott England o/b/o Barbara Lupient, 3220 and 3200 Wayzata Blvd W, Sketch Plan (Staff: Jeremy Barnhart 4. LA18-000057 City of Orono, Text Amendment—Accessory Building and Structure setbacks (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 5. LA18-000084 City of Orono, Text Amendment—Grading and Land Alteration (Staff: Laura Oakden) 6. LA18-000044 City of Orono, 2040 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Staff: Jeremy Barnhart) Update on October 8,2018 City Council meeting Other issues for discussion Planning Liaison for November 13th 2018 City Council Meeting: Kevin Landgraver Adjournment Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us—follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 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, Chad Olson, and Jon Ressler. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden,and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Dennis Walsh was present. Chair Thiesse called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Chair Thiesse noted Item No. 4 has been removed from tonight's agenda. NEW BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 20,2018 Lemke moved,Ressler seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of August 20,2018, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 2. LA18-000071 DAN MULRENNAN,2655 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT GRADING,6:31 P.M.—6:37 P.M. Steven Kleineman, SKD Architects, and Dan Mulrennan, Contractor, were present. Oakden reviewed her Staff report dated September 17,2018, regarding a request for a conditional use permit for grading over 500 cubic yards and creating a new engineered grade for the property. A permit was issued to demolish the existing home. During the demolition, it was discovered the existing soil was not suitable to support a home and would need to be replaced,which resulted in 2,046 cubic yards being removed from the site and 1,648 cubic yards being used for fill for the property. In addition, the applicants propose a grading plan that converts the flat lot into a walk-out lot. This transformation, in addition to the grading being done independent of a building,triggers the need for a conditional use permit. The plans were designed to conform to all of the applicable zoning requirements. The property consists of approximately 1.9 acres in area. The grading of the site does not appear to result in a home which would be out of character in the neighborhood or create drainage concerns. Staff finds the requirements for a land alterations conditional use permit are met. The owner needed to correct existing poor soils on the site. This created the need for excess fill. The applicant is working to create a walkout lot for the property,which is cohesive with the neighborhood. A new engineered grade was created as well for the property allowing the proposed home to meet the height requirements per City Code. The applicant was able to use some of the removed soil to fill in various areas to create areas to create a new walkout style lot limited the amount of hauling needed for the project. The applicant has received a Minnehaha Creek Watershed permit for the proposed new home. To date no public comments have been received. Page I.of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Planning Staff recommends approval. Thiesse asked if Exhibit B shows the proposed contours. Oakden stated to her knowledge they are. Steven Kleineman, SKD Architects, stated the site itself is quite flat,with a slight roll. The grading being done on the property will help blend the topography together. The home to the west sits up a little higher and the grade will be blended very comfortably with the adjacent property, primarily on the northern part, with the back yard remaining essentially the same. There will be very little grade change on the east side of the property and once the entire project is completed,the grades will look very natural, especially after it has been landscaped. Lemke asked what was wrong with the soil that was there. Kleineman indicated the soil was very soft and the existing home on the property had issues over the years. Currently the high-water level is 929.4 and the grade runs from 930' to 939' at its high point. Soil borings were done and they came back very soft. The recommendation from the engineer was to excavate and come back with a properly engineered fill,which is what is being proposed. Thiesse asked how much additional soil will be brought in. Mulrennan indicated it will be approximately 500 cubic yards. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. There were no public comments related to this application. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to the October 8 City Council meeting. Thiesse commented the application is pretty straight forward. Ressler moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000071, Dan Mulrennan,2655 North Shore Drive,granting of a conditional use permit. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 3. LA18-000072 PAUL VOGSTROM ON BEHALF OF BILL AND SUE DUNKLEY,2709 WALTERS PORT LANE,PRELIMINARY PLAT,6:37 P.M.—6:52 P.M. Paul Vogstrom, Contractor,and Sue and Bill Dunkley, Applicants,were present. Curtis noted the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed this application as a sketch plan back in June and July of this year. The applicants are now requesting preliminary plat approval for a new lakeshore lot between their Walters Port Lane home located at 2709 Walters Port Lane and the neighboring property to the east. The proposal involves creation of two lots with over 1.0 acres in dry buildable area each within the area guided for low-medium density. Page 2 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lot 1, which is where the Dunkleys' home is located,consists of one acre. Proposed Lot 2 meets the one acre size requirement and the 140-foot width at the lake and at the 75-foot setback line. Based on the configuration,there is an approximate 90-foot buildable envelope at the average lakeshore setback line. No variances are being requested. The proposed 20-foot wide frontage connection to Walters Port Lane is proposed for the street frontage of Lot 2. The applicants are proposing to solely use the Walters Port access as they have been. Lot 2 will access using the existing Pence Lane shared with the Huelers. Lot 2 provides for a generally flat house pad to support a reasonable home without encroaching into the side yard setbacks,the lake yard, or the average lakeshore average. A delineated wetland near the center of the property impacts the buildable area and limits flexibility for development of the lot. The delineated wetland does require a buffer as required by the Watershed District. The lots will be served by city sewer and water. Over the past year and during the construction of the addition to the Dunkleys' home,there has been unaccounted and unpermitted movement of dirt and grading. This grading has impacted the "existing grade"necessary to apply height regulations to the new home. The applicant is attempting to capture and gain approval of the topographic changes to the property with the proposed plat. There is an area between the wetland and the driveway where approximately 300 cubic yards of fill was placed. This filling was not part of the permits for the demolition of the home on 2710 Pence Lane, nor was it included in the home addition permits. The applicants are also showing an approximate 200 cubic yard stockpile on Lot 1. This material is also proposed to be utilized along the west side of the driveway. Material has been added to the stockpile as part of the pool excavation today. A number of trees have been removed from the property outside of the 75-foot zone. The City will require the standard perimeter drainage and utility easements around all property boundaries in the plat and drainage easements over the wetland area and drainageways. Outlot A should also include the perimeter drainage and utility easements. The final plat drawing should include the drainage and utility easements. The preliminary plat should reflect the limits of the existing driveway easement for clarity in the future. Additional evidence of a driveway maintenance agreement and easements for access to Lot 1 and the Huelers will be required at the time of final plat. A park dedication fee is recommended per City Ordinance. The Park Fee is determined as 8 percent of the fair market value of the land being subdivided but must be between a minimum of$3,250 and a maximum of$5,550 per residential dwelling unit. The City's assessor will be consulted to determine the market value of the land for establishing the amount of the fee. The developer should contact the MCWD and provide confirmation regarding the permits or approvals they will require for this subdivision. The City's engineer is in the process of reviewing the proposed plat drawing and comments will be provided prior to being placed on the City Council agenda. The development is also subject to the 2018 Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee of$5,250 per acre. Planning Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. Page 3 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Paul Vogstrom, Contractor, stated they have worked extensively with Staff and that he believes everything has been ironed out with the lot. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. Greg Hueler,2715 Pence Lane,noted he and his wife have never stated that they would be opposed to a lot that conforms to the City's regulations and that they are happy to see the applicants are proposing a lot that meets City Code as well as a driveway with only two homes on it. Hueler stated he appreciates those changes and that he has no other comments. Bill Griffith,Attorney-at-Law appearing on behalf of the Huelers, stated they are happy the applicants are proposing a conforming lot, and in looking forward to the future,the Huelers will not support any type of variance since the home can be developed fully in conformance with City Code. In addition,since the new property and the Huelers' property accesses off of Pence Lane,there should not be a variance granted to add a third house to that driveway since there is legal access from Walters Port Lane currently. If this developer or applicant requests that variance,the Huelers will oppose it. Griffith stated the best way to protect everyone's rights is to construct a conforming home on this conforming lot. Mike Jorgensen, Pheasant Road, stated his property adjoins the subject property. Jorgensen indicated he has known the Dunkleys for a number of years,and when he found out they were going to develop this property, he knew it would be first class because everything they do with their property is first class. Jorgensen stated the Dunkleys are really wonderful people and that he hopes the Planning Commission approves all their requests. Sandra Keegan, 2707 Walters Port Lane,noted the Dunkleys' landscape plans have changed since they proposed the addition on to their house. Originally their driveway access was going to be off of Pence, which is no longer the case. Keegan stated they have experienced some runoff from the Dunkleys' house that was rebuilt ten years ago. With the new addition and the increase of hardcover where the new driveway is going to connect to the existing driveway,which is right where her property starts, Keegan stated she is concerned there will be more issues with runoff into her lot. Keegan stated this is the first time they have seen this landscape plan and that she and her husband would like to go on the record that they have concerns about the runoff due to the amount of hardcover concentrated in that area. Bill Keegan,2707 Walters Port Lane,noted the Dunkleys and their landscaper have indicated they will take steps to address that but that they just wanted to express their concerns. Sue Dunkley,Applicant, stated she has reviewed the City's documents for the past 40 years concerning the drainage in that area and that their developer will also be looking very closely at that. Dunkley indicated they want the landscaping to look beautiful everywhere and that they will work diligently to figure out how to solve an age-old problem as it concerns the runoff. In addition,the driveway covenants say whoever is using the road has to do the maintenance, snowplowing, and pay the real estate taxes. Dunkley stated they will need to work together to find out who will improve it and that they will certainly not going to stop whatever is an improvement. In regards Page 4 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. to the dirt movement,there was a drop from the road down to the swamp, which was filled in. The original intention was to widen the road and the last thing they wanted was a drop down to the swamp. Dunkley stated she is not sure what happened there but that they certainly did not do anything intentional other than improve the area. Dunkley noted the road has not been paved in 34 years and that something will need to be done after construction is completed. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to the October 8 City Council meeting. Thiesse asked what direction Staff has on the fill. Curtis stated the City's engineer is currently reviewing the grading plan and that she has spoken to Mr. Gronberg about the fill,who was trying to reconcile what changes were made with the previous surveyor's information. Staff is hoping to have a plan that the City Engineer will approve prior to the Council meeting and that Staff is hoping to work with the applicant to resolve any runoff concerns onto the Keegan property. Libby commented it is encouraging that Gronberg&Associates is taking a look at this and that the applicants are amenable to remediating any problems to the neighbors,which gives him a very strong vote of confidence. Ressler stated he appreciates the efforts by the applicants to make this a conforming lot,which makes it easier for the Planning Commission and everyone else concerned. Lemke moved,Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No.LA18-000072, Paul Vogstrom on behalf of Bill and Sue Dunkley,2709 Walters Port Lane,preliminary plat. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 4. LA18-000075 BLAKE SWANSON,3017 NORTH SHORE DRIVE,VARIANCE This item was removed at the request of the Applicant. 5. LA18-000077 JOHN KNOBLAUCH, 1335 ARBOR STREET,VARIANCES,6:52 P.M.— 7:03 P.M. Jeff Martineau, Developer,was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting side street setback and interior side setback variances. This site was the subject of an earlier variance application in January that the Planning Commission subsequently recommended denial on due to the request for a structural coverage variance. In February,the City Council tabled the application and asked the applicants to redesign the home to meet the structural coverage standards and bring the application back through the public hearing process. In April,the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval. The City Council then reviewed the application on May 14,2018, and approved variances for lot area, lot width,front yard, side street, and interior side yard setbacks. The original applicant sold his interest in the project and a new builder has applied for a building permit and is proposing two new encroachments: Page 5 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 1. Expand the house footprint over the approved window well on the interior side of the home; expanding the structure and volume within this setback. 2. Creating a new bump-out within the side street yard setback outside of the approved house footprint; expanding the structure and volume within this setback. These alterations of the building plans are significant enough to warrant additional public. The new home will eliminate the approved window wells and will bring the home 9.5 feet from Prospect Street when 8.5 feet is approved. The applicant is also showing the chimney bump-out at 6.5 feet on the interior side yard. This was not shown on the approved survey but was included as part of the approved house plans. Depending on the roofline,roof overhang or small areas for drainage, water may be able to be mitigated with a gutter system. The applicant must ensure the roof and surface runoff are not directed toward the neighboring property Staff finds there are practical difficulties inherent to the lot area, lot width, and proposed setbacks. Due to the size of the lot located within the two-acre RR-1B zoning district. The lot is also unique in that it has street which is abutting three sides of the lot. Public comments were made at the January 16,2018,Planning Commission meeting in favor of the proposed project. A major concern that came up from the neighborhood was the proposed height of the building and for it to remain a one-story home as to not overshadow the street,which will help the home maintain the character of the neighborhood. This was a discussion by the City Council as well. The new redesigned home is a one-story home with no windows above the first floor. If the Planning Commission has sufficient findings for the requests, Staff would recommend approval of the requested variances. Oakden displayed an aerial photograph of the area and pointed out the location of the existing house. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Jeff Martineau,Developer, stated he has been shepherding this property since the first application and that the owner of the property and the original applicant have not changed. Martineau indicated he has been working with the purchasers to help them design a plan that would work with the City and their requirements. Since then a builder has reviewed the plans and is recommending some changes. One of the changes was to make the setback variance 9.5 feet on the back of the house. By straightening the wall of the house out, it substantially shrunk the window well area and created a better use of the area between the properties. The party that is building the house will be guttering that side of the house and will do whatever is necessary to carry the water away from there. Martineau stated in his view these are small changes that truly make sense and do not change the structural coverage or hardcover. Page 6 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:01 p.m. There were no public comments related to this application. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to the October 8 City Council meeting. Thiesse stated he would consider these to be minor changes. Thiesse asked if there are any conditions for protecting a window well that is over four feet deep. Oakden stated to her knowledge the City does not have any regulations requiring covering of window wells. Olson moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000077, John Knoblauch, 1335 Arbor Street,granting of a side street setback variance and interior side setback variance. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 6. LA18-000076 REVISION,LLC, 1725 BOHNS POINT ROAD,VARIANCES,7:03 P.M.— 7:19 P.M. Kevin Schultz, Revision, LLC; and Sven Gustafson, Stonewood,LLC, were present. Curtis stated the owner purchased the property in the fall of 2017 and has begun to make improvements. One area they wish to upgrade is the existing boathouse on the western portion of the lakeshore. The applicants have provided plans which contemplate an in-kind rebuild of the existing failing structure but wish to expand upward to allow for a covered porch-like roof over the top portion of the structure which is currently a dock. They also propose to reorient the stairs but are keeping the two existing patio areas at the lake and up on the hill. Due to the proximity of the boathouse to the lake,variances are requested. The applicants plan to rebuild the foundation of the 150 square foot boathouse which is permitted as a legal nonconforming structure with respect to setback. It is currently set back 16 feet from the OHWL where a 75-foot setback is required and entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. They also plan to increase the height by adding a porch roof over the top which expands the structure within the substandard average lakeshore and lake setback. The hardcover variance is requested due to the reorientation of the existing stairway to the lake. A lake access stair is permitted hardcover. However, with the addition of the other existing improvements in the 75-foot setback, the hardcover on the site exceeds the minimum permitted. The applicant's proposal results in a hardcover reduction in the 75-foot setback area of 40 square feet due to the reorientation of the stair and a variance is still required. The applicant has completed a practical difficulty form and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. The boathouse was constructed prior to today's lake and sight protection rules. The owners intend to keep the existing footprint yet wish to make improvements to better suit their family's needs and to modernize the structure. Page 7 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. The Planning Commission should review the practical difficulties analysis provided and determine if they support granting the requested variances to improve the boathouse and lake access stair. The Planning Commission should carefully consider whether the applicant has satisfied the practical difficulties standard for their proposed accessory structure expansion and consider a motion to approve or deny the requested variances as appropriate. Thiesse asked if the encroachment would be from the top of the railing up since there is currently a railing. Curtis indicated it would be. Kevin Schultz, Revision, stated the existing vegetation hides the structure almost entirely from the lakeside. All of the foliage that is seen is intrinsic to erosion control,and if it is cut back or destroyed,the slope would be in danger of failing. Even with the height of the roof being raised,the roof peak height would still screened from behind. Sven Gustafson stated the roofline is essentially level with the back yard. Landgraver asked if it is screened on all four sides. Schultz indicated it is screened on all four sides,with the back side being accessible from the walkway. Gustafson indicated they are retractable screens and would only be visible when they are down. Thiesse asked if the L-shaped retaining wall currently exists. Curtis indicated it does. Gustafson noted the current stairs are made out of timber. Schultz stated the stairs are currently in poor condition. Libby commented despite all of the prohibitions about buildings being located along the lakeshore, boathouses are historic characteristics of lakeshore living. Libby stated in his view a porch above this structure would be very beneficial to the owner and would look complimentary to the lakeshore. Gustafson stated they are doing two of these in the City of Minnetrista at the present time in areas where the structures do not currently exist. Gustafson stated if they are called water oriented accessory buildings, 160 square feet of structure is permitted Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. There were no public comments related to this application. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to the October 8 City Council meeting. Thiesse stated the boathouse is not that large and is tucked in nicely. Thiesse stated in his view porches in Minnesota without screens could be considered a practical difficulty. Page 8 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke noted it is a nonconforming structure and can be replaced in-kind, but that this structure is not being replaced in-kind since they are adding to it. Ressler agreed the applicants are adding structure and that replacing it in-kind is different than adding to it. Ressler asked whether Staff has any recollection of other similar structures being added on to. Curtis stated she cannot come up with an identical scenario but noted the City does allow expansion of a nonconforming structure. Generally the structures the City has looked at in the past are not located directly on the lakeshore,and the Planning Commission should look at any expansion of a nonconforming structure by considering the practical difficulties and how the request is balanced out. Thiesse stated he would also look at the intent of the ordinances,and in his view the intent is to protect views from the lake and for the neighbors. Thiesse commented he is not sure if the neighbor could even see it with a roof on top of it since it is tucked in nicely from the lake. Landgraver stated he usually is against massing on the lake, but that this structure is proposed to go straight up instead of expanding the footprint. Given the slope and shielding,he would be comfortable with it. Libby asked if the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has weighed in on this application. Curtis noted they are above the floodplain. Ressler stated his only other concern is if the City approves this, it likely will set a precedent for other similar applications and that he is not in favor of it. Thiesse stated in his view a precedent is not necessarily being set since each site is looked at individually. Landgraver moved, Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000076, Revision,LLC, 1725 Bohns Point Road,granting of variances. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 3,Lemke, Erickson and Ressler opposed. Erickson stated he is a little bit concerned with the proposal given that Item No. 12 says that the granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. Staff notes that providing a more comfortable viewing opportunity could be viewed as a convenience, which he tends to agree with that. Obviously if the structure is failing, it is in everyone's interests to improve it,but an expansion of use beyond what was there could be considered not a practical difficulty but a convenience. Thiesse noted it says merely serves as a convenience but that what the applicants are proposing is more than that. 7. LA18-000065 JIM KOCH ON BEHALF OF CHRIS MORGART, 1003 WILDHURST TRAIL, SKETCH PLAN,7:19 P.M.—7:58 P.M. Jim Koch,Applicant, was present. Barnhart stated this is a sketch plan for an 8-lot single-family subdivision at the north end of Wildhurst Trail. The subject property consists of four parcels and an unimproved right-of-way. Page 9 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. The first policy question for the Planning Commission and the City Council is to determine whether they would be amenable to vacating some or all of the right-of-way necessary to support the development. The right-of-way forming the north portion of planned Lot 5 and the eastern portion of Lots 5,6, and 7 may connect to Lake Minnetonka. Generally the City avoids vacating rights-of-way that serve as lake access. In this situation, Staff feels some portion of the right-of-way could be vacated but that access to the lake should be preserved. The west side of the development is a 2-acre zone and is outside of the MUSA. On the east side it is a 1-acre minimum zone and is eligible for MUSA. Each lot on the east side is greater than the 1.0 acre required but some of these lots appear to have a 924' contour, which would make them lake lots and subject to the lot width measurement at the lake and at the 75-foot setback. If they are deemed lake lots, it does not appear that the lot width requirement can be met. West of the extended road four lots are proposed. These lots exceed the two-acre lot minimum gross lot size but some of these lots have slopes greater than 18 percent. Those areas cannot be included in the lot area calculation. The width requirement is 200 feet as measured at the street. At this time the lots should be considered conceptual since all lots will need to be confirmed that they can support two septic sites. The developer should be aware that this subdivision is subject to the City's Conservation Design Ordinance. The project will be reviewed in terms of the Rural Oasis goals and policies that have been approved by the City Council. The Conservation Design will provide further insight on the impact of the development and the developer's plan to minimize and mitigate these impacts. Lemke asked how the sewer would come into the property. Barnhart indicated it would likely come from Wildhurst but that a feasibility study has not yet been performed. Lemke asked whether it would make sense to serve both sides. Barnhart stated that argument could be made. One advantage to that would be to save some trees,but that it would be a pretty significant departure from past practice in regard to expanding the MUSA boundary. In addition, it would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the rest of the Wildhurst Road neighborhood. Lemke asked whether there have been any soil tests done that demonstrate the lots will support a private septic system. Barnhart stated to his understanding there was some septic testing done in the late 1990s but that he does not have that information available tonight. Libby stated a consideration for the property owners and developer is that if city sewer is allowed, each lot will gain a substantial amount of land since they will not have to dedicate a second site for septic. Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission supported that change, it is likely the applicant would welcome that, but that expansion of the MUSA boundary would be a departure from what has normally been done. Page 10 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver asked if this is an isolated right-of-way. Barnhart stated this whole area has been platted in the past and that is what is left on the eastern three parcels that the property owner owns. Thiesse asked if there is an alley easement down Wildhurst. Barnhart stated it would be a right-of-way and not an easement. If it is a platted right-of-way, it would need to be addressed by the applicant. Jim Koch,Applicant, commented this is a unique piece of property with an intervening view of the lake. The parcel consists of almost 15 acres with two different zoning classifications. The 10-acre parcel is zoned RR-1B and the 5-acre parcel is zoned LL-RB. There have been some applications in the past that have created more lots than what is being proposed right now and required rezoning. Koch stated they attempted to come up with a plan to stay within the existing zoning guidelines and have designed lots that are similar to the surrounding area. Koch noted this plan requires a variance to the frontage,which they felt was the least impactful. The lots are well over the 2-acre minimum on the RR-1B side and are within the requirements for lot sizes on the east side. The plan is to follow engineering guidelines and environmental recommendations. Koch indicated they have met with the Watershed District on the wetlands and a stormwater plan and that they are attempting to be the least impactful that they can. The parcel consists of four different PIDs and the proposal is to take those properties and combine them. An analysis was done on the engineering and environmental impacts and Conservation Design requirements will be followed. Koch stated they would welcome the opportunity to add city sewer to the lots in the RR-1B district and that they would certainly explore the engineering to add that side of the road to city sewer. As it relates to the extension of Wildhurst Trail,the other designs that have been proposed have had multiple roads going into the property,which did not meet the environmental guidelines for the property. This proposal has one road coming in off of Wildhurst and follows the zoning line. Koch stated the two things they would like support from the Planning Commission on is to vacate the rights-of-way and for some flexibility on the lot widths. Koch stated they were not able to provide the 200-foot lot width but that they are very close. The intent of the 2-acre minimum was to make sure the lots were bigger,which this proposal meets, and that the proposed lots are very similar to much of the surrounding platted property. Lemke asked what will happen north of the property. Koch indicated Saga Hill is in the area,which has been included in the MUSA boundary, and that one option might be to swap out a portion of the Saga Hill site. Lemke asked why the cul-de-sac is located so far up. Koch indicated they did that because of the potential right-of-way to the lake but that they could move it back. Page 11 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse noted it is pretty much all wetland to the north and that Saga Hill is to the south. Thiesse asked if the right-of-way pretty much goes into Saga Hill. Barnhart indicates the unimproved right-of-way goes into Saga Hill. Thiesse stated he would like to retain some of the right-of-way into Saga Hill and have some sort of right- of-way between Lots 6 and 7. Koch stated that is a good recommendation. The lots are a little over an acre and it would be a matter of where that access could be provided but that would be one possibility. Thiesse asked if it would still be a viable project if it was reduced down to three lots. Koch stated they have already reduced the number of lots from 11 and that they feel this is a good number of lots. Thiesse asked if Lot 4 is buildable. Koch stated it likely is. Landgraver stated the lots on the left could get more into conformance,which would mean three lots. Koch noted Lots 1 through 4 are significantly bigger than the other lots in the neighborhood. Libby asked if he has any metrics on the water quality or depth of the water in that area. Koch stated they have been working with the Watershed District and that in 1991 maintenance dredging had been done at ten feet but that it is kind of a floating bog in some of the area. Koch indicated he is trying to do a little more research about dredging with the Watershed District and that they can dredge it out to the original size. Libby asked how many docks would be available. Koch stated they have not really explored that at this time but to his knowledge there were two docks listed with the City under a joint dock use agreement. Landgraver stated historically the City has not yielded on rights-of-way to the lake and that if the developer could maintain some form of right-of-way, it would be a win-win situation. Thiesse recommended the right-of-way into Saga Hill be maintained. Koch stated that would be very difficult due to the elevation. Thiesse commented they would not have to do anything with the right-of-way but that they could trade the right-of-way to provide someone else the opportunity to do something with it if they wished. Thiesse noted the only variance they are proposing is to the lot width. Page 12 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Erickson noted he served on the Orono Comprehensive Plan Committee and that they reviewed the lake access points listed in the Comprehensive Plan. In reviewing the list, it was discovered that over half of the access points have been closed. Any further discussion about the lake access should refer to that inventory to see whether this access point is on that inventory. Erickson noted some of the lake access points that are available to the public are restricted, such as no snowmobiling,which is how it should be due to the different topography. Erickson stated there is also the issue of neighborhood concerns regarding the access. Landgraver stated he has a concern with reducing the width of the lots in order to get four lots in there on the west side. Landgraver indicated he would be willing to give some compromise on the lake lots if the west side is brought more into conformity. Thiesse stated it appears the Planning Commission is okay with some type of right-of-way being maintained but they have some difficulty with the width of the lots on the west side. Thiesse asked if the new road is proposed to be private or public. Barnhart stated currently Wildhurst is a public road. Barnhart stated what he has heard so far regarding what is important to the Planning Commission is access to the lake,access to Saga Hill from the west, meeting the requirements for lot width,particularly on the west side, but that they are open to some flexibility on the east side. Barnhart noted the lot sizes are based on the gross area and the wetlands and slopes of 18 percent may impact that. Koch commented they have received a lot of interest on lots that are over two acres and that the 4-lot number is pretty important to them on that side. Libby asked if Haddy Street is built to city standards. Barnhart indicated he has not done that measurement. Koch stated to his knowledge their engineer did take that into consideration. Barnhart noted a lot of details are not usually included on a sketch plan and that Staff was looking for some direction on the three policy questions. Lemke stated the width of the lots does not bother him as much as it does some of the other Planning Commissioners. Thiesse stated once the wetlands and slopes are taken into consideration,the lots will likely shrink. Lemke recommended the developer pursue city sewer for the other lots. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. 8. LA18-000079 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC,3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, SKETCH PLAN,7:59 P.M.—8:25 P.M. Curt Fretham and Peter Ryan,Lakewest Development,were present. Page 13 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated this sketch plan proposes an apartment building on the vacant, former landfilled property on the west side of Orono and south of Eisinger Meadows,which was a preliminary plat for a townhome development. The site includes 13.6 acres of wetland, 5.2 acres of developable land, and 10.2 acres of buried construction materials. The application in 2016 contemplated future development of an apartment site to the south of the townhome development. However,those approvals did not include any specific plan and were not included in the calculations for density for the Comprehensive Plan, were not included in the preliminary plat,and were not included in any detail for the General Concept Plan. Approvals to complete this project will include a plat of an outlot for the building, a Comprehensive Plan amendment, and RPUD zoning. The applicant proposes a 4-story structure for 192 apartments/senior living. The building will be U-shaped,with the opening to the north. The height of the building has not been calculated but four stories typically exceed 30 feet in defined height. The notable feature of the site is a former landfill in the location of the proposed apartment building. Access to the site will be from the north and Wayzata Boulevard. A new street is proposed to serve both Eisinger Meadows and the proposed Eisinger Flats. The preliminary plat for Eisinger Meadows contemplated a new north-south public street. This street should terminate in a cul-de-sac meeting subdivision standards. A surface parking lot for 92 cars is proposed to the north of the building. City Code requires two spaces per apartment unit. Assuming 192 units,384 spaces will be required. The sketch plan does suggest underground parking but the number of stalls has not been illustrated. As a proposed RPUD,the hardcover limitation would be 50 percent. The project is located within the MUSA. The sketch plan does meet most of the RPUD requirements. The private recreation has not been developed but it is anticipated to include the two areas shown on the sketch plan along with a network of trails. The proposed density of 19.8 units per acre exceeds the 2030 Land Use Planned density of 10 to 15 units per acre. Raising the density to 20 units per acre will be consistent with other apartment/senior living projects in the City and will add to the City's numerical buffer necessary to serve lower density areas with sanitary sewer. The Planning Commission should discuss the following: 1. Does the Planning Commission support the use of the property for a high-density residential use at densities greater than 15 units per acre? 2. Does the Planning Commission support a building higher than 30 feet in this location? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this proposal? Staff sees the value of a high-density development in this area since it offers the City the opportunity to provide other lower density areas with sanitary sewer. It is likely the neighbors in the area,however, would be opposed to high density in this location. In addition,the site will access directly onto Wayzata Boulevard. Page 14 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Additional review by Hennepin County,the MPCA, and the Watershed District will be necessary. Landgraver asked whether the Village townhomes were two-story. Thiesse indicated they were two-story. Barnhart stated he knows they were in a slightly different configuration originally and that the developer is making some modifications. Lemke stated to his understanding they have approximately the same number of units. Landgraver stated to go from one story to four stories will make the apartment building appear high. Thiesse noted it is also downhill from those. Erickson stated this particular location strikes him as probably the best location in all of Orono that would lend itself to higher density and maybe a little extra height, keeping in mind that it will be highly regulated as far as the wetland and the former landfill. Also within those constraints there is the Highway 12 bypass on one side and a county road on the other side, which will soon be upgraded beyond what it is today. For neighbors this site has Baker Park,the Lurton Dog Park,and another parcel of land planned for multiple use. Erickson stated if it all gets built as dense as possible,the traffic will still probably not reach the peak levels of Old Highway 12. Erickson indicated her could endorse 20 units per acre, a building four stories high, and underground parking. Lemke noted last time two access points were proposed onto Wayzata Boulevard and now there is only one. Barnhart stated one of the access points was removed by Hennepin County because there were some challenges from a sight visibility standpoint. Landgraver stated this is the one place where four stories might work, and whether it is 19 or 20 units per acre,this is a good spot for it. Perry Ryan, Lakewest Development, stated they are unsure of the 10 percent recreational space that was listed in Staffs report and that they will work with Staff on that. In the narrative some of the rationale has been listed for higher density. This is a good spot for that since it is sandwiched between two roads and it is somewhat remote. The other item regarding density was meeting the Metropolitan Council's goals, which this project will do and provide the City with some buffer. Overall this is a very unique and interesting site. Mitigating factors for the height is the fact that the building will sit between six or eight feet lower than both Wayzata Boulevard and Highway 12. Also being proposed is a berm around the site as well and visually passersby will only see two to two and a half stories from all sides. The closest part of the building is 450 feet from Wayzata Boulevard,which is one and a half football fields away and 100 to 200 feet away from Highway 12. Ryan stated they added a graph to the sketch plan to show the site's environmental density. The site consists of 35 acres and approximately 18.92 percent of the site will be developed in hard surface such as roadways, parking and building. The other reason for the four stories is to keep the footprint as small as Page 15 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. possible in order to stay further away from the wetland and the wetland buffer. In addition,the smaller footprint allows for a bigger recreational area. Ryan stated some of the positives for the development are the 18 percent environmental impact,the higher density to meet the Metropolitan Council's goals,the existing infrastructure, and the cleanup of a landfill. Ryan indicated they are working with the MPCA on that. Landgraver asked how he envisions the senior housing to integrate with the overall building. Ryan stated whether it will be apartments or senior housing has not been determined yet. One of the things that has changed is that four units have been shifted over and Outlot B will be a full public right- of-way. Staff has suggested placing a cul-de-sac in that area,which will provide a good separation between those two products. Thiesse asked if there will be adequate parking. Ryan stated in their view there will be and that there will be underground parking. Lemke asked whether there are any concerns with water issues related to the underground parking. Ryan indicated they do not have any concerns based upon the soil borings they have taken. Lemke asked about traffic. Ryan stated Hennepin County is going to be redesigning that road and lowering the hill to make it safer. In addition,they will be looking at incorporating a turn-in lane or a bypass lane. Ryan noted the development is at the western boundary of the city, so the amount of traffic should not be that much. Libby noted there are a number of varying models for senior housing and that he would encourage them to embrace some of the different ideas. Libby stated the vacancy rates for senior housing are at an all- time low. Ryan indicated they will be updating their market research and taking a closer look at that. Erickson encouraged them to be open to the idea that a majority vote might come more easily if they stick to the 30-foot height. Thiesse commented the neighborhood might not be ready for a tall building but that this is a good location for this type of project. Libby asked where he sees the rents being and what type of apartment units there will be. Ryan indicated they do not have the layout yet but generally it will be a mix of one and two-bedroom units. Thiesse asked if there are any provisions for a trail along the roadway. Page 16 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart indicated he will have to look into that. Barnhart stated the original preliminary plat can either be amended or there can be a separate one for this development. The final plat can either reflect this as a single buildable lot or simply the townhome units or both. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. 9. LA18-000057 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT—ACCESSORY BUILDING AND STRUCTURE SETBACKS,8:25 P.M.—8:55 P.M. Curtis noted this is a continuation of a discussion that started back in June regarding proposed changes for Accessory Building and Structure setbacks. The changes discussed so far have been regarding the overall organization of the regulations in the Code and whether or not adjustments to the existing setbacks are needed. Staff took the feedback given at the August meeting and continued to develop the remainder of the residential tables based upon the previously agreed-upon philosophy. The RS District has some additional complications and Staff is seeking guidance on how to proceed regarding accessory building/structure setbacks in that district. The Planning Commission should review the additional tables and the setbacks contemplated within those tables. In addition, Staff asks that the Planning Commission provide direction on the following: I. RS Seasonal Recreational District—Big Island/Deering Island. The current minimum side yard setbacks for all structures and buildings are based on the width of the property. 2. Staff has proposed to allow for Accessory Buildings to follow the nonconforming lot width flexibility for side setbacks but does not provide the same for Oversized Accessory Buildings and Accessory structures. Does the Planning Commission wish to discuss this further or to explore other setback flexibilities? 3. The current City regulations would prohibit an Accessory Building/Oversized Accessory Building to be located streetward of the principal building. Staff would like Planning Commission feedback on this requirement. If an AB or OAB meets the required principal building setback and the principal building itself is set back further than the minimum, is it appropriate for the AB/OAB to be closer to the street? What are the impacts, if any? 4. Some of the proposed changes, where setbacks have been increased with this amendment, may result in a significant number of existing buildings in the City becoming legal nonconformities which would limit their expansion, etc. There is no inventory of the accessory buildings so an accurate number is not realistic. The Planning Commission should discuss the potential impacts for property owners. 5. Private recreational facilities may warrant their own discussion for clarification. Private recreational facilities are defined and are listed in the zoning code as allowed accessory uses within each residential district. However,the definition and subsequent district regulations may leave too much up to interpretation. To date no public comments have been received. Page 17 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. The Planning Commission should reopen the public hearing and receive public comments. The Commission should discuss the items listed in the Staff report and provide Staff with direction. Following discussion,the Planning Commission should table the application to the October meeting. Libby asked where the base measurement of 1,000 square feet comes from. Curtis indicated it is a number that the Planning Commission and City Council felt would be a good base for a large accessory building and was arrived at a number of years ago. Libby stated as the City is trending towards more accessory buildings, 1,000 square feet can be limiting for a lot of people. Curtis noted larger lots can have larger buildings. Libby stated he might be missing some component as it relates to the setbacks and how it will impact the size. Libby asked whether it has to be a pretty good size lot to have a 2,000 square foot building. Curtis stated there is a table in the code currently that outlines how large the building can be. There is a cap on how big the oversized building can be,but for a building under 1,000 square feet, a person could have ten buildings if they choose. Since the current chart stops at nine acres, Staff may consider expanding the chart but that can be discussed at a later point. Curtis noted the City currently limits the square footage but not the number of buildings. Libby asked whether an addition to an existing residential structure could actually be considered an accessory structure. Curtis stated if there is a weather-tight connection, it would be considered an addition to the principal structure. Libby asked how that would affect a second accessory structure. Curtis indicated it would not matter, and that the only time the house size is going to limit the accessory structure size is when the lot is reaching 20 percent structural coverage. Thiesse asked what Staff is looking for on Item No. 1. Curtis stated she would like to know whether the Planning Commission feels there is a comprehensive way to look at the width rather than saying 10 percent or another actual number. Thiesse stated since there are two islands within the seasonal recreational district, he would like to accommodate them somehow, but if the current way is working for Staff, he would not change it. Olson asked whether these are arbitrary numbers. Curtis stated those are the numbers currently in the code. Curtis asked whether Commissioner Thiesse feels 200 feet is reasonable. Thiesse indicated he does and that he would like to keep the structures as far apart as possible. Page 18 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver indicated he is also in agreement. Curtis stated the Planning Commission can change the side setback requirements for an accessory structure on Big Island if they would like but that on a 200 foot wide lot it currently has to be 50 feet away from the lot line no matter what size the shed is. Or the Planning Commission can proceed with the current setbacks if they feel they are acceptable. Ressler stated unless Staff is receiving a lot of questions about it, he would leave it as is. Barnhart indicated Staff's goal is to reduce the need for variances that can be anticipated, and if they follow the setback based on the width of the lot,that provides some flexibility and separation in the development that is already there. Currently lot width is measured at the lake and measured at the 75-foot line,and the question is what happens if those numbers are different. Curtis stated currently they give the property owner the benefit of the doubt with the smaller number in this situation. Thiesse stated the intent is to keep the structures away from the property line and that he would measure it from the location of structure. Curtis stated the LR-1A District currently has a 200-foot minimum and allows a principal structure to be 30 feet from the side. Staff is proposing to allow an accessory building at 15 feet and an oversized accessory building at 30 feet. Curtis asked if the Planning Commission would like Big Island to have different requirements. Thiesse noted the City has not received any feedback from residents of Big Island and that he would leave them where they are. Erickson stated in his view it is good to minimize density on Big Island since they do not have sewer and that he would encourage them to combine lots whenever possible. Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about Item No. 2 in Staff's report. Curtis asked whether the Planning Commission would like to apply the nonconforming lot widths to accessory buildings and allow buildings under 1,000 feet to follow the same flexibility given to the principal structure on those lots, which in some cases would be 7.5 feet. That flexibility would not be extended to oversized accessory buildings or to accessory structures. Olson asked what methodology Curtis stated currently a 50-foot lot would be allowed to have a 7.5 foot setback for a principal structure but a 10' x 10' shed would need to meet a 10-foot setback. Staff is looking for direction on whether that accessory building should be allowed at the 7.5-foot setback but are not proposing to extend the flexibility to the oversized accessory building. A 900 square foot building could be 7.5 feet but not a 1,000 square foot building. Olson commented he is good with that. Page 19 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Ressler and Thiesse agreed. Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about Item No. 3. Curtis stated if the home is extremely far from the front lot line,an accessory building could be located at the principal structure setback. Thiesse stated the intent is to keep structures away from the road,and if there was an accessory structure in front of the house,the architecture should match the house. Thiesse commented he is not sure why the City would preclude people from putting the structure in front of their house as long as it is meeting the setback and architectural standards of the principal structure. Olson indicated he is in agreement with that. Lemke stated it is hard to determine what architectural standards are. Barnhart stated they would look at materials since Orono does not have an architecture review committee. Staff can draft some language and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Landgraver stated the word accessory implies it is the subordinate building,which should not be the first building someone sees but sometimes the only place that is buildable is the front of the lot. Curtis asked if there are some zoning districts where it would be more appropriate to consider. Libby stated having some kind of architectural uniformity would be nice,but since the uses will vary, it is difficult to mandate whether they are located in the front, side,or back. Curtis stated if the City allows an accessory building ahead of the principal structure,the City already has a provision that talks about exterior finishes and that can be incorporated into this. Barnhart stated the benefits should outweigh the challenges and that the goal of the zoning districts is to preserve open spaces and yards. There may not be a big difference if the first building you see is an accessory structure if the materials are addressed. Lemke commented they might be assuming that the accessory building will be ugly. Barnhart indicated Staff will come back with some language for the Planning Commission to review. Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about Item No. 4. Erickson stated another way of looking at it is whether it changes the character of the neighborhood. Thiesse asked if it would be a practical difficulty if someone came in with a nonconforming structure that they would like to modify if it was constructed before the code changed. Curtis indicated it would be. Curtis stated an example would be an old garage with a 6:12 roof which is now halfway into the setback. The owners would now like to reroof it and make the roof pitch higher, which would be an expansion into the setback. Currently those are considered for a variance. Curtis indicated she is not sure how many conforming buildings may become nonconforming with the changes. Page 20 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated in his mind they should be able to expand on that building since it was a conforming structure when constructed but now they have to pay$275 to apply for a variance if they want to change the roof pitch. Barnhart stated the goal is to reduce the need for variances, but that the Planning Commission should recognize that some new nonconformities will likely be introduced due to the changes. Barnhart stated there are some areas where the setbacks have been increased but generally they have been kept the same. Barnhart stated while the goal is to reduce the need for variances, it will not completely eliminate them. Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about Item No. 5. Curtis stated her suggestion would be to delete the existing language. The list of private recreational facilities includes things that are affixed or not affixed, such as a portable basketball hoop or a fire pit. Staff feels relatively confident that most of those things can be covered by considering it an accessory structure. Libby asked why they don't just call it a private recreational accessory structure to keep it separated from more of a storage related structure. Curtis indicated the definition of accessory structure is anything that is built, constructed,erected, etc., like a hot tub or sport court or patio,but is not a building. Barnhart stated he sees private recreational facilities as not adding a lot of value because it is an accessory structure. Thiesse suggested they delete private recreational facilities and leave it as an accessory structure. Curtis indicated she will have some language and tables to review at the next meeting. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:58 p.m. There were no public comments related to this application. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to the October Planning Commission meeting. 8. UPDATE ON SEPTEMBER 10,2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart reported the City Council approved the sign ordinance at their September 10 meeting. Upon discussing it further with the City Attorney, it was verified that a resident cannot advertise a business that is occurring on another property since that would be considered a billboard, which is not allowed. A resident, however, can advertise a business that is occurring on the property. The City Council also approved a grading conditional use permit on Crystal Bay Road. Due to timing issues,that application was not reviewed by Planning Commission. 9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Page 21 of 22 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. None PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Thiesse moved,Olson seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:00 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. ATTEST: John Thiesse, Chair Page 22 of 22 Date Application Received: 9/13/2018 O�T Date Application Considered as Complete:10/2/2018VO 60-Day Review Period Expires: 11/30/2018 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator j C, 4kESH00' From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: October 15, 2018 Subject: LA18-000081, Brain Haas o/b/o Jeffery Gossen, 4260 Sixth Ave N,Variance, Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting east and west side yard setback variances. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends for the planning commission to review the proposed practical difficulties. If the commission agrees with the findings staff would recommend a motion for approval. Background The applicants are requesting side yard setback variances to allow for a home addition to the existing structure. The detached garage west of the existing home is proposed to move to the north. The applicant proposes an attached garage in its place. The current detached garage sits roughly 38 feet from the west side property line. The new home addition and attached garage is proposed to sit 37 feet from the west side of the property. The applicant is also proposed a covered deck off on the rear of the home. The deck addition is shown to encroach in the east side yard. The current home sits 32 feet from the east side property line. The covered deck addition is proposed to sit 42 feet from the east side property line. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-395 -Setbacks: DISTRICT RR-1B Required Existing Proposed Front 100' 213' 213' Rear 100' 357' 341' Side (west) 50' 63.4' 37' Side (east) 50' 32' 32' Wetland 25' Roughly 65' Roughly 65' Section 78-395-Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT RR-1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 217,800 s.f. (5 acres) 300' Actual Roughly 80,600 s.f. (1.85acre) 140' Section 78-1403-Structural Coverage: This parcel is over 2 acres and does not have any structural coverage limits. Section 78-1700-Hardcover Calculations: LA18-000081 October 15,2018 Page 2 of 4 This parcel is not located in the Stormwater Overlay District. Applicable Regulations: Variance (78-395)Side Yard Setback The applicant is requesting a 38 foot west side yard setback and a 42 foot east side yard setback where 50 feet is required. 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 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 applicant is proposed to remodel and construct an addition to the existing single family home on a residential lot,which is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a permit for a new 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 applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner with the construction on a single family home. There is limited space to construct a conforming structure on the site due to the lots nonconforming size and width. 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 and shape and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. . The character of the neighborhood is not likely to be significantly altered from replacement of the residence which is consistent in character and size with the surrounding homes. 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. LA18-000081 October 15,2018 Page 3 of 4 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 RR-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 size of the lot with in the RR-1A zoning district is unique for the requested setback variances. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.The size of the lot and its locations as it pertains to the existing zoning district is peculiar to the property. The lot is non-conforming as to width, the RR-1A zone requires 300 feet. The lot at 140 wide offers a 40'wide buildable envelope. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Staff finds this statement to be true to allow for construction of an addition to a single family home on this parcel. 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 requested variances would not impair health,safety, comfort or morals and would be in keeping with 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 application has stated the narrow lot has setback challenges for constructing additions to an existing single family home. 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. Septic System Status Our building office will conduct a septic review before a building permit can be issued. The septic was complaint as up February 2017. 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, Conditional Use Permit,Site Plan Analysis Staff finds there are practical difficulties inherent to the property due to the nonconforming lot being less than half the required width. This creates a challenging building envelope in the RR-1A district. Pertaining to the east side proposed encroachment, the applicant is not asking to be closer than principle structure in this side yard. The addition will be in the rear of the home that will not alter the current side yard. LA18-000081 October 15,2018 Page 4 of 4 Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission should discuss the proposed practical difficulties. If the commission agrees with the findings staff would recommend a MOTION to recommend approval for the proposed variances. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey and Setbacks Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Property Images Exhibit F. Property Owners List and Map Exhibit G. Property Owner Comments Exhibit H. Neighbor Signatures LA18-000081 Exhibit A Land Use Application Summary PC Application Date: 09/13/2018 Address: 4260 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Parcel Number: 3111823120007 Land Use Number: LA 18-000081 Application Submitted By: Agent on behalf of property owner Owner: Name: JEFFREY GOSSEN Address: CAROLINE GOSSEN 4260 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Applicant: Name: Brian Haas Address: 129 N 2nd Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 Contact Information: Associated Contact: Brian Haas Associated Contact: Justin Hultman Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: Adding a small addition to the left side of the existing home with an attached garage. Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application Applicant Signature: LA18-000081 Exhibit B PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM PC LA18-000081 1.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response:The current home has detached garage to the left of the subject property primary structure.This existing garage is approximately 38 feet to the left side of the property.The homeowner has had plans drawn up with an addition and a new attached garage that would be 36.6 feet from the left side of the new garage.This will improve usability,conformity and value. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response:The subject property is in a 5 acre designated area.This area has side setback of 50 feet.The subject property is 2 acres with a width of approximately 130 feet.This means that the property has a 30 foot wide build able area.This greatly limits construction options and leaves the home owners unable to conform to building structures in the area. 3.The variance, if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response:The addition and garage along with new siding on the entire structure would not alter the character of the locality, it would actually bring the property more in line with current character. Most properties surrounding the subject property have 5 acres and homes of a larger sized allowed by these larger lots. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: N/A 5. 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 8.The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: N/A 9.The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response:The zone is designated for 5 Acre lots and the setbacks on lots of that size would not require variances but there are a few lots in this designated area that are of similar acre and would fall under similar circumstances. 10.The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response:The homeowners goal when purchasing this property was with the intent of improving its general condition and use of the property.Along with bringing it in to similar character of there neighbors.There inability to do so will definitely hinder there continued enjoyment of the subject property. 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: N/A 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 variance will allow the homeowners to improve there property not only for there use and enjoyment but improving the area and the city. o U o ..4, o , ) C Z--B g1. 95LZ L JagwnN asu tq o}osauum bJaquoio -s � N FCO X ,Oi•01,=,,t ' P a"'WC 3rss •o}osauum ;o awls ay} ;o e HS.Q w 9L—ZZ-9 ay} uapun Jo/amJns puoi pasuaop ,Cop o wo 1 }oy} 1 31v0 'uoisinJadns }oanp !w .19 pun Jo 'aw �(q paJodaJd )Z]—I .0 1031'01d 1_,06., Jo 'uoi}ooi;ioads 'uoid say} }oy} !;ipao )(gait YLE 'I i .. •.? 1 .0 ..0 7,41 . .. ..,.....-......'...'. ., .„ •,.. .. . , .. An- t i •-1 Itt- a ......----- ..,. .. .. • , II..--' ..,., 1 ...-''' \ . a H a / \ \ / • \ \ \ H 1 •:. , \\\\ \\ \ \ "3$%I\ \ '' 0 _ 'rte 2 \ 0 S \ \ \ • pp \ Ci '/ � O K� I�P1 o4I m G�P \ ` O 1\ E-4 -,,, \ is6 ''*--;•'''....W.. 47.2,., / \ \ / •0 0 1 \s m 1 el.6 / O ,%, zw3 \y` ao To, • M \ � I cc,I • //e• O4\ v w%Uo�� a r/ _ I •I m • m m . CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR z e h J.R. HULTMAN HOMES c'it' WAz C OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, SHARON HILLS F • a HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ti o j" o• dao �<, \\ �� i C7 a i <^ti PEI i9 4° J, Ztoh 7. ' e,- a �w e.,, eaaat LOT 1 /// ,\.tea) , t ..... _ 4 1?; b gam„ , • ,z•• ,,,,,,,,,\^^ .. i_. �CP �T ane T u, • q L.OT 1 W. -PROPOSED E'°ST"o 0 HOUSE . d T SEE DETAIL_ a- -., 9.° "«<' is 1�1 ti.o 0 ...a °� .e.• """ it � e : \ o . a.. gg — , iCP f e J ,I oA"'''.":1('.T.'17''''YDETAIL gee l -i2 � s sgo` ef1 -. � �.� I i It, C ' �` /` i. 4 I --'4.--'''''. % ei ,-,. ',,,/T.,-,-f Y LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: I '� Mt Lot t.Block 1.SHARON HILLS --" ....ie..� ! 0.0.C",,01.,P,-'\‘' •: emotes iron marker mane °p OS .- mph 3. (509.3): denotes existing spot elevation.mean sea level datum r�/ R --5n--: denotes existing contour line,mean sea level datum g $ \1":. ;" '%...\. Beorings shown ore based on the Hennepin County coordinate basis. 9q r�Y This survey intends to show the boundaries of the aDove described property,the fat location of existing house,garage,driveway,all visible"hardcover" d topography @ around the house,and the proposed location of a proposed garage thereon.It does a not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. 9 e¢ .9-1a]A Ezcr,• �.e y e a se I r 7 X k a \yyyM1�� /siN X x- sIs 4 'S yak gad \ b Or z \ i\I imon I,,.j !I k 3771'W `It'il r_ N r \� SPS �_ `,� og3 e.is >. .h' rrl yyca. \ -- PJ C�7 y i KO 44 ° 4 F \ _—� ir � Cr gi O \Oo -: a z0 ` i `� rTi iii 'il 0 , \ /\ $11 i i_ Y_ 11 III h r m D x co -D n , o -. o cp p 0 co H E ADDITION AND REMODELING for the: Ill y GOSSEN RESIDENCE 4260 COUNTY ROAD 6 R" N..� ORONO,MINNESOTA I v 0 P I fl pp SR 3 fa 11 1 ;"-RE Au 5 ' 8. e MIl _ il r z my 1111.1111 trl iii. a @ Az IIIja(g :31 c z Cit 4'A'' }a- �io�_ �i 6 pp ' w C" �. C 8 i. / y� C J Rib '=-F- --621@f/Jr 1_a»-. ..... ,... r,_ 0 r > la T.4.t :_ RRao Ili 62 g g �3g II 6121 U di I'M co mm 3 i — 8 ,� – – c tz-71'' \i! i! OR NI . \ 1 L )7 7( . m ' i; r 3�g; � F i , 6Ar 3 6'(x . 2 , ° i.,_... ? \ R `!3838 b a:- B g N r, ADDITION AND REMODELING for the: ,,, E mRESIDENCE GOSSEN $ • 4260 COUNTY ROAD 6 �A IN ORONO,MINNESOTA ' I ,W III mg I11111111111111r;';‘,, ax r I 11111LI a lII J� z, F ° I 4.V 111111111111 U1I1I 1111 x eiti40 ■■ •0■ rFl 1 i i.•.t; 1 ■® 111 101 1 ' ;e9g I : X11 la ffi �1 1 4- 47: CI� II 4 gg�aa 1111 . 1.0 YgP��_ qi AIL__ ®! I �� g 1 , , r/ i IIIIU�, 7 , 0 1 K Ell Ry •..mit 1111111111 Milli • yz la , CG ili ' 1 11� 1 : Illlllflf ® ,RW num° , , ' di,. II ,,,,, „„„r , , , , , . V r 4+1r �I Dy m AI�I9ITION AND REMODELING for the: Io N T y m GOSSEN RESIDENCE Rte ` ri 4260 COUNTY ROAD 6 , ORONO,MINNESOTA ^ .!'. \ ¥ m®®® ® \ '\ FrAvEllSeL 11 22 ; aili , §k Ii ! (- 2 - \ ` -�--- 1 &M ( lo .■�� « 0 , [niI H C | E\ | 4 / 9� � i . ° %i' « / g j § G� rr 2 > > , § '| n \ $ Z ( z ^\� �� ) ; . � ~ � %� §} • \ « , § G � � m4 � - . . e r ! ; w > . ! h QRz ; [ . ` n �_ V &[9zb | / f ` / § � , « } \ H § a Al ttt._ __ ' : o ' | § �^ . . . • !(( \ 111.M ! $� a| / _� • � $ \w \: | ! 1||4;| , ( > , \ ADDITION ANDRE@o +t : -. a )GOSSEN RESIDENCE \ NW < �/ • ` gm COUNT ROAD l _ ORONO,MINNESOTA ) LA18-000081 Exhibit E Hennepin Hennepin County Property Map PC Date: 10/11/2018 t j! c - fit "` 4:7\ ..- ,,:, y{�, 'K, is j v { ,: 4 - 4141* '- - ‘7 '''' ' : 1 $; `'Y r ,may Y�rt - . It 4fe' 411k- .,,./.. : -,i t 0, , v 1 inch =200 feet PARCEL ID: 3111823120007 Comments: OWNER NAME: J G Gossen & C Gossen PARCEL ADDRESS: 4260 Sixth Ave N, Orono MN 55356 PARCEL AREA: 1.85 acres, 80,755 sq ft A-T-B:Abstract SALE PRICE: $275,000 SALE DATA: 04/2017 SALE CODE: Excluded From Ratio Studies This data(i)is furnished AS IS with no representation as to completeness or ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 accuracy;(ii)is furnished with no PROPERTY TYPE: Residential warranty of any kind;and(iii)is notsuitable for legal,engineering or suryeying purposes. HOMESTEAD: Homestead Hennepin County shall not be liable for any MARKET VALUE: $206,000 damage,injury or loss resulting from this data. TAX TOTAL: $2,219.68 COPYRIGHT©HENNEPIN ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 COUNTY 2018 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: $265,000 Hennepin Hennepin County Property Map Date: 10/11/2018 ,, ,$/$4prit,', ' -:-Vr-l43.i. .,-F-_,,,- , ,i 1 , iy-- , .,,..: .,,A,. tAl,..7" r- I . V .* u % s` r ' ;,, iii , t 11'x, . - r, 1 s � .t �- ,-,7,,,.. \ 1 inch = 100 feet PARCEL ID: 3111823120007 Comments: OWNER NAME: J G Gossen & C Gossen PARCEL ADDRESS: 4260 Sixth Aye N, Orono MN 55356 PARCEL AREA: 1.85 acres, 80,755 sq ft A-T-B:Abstract SALE PRICE: $275,000 SALE DATA: 04/2017 SALE CODE: Excluded From Ratio Studies This data(i)is furnished'AS is with no representation as to completeness or ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 accuracy;(ii)is furnished with no PROPERTY TYPE: Residential warranty of any kind;and(iii)is notsuitable for legal,engineering or surveying purposes. HOMESTEAD: Homestead Hennepin County shall not be liable for any MARKET VALUE: $206,000 damage,injury or loss resulting from this data. TAX TOTAL: $2,219.68 COPYRIGHT©HENNEPIN ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 COUNTY 2018 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: $265,000 View of West Side of Property fir _ r �r ' 4 �\ ) � i -++ i 1, , • t ~ • • • ," Vi=m -`� 1O , • -"OA PPP{{{(; ,� y `f. C Ste' .: \ -- 1 • � l , , y& /. / .., '' ''rT 05/07/2011 View of East Side of Property „i,.:.:-.!,c,--. m w . f. c ti I • v . ,,.\y- ..tv _ , , ,•,,, z. 4 %fir, •e .- ` ° • "t7 d \ -! ## '4 1 s a ki w c a rt'zti 0411712015 Birds Eye View `", , "�. h R x , t 3 r w' �µ �> r' `:,�, �.�.. ., "_,� -"' .„.�°` fir / \ \i .. ,,. i / 3. -- '' / �3 ___,_-"'.."-_-;,:ii - 4v.„,„ �. ', w 03/2012015 - 06/09/2015 LA18-000081 Exhibit F PC CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss. CITY OF ORONO ) I, Anne Hentges, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of#LA18-000081 was mailed to the attached list of property owners. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 25th day of September, 2018. .124-/Le I / // i Anne Hentges d 9/20/2018 Locate&Notify I Hennepin County Locate & Noi:ifY 1.31-118-23-1F=0007 Multi-input How to? RD: 3111823120007 3 t � 3 f - N` v , O�nc,r: J G GOSSEN & C GOSSEN x -� s Address: 4260 6th Avenue North `' ' Ii } � , '•, =-Wiz:=,._.,—,,"' Orono MN 55356 Buffer Distance: ;500 fee'L s � n ,F ' Clear Create: {*d 1 �RA?:',' S ., �d gy1,,F , Mail Labels Mail List Map Spreadsheet � : -, F' e - � ; u ! _ �.i . a"€r^^-R+..-_ may, '' r 'K 1 �4 t`'.1,--,-_-1 1 i+' 3 y A,� ri ?i ^"-£3a f. ,Z� ^ -€ -t-, '�i ,+. x, ':)::,,,;':,-5;.,. .. x 6ar°.%z-ee yy+ . � e SF-Iz+" "Sr.'s' S F 2 +�1 l'�n 2� � 2 l '+...i. xL - }k (5. ,, -.— It t ��w € '"x'�" meg` ` � 3�x �k� '". Ps, �f10 ` ' rashtItIV ,t , V.P -ri ,�4 A _ '"AT — 1, tk a , h, r� tr l r z i K €max ,- 0 r { G Fk� H tG r \1 Eii;; i �, 1 If' �ld"atert aQ I .. _.. ..'4..,'. i i ri https://gis.hennepin.us/locatenotify/default.aspx 1/1 RUN DATE:09/20/2018 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:1 38 30-118-23 43 0003 38 31-118-23 12 0015 ANDREW STILLMAN R&J HANNING JR 835 HUNT FARM RD 4220 SIXTH AVE N ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ANDREW STILLMAN ROBERT C&JULIE HANNING JR 835 HUNT FARM RD 4220 CTY RD NO 6 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 30.118-23 44 0006 38 31-118-23 12 0022 HUNTINGTON FARM HOME OWNERS JASON&MEGAN GEHRMAN 885 HUNT FARM RD 4300 SIXTH AVE N ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 PAUL FRASER JASON&MEGAN GEHRMAN 830 HUNT FARM RD 4300 6TH AVE N ORONO MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 11 0004 38 31-118-23 13 0013 THOMAS RICHARDS S L&J J JOHNSON RV FMLY TR 4185 SIXTH AVE N 4300 WATERTOWN RD ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55359 THOMAS RICHARDS JAMES JOHNSON 4185 SIXTH AVE N SHARON JOHNSON LONG LAKE MN 55356 4300 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 11 0011 ANNE M DONAHOE 575 KOKESH FARM RD ORONO MN 55359 ANNE M DONAHOE 575 KOKESH FARM RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 12 0005 CHARLES E LARSON 4285 SIXTH AVE N ORONO MN 55356 CHARLES E/SANDRA L LARSON 1240 BLACK OAKS LN N PLYMOUTH MN 55447 38 31-118-23 12 0007 J G GOSSEN&C GOSSEN 4260 SIXTH AVE N ORONO MN 55356 JEFFREY GOSSEN CAROLINE GOSSEN 4260 COUNTY RD 6 ORONO MN 55356 38 31-118-23 12 0009 CAROL I&JOHN M COLEMAN 4320 SIXTH AVE N ORONO MN 55356 CAROL COLEMAN JOHN M COLEMAN 4320 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 12 0010 C S WILLIAMS&E R WILLIAMS 4340 SIXTH AVE N ORONO MN 55356 CRAIG&ELIZABETH WILLIAMS 4340 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 12 0012 JESSE R DAHLSTROM 4225 SIXTH AVE N ORONO MN 55356 JESSE R DAHLSTROM 4225 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 31-118-23 12 0013 WAND S WYATT 4235 SIXTH AVE N ORONO MN 55356 WILLIAM D WYATT 4235 N 6TH AVE 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. LA18-000081 Exhibit G PC Comments from the Home owners—Jeff and Caroline Gossen We purchased the 4260 County Road 6 property in April of 2017.The home had a history of foreclosures and being used as a rental property and was in poor condition. Our intent is to invest sweat equity and financial resources in an effort to modernize the home to a similar level to that of the surrounding properties. We do not intend to significantly increase the square footage but rather we would like to improve what already exists. My wife and I are in our 50's and plan to live in the home for many years. This is not an investment property which we plan to "flip" when we are finished with our improvements. We feel that when we are finished with the proposed construction/remodel the property will be a significant improvement for the neighborhood and surrounding community. Without the proposed setback variance,the necessary improvements will not be possible and the home will likely continue to change ownership and never be upgraded to a level that is comparable to the surrounding homes. We appreciate your consideration and if there is anything else we can do to help you with your decision please do not hesitate to contact us.Thank you! LA18-000081 Exhibit H PC ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS'ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM (we) el 19 — --t `.2;26' C [print name(s)j J '`, [print tdr Ss] have review the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at ) C„ • also referred to as Land Use Application No. I.f-5–ex--_,r3`J t I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely t+ confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvem t plans and t the proposed neigh. .is project or use requires Council approval. ('I) ProperPrope dwrier Property Owner Date rastir If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building&Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date 444**IY**** .. rinsion nein arae esa..Ae4xrr11 s;n�:�.4iwt-"AAA, A LA..4 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS'ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I(we) [print name(s)] [print address] have rev ewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at _ also refened to as Land Use Application No. _ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property C-Miner Date Property Owner Date if you have any information that may assist the City in the revrew of this Land Use tion please submit your comments to the Building&Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. Variance Awliz tion—JIu9ry 2017 Paget t$ ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS'ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we) {}5:,:-, 6.e.‘-‘1-(6:).-- of l-4344) Cs,;)a-•� r-0.2 4l l (print names)] [pain{address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property Iodated at `-1-x,60 G, }. G. also referred to as Land Use Application No. 6`2)- c 5 i .. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbors project or use requires Council approval. - ''Yid Pro Owner Data Property Owner Date if you have any inforrnabon that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Bur ng&Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. iii#d 11a*N-sip wars lvntw .. r-d-a*iiia, tiiiiiiaia aria-------9iaeawn...... ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I We) of [orint nam s)] [print address) have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No. . I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) net asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's protect or use requires Council approval, Property Owner gate Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application.please submit your comments to the Building&Zoning Office at least 14 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. vaifiwicii Afipsciisikwi-.larva+!let? i'e a 15 1cL°Ao To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Fj Dustin Rief, City Administrator �krsx°¢�` From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: October 15, 2018 Subject: #LA18-000083, Scott England o/b/o Barbara Lupient, 3220 Wayzata Blvd W, Sketch Plan Application Summary: The applicant is requesting comment regarding a proposed development of a 288 unit apartment complex on the south side of Lake Classen, on the north a side of Wayzata Blvd. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff requests Planning Commission comment on the issues noted below. Background The subject property is actually 2 parcels, 3211823110001 3220 Wayzata Blvd W 9.94 acres 33118232200001 3200 Wayzata Blvd W 3.27 acres Both parcels are zoned RR-1B and guided for rural residential (in both the 2030 and the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan). The parcels are not located within MUSA, and therefore are not eligible for sanitary sewer services without an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Lake Classen is a Natural Environment Lake,which requires a 150 foot setback for all structures. Based on current zoning,the minimum lot size is 2 acres, with 200 feet of width, measured at the lake shore and 150 feet. Proposal The plans provided by the developer show 4 new apartment buildings, surface parking, a club house, gazebo, ponds and trails. Elevation design of the buildings has not been completed, but the applicant has provided an image board of desirable features for Commission comment. The plans suggest three levels of apartments and underground parking. Building height has not been established, but it is expected that 3 levels of apartments will likely exceed 30 feet. Access to the site is provided via two new entrances off of Wayzata Blvd. Hennepin County will need to approve all accesses. It is expected that access will line up with the new road serving the Eisinger property to the south. The 4 buildings are proposed to be built in 2 phases, the western two structures initially, followed by the eastern two structures. No time table has been presented. FILE#LA18-000083 October 15,2018 Page 2 of 3 Analysis Comprehensive Plan, MUSA expansion. The project as proposed will require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for both land use and an expansion of the MUSA boundary. For expansions of the MUSA boundary,the Metropolitan Council looks for 3 units per acre density. This project would meet that standard. The Advisory Committee discussed changes to the land use for the subject parcels, but ultimately did not recommend any changes. The Advisory Committee will not formally review this plan. The 2030 Comprehensive plan prioritizes projects when considering a MUSA expansion: Priority 1 Properties that abut the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and all other Orono lakes. Priority 2 Properties that abut City-protected tributaries, and all other properties within the Shoreland Overlay District. Priority 3 Existing substandard developed lots not covered by Priorities 1 and 2 and developed prior to 1985 that have failing septic systems and do not have an alternative site available to replace said system. Priority 4 New development using clustering that permanently preserves blocks of open space. Priority 5 Conforming developed lots not covered by Priorities 1 and 2 and developed prior to 1985 that have failing septic systems and do not have an alternative site available to replace said system. Priority 6 New or existing development not covered by Priorities 1, 2, 3,4 or 5. The subject parcels fall under Priority 1 and 2, supporting an expansion of the MUSA. The Comp plan notes: "When a new or existing residential development meeting all required development standards is adjacent to existing sewer lines and the developer or homeowners agree to bear all costs of extending municipal sewer to the development, but only when inclusion of such development in the MUSA will not result in a decrease in the City's sewered density since 2000 as calculated by the Metropolitan Council." The property owner is advised that all costs to extend services are their responsibility. This would be the first expansion of the MUSA since 2016. Following extension of the sanitary sewer to serve the Eisinger Meadows project to the south, sanitary sewer will be "available",though the feasibility study to determine pipe and lift station sizing for the three parcels on the south side of Wayzata Blvd did not include the subject property. Comprehensive Plan, Land Use. The Plan talks at length about Orono's rural character, and protection of natural resources, noting the delineation of the urban and rural areas is fixed (Page 3B-15). This project would be the first expansion of the Defined Urban Area since at least 2008. Part of solution to retaining a rural character is the placement of higher densities at appropriate locations. Ordinances are in place for protection of lakes and streams (storm water management,setbacks from the Lake, etc.). The Planning Commission and Council should determine if the proposed location is appropriate for urban density(greater than 1 unit per two acres). If so,they should determine if the proposed provides an appropriate level of density. Land Uses surrounding Lake Classen include City Park(Susan Lurton Dog Park), Orono School FILE#LA18-000083 October 15,2018 Page 3 of 3 district athletic and school facilities, and single family residential, most of which is larger than 2 acres. Zoning. There is no high density residential zoning district; existing high density projects (Stonebay, Orono Senior Housing, Orono Woods, and Orono Trails) are zoned RPUD. The zoning ordinance states that no property within 250 feet of the OHW of a protected water is to be rezoned to RPUD (78-626 (1). Lake Classen is a Protected Water. If the Planning Commission and Council support the project, some modifications to the zoning ordinance will be necessary, either creating a new district, or modifying an existing district. The Planning Commission should provide guidance as to their appetite for necessary modifications. General site plan comments. Noted above,the buildings as proposed are 3 stories,with underground parking. The Council has been firm on maintaining the 30 foot height limit, most recently the proposed apartment building, Eisinger Flats, at 3245 Wayzata Blvd,to the south of the subject project. The club house shown in the plan falls entirely within the 150'setback. This feature will need to be relocated. The parking proposed shows 474 stalls, below the minimum required per ordinance (2 stalls per dwelling unit). The applicants propose the number based on the number of bedrooms. Staff does not support the reduction of parking in this area,without bus transportation or walkable services/employment. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. A sketch plan is not a public hearing, but the Commission may receive comments during the public meeting. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission support expansion of the MUSA boundary into the subject property? 2. Does the Planning Commission support expansion of urban densities into the subject property, and if so, at what density. 3. Does the Planning Commission support higher than 30 feet for buildings? 4. Does the Planning Commission support the modification of the zoning ordinance to facilitate the proposed development? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Proposed site plan and image board Exhibit C. Area Map Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 09/20/2018 Address: 3220 WAYZATA BLVD W LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Parcel Number: 3211823110001 Land Use Number: LA18-000083 Application Submitted By: Agent on behalf of property owner Owner: Name: BARBARA LUPIENT Address: C/O LUPIENT AUTOMOTIVE GRP 7100 WAYZATA A BLVD #200 GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55426 Applicant: Name: Scott England Address: 333 Washington Ave.No. Minneapolis, MN 55401 Contact Information: Associated Contact: Kyle Brasser Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: Four apartments buildings located adjacent to Lake Classen Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application e Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application Applicant Signature: cciO-Atri, TYPICAL 3 STORY BUILDING STICK TWO PHASE OVERALL FRAMING OVER 1 STORY GARAGE DATE TYPICAL 3 STORY BUILDING UNIT BREAKDOWN: DEVELOPMENT DATA: UNITS: 72 _ST 1B 1+ 2B 2+ 3B total UNITS: 288 BEDROOMS: 123 2nd 2 6 1 11 2 2 24 BEDROOMS: 492 PARKING REQUIRED: 144 3rd 2 6 1 11 2 2 24 PARKING REQUIRED: 576 4th 2 6 1 11 2 2 24 (2 per unit) Z (2 per unit) total: 6 18 3 33 6 6 72 units LAKE CLASSEN PARKING PROVIDED: �----- PARKING PROVIDED: ENCLOSED STALLS 80 UNITS/FLOOR: 24 DOCK ENCLOSED STALLS: 320 (80 per floor) BDRMS/FLOOR: 41 (80 stalls per floor) OUTDOOR STALLS 38 OUTDOOR STALLS: TOTAL STALLS 118 APARMENTS 144 CLUBHOUSEO10 TYPICAL BUILDING GROSS I TOTAL STALLS 474 SQUARE FOOTAGE DATA: ASSUMED LOWER LEVEL: 29,730 sf HIGH WATER - DENOTES BUILDINGS FIRST FLOOR 29,730 sf I LINE-974.5 IN PHASES 1 SECOND FLOOR: 27,284 sf THIRD FLOOR: 27,284 sf DENOTES BUILDINGS TOTAL: 114,028 sf I IN PHASE 2 CLUB I` L HOUSEL # ,./, ''.."''''' ------ --i"I-I-I-� I�-IJ __—__-----_, 7,,,LBT,12,. POND_------- PLAYGRNDTBACK / (,I O :---- I ,,',-:-d - - , - . 411., 44:‘ 1111. 1 1 L - / a = _i : 4 ' �+, PHASE 1 — — I ii PHASE 2 'e, • •96 44/'‘ * OIMIPP - - IIIIIII—\\ ♦ \n\ EXISTING e 1 1 1 1 1 L SHED 986 - 111 GAZEBO J x POND 986 — 998 / O — POND 998 — ;150'setback ` _ — — — — I — — — _ — — — 51`0'setback 998 — — — — — — — 1003 WAYZATA BLVD S O SITE north CD 1".100'-0" ems: SHELAD V REUTERWALTON DJ R PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 518 DEVELOPMENT ��„��, a�„� ORONO APARTMENTS <„w.t,zo,eGPIA,.,tK.u.<IM.. :+. 11 ' 1: :i I.. , 1 •�, -----..t,.�yy.. _ It-, Ida !I'. �'�. x 3 ; — .,. -..r•a, .- ,,,��" T' ii iii p t._ I _ • -` — . F d r jy i .. �� t i I� T { _tetilpti '1-4";,...,L-15--", ;;� I E >:�6 '; p31a EBI - 14 yy i 1 E 1 '4.-''f't ,-‘4,.:.'` yr y. L a au 14' , ,fi .xf a t �. - �_ r ,� t '�l 1 - -- — i ,.. 1� I , is iii��;n �� au 1 a Ill n �� n t -win :� VA i11i;� et , �P _...�.-� rel r s" ,,a�� .11 8 I- _ - "iL .. ,„ x , E •,vet -,a ,y ' .:mow,`_ ' . -r .ate • \-v ter- :: r �e i . W / 44).4 lair ° , ,ted .. ! . - r eIiho li'' t �y y, s. ct _,-� naa r;. •-•,.....k(t, �`1 - 14' at i'. _pit „hit, . " a� ■w es®m NI �i nig '_ "jut _ � i v' t t 1 1. �,■ 'ii 1��6`.-_- - �; Ba filk i. a • _ mai✓ �t IIP w 1 1;1111 w. r ,:; i a SHELARD REUTERWALTON DJ R IMAGE BOARD _ 9. 52 �,a � DEVELOPMENT ORONO APARTMENTS Co,rgM.onac,a.,m„�,,,. . ,,,,, , , ,__ , _ ., .,, , _ ,t,_3,-.iirz- „.,-,,,- ,-,.. ,,-t„ 1 . . .:,.. a, ..„---ial' ,2,=" '':?1'7'-'''t'1.--., -k,- :4-f,,'''' -':',- , ' ,-,,„7-:, -*%;,:.'t .',.-'--;".'1':', '',.i.-.;',':;- ';,:f, ...:-..% ''-'1 .,,%, ,:,i;',-".. 7 ,,t.:::; y a *'v in I 0. vu sr z d fi / . '4,"'47?,t14Yii:';',44:-!--1';-;:;:t.'''.7 '''tt ' t ' ',ti.',44;:...,t-, 4- 't' ,44 :,'," t-' i Sr 44, 1 �y f `tiY r" M Via.; i ' n Item 3 From: Stacev Royal To: )eremv Barnhart Subject: Proposed development on Lake Classen Date: Saturday,October 13,2018 12:57:28 PM Hi Jeremy, I am a resident of Orono, living on Lake Classen. I understand there is a planning meeting on Monday to discuss proposed development of a 288 unit apartment complex on the south side of Lake Classen. I am planning on attending the meeting to understand more about this project, but knowing the lake, having kids at the school and knowing how the traffic is already heavy for the school - I can assure you I am not in favor of this project moving forward, or even being considered. Stacey Royal 3135 Jamestown Road Orono, MN 55356 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members �O T Dustin Rief, City Administrator10O From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 15 October 2018 el/Qs Hos`-`` Subject: #LA18-000057,Text Amendment:Accessory Building&Structure Setbacks Memo#5- Public Hearing-Continued Application Summary: The draft ordinance would re-organize the regulations, and clarify the setbacks for accessory buildings and structures throughout the City. Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission should continue the public hearing opened in June and discuss the proposed format and amendments. Staff has prepared a draft ordinance for consideration. Background/Update This is a continuation of the discussion beginning in June, regarding proposed changes for Accessory Building and Structure setbacks. The changes discussed thus far have been regarding the overall organization of the regulations in the Code, and whether or not adjustments to the existing setbacks are needed. At the meeting in September the Planning Commission provided feedback on a number of issues. Staff has prepared a draft ordinance based on the past feedback for consideration and discussion at the October meeting. The code has been reorganized so that a user can find the majority of the information regarding principal building, accessory buildings and accessory structure setbacks within the specific zoning district sections.Additionally, modifications were made in the Accessory Buildings and Structures, and Nonencroachment sections. The Planning Commission should provide direction on the following questions/topics: 1. Accessory Buildings & Oversized Accessory Building streetward of the Principal: exterior finish standards? 2. Increased the maximum size for an Oversized Accessory Building, and increased the total accessory building footprint totals for lots over 9 acres. 3. Flexible side setbacks based on non-conforming lot width were added to all R districts except for RR- 1A (5 acre district). 4. RE: Lakeshore lots. On lakeshore lots,the lake yard takes the place of the front yard.The table is meant to address both lake and non-lakeshore lots so it includes a column for Front/Street setbacks and a column for Rear/Street. Can this be better clarified? Direction To date, no public comments have been received. The Planning Commission should reopen the Public Hearing and receive public comments. The Commission should discuss the above topics and give Staff direction on the same. Any other Planning Commission questions or concerns should also be discussed. The Planning Commission may choose to move this amendment forward to the City Council; or table the application if further discussion or changes are warranted. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance (Strikethrough & Underline format) Exhibit B. Draft Clean Version—all proposed language Exhibit C. Draft Minutes from PC meeting 09/17/18 PC Exhibit A LA18-000057 ORDINANCE NO. , THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND BUILDNGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 78-1 Definitions shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-1. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning. Unless specifically defined in this section, the words and phrases used in this chapter shall have the meanings given to them in chapter 82. Accessory use, building, or structure means a use, building, or structure subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure building on the same lot and customarily incidental to the principal use or structure building. Garage, private, means a detached accessory building or portion of the principal building, including a carport, which is used primarily for storing passenger vehicles, and trailers or one truck of a rated capacity of not more than 1.5 tons. . • _ .. _ mobile, such as swimming pools, tennis courts and sport courts, hockey rinks, hot tubs and structures, swing sets, trampolines, skateboard ramps, basketball hoops, batting cages, etc. property and their guests. SECTION 2. Section 78-230 -Area, height, lot width, and yard requirements shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-230. — R-1A District. Area, height, lot width, setback, and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure of building in the R 1A district shall exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78 1633. {b} Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) rim 1.0 acre 140 feet Maximum 30 feet defined height; accessory buildings may not exceed height of principal building Setbacks: Street/ Interior Side Rear (feet) OHWL Wetland Front Side (feet) Street (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 35 10 35 30 na 25 or MCWD Building buffer Accessory 35 10 35 10 na 25 or MCWD Building (AB) buffer <1,000 sf Oversize 35 10 35 30 na 25 or MCWD Accessory buffer Building >1,000 sf (OAB) Accessory 17.5 10 17.5 10 na 25 or MCWD Structures buffer (AS) (b) Exception: The interior side yard setback for the principal building, and accessory buildings less than 1,000 square feet, for lots that are non-conforming as to their width, shall be the lessor of ten feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 7.5 feet. (c) Side Yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way. In any residential district, the setback for side yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way shall be the same as the applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to mean not improved or maintained by the city or county for vehicular travel. (d) Adjacent lots. In any R district, where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. SECTION 3. Section 78-255. —Area, height„ lot width, and yard requirements shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-255. — R-1 B District. Area, height, lot width, setback, and yard requirements. (a) -- -• . ` - -- - - - -- - - •- - : _ •. - _ -. -- •• •-.e• - --e - provided in section 78 1633. {b} Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 0.5 acre 100 feet Maximum 30 feet defined height; accessory buildings may not exceed height of principal building Setbacks: Street/ Interior Side Rear (feet) OHWL Wetland Front Side (feet) Street (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 30 10 15 30 na 25 or MCWD Building buffer Accessory 30 10 15 10 na 25 or MCWD Building (AB) buffer <1,000 sf Oversize 30 10 15 30 na 25 or MCWD Accessory buffer Building >1,000 sf (OAB) Accessory 15 10 7.5 10 na 25 or MCWD Structures buffer (AS) (b) Exception: The interior side yard setback for the principal building, and accessory buildings less than 1,000 square feet, for lots that are non-conforming as to their width, shall be the lessor of ten feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 7.5 feet. (c) Side Yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way. In any residential district, the setback for side yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way shall be the same as the applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to mean not improved or maintained by the city or county for vehicular travel. (d) Adjacent lots. In any R district, where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. SECTION 4. Section 78-305. —Area, height, lot width, and yard requirements shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-305. — LR-1A District. Area, height, lot width, setbacks, and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure of building in the LR 1A district shall exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78 1633. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Heiqht Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 2.0 acre 200 feet Maximum 30 feet defined height; accessory buildings may not exceed height of principal building Setbacks: Street/ Interior Side Rear/ OHWL Wetland Front Side (feet) Street Street (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 50 30 30 50 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building 150 § + buffer ALS Accessory 50 15 30 15 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building 150 § buffer <1,000 sf + ALS Oversize 50 30 30 50 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Accessory 150 § buffer Building + ALS >1,000 sf (OAB Accessory 25 15 15 15 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Structures 150 § buffer (AS) + ALSY (e-b) Exception: a • • •- A e _ _ , the interior side yard setback for the principal building, and accessory buildings less than 1,000 square feet, side yard setback for lots that are non-conforming as to their width., shall be the lessor of 30 feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than ten feet. (c) Side Yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way. In any residential district, the setback for side yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way shall be the same as the applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to mean not improved or maintained by the city or county for vehicular travel. (d) Adjacent lots. In any R district, where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. SECTION 5. Section 78-330.—Area, height, lot width, and yard requirements shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-330. — LR-1 B District. Area, height, lot width, setback, and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure of building in the LR 1B district shall exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78 1633. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 1.0 acre 140 feet Maximum 30 feet defined height; accessory buildings may not exceed height of principal building Setbacks: Street/ Interior Side Rear/ OHWL Wetland Front Side (feet) Street Street (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 35 10 20 30 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building 150 § buffer + ALS Accessory 35 10 20 10 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building 150 § buffer <1,000 sf + ALS Oversize 35 10 20 30 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Accessory 150 § buffer Building + ALS >1,000 sf (OAB) Accessory 17.5 10 10 10 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Structures 150 § buffer LAS) + ALSY (e-b) Exception: A ••• •- e _ , the interior side yard setback for the principal building, and accessory buildings less than 1,000 square feet, side yard setback for lots that are non-conforming as to their width,shall be the lessor of ten feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 7.5 feet. (c) Side Yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way. In any residential district, the setback for side yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way shall be the same as the applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to mean not improved or maintained by the city or county for vehicular travel. (d) Adjacent lots. In any R district, where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. SECTION 6. Section 78-350. Area, height, lot width, and yard requirements shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-350. — LR-1C District. Area, height, lot width, setback, and yard requirements. provided in section 78 1633. {b} Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 0.5 acre 100 feet Maximum 30 feet defined height; accessory buildings may not exceed height of principal building Setbacks: Street/ Interior Side Rear/ ' OHWL Wetland Front Side (feet) Street Street (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 30 10 15 30 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Structure 150 § + buffer ALS Accessory 30 10 15 10 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building (AB) 150 § buffer <1,000 sf + ALS Oversize 30 10 15 30 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Accessory 150 § buffer Building + ALS >1,000 sf (OAB) Accessory 15 10 15 10 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Structures 150 § buffer (AS) + ALSY (o-b) Exception: • - -- _ _•"—e_ _ , the interior side yard setback for the principal building, and accessory buildings less than 1,000 square feet, tide yard setback for lots that are non-conforming as to their width,shall be the lessor of ten feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 7.5 feet. (c) Side Yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way. In any residential district, the setback for side yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way shall be the same as the applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to mean not improved or maintained by the city or county for vehicular travel. (d) Adjacent lots. In any R district, where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. SECTION 7. Section 78-370. —Area, height, lot width, and yard requirements shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-370. — LR-1C-1 District. Area, height, lot width, setback, and yard requirements. (a) -- - . ' - -- - - - -- - - •- -- ' — - - - _--_ _e -- - -- _ • - as provided in section 78 1633. {b} Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 0.5 acre 100 feet Maximum 30 feet defined height; accessory buildings may not exceed height of principal building Setbacks: Street/ Interior Side Rear/ OHWL Wetland Front Side (feet) Street Street (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 30 10 15 30 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building 150 § + buffer ALS Accessory 30 10 15 10 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building (AB) 150 § buffer <1,000 sf + ALS Oversize 30 10 15 30 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Accessory 150 § buffer Building + ALS >1,000 sf (OAB) Accessory 15 10 15 10 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Structures 150 § + buffer (AS) ALSy (b) Exception: the interior side yard setback for the principal building, and accessory buildings less than 1,000 square feet, for lots that are non-conforming as to their width, shall be the lessor of ten feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 7.5 feet. (c) Side Yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way. In any residential district, the setback for side yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way shall be the same as the applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to mean not improved or maintained by the city or county for vehicular travel. (d) Adjacent lots. In any R district, where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. SECTION 8. Section 78-395. —Area, height, lot width, and yard requirements shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-395. — RR-1A District. Area, height, lot width, setback, and yard requirements. (a) - - - -- - - •• •- .. - - -' -- • •-.e• - -'- - provided in section 78 1633. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 5.0 acre 300 feet Maximum 30 feet defined height; accessory buildings may not exceed height of principal building Setbacks: Street/ Interior Side Rear/ OHWL Wetland Front Side (feet) Street Street (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 100 50 100 100 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building 150 § + buffer ALS Accessory 100 20 100 20 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building (AB) 150 § buffer <1,000 sf + ALS Oversize 100 50 100 100 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Accessory 150 § buffer Building + ALS >1,000 sf (OAB) Accessory 50 20 50 20 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Structures 150 § buffer (AS) + ALSY (b) Side Yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way. In any residential district, the setback for side yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way shall be the same as the applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to mean not improved or maintained by the city or county for vehicular travel. (c) Adjacent lots. In any R district, where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. SECTION 9. Section 78-420. —Area, height, lot width, and yard requirements shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-420. — RR-1 B District. Area, height, lot width, setback, and yard requirements. (a) Hoight. No structure of building in the RR 1B district shall exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78 1633. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum)_ 2.0 acre 200 feet Maximum 30 feet defined height; accessory buildings may not exceed height of principal building Setbacks: Street/ Interior Side Rear/ OHWL Wetland Front Side (feet) Street Street (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 50 30 30 50 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building 150 § + buffer ALS Accessory 50 15 30 15 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building (AB) 150 § buffer <1,000 sf + ALS Oversize 50 30 30 50 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Accessory 150 § buffer Building + ALS >1,000 sf (OAB) Accessory 25 15 15 15 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Structures 150 § buffer (AS) + ALS¥ (e-b) Exception: A •.• •- ' ' _ _ _ _ , the interior side yard setback for the principal building, and accessory buildings less than 1,000 square feet, side yard setback for lots that are non-conforming as to their width, shall be the lessor of 30 feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 10 feet. (c) Side Yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way. In any residential district, the setback for side yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way shall be the same as the applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to mean not improved or maintained by the city or county for vehicular travel. (d) Adjacent lots. In any R district, where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. SECTION 10. Section 78-570. -Yard and setback requirements shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-570. — RS District. Yard and setback requirements. Within any RS seasonal recreational district, the following yard and setback requirements shall be observed for all new buildings and structures and for any addition or alteration to any existing building or structure, whether temporary, seasonal or permanent: (1) Minimum setback from lakeshore, all buildings and structures, including decks, fences, retaining walls, wells, on-site sewage treatment systems and land alteration of any kind, 75 feet. (2) Minimum setback from wetlands shall be: a. Wells and sewage treatment systems, 75 feet. b. All buildings and structures, land alteration or hard cover of any kind, shall meet the setback requirements established within article XI of chapter 78 of this Code (the wetlands protection element of the Zoning Code). (3) Minimum setback from platted street rights-of-way, all buildings and structures, 30 feet. (4) Minimum setback from internal side or rear property line shall be: a. All buildings and structures on lots 200 feet or more in width, 50 feet. b. All buildings and structures on existing record lots 100 feet or more in width but less than 200 feet in width, 30 feet. c. All buildings and structures on existing record lots less than 100 feet in width, ten feet. (5) Minimum setback any building to any other, ten feet. SECTION 11. Section 78-1403. - Lot coverage and massing standards shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-1403. - Lot coverage and massing standards. In all zoning districts other than the I—Industrial district, all lots that have a gross acreage of less than two acres shall comply with the following massing standards for structures buildings: (a) Maximum total footprints allowed. (1) On lots equal to or greater than 10,000 square feet in area, the total combined footprints of all principal and accessorystructures buildings shall not exceed 20 percent of the gross lot area. (2) On lots of less than 10,000 square feet in area, the total combined footprints of all principal and accessory structuresbuildings shall not exceed 2,000 square feet. (b) Calculation of massing. All buildings shall be included in the calculation of the total combined footprints by structures: buildings. existing ground level. SECTION 12. Section 78-1404. –Tennis courts, sport courts, pools, paddocks, arenas shall be deleting in its entirety as follows: Sec. 78-1404. --- --- , --• --- , --- , - --- , - - _ . Tennis courts, sport courts, pools and paddocks or arenas, when such accessory structures exceed 1,000 square feet footprint ar a, shall be subject to the following special setback restrictions: line and the principal structure on the property. (2) Side, 30 feet minimum and not within the required side yard area. {3) Rear, 30 feet minimum and not within the required rear yard area. SECTION 13. 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: (1) Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, cornices, eaves, gutters, and similar building elements, provided they do not extend more than two feet into a required yard. (2) Nameplate signs for one-family dwellings subject to the provisions of article X, division 4 of this chapter; lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes, provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property and is located at least five feet from the front lot line; public utility poles and overhead lines; mailboxes. (3) Terraces, sSteps, sidewalks, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than two feet from any lot line. _'e- • _ , e _ e- _ lot line. (4) Bays, cantilevers, and fire escapes. In side or rear yards only, the following encroachments are permitted: a. l Bays and/or cantilevers which are not part of the defined building footprint, may extend up to not to exceed a depth of two feet into the required side or rear yard, provided the nor to contain an aggregate area of the bays and/or cantilevers is not more than 20 square feet;; and b. fFire escapes not t9-exceeding a width of three feet and a depth of four feet;. a-i cd open off street parking. (5) -4Driveways and parking areas when constructed, located and used in compliance with other provisions contained within chapter 78. Driveways and parking areas may extend to within five feet of a side lot line. - - _ _ _ , e- ._ - , _ -- _ , _- _.•-_ otherwise regulated; no accessory structure shall be closer than five feet from a rear lot line. (545_) Retaining walls, planters and similar structures, subject to the following provisions: a. Retaining walls, planters and similar structures may be located in all required yards when all of the following conditions are met: 1. The structure is located at least ten feet from the edge of the traveled roadway; 2. The structure is not located within a drainage, utility, or other easement, except upon approval in writing for an encroachment agreement by the city; or similar approval from another regulatory and/or utility agency; 3. The structure creates no impacts to drainage direction, rate or volume for adjacent properties. 4. The structure is two feet in height or less above existing grade. b. Retaining walls, planters and similar structures exceeding two feet in height above existing ground level or which are located less than five feet from a side property line, shall require a permit and upon recommendation of the building official may require city council review or a conditional use permit per the provisions of section 78-967. c. Retaining walls, planters and similar structures exceeding the allowed height of a fence shall be located so as to meet the required accessory structure setbacks established for that yard. (67) Window wells including those for fire egress which do not extend more than five feet from the building, and no closer than two feet to the property line. In side yards only, no (78) Air conditioning or heating equipment may be located within a required yard but shall be located within five feet of the building it serves; shall not be located within an existing or required drainage and/or utility easement; and shall be located at least five feet from any lot line. (K9) Fences erected in all zoning districts are considered as a nonencroachment when they conform to the standards listed below. For the purposes of this section,the following definitions shall apply: Permanent fence. A fence that is installed in a fixed or enduring manner that is not intended for a seasonal or temporary purpose. Temporary fence. A fence that is not permanently secured or anchored to the ground by posts or affixed footings, and is installed and removed on a limited term or seasonal basis such as: snow fences, garden fences, seasonal recreational fences such as hockey boards; fences installed for safety or access management purposes for special events; and fences installed for the duration of a construction project such as silt fences, erosion control bioretention logs, and septic drainfield site protection fences. Fence height. The measurement from the top of any part of the fence, including posts or other structural supports, lattice, ornate top design elements, and so forth measured to the existing ground level below the fence, as measured perpendicular to the slope (see Drawing). Exception: Post finials extending above the top of the fence shall not be deemed as part of the fence for height determination purposes as long as they do not exceed ten inches in width per finial and do not extend above the top of the fence by more than ten percent of the allowed maximum fence height at that location. Drawing: Fence Height Measurement I _..." ' i115 �. 11111 F YT ill. */*/ i / a. Nonlakeshore lots. 1. Fences and walls within a required front yard or side street yard shall not exceed a height of 42 inches above existing ground level . 2. Fences and walls within a required rear or side yard shall not exceed a height of six feet above existing ground level. b. Lakeshore lots. 1. Fences within the required street (rear) yard or side street yard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed 42 inches above existing ground level. Exception: A fence not exceeding six feet in height may be located along the street lot line of a lake frontage lot which abuts a major thoroughfare. A major thoroughfare for purposes of this section means any county road or state highway. If such fence involves fill or berming, the total combined height of both fence and fill shall not exceed six feet above the height of the crown of the major thoroughfare. 2. Fences within the required side yard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed six feet in height, and shall not exceed 42 inches in height for any portion located lakeward of a line drawn between the most lakeward projection of the fence owner's principal residence structure and the most lakeward projection of the principal residence structure on the adjacent property abutting the side yard in which the fence is located. 3. Fences shall not be constructed within the defined lakeshore yard of a lakeshore lot, i.e., shall not be located within 75 feet of the shoreline for general development lakes, 100 feet for recreational lakes, or 150 feet for natural environment lakes. 4. When the building site of a lakeshore lot is separated from the lakeshore by a public or private road, the following definitions will apply for fence location purposes subject to the provisions of section 78-1405(a)(8)a.2: When the yard on the opposite side of the building site from the lake does not abut a street, such yard shall be considered as a standard rear yard. The yard between the building site and the street shall be considered as a standard front yard. c. Special provisions. Split rail fences of no more than three rails within a required front, street or side street yard may have a maximum top rail height of 48 inches above existing ground level. Board rail fences within a front, street or side street yard for the specific purpose of enclosing permitted domestic animals may have a top rail height of 60 inches and shall be no more than 50 percent opaque. d. Intersection sightline obstruction prohibited. No fence shall be installed so as to obstruct a required clear view at street intersections as required by section 78-1371. e. Fence construction and maintenance. 1. The owner of a fence shall maintain it in a condition of reasonable repair and appearance and shall not allow it to become or remain in disrepair or in a dangerous condition. 2. Fences shall be installed with the finished side facing neighboring properties or the street. The term "finished side" means that side having no structural supports. 3. Fencing materials shall consist of permanent all weather products. 4. Temporary fencing shall not be allowed to remain on the property following final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a permitted construction project, or protection of property during a similar project or winter conditions. Winter conditions shall be defined as October 15 through March 31 of the following year. Temporary fencing associated with a special event shall be removed within seven days of the end of such event. Temporary fencing materials shall not be allowed to remain on a permanent basis on a parcel. 5. Existing fences that are legal nonconforming as to location, height, design or other characteristics may be replaced in kind. (W0) 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 nonencroachments 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 Article X, Division 4 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; f. 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; h. 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. (181) Gates, when proposed, must meet the following requirements: a. The gate must open into the property not outward towards the right-of-way, and b. Gates serving two or fewer residences shall have a minimum horizontal width of 14 feet in the full open position, and c. Gates serving three or more residences shall have a minimum horizontal width of 20 feet in the full open position, and d. 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. 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. 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. (b) The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on structure height requirements: (1) Parapet walls that extend no more than three feet above the height of the building. (2) HVAC cooling towers. (3) Elevator penthouses. SECTION 14. Section 78-1406. - Additional yard provisions shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-1406. - Additional yard provisions. Required yards in the districts specified shall be subject to the following additional requirements: (1) Through lots. Through lots in any district shall have a required front yard on each street. (2) B and I districts: adjacent lots. In the B and I districts, where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question are less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, required front yards shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than five feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front to exceed 50 feet. (JI) R districts: Side Yards adjacent to unimproved rights of way. In any residential district, the setback for side yards adjacent to unimproved rights of way shall be the same as the applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to SECTION 15. Section 78-1431. -Accessory buildings and structures on through lots shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-1431. - Accessory buildings and structures on through lots. All accessory buildings and structures on through lots located in R districts shall meet the following requirements: (1) The building or structure shall meet the principal building setbacks that are established under sections 78-230, 78-255, 78-305, 78-330, 78-350, 78-370, 78-395, 78-420, 78- 444. (2) No negative impacts to adjacent neighbors or public right-of-way result in the placement of the building or structure, determined at the discretion of the City Administrator planning director. Should the City Administrator planning director determine that item (2) above cannot be met an accessory structure or building may be permitted by conditional use permit if the planning commission determines no negative impacts result in the placement of the building or structure. The planning commission may apply reasonable conditions as part of the approval. SECTION 16. Section 78-1432. -Time of construction shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-1432. - Time of construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. At the time of demolition of the stating the following: {1) Applicants agree to obtain a building permit for construction of the replacement residence within 60 days of demolition; to begin construction on the new residence within 120 within the defined timeframe, the applicants shall remove the acces-.,ory structures at the applicants' expense, or the applicants shall apply for an extension of this agreement. (3) If one of the item (1) events occurs and the applicants fail to perform their removal obligations per item (2), the applicants hereby agree as follows: a. The city may enter upon the property and remove the accessory building(s). b. The city may assess the costs of removal to the property. and shall be filed within the chain of title of the property. {5) Fee owner(s) of the property, if not the applicants, consent to the execution of the {6) Applicants shall indemnify and hold harmless the city, the city council, and the them of any claims, debts or obligations in consequence of the performance of the terms of this agreement. SECTION 17. Section 78-1433. - Height Restrictions shall be amended by deleting text in its entirety as follows: Sec. 78-1433. - Height restrictions. No accessory building or structure in an R district shall exceed the height of the principal SECTION 18. Section 78-1434. -Area restrictions shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-1434. –Area Building Size Rfestrictions. In all R districts nNo accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area; except that accessory structures buildings in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions: (1) Not more than one oversized accessory structure building (OASOAB)shall be permitted on any property. An oversized accessory structure OAB is defined as an accessory ctructurcbuilding of footprint area in excess of 1,000 square feet. (2) An OAB is regulated by the following table: Maximum Maximum Allowed Total Individual of All Accessory Lot Area OAB Accessory Structure (acres) Structure Building Footprint Footprint Area Areas*on (square feet) a Property (square feet) 0-1.99 1,000 2,000 2.00-3.00 1,200 2,400 3.01-3.50 1,400 2,800 3.51-4.00 1,600 3,200 4.01-4.50 1,800 3,600 4.51-5.00 2,000 4,000 5.01-6.00 2,200 4,400 6.01-7.00 2,400 4,800 7.01-8.00 2,600 5,200 8.01-9.00 2,800 5,600 9.01 or more - 10.00 3,000 6,000 10.01 – 11.00 3,200 6,400 11.01 – 12.00 3,400 6,800 12.01 – 13.00 3,600 7,000 13.01 – 14.00 3,800 7,000 14.01 or more 4,000 7,000 *Excluding nonroofed tennis courts, sport courts, pools, paddocks, arenas. (3) Any oversized accessory structure OAB shall be subject to the following conditions: (pPrincipal structure building setbacks must be met}. Further, no such structure OAB shall be nearer the front lot line than the front line of the principal residence building on the property, and no such accessory structure shall be located lee's than 30 feet from the side or rear lot line regardless whether less strict principal structure b. The maximum height for such accessory structure building shall be 30 feet or the defined height of the principal residence structure building on the property, whichever is less. c. Such structure An OAB shall be allowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants in writing with the city as follows: 1. No future subdivision will be approved that places the OAB within a lot that has no principal structure building, except that the city in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the oversized accessory structure OAB may remain without a principal structure building, in order that a principal building may be constructed. At the end of this time period, the oversized accessory structure OAB must be removed if no principal structure building has been constructed. 2. If the property is subdivided, the oversized accessory structure OAB and principal structure building will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of the e _ ___ _ structure OAB. 3. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the e _ structure OAB shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. SECTION 19. Section 78-1435. — Location shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-1435. Location Garages on lake lots. Accessory buildings on lake lots with garage doors facing a street shall meet the applicable principal structure setbacks for the district; Section 78-1681 Driveways, in general shall apply. section 78 305(b), section 78 330(b) and section 78 350(b) are met. Exception: Detached garages on lots that have frontage on a lake may be located ten feet from the street or rear lot line when doors face away from the street and an adequate vehicle turnaround is provided-o�� the site. This section shall not apply to lakeshore lots that are divided by streets or private roads or are corner lots. SECTION 20. Section 78-1436. - Setbacks shall be amended by deleting text in its entirety as follows: Sec. 78-1436. -Setbacks. Accessory structures in excess of 750 square feet footprint ar a but not c _ --1,000 SECTION 21. Section 78-1437. - Plumbing shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-1437. - Plumbing. Because the provision of plumbing fixtures and wastewater plumbing in accessory buildings has the potential to allow such buildings to be used as dwelling units, and because it is the policy of the city to limit residential development density to the allowed densities within the respective zoning districts, plumbing in accessory buildings shall be regulated as follows: (1) The provision of outside sillcocks and indoor water supply shall be allowed in any accessory building that is conforming in location, size and height. (2) Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing that does not include a shower or bathtub shall be allowed in any accessory building in location, size and height with, subject to provision of municipal sanitary sewer or a conforming sewage treatment system designed to handle the anticipated flows from such fixtures, and subject to the property owner's executing a covenant providing that the accessory building will not be: a. Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by this Code. b. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained. c. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. (3) Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing that includes a shower or bathtub shall be allowed only in an accessory building that is conforming in location, size and which meets one of the following criteria: a. The accessory building has been approved for a guest house conditional use permit; or b. The accessory building has been approved for a bathtub or shower in accessory building conditional use permit. SECTION 22. Section 78-1439. - Garages shall be amended by deleting text in its entirety as follows: Sec. 78-1439. - Garages. Accessory buildings which are for the storage of automobiles shall have the doors 30 feet or SECTION 23. Section 78-1440. — Exterior materials shall be amended by adding and deleting text to read as follows: Sec. 78-1440. - Exterior materials. (a) Aan accessory building and the principal building shall be consistent in design and color. Except for accessory buildings that are less than 120 square feet in area or are located on lots two acres in area or larger. Detached garages located within the rear yard on lots facing a street or private road. (b) Within RR-1A and RR-1B districts, an accessory building may be located streetward of the principal building provided the following conditions are met: a. Principal building setbacks shall be met; and b. The accessory building shall be consistent in design, color and exterior material with the principal building. 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. PC Exhibit B LA18-000057 Sec. 78-1. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning. Unless specifically defined in this section, the words and phrases used in this chapter shall have the meanings given to them in chapter 82. Accessory use, building, or structure means a use, building or structure subordinate to and serving the principal use or building on the same lot and customarily incidental to the principal use or building. Building means any structure having a roof which may provide shelter or enclosure of persons,animals or chattel; and when the structure is divided by party walls without opening, each portion of such building so separated shall be deemed a separate building. Building footprint means the outline of the total area covered by a building's perimeter at the ground level (to the block/foundation). (1) Carports, covered porches and other similar building features which have no exterior walls shall be included as part of a building footprint by drawing a straight line between the outer edges of all support structures (and the main building if applicable). (2) The outer edge of building protrusions, bay windows or other similar features that extend outward from a building and are less than four feet from the ground shall be considered as part of the building footprint. Building height means the vertical distance between the highest existing ground level or ten feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the top of the cornice of a flat roof, or the deck line of a mansard roof, or the uppermost point on a round or other arch-type roof, or the median height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. Topographic changes which elevate the adjoining ground level above the existing terrain shall not be considered in determining building height. Garage, private, means a detached accessory building or portion of the principal building, including a carport, which is used for storing passenger vehicles, and trailers. Structure means anything which is built, constructed or erected, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, which requires a location on, below or above the ground, land or water, or attached to something having a Use, secondary, means a use of land or of a building or a portion which is subordinate to and does not constitute the primary use of the land or building. Sec. 78-230. —R-1A District. Area, height, lot width, setback, and yard requirements. (a) The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 1.0 acre 140 feet Maximum 30 feet defined height; accessory buildings may not exceed height of principal building Setbacks: Street/ Interior Side Side Street Rear(feet) OHWL Wetland Front (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 35 10 35 30 na 25 or MCWD Building buffer Accessory 35 10 35 10 na 25 or MCWD Building (AB) buffer <1,000 sf Oversize 35 10 35 30 na 25 or MCWD Accessory buffer Building >1,000 sf(OAB) Accessory 17.5 10 17.5 10 na 25 or MCWD Structures (AS) buffer (b) Exception: The interior side yard setback for the principal building, and accessory buildings less than 1,000 square feet, for lots that are non-conforming as to their width, shall be the lessor of ten feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 7.5 feet. (c) Side Yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way. In any residential district, the setback for side yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way shall be the same as the applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to mean not improved or maintained by the city or county for vehicular travel. (d) Adjacent lots. In any R district,where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. Sec. 78-255. —R-1 B District. Area, height, lot width, setback, and yard requirements. (a) The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 0.5 acre 100 feet Maximum 30 feet defined height; accessory buildings may not exceed height of principal building Setbacks: Street/ Interior Side Side Street Rear(feet) OHWL Wetland (feet) Front (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 30 10 15 30 na 25 or MCWD Building buffer Accessory 30 10 15 10 na 25 or MCWD Building (AB) buffer <1,000 sf Oversize 30 10 15 30 na 25 or MCWD Accessory buffer Building >1,000 sf(OAB) Accessory 15 10 7.5 10 na 25 or MCWD Structures (AS) buffer (b) Exception: The interior side yard setback for the principal building, and accessory buildings less than 1,000 square feet, for lots that are non-conforming as to their width, shall be the lessor of ten feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 7.5 feet. (c) Side Yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way. In any residential district, the setback for side yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way shall be the same as the applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to mean not improved or maintained by the city or county for vehicular travel. (d) Adjacent lots. In any R district,where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. Sec. 78-305. —LR-1A District.Area, height, lot width, setbacks, and yard requirements. (a) The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 2.0 acre 200 feet Maximum 30 feet defined height; accessory buildings may not exceed height of principal building Setbacks: Street/ Interior Side Side Street Rear/ OHWL Wetland (feet) Front (feet) (feet) Street(feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 50 30 30 50 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building 150 § + buffer ALS Accessory 50 15 30 15 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building <1,000 150 § + buffer sf ALS Oversize 50 30 30 50 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Accessory 150 § + buffer Building >1,000 ALS sf(OAB) Accessory 25 15 15 15 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Structures (AS) 150 § + buffer ALSY (b) Exception: the interior side yard setback for the principal building, and accessory buildings less than 1,000 square feet, for lots that are non-conforming as to their width, shall be the lessor of 30 feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than ten feet. (c) Side Yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way. In any residential district, the setback for side yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way shall be the same as the applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to mean not improved or maintained by the city or county for vehicular travel. (d) Adjacent lots. In any R district,where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. Sec. 78-330. —LR-1 B District.Area, height, lot width, setback, and yard requirements. (a) The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 1.0 acre 140 feet Maximum 30 feet defined height; accessory buildings may not exceed height of principal building Setbacks: Street/ Interior Side Side Street Rear/ OHWL Wetland (feet) Front (feet) (feet) Street(feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 35 10 20 30 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building 150 § + buffer ALS Accessory 35 10 20 10 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building <1,000 150 § + buffer sf ALS Oversize 35 10 20 30 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Accessory 150 § + buffer Building >1,000 ALS sf(OAB) Accessory 17.5 10 10 10 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Structures (AS) 150 § + buffer ALS (b) Exception: the interior side yard setback for the principal building, and accessory buildings less than 1,000 square feet, for lots that are non-conforming as to their width, shall be the lessor of ten feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 7.5 feet. (c) Side Yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way. In any residential district, the setback for side yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way shall be the same as the applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to mean not improved or maintained by the city or county for vehicular travel. (d) Adjacent lots. In any R district,where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. Sec. 78-350. —LR-1C District. Area, height, lot width, setback, and yard requirements. (a) The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 0.5 acre 100 feet Maximum 30 feet defined height; accessory buildings may not exceed height of principal building Setbacks: Street/ Interior Side Side Street Rear/ OHWL Wetland (feet) Front (feet) (feet) Street(feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 30 10 15 30 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Structure 150 § + buffer ALS Accessory 30 10 15 10 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building (AB) 150 § + buffer <1,000 sf ALS Oversize 30 10 15 30 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Accessory 150 § + buffer Building >1,000 ALS sf(OAB) Accessory 15 10 15 10 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Structures (AS) 150 § + buffer ALSY (b) Exception: the interior side yard setback for the principal building, and accessory buildings less than 1,000 square feet, for lots that are non-conforming as to their width, shall be the lessor of ten feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 7.5 feet. (c) Side Yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way. In any residential district, the setback for side yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way shall be the same as the applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to mean not improved or maintained by the city or county for vehicular travel. (d) Adjacent lots. In any R district,where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. Sec. 78-370. —LR-1C-1 District. Area, height, lot width, setback, and yard requirements. (a) The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 0.5 acre 100 feet Maximum 30 feet defined height; accessory buildings may not exceed height of principal building Setbacks: Street/ Interior Side Side Street Rear/ OHWL Wetland (feet) Front (feet) (feet) Street(feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 30 10 15 30 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building 150 §+ buffer ALS Accessory 30 10 15 10 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building (AB) 150 § + buffer <1,000 sf ALS Oversize 30 10 15 30 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Accessory 150 § + buffer Building >1,000 ALS sf(OAB) Accessory 15 10 15 10 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Structures (AS) 150 § + buffer ALS (b) Exception: the interior side yard setback for the principal building, and accessory buildings less than 1,000 square feet, for lots that are non-conforming as to their width, shall be the lessor of ten feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 7.5 feet. (c) Side Yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way. In any residential district, the setback for side yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way shall be the same as the applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to mean not improved or maintained by the city or county for vehicular travel. (d) Adjacent lots. In any R district,where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. Sec. 78-395. —RR-1A District. Area, height, lot width, setback, and yard requirements. (a) The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 5.0 acre 300 feet Maximum 30 feet defined height;accessory buildings may not exceed height of principal building Setbacks: Street/ Interior Side Side Street Rear/ OHWL Wetland (feet) Front (feet) (feet) Street(feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 100 50 100 100 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building 150 § + buffer ALS Accessory 100 20 100 20 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building (AB) 150§ + buffer <1,000 sf ALS Oversize 100 50 100 100 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Accessory 150 § + buffer Building >1,000 ALS sf(OAB) Accessory 50 20 50 20 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Structures (AS) 150 § + buffer ALSY (b) Side Yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way. In any residential district, the setback for side yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way shall be the same as the applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to mean not improved or maintained by the city or county for vehicular travel. (c) Adjacent lots. In any R district,where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. Sec. 78-420. —RR-1B District.Area, height, lot width, setback, and yard requirements. (a) The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 2.0 acre 200 feet Maximum 30 feet defined height; accessory buildings may not exceed height of principal building Setbacks: Street/ Interior Side Side Street Rear/ OHWL Wetland (feet) Front (feet) (feet) Street(feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 50 30 30 50 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building 150 § + buffer ALS Accessory 50 15 30 15 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Building (AB) 150§ + buffer <1,000 sf ALS Oversize 50 30 30 50 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Accessory 150 § + buffer Building >1,000 ALS sf(OAB) Accessory 25 15 15 15 75/100/ 25 or MCWD Structures (AS) 150 § + buffer ALSY (b) Exception: the interior side yard setback for the principal building, and accessory buildings less than 1,000 square feet, for lots that are non-conforming as to their width, shall be the lessor of 30 feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 10 feet. (c) Side Yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way. In any residential district, the setback for side yards adjacent to unimproved rights-of-way shall be the same as the applicable interior side yard setback. Unimproved in this section shall be interpreted to mean not improved or maintained by the city or county for vehicular travel. (d) Adjacent lots. In any R district,where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. Sec. 78-570. —RS District. Yard and setback requirements. Within any RS seasonal recreational district, the following yard and setback requirements shall be observed for all new buildings and structures and for any addition or alteration to any existing building or structure, whether temporary, seasonal or permanent: (1) Minimum setback from lakeshore, all buildings and structures, including decks, fences, retaining walls, wells, on-site sewage treatment systems and land alteration of any kind, 75 feet. (2) Minimum setback from wetlands shall be: a. Wells and sewage treatment systems, 75 feet. b. All buildings and structures, land alteration or hard cover of any kind, shall meet the setback requirements established within article XI of chapter 78 of this Code(the wetlands protection element of the Zoning Code). (3) Minimum setback from platted street rights-of-way, all buildings and structures, 30 feet. (4) Minimum setback from internal side or rear property line shall be: a. All buildings and structures on lots 200 feet or more in width, 50 feet. b. All buildings and structures on existing record lots 100 feet or more in width but less than 200 feet in width, 30 feet. c. All buildings and structures on existing record lots less than 100 feet in width, ten feet. (5) Minimum setback any building to any other, ten feet. DIVISION 2. -YARDS AND OPEN SPACES Sec. 78-1401. - Reduction prohibited. No yard or other open space shall be reduced in area or dimensions so as to make such yard or other open space less than the minimum required by this chapter; and if the existing yard or other open space as existing is less than the minimum required, it shall not be further reduced. Sec. 78-1402. -Application to only one dwelling or group. No required yard or other open space allocated to a building or dwelling group shall be used to satisfy yard, other open spaces, or minimum lot area requirements for any other building or dwelling group. Sec. 78-1403. - Lot coverage and massing standards. In all zoning districts other than the I—Industrial district, all lots that have a gross acreage of less than two acres shall comply with the following massing standards for buildings: (a) Maximum total footprints allowed. (1) On lots equal to or greater than 10,000 square feet in area, the total combined footprints of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed 20 percent of the gross lot area. (2) On lots of less than 10,000 square feet in area, the total combined footprints of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed 2,000 square feet. (b) Calculation of massing. All buildings shall be included in the calculation of the total combined footprints by buildings. Sec. 78-1405. - Nonencroachments. (a) The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on yard setback requirements: (1) Chimneys, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features, cornices, eaves, gutters, and similar building elements, provided they do not extend more than two feet into a required yard. (2) Nameplate signs for one-family dwellings subject to the provisions of article X, division 4 of this chapter; lights for illuminating parking areas, loading areas or yards for safety and security purposes, provided the direct source of light is not visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential property and is located at least five feet from the front lot line; public utility poles and overhead lines; mailboxes. (3) Steps, sidewalks, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures which do not extend above the height of the ground floor level of the principal building and extend to a distance of not less than two feet from any lot line. (4) Bays, cantilevers, and fire escapes. In side or rear yards only the following encroachments are permitted: a. Bays and/or cantilevers, which are not part of the defined building footprint, may extend up to two feet into the required side or rear yard, provided the aggregate area of the bays and/or cantilevers is not more than 20 square feet; and b. Fire escapes not exceeding a width of three feet and a depth of four feet, (5) Driveways and parking areas when constructed, located and used in compliance with other provisions contained within chapter 78. Driveways and parking areas may extend to within five feet of a side lot line. (6) Retaining walls, planters and similar structures, subject to the following provisions: a. Retaining walls, planters and similar structures may be located in all required yards when all of the following conditions are met: 1. The structure is located at least ten feet from the edge of the traveled roadway; 2. The structure is not located within a drainage, utility, or other easement, except upon approval in writing for an encroachment agreement by the city; or similar approval from another regulatory and/or utility agency; 3. The structure creates no impacts to drainage direction, rate or volume for adjacent properties. 4. The structure is two feet in height or less above existing grade. b. Retaining walls, planters and similar structures exceeding two feet in height above existing ground level or which are located less than five feet from a side property line, shall require a permit and upon recommendation of the building official may require city council review or a conditional use permit per the provisions of section 78-967. c. Retaining walls, planters and similar structures exceeding the allowed height of a fence shall be located so as to meet the required accessory structure setbacks established for that yard. (7) Window wells including those for fire egress which extend no more than five feet from the building; and no closer than two feet to the property line. (8) Air conditioning or heating equipment may be located within a required yard but shall be located within five feet of the building it serves; shall not be located within an existing or required drainage and/or utility easement; and shall be located at least five feet from any lot line. (9) Fences erected in all zoning districts are considered as a nonencroachment when they conform to the standards listed below. For the purposes of this section,the following definitions shall apply: Permanent fence. A fence that is installed in a fixed or enduring manner that is not intended for a seasonal or temporary purpose. Temporary fence. A fence that is not permanently secured or anchored to the ground by posts or affixed footings, and is installed and removed on a limited term or seasonal basis such as: snow fences, garden fences, seasonal recreational fences such as hockey boards; fences installed for safety or access management purposes for special events; and fences installed for the duration of a construction project such as silt fences, erosion control bioretention logs, and septic drainfield site protection fences. Fence height. The measurement from the top of any part of the fence, including posts or other structural supports, lattice, ornate top design elements, and so forth measured to the existing ground level below the fence, as measured perpendicular to the slope (see Drawing). Exception: Post finials extending above the top of the fence shall not be deemed as part of the fence for height determination purposes as long as they do not exceed ten inches in width per finial and do not extend above the top of the fence by more than ten percent of the allowed maximum fence height at that location. Drawing: Fence Height Measurement -..... M1 'moi. 11111111114 I /*/ J~ / a. Nonlakeshore lots. 1. Fences and walls within a required front yard or side street yard shall not exceed a height of 42 inches above existing ground level . 2. Fences and walls within a required rear or side yard shall not exceed a height of six feet above existing ground level. b. Lakeshore lots. 1. Fences within the required street(rear) yard or side street yard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed 42 inches above existing ground level. Exception: A fence not exceeding six feet in height may be located along the street lot line of a lake frontage lot which abuts a major thoroughfare. A major thoroughfare for purposes of this section means any county road or state highway. If such fence involves fill or berming, the total combined height of both fence and fill shall not exceed six feet above the height of the crown of the major thoroughfare. 2. Fences within the required side yard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed six feet in height, and shall not exceed 42 inches in height for any portion located lakeward of a line drawn between the most lakeward projection of the fence owner's principal residence structure and the most lakeward projection of the principal residence structure on the adjacent property abutting the side yard in which the fence is located. 3. Fences shall not be constructed within the defined lakeshore yard of a lakeshore lot, i.e., shall not be located within 75 feet of the shoreline for general development lakes, 100 feet for recreational lakes, or 150 feet for natural environment lakes. 4. When the building site of a lakeshore lot is separated from the lakeshore by a public or private road, the following definitions will apply for fence location purposes subject to the provisions of section 78-1405(a)(8)a.2: When the yard on the opposite side of the building site from the lake does not abut a street, such yard shall be considered as a standard rear yard. The yard between the building site and the street shall be considered as a standard front yard. c. Special provisions. Split rail fences of no more than three rails within a required front, street or side street yard may have a maximum top rail height of 48 inches above existing ground level. Board rail fences within a front, street or side street yard for the specific purpose of enclosing permitted domestic animals may have a top rail height of 60 inches and shall be no more than 50 percent opaque. d. Intersection sightline obstruction prohibited. No fence shall be installed so as to obstruct a required clear view at street intersections as required by section 78-1371. e. Fence construction and maintenance. 1. The owner of a fence shall maintain it in a condition of reasonable repair and appearance and shall not allow it to become or remain in disrepair or in a dangerous condition. 2. Fences shall be installed with the finished side facing neighboring properties or the street. The term "finished side" means that side having no structural supports. 3. Fencing materials shall consist of permanent all weather products. 4. Temporary fencing shall not be allowed to remain on the property following final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a permitted construction project, or protection of property during a similar project or winter conditions. Winter conditions shall be defined as October 15 through March 31 of the following year. Temporary fencing associated with a special event shall be removed within seven days of the end of such event. Temporary fencing materials shall not be allowed to remain on a permanent basis on a parcel. 5. Existing fences that are legal nonconforming as to location, height, design or other characteristics may be replaced in kind. (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 nonencroachments 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; f. 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; h. 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, when proposed, must meet the following requirements: a. The gate must open into the property not outward towards the right-of-way, and b. Gates serving two or fewer residences shall have a minimum horizontal width of 14 feet in the full open position, and c. Gates serving three or more residences shall have a minimum horizontal width of 20 feet in the full open position, and d. 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. 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. 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. (b) The following shall not be considered to be encroachments on structure height requirements: (1) Parapet walls that extend no more than three feet above the height of the building. (2) HVAC cooling towers. (3) Elevator penthouses. Sec. 78-1406. -Additional yard provisions. Required yards in the districts specified shall be subject to the following additional requirements: (1) Through lots. Through lots in any district shall have a required front yard on each street. (2) B and I districts: adjacent lots. In the B and I districts, where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question are less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, required front yards shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than five feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. Secs. 78-1407-78-1430. - Reserved. DIVISION 3. -ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURESIJ Sec. 78-1431. -Accessory buildings and structures on through lots. All accessory buildings and structures on through lots located in R districts shall meet the following requirements: (1) The building or structure shall meet the principal building setbacks that are established under sections 78-230, 78-255, 78-305, 78-330, 78-350, 78-370, 78-395, 78-420, 78-444. (2) No negative impacts to adjacent neighbors or public right-of-way result in the placement of the building or structure, determined at the discretion of the City Administrator. Should the City Administrator determine that item (2) above cannot be met an accessory structure or building may be permitted by conditional use permit if the planning commission determines no negative impacts result in the placement of the building or structure. The planning commission may apply reasonable conditions as part of the approval. Sec. 78-1432. -Time of construction. No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. Sec. 78-1433 (left blank) Sec. 78-1434. - Building Size Restrictions. No accessory building shall exceed 1,000 square feet of footprint area;except that accessory buildings in excess of 1,000 square feet will be allowed under the following conditions: (1) Not more than one oversized accessory building (OAB) shall be permitted on any property. An OAB is defined as an accessory building of footprint area in excess of 1,000 square feet. (2) An OAB is regulated by the following table: Maximum Maximum Allowed Total Individual of All Accessory Lot Area OAB Building (acres) Footprint Area Footprint (square feet) Areas on a Property (square feet) 0-1.99 1,000 2,000 2.00-3.00 1,200 2,400 3.01-3.50 1,400 2,800 3.51-4.00 1,600 3,200 4.01-4.50 1,800 3,600 4.51-5.00 2,000 4,000 5.01-6.00 2,200 4,400 6.01-7.00 2,400 4,800 7.01-8.00 2,600 5,200 8.01-9.00 2,800 5,600 9.01 -10.00 3,000 6,000 10.01 -11.00 3,200 6,400 11.01 -12.00 3,400 6,800 12.01 -13.00 3,600 7,000 13.01 - 14.00 3,800 8,000 14.01 or more 4,000 8,000 (3) Any OAB shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Principal building setbacks must be met. Further, no OAB shall be nearer the front lot line than the front line of the principal building on the property. b. The maximum height for such accessory building shall be 30 feet or the defined height of the principal residence building on the property, whichever is less. c. An OAB shall be allowed only when the property owner agrees and covenants in writing with the city as follows: 1. No future subdivision will be approved that places the OAB within a lot that has no principal building, except that the city in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the OAB may remain without a principal building, in order that a principal building may be constructed. At the end of this time period, the OAB must be removed if no principal building has been constructed. 2. If the property is subdivided, the OAB and principal building will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of the OAB. 3. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the OAB shall remain. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the property. Sec. 78-1435. —Garages on lake lots. Accessory buildings on lake lots with garage doors facing a street shall meet the applicable principal building setback for the district. Section 78-1681 Driveways, in general shall apply. Sec. 78-1436. - (left blank) Sec. 78-1437. - Plumbing. Because the provision of plumbing fixtures and wastewater plumbing in accessory buildings has the potential to allow such buildings to be used as dwelling units, and because it is the policy of the city to limit residential development density to the allowed densities within the respective zoning districts, plumbing in accessory buildings shall be regulated as follows: (1) The provision of outside sillcocks and indoor water supply shall be allowed in any accessory building. (2) Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing that does not include a shower or bathtub shall be allowed in any accessory building, subject to provision of municipal sanitary sewer or a conforming sewage treatment system designed to handle the anticipated flows from such fixtures, and subject to the property owner's executing a covenant providing that the accessory building will not be: a. Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by this Code. b. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained. c. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. (3) Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing that includes a shower or bathtub shall be allowed only in an accessory building which meets one of the following criteria: a. The accessory building has been approved for a guest house conditional use permit; or b. The accessory building has been approved for a bathtub or shower in accessory building conditional use permit. Sec. 78-1438. -Crowding principal building. No accessory building, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be erected, altered or moved within ten feet of the principal building, nor within ten feet of another accessory building. Sec. 78-1439. - (left blank) Sec. 78-1440. - Exterior materials. (a) An accessory building and the principal building shall be consistent in design and color. Except for accessory buildings that are less than 120 square feet in area or are located on lots two acres in area or larger. (b) Within RR-1A and RR-1B districts, an accessory building may be located streetward of the principal building provided the following conditions are met: a. Principal building setbacks shall be met; and b. The accessory building shall be consistent in design, color, and exterior material with the principal building. Secs. 78-1441-78-1465. - Reserved. PC Exhibit C MINUTES OF THE LA18-000057 ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 9. LA18-000057 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT—ACCESSORY BUILDING AND STRUCTURE SETBACKS,8:25 P.M.—8:55 P.M. Curtis noted this is a continuation of a discussion that started back in June regarding proposed changes for Accessory Building and Structure setbacks. The changes discussed so far have been regarding the overall organization of the regulations in the Code and whether or not adjustments to the existing setbacks are needed. Staff took the feedback given at the August meeting and continued to develop the remainder of the residential tables based upon the previously agreed-upon philosophy. The RS District has some additional complications and Staff is seeking guidance on how to proceed regarding accessory building/structure setbacks in that district. The Planning Commission should review the additional tables and the setbacks contemplated within those tables. In addition, Staff asks that the Planning Commission provide direction on the following: 1. RS Seasonal Recreational District—Big Island/Deering Island. The current minimum side yard setbacks for all structures and buildings are based on the width of the property. 2. Staff has proposed to allow for Accessory Buildings to follow the nonconforming lot width flexibility for side setbacks but does not provide the same for Oversized Accessory Buildings and Accessory structures. Does the Planning Commission wish to discuss this further or to explore other setback flexibilities? 3. The current City regulations would prohibit an Accessory Building/Oversized Accessory Building to be located streetward of the principal building. Staff would like Planning Commission feedback on this requirement. If an AB or OAB meets the required principal building setback and the principal building itself is set back further than the minimum, is it appropriate for the AB/OAB to be closer to the street? What are the impacts, if any? 4. Some of the proposed changes,where setbacks have been increased with this amendment,may result in a significant number of existing buildings in the City becoming legal nonconformities which would limit their expansion,etc. There is no inventory of the accessory buildings so an accurate number is not realistic. The Planning Commission should discuss the potential impacts for property owners. 5. Private recreational facilities may warrant their own discussion for clarification. Private recreational facilities are defined and are listed in the zoning code as allowed accessory uses within each residential district. However,the definition and subsequent district regulations may leave too much up to interpretation. To date no public comments have been received. The Planning Commission should reopen the public hearing and receive public comments. The Commission should discuss the items listed in the Staff report and provide Staff with direction. Following discussion,the Planning Commission should table the application to the October meeting. Libby asked where the base measurement of 1,000 square feet comes from. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis indicated it is a number that the Planning Commission and City Council felt would be a good base for a large accessory building and was arrived at a number of years ago. Libby stated as the City is trending towards more accessory buildings, 1,000 square feet can be limiting for a lot of people. Curtis noted larger lots can have larger buildings. Libby stated he might be missing some component as it relates to the setbacks and how it will impact the size. Libby asked whether it has to be a pretty good size lot to have a 2,000 square foot building. Curtis stated there is a table in the code currently that outlines how large the building can be. There is a cap on how big the oversized building can be,but for a building under 1,000 square feet, a person could have ten buildings if they choose. Since the current chart stops at nine acres, Staff may consider expanding the chart but that can be discussed at a later point. Curtis noted the City currently limits the square footage but not the number of buildings. Libby asked whether an addition to an existing residential structure could actually be considered an accessory structure. Curtis stated if there is a weather-tight connection,it would be considered an addition to the principal structure. Libby asked how that would affect a second accessory structure. Curtis indicated it would not matter,and that the only time the house size is going to limit the accessory structure size is when the lot is reaching 20 percent structural coverage. Thiesse asked what Staff is looking for on Item No. 1. Curtis stated she would like to know whether the Planning Commission feels there is a comprehensive way to look at the width rather than saying 10 percent or another actual number. Thiesse stated since there are two islands within the seasonal recreational district,he would like to accommodate them somehow,but if the current way is working for Staff,he would not change it. Olson asked whether these are arbitrary numbers. Curtis stated those are the numbers currently in the code. Curtis asked whether Commissioner Thiesse feels 200 feet is reasonable. Thiesse indicated he does and that he would like to keep the structures as far apart as possible. Landgraver indicated he is also in agreement. Curtis stated the Planning Commission can change the side setback requirements for an accessory structure on Big Island if they would like but that on a 200 foot wide lot it currently has to be 50 feet away from the lot line no matter what size the shed is. Or the Planning Commission can proceed with the current setbacks if they feel they are acceptable. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Ressler stated unless Staff is receiving a lot of questions about it, he would leave it as is. Barnhart indicated Staffs goal is to reduce the need for variances that can be anticipated, and if they follow the setback based on the width of the lot,that provides some flexibility and separation in the development that is already there. Currently lot width is measured at the lake and measured at the 75-foot line, and the question is what happens if those numbers are different. Curtis stated currently they give the property owner the benefit of the doubt with the smaller number in this situation. Thiesse stated the intent is to keep the structures away from the property line and that he would measure it from the location of structure. Curtis stated the LR-1A District currently has a 200-foot minimum and allows a principal structure to be 30 feet from the side. Staff is proposing to allow an accessory building at 15 feet and an oversized accessory building at 30 feet. Curtis asked if the Planning Commission would like Big Island to have different requirements. Thiesse noted the City has not received any feedback from residents of Big Island and that he would leave them where they are. Erickson stated in his view it is good to minimize density on Big Island since they do not have sewer and that he would encourage them to combine lots whenever possible. Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about Item No. 2 in Staffs report. Curtis asked whether the Planning Commission would like to apply the nonconforming lot widths to accessory buildings and allow buildings under 1,000 feet to follow the same flexibility given to the principal structure on those lots,which in some cases would be 7.5 feet. That flexibility would not be extended to oversized accessory buildings or to accessory structures. Olson asked what methodology Curtis stated currently a 50-foot lot would be allowed to have a 7.5 foot setback for a principal structure but a 10' x 10' shed would need to meet a 10-foot setback. Staff is looking for direction on whether that accessory building should be allowed at the 7.5-foot setback but are not proposing to extend the flexibility to the oversized accessory building. A 900 square foot building could be 7.5 feet but not a 1,000 square foot building. Olson commented he is good with that. Ressler and Thiesse agreed. Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about Item No. 3. Curtis stated if the home is extremely far from the front lot line, an accessory building could be located at the principal structure setback. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated the intent is to keep structures away from the road, and if there was an accessory structure in front of the house,the architecture should match the house. Thiesse commented he is not sure why the City would preclude people from putting the structure in front of their house as long as it is meeting the setback and architectural standards of the principal structure. Olson indicated he is in agreement with that. Lemke stated it is hard to determine what architectural standards are. Barnhart stated they would look at materials since Orono does not have an architecture review committee. Staff can draft some language and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Landgraver stated the word accessory implies it is the subordinate building, which should not be the first building someone sees but sometimes the only place that is buildable is the front of the lot. Curtis asked if there are some zoning districts where it would be more appropriate to consider. Libby stated having some kind of architectural uniformity would be nice, but since the uses will vary, it is difficult to mandate whether they are located in the front,side,or back. Curtis stated if the City allows an accessory building ahead of the principal structure,the City already has a provision that talks about exterior finishes and that can be incorporated into this. Barnhart stated the benefits should outweigh the challenges and that the goal of the zoning districts is to preserve open spaces and yards. There may not be a big difference if the first building you see is an accessory structure if the materials are addressed. Lemke commented they might be assuming that the accessory building will be ugly. Barnhart indicated Staff will come back with some language for the Planning Commission to review. Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about Item No. 4. Erickson stated another way of looking at it is whether it changes the character of the neighborhood. Thiesse asked if it would be a practical difficulty if someone came in with a nonconforming structure that they would like to modify if it was constructed before the code changed. Curtis indicated it would be. Curtis stated an example would be an old garage with a 6:12 roof which is now halfway into the setback. The owners would now like to reroof it and make the roof pitch higher, which would be an expansion into the setback. Currently those are considered for a variance. Curtis indicated she is not sure how many conforming buildings may become nonconforming with the changes. Thiesse stated in his mind they should be able to expand on that building since it was a conforming structure when constructed but now they have to pay $275 to apply for a variance if they want to change the roof pitch. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,September 17,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated the goal is to reduce the need for variances,but that the Planning Commission should recognize that some new nonconformities will likely be introduced due to the changes. Barnhart stated there are some areas where the setbacks have been increased but generally they have been kept the same. Barnhart stated while the goal is to reduce the need for variances, it will not completely eliminate them. Thiesse asked how the Planning Commission feels about Item No. 5. Curtis stated her suggestion would be to delete the existing language. The list of private recreational facilities includes things that are affixed or not affixed,such as a portable basketball hoop or a fire pit. Staff feels relatively confident that most of those things can be covered by considering it an accessory structure. Libby asked why they don't just call it a private recreational accessory structure to keep it separated from more of a storage related structure. Curtis indicated the definition of accessory structure is anything that is built, constructed, erected, etc., like a hot tub or sport court or patio, but is not a building. Barnhart stated he sees private recreational facilities as not adding a lot of value because it is an accessory structure. Thiesse suggested they delete private recreational facilities and leave it as an accessory structure. Curtis indicated she will have some language and tables to review at the next meeting. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:58 p.m. There were no public comments related to this application. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to the October Planning Commission meeting. To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator V From: Laura Oakden, Planner G Date: October 15, 2018 `IkrsHoO' Subject: #LA18-000084,Text Amendment: Land Alterations Public Hearing Application Summary: To review and revise the regulations pertaining to land alterations which include grading,filling and topographic alterations in all districts. Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission should hold a public hearing and give direction to staff primarily regarding goals and objectives of the regulation. Background Applicants are often confused by the existing language and are unclear when it pertains to their project. Further,staff will discover a CUP is required during the building permit review, stalling that building permit unit a CUP is issued. Simplifying the City Code will clarify the process pertaining to land alteration permits and help streamline the permitting process. Regulations for Grading and Land Alteration can be found in sections (Section 78-966 and 78- 1286, attached as exhibit A. Other communities codes excerpts are provided as Exhibits B and C. The city closely regulates grading and land alteration activity's for several reasons, including • To manage stormwater discharge, ensuring drainage does not negatively impact neighboring properties. • Manage hauling traffic and noise • Preventing erosion issues into adjacent properties,wetlands, lakes, and road. Within these goals, staffs proposes regulations that address these situations • Mining • Land Alteration not associated with a building permit • Land Alteration of more than 50 CY in the Lake Yard (excluding rip rap),with or without a building permit • Land Alteration of more than 500 CY within the Shoreland Overlay District, excluding activity directly related to building permit. • Grading and Land alteration that serves to artificially raises the principal structure over X (to be defined)feet from existing grade, i.e. refine Engineered grade. • Soil export not associated with a building permit • Reduce or eliminate regulations that do not serve stated goals. Analysis Recent Land Alteration CUPs have drawn minimal comment and discussion with the Planning Commission and City Council, suggesting that if the goals can be addressed through the permitting process,the time and expense of a public review process could be avoided. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. LA18-000084 October 15,2018 Page 2 of 2 Items to Consider: • Has the Commission identified additional goals to be achieved? • Has the Commission identified other situations that should be addressed Planning Commission options for consideration Discuss the scope of land alteration permits and provide direction for staff to create proposed language. Based on the discussion, staff will present an ordinance for review at the November Planning Commission meeting. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Existing City Code pertaining to Conditional Use Permits For Land Alterations (78-966), and Shoreland Overland District (78-1286) Exhibit B. Example Ord: City of Wayzata Exhibit C. Example Ord: City of Chanhassen Exhibit D. Examples of past Land Alteration CUPs (825 Old Crystal Bay Road, 2655 North Shore Drive) LA18-000084 Exhibit A PC Subdivision II. - Land Alteration Sec. 78-966.- Prohibition. (a) It is unlawful for any person to perform or have performed the following land alteration activities without a conditional use permit issued by the council: (1) Remove, fill, use for fill, dredge, store or excavate rock, sand, gravel, dirt or similar earth material within the limits of the city. (2) Fill or reclaim any land by depositing such material or by grading of existing land to elevate or alter the existing natural grade. (3) Build, alter or repair any seawall or retaining wall, or otherwise change the grade or shore of lakeshore property. (b) All land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed only with clean fill as defined in section 78-1. Granting of such permits is subject to other regulations and prohibitions of this Code and other applicable statutes or ordinances of other governmental bodies. (Code 1984, § 10.03(19); Ord. No. 163 2nd series, § 1, 12-8-1997) Sec. 78-967. -Exception. (a) The requirements of section 78-966 are not intended to govern the following land alteration activities: (1) Normal and customary grading in the area of an existing or a newly constructed building, or the grading of the driveway serving such building. (2) Any earth movement less than 500 cubic yards which does not adversely impact the existing drainage. (3) Grading, filling or excavating of 50 cubic yards or less within the shore setback zone of all lakes enumerated in article IX of this chapter. (4) The following unusual land alterations: a. Any unusual land alterations, including earth filling, removal or grading, proposed by a builder shall be subject to a permit. The following land alterations shall be considered as unusual land alterations: 1. All excavations for foundations in excess of 12 feet average depth if any amount of the excess material removed below 12 feet depth is to be stockpiled on the site. 2. Any additional fill brought on site outside the Shore land Overlay District, in excess of 500 cubic yards, except for fill required to raise grade for adequate frost footing protection, the intent being that structures shall not be artificially raised above the preexisting surrounding topography. 3. Grading or alterations that would propose any changes in elevations within five feet of adjacent residential lot lines except for drainage swales and ditches. (b) Such grading and earth movement shall be subject to approval by the building inspector at the time of issuance of a building permit, provided that a plan showing proper drainage and protection of adjoining property has been submitted. Where such earth movement is not being performed in conjunction with a building permit, a separate land alteration permit shall be required. (c) The building inspector shall have the authority to refer any requests for land alteration permits to the city council for review and approval in instances where the land alteration appears to potentially create negative impacts or be not in keeping with the goals and policies of the community management plan. (Code 1984, § 10.03(21); Ord. No. 163 2nd series, § 2, 12-8-1997; Ord.No. 171 2nd series, § 1, 4-4-1998; Ord. No. 133 3rd series, § 1, 1-26-2015; Ord.No. 188 3rd series, § 2, 3-22-2017) Sec. 78-968. -Permit. An application for a conditional use permit shall be accompanied by a drawing made by a registered surveyor or other competent person showing the location of the proposed excavation or storage and shall state the amount of material which is to be removed, excavated or stored, filled or graded, and such other information as the council may require. Applications shall be filed with the city administrator and shall be accompanied by a deposit to be determined by the city, which will be used to offset the cost of processing the application. Any unused portion will be refunded to the applicant. (Code 1984, § 10.03(20)) Sec. 78-969. -Reserved. Editor's note—Ord. No. 188 3rd series, § 3, adopted March 22, 2017, repealed § 78-969, which pertained to permit for riprap and derived from Code 1984, § 10.03(22)—(24). Secs. 78-970-78-1000. - Reserved. Sec. 78-1286. - Topographic alterations/grading and filling. (a) Grading and filling and excavations necessary for the construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways under validly issued construction permits for these facilities do not require the issuance of a separate grading and filling permit. However, all grading and filling activity approved permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems, and driveways shall adhere to the grading and filling standards of this article. (b) Grading, filling or excavating of more than 50 cubic yards is prohibited within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of the public waters enumerated in section 78-1217. (c) Public and private roads, driveways, parking areas, and public or private watercraft access ramps shall not be constructed within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of the public waters enumerated in section 78-1217. If no alternatives exist, such improvements shall be subject to the standard zoning variance review procedure, and such review shall take into account the following considerations: (1) Such improvements shall be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. (2) All roads and parking areas shall be designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the requirements of all agencies with jurisdiction. (d) Except for those projects requiring permits for construction of structures, sewage treatment systems and driveways, a land alteration permit will be required as follows: (1) For movement of up to 50 cubic yards of material within 75 feet of public waters as per item (b) above, a staff-issued land alteration permit shall be required. (2) For movement of 51 through 500 cubic yards of material anywhere within the Shoreland Overlay District, except for within 75 feet of public waters, a staff-issued land alteration permit shall be required. (3) For movement of more than 500 cubic yards of material within the Shoreland Overlay District, conditional use permit approval by the city council is required in addition to the required land alteration permit. (e) The following considerations and conditions must be adhered to during the issuance of construction permits, grading and filling permits, conditional use permits, variances and subdivision approvals: (1) Grading or filling in any type 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 wetland must be evaluated to determine how extensively the proposed activity would affect the following functional qualities of the wetland: a. Sediment and pollutant trapping and retention; b. Storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce flood damage; c. Fish and wildlife habitat; d. Recreational use; e. Shoreline or bank stabilization; and f. Noteworthiness, including special qualities, such as historic significance, critical habitat for endangered plants and animals, or others. This evaluation must also include a determination of whether the wetland alteration being proposed requires permits, reviews or approvals by other sections of city ordinances or by other local, state or federal agencies including but not limited to watershed districts, state department of natural resources, or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. (2) Alterations must be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible. (3) Mulches or similar materials must be used, where necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage, and a permanent vegetation cover must be established as soon as possible. (4) Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature must be used. (5) Altered areas must be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service. (6) Fill or excavated material must not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope. (7) Plans to place fill or excavated material on steep slopes must be reviewed by the city engineer for continued slope stability and must not create finished slopes of 30 percent or greater. (8) Fill or excavated material must not be placed in bluff impact zones. (9) Any alterations below the ordinary high water level of public waters must first be authorized by the commissioner of the department of natural resources under Minn. Stat. § 103G.245. (10) Alterations of topography must only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and do not adversely affect adjacent or nearby property. (11) Placement of natural rock riprap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, is permitted if the finished slope does not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical, the landward extent of the riprap is within ten feet of the ordinary high water level, and the height of the riprap above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three feet. A riprap permit shall be obtained per the requirements of section 78-969. (f) Excavations where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons and harbors, are prohibited above the ordinary high water level. Such excavations below the elevation or the ordinary high water level are subject to approval of the department of natural resources and other agencies with concurrent jurisdiction. (Ord.No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16)(J)), 2-24-1992; Ord.No. 127 2nd series, § 8, 7-11-1994; Ord.No. 163 2nd series, § 3, 12-8-1997; Ord. No. 171 2nd series, § 2, 4-4-1998; Ord.No. 28 3rd series, § 17, 8-22-2005; Ord.No. 133 3rd series, §§ 2, 3, 1-26-2015) LA18-000084 Exhibit B PC 991.14-Shoreland Alterations. Alterations of vegetation and topography shall be regulated to prevent erosion into public waters, fix nutrients, preserve shoreland aesthetics,preserve historic values, prevent bank slumping, and protect fish and wildlife habitat. A. Vegetation Alterations. 1. Vegetation alteration necessary for the construction of structures and the construction of roads and parking areas regulated by Section 991.14.0 of this Ordinance are exempt from the vegetation alteration standards that follow: a) Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on 2. Removal or alteration of vegetation shall be allowed subject to the following standards: 1) Steep slopes shall not be allowed. b) In shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes, limited clearing of trees and shrubs and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees shall be allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted water-oriented accessory structures or facilities, provided that: 1) The screening of structures, vehicles, or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, shall not be substantially reduced; 2) The above provisions are not applicable to the removal of trees, limbs, or branches that are dead, diseased, or pose safety hazards. B. Topographic Alterations/Grading and Filling. 1. Grading and filling, and excavations necessary for the construction of structures, and driveways under approved construction permits for these facilities shall not require the issuance of a separate grading and filling permit. However, the grading and filling standards in this section shall be incorporated into the issuance of permits for construction of structures, and driveways. 2. Notwithstanding items A and B above, a shoreland permit shall be required from the Zoning Administrator for: a) The movement of more than ten cubic yards of material on steep slopes or within shore or bluff impact zones; and b) The movement of more than 50 cubic yards of material outside of steep slopes and shore and bluff impact zones. 3. The following considerations and conditions shall be adhered to during the issuance of permits, conditional use permits, variances and subdivision approvals: a) Grading or filling in any type two, three, four, five, six, seven, or eight wetland shall be evaluated to determine how extensively the proposed activity would affect the following functional qualities of the wetland. 1) Sediment and pollution trapping and retention; 2) Storage of surface runoff to prevent or reduce flood damage; 3) Fish and wildlife habitat; 4) Recreational use; 5) Shoreline or bank stabilization; and 6) Noteworthiness, including special qualities such as historic significance, critical habitat for endangered plants and animals, or others. * This evaluation shall also include a determination of whether the wetland alteration being proposed requires permits, reviews, or approvals by other local, state, or federal agencies such as the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The applicant shall be so advised. b) Alterations shall be designed and conducted in a manner that ensures only the smallest amount of bare ground is exposed for the shortest time possible; c) Mulches or similar materials shall be used, where necessary, for temporary bare soil coverage, and permanent vegetation cover shall be established as soon as possible. d) Methods to minimize soil erosion and to trap sediments before they reach any surface water feature shall be used; e) Altered areas shall be stabilized to acceptable erosion control standards consistent with the field office technical guides of the local soil and water conservation districts and the United States Soil Conservation Service; f) Fill or excavation material shall not be placed in a manner that creates an unstable slope; g) Plans to place fill or excavate material on steep slopes shall be reviewed by qualified professionals for continued slope stability and shall not create finished slopes of 30 or greater; h) Fill or excavated material shall not be placed in bluff impact zones; i) Any alterations below the ordinary high water level of public waters shall first be authorized by the Commissioner under Minn. Stats. § 105.42. j) Alterations of topography shall only be allowed if they are accessory to permitted or conditional uses and shall not adversely affect adjacent or nearby properties; and k) Placement of natural rock riprap, including associated grading of the shoreline and placement of a filter blanket, shall be permitted if the finished slope does not exceed three feet horizontal to one foot vertical, and the landward extent of the riprap is within ten feet of the ordinary high water level, and the height of the riprap above the ordinary high water level does not exceed three feet. 4. Connections to Public Waters. Excavation where the intended purpose is connection to a public water, such as boat slips, canals, lagoons, and harbors, shall be controlled by local shoreland controls. Permission for excavations may be given only after the Commissioner has approved the proposed connection to public waters. C. Placement and Design of Roads, Driveways, and Parking Areas. 1. Public and private roads and parking areas shall be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. Documentation shall be provided by a qualified individual that all roads and parking areas are designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the guidelines of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 2. Roads, driveways, and parking areas shall meet structure setbacks and shall not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they may be placed within these areas, and shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts. 3. Public and private watercraft access ramps, approach roads, and access-related parking areas shall be placed within shore impact zones provided the vegetative screening and erosion control conditions of this sub-part are met. For private facilities, the grading and filling provisions of Section 991.14.6 of this Ordinance shall be met. D. Stormwater Management.All development within the Shoreland Overlay District shall be consistent with the Stormwater Management Plan for the City of Wayzata, May 1988 as may be amended and the following general and specific standards. 1. General Standards. a) When possible, existing natural drainageways, wetlands, and vegetated soil surfaces shall be used to convey, store, filter, and retain stormwater runoff before discharge to public waters. b) Development shall be planned and conducted in a manner that will minimize the extent of disturbed areas, runoff velocities, erosion potential, and reduce and delay runoff volumes. Disturbed areas shall be stabilized and protected as soon as possible and facilities or methods used to retain sediment on the site. c) When development density, topographic features, and soil and vegetation conditions are not sufficient to adequately handle stormwater runoff using natural features and vegetation, various types of constructed facilities such as diversions, settling basins, skimming devices, dikes, waterways, and ponds may be used. Preference must be given to designs using surface drainage, vegetation, and infiltration rather than buried pipes and manmade materials and facilities. E. Specific Standards. 1. When constructed facilities are used for stormwater management, documentation shall be provided by a qualified individual that they are designed and installed consistent with the field guidelines of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 2. Newly constructed stormwater outfalls to public waters shall provide for filtering or settling of suspended solids and skimming of surface debris before discharge. WayzataWater Sewer Systems 409.05 - Land Disturbance Permit Required. No person shall do any land disturbing activity within the City of Wayzata without first having obtained a land disturbance permit from the City, except for the following: A. A land disturbing activity which meets all of the following requirements: 1.The land disturbing activity is located in an isolated, self-contained area. 2.The land disturbing activity does not present a danger to private or public property. 3.The land disturbing activity does not infringe upon any wetland or ponding area or impede any drainage course. 4.The total area of disturbance is less than 5,000 square feet.(Ord. 718108-23-2011D 5.The total volume of earth material disturbed, stockpiled, disposed of, or used as fill in connection with the land disturbing activity does not exceed 50 cubic yards. 6.The land disturbing activity is an excavation that is less than two feet in depth and does not create a cut slope greater than five feet in height, or is steeper than two horizontal to one vertical or is a fill that is less than two feet in depth and place on natural terrain with a slope flatter than three horizontal to one vertical, or is less than three feet in depth, not intended to support structures. Types of activities which may meet these requirements include minor landscaping and the installation and maintenance of home gardens, fences, signs and mailboxes. B. An excavation below finished grade for basements and footings of a building, retaining wall or other structure authorized by a valid building permit. This shall not exempt the requirement for a permit for a land disturbing activity resulting from the material from such excavation nor exempt any excavation having an unsupported height greater than five feet after the completion of such structure. C. Cemetery graves. D. Refuse disposal sites controlled by other regulations, laws or City Code. E. Excavations for wells or tunnels or utilities controlled by other regulations, laws or City Code. F. Mining, quarrying, excavating, processing, stockpiling of rock, sand, gravel, aggregate or clay where established and provided for by law or ordinance. This shall not exempt these types of activities from the special use permit requirements set forth by City Code. G. Tilling, planting, or harvesting of agricultural, horticultural or silvicultural (forestry) crops. This shall not exempt these types of activities from the other permit requirements set forth by City Code. H. Exploratory excavations and borings under the direction of geotechnical engineers or engineering geologists. I. Emergency work necessary to protect life, limb, or property. J. City, county, state or federal agency projects whose plans and specifications meet the requirements of this Ordinance and are reviewed and approved by the City under a separate process. Exemption from the permit requirements of this Chapter shall not be deemed to grant authorization for any work to be done in any manner in violation of the provisions of this Chapter. (Ord. 658[2-22-2005]; Ord. 718[08-23-2011]) https://library.municode.com/mn/wayzata/codes/code of ordinances?nodeld=WACO PTIVWASESY C H409LADI 409.06LADIPERE ARTICLE III.-EXCAVATING, MINING, FILLING AND GRADING[31 LA18 000084 Exhibit C PC Sec.7-30.-Purposes and intent. The purpose of this article is to promote the health,safety and welfare of the community and to establish reasonable uniform limitations,standards,safeguards and controls for excavating, mining,filling and grading within the city. (Ord. No. 128,§ 1, 5-14-90;Ord. No.351,§7, 11-24-03) Sec.7-31.-Definitions. The following words,terms and phrases shall have the following meanings respectively ascribed to them: Earth work or work the earth:Excavating, mining,filling or grading. Excavating;or mining: (1) The removal of the natural surface of the earth,whether sod,dirt,soil,sand,gravel,stone,or other matter, creating a depression. (2) Any area where the topsoil or overburden has been removed for the purpose of removing earthly deposits or minerals. (3) Any area that is being used for stockpiling,storage and processing of sand,gravel, black dirt, clay and other minerals. Filling orgrading.:To change the contour of the land. Overburden:Those materials which lie between the surface of the earth and material deposit to be extracted. Restoration:To renew land to self-sustaining, long-term use which is compatible with contiguous land uses, present and future, in accordance with the standards set forth in this article. Topsoi/.:That portion of the overburden which lies closest to the earth's surface and supports the growth of vegetation. (Ord. No. 128,§ 1,5-14-90) Sec.7-32.-Permit required. Except as otherwise provided in this article, it shall be unlawful for anyone to work the earth without having first obtained a written permit from the city authorizing the same in accordance with this article.Active earth work operations that predate this article that do not have a permit shall cease operations or obtain an earth work permit within six months after the adoption of this article.Current permit holders shall come into compliance with the terms of this article no later than the renewal date of such permit holder's earth work permit. Excavating, mining,filling and grading permits for more than 50 cubic yards, but less than 1,000 cubic yards of material in a 12-month period may be processed administratively. Excavating, mining,filling,and grading of 1,000 cubic yards of material or more in a 12-month period shall be processed in the same manner as an interim use permit.Violations of any written permit condition shall constitute a misdemeanor violation of this chapter. (Ord. No. 128,§ 1, 5-14-90; Ord. No.351,§8, 11-24-03) Sec.7-33.-Exemptions from permit requirements. The following activities do not require an earth work permit: (1) Excavation for a foundation, cellar, or basement of a building if a building permit has been issued. (2) Grading a lot in conjunction with building if a building permit has been issued. (3) Excavation by the federal,state,county, city,or other government agencies in connection with construction or maintenance of streets, highways or utilities. (4) Curb cuts, utility hookups, or roadway openings for which another permit has been issued by the city. (5) Excavating, mining,filling or grading of less than 50 cubic yards or excavating, mining,filling or grading of less than 5,000 square feet of area in a calendar year. (6) Plowing and tilling for agricultural purposes. (7) Earth work in accordance with a development contract approved under the city's subdivision ordinance. If the development contract requires that a letter of credit or other security be posted,the letter of credit or other security must be posted before any excavation takes place. (8) Earth work in accordance with an approved site plan review,conditional use permit, interim use permit or wetland alteration permit. If the approved site plan review,conditional use permit, interim use permit or wetland alteration permit requires that a letter of credit or other security be posted,the letter of credit or other security must be posted before any excavation takes place. (Ord. No. 128,§ 1, 5-14-90;Ord. No.324, §4,7-9-01; Ord. No.351, §§9, 10, 11-24-03) Sec.7-34.-Exempt earth work. Earth work that is exempt from obtaining a permit pursuant to section 7-33 shall: (1) Comply with the city's erosion control standards. (2) Maintain natural or existing drainage patterns. (3) Comply with the city's other ordinance requirements including tree preservation and wetland protection. (4) Obtain all applicable permits as required and work within the requirements of the permits. (Ord. No. 128,§ 1, 5-14-90; Ord. No.441,§3,2-12-07) Sec.7-35. -Applications for earth work permits. (a) An application for an earth work permit shall be processed in accordance with the same procedures specified in the City Code relating to interim use permits except that earth work of more than 50 cubic yards of material but less than 1,000 cubic yards of material in a 12-month period may be approved administratively. (b) An application for a permit shall contain: (1) The name and address of the operator and owner of the land,together with proof of ownership. If the operator and owner are different, both must sign the application. (2) The correct legal description of the property where the activity is proposed to occur. (3) A certified abstract listing the names of all landowners owning property within 500 feet of the boundary of the property described above. (4) Specifications of the following, using appropriate maps, photographs and surveys: a. Proposed grading plan. b. Proposed stockpile sites. c. The physical relationship of the proposed designated site to the community and existing development. d. Site topography and natural features including location of watercourses and waterbodies. e. The description and quantity of material to be excavated. f. The depth of water tables throughout the area. g. The location and depth of wells and buried garbage,water and fill. (5) The purpose of the operation. (6) The estimated time required to complete the operation. (7) Hours and months of operation. (8) A tree survey indicating the location and type of all trees over six inches in caliper. In a heavily wooded area only the boundaries of the tree areas must be indicated on the survey. (9) An end use landscape plan and interim screening plan for the operation period. (10) The plan of operation, including processing, nature of the processing and equipment, location of the plant source of water, disposal of water and reuse of water. (11) Travel routes to and from the site and the number and type of trucks that will be used. (12) Plans for drainage,erosion and sediment control and dust control. (13) A restoration plan providing for the orderly and continuing restoration of all disturbed land to a condition equal to or better than that which existed prior to the earth work.Such plan shall illustrate, using photographs, maps and surveys where appropriate,the following: a. The contour of the land prior to excavation and proposed contours after completion of excavation and after completion of restoration. b. Those areas of the site to be used for storage of topsoil and overburden. c. A schedule setting forth the timetable for excavation of land lying within the extraction facility. d. The grade of all slopes after restoration, based upon proposed land uses,and description of the type and quantity of plantings where revegetation is to be conducted. e. The criteria and standards to be used to achieve final restoration as well as intermittent stabilization. (14) A statement identifying the applicant's program to insure compliance with the permit conditions, method of response to complaints and resolving conflicts that may arise as a result of complaints. (15) Unless exempt under Minnesota Rules,an environmental assessment worksheet, if required by the city. (16) A wetland alteration permit, if required by the City Code,which shall be processed concurrently with the excavation permit application. (17) Other information required by the city. (c) Applicants for earth work permits involving less than 1,000 cubic yards of material must only furnish the information specified in subsections(b)(1),(2),(4)a.,(5),(6),(7),(8),(12), (13),(16) and (17). (Ord. No. 128,§ 1, 5-14-90; Ord. No.441,§4,2-12-07) Sec.7-36.-Processing of earth work permit applications. (a) Except as otherwise provided herein,the city council shall review the earth work permit application and shall approve the permit if it is in compliance with this article,the city's zoning ordinance,and other applicable laws, ordinances and regulations. (b) A permit may be approved subject to conditions necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements and purpose of this article.When such conditions are established,they shall be set forth specifically in the permit. Conditions may, among other matters, limit the size, kind or character of the proposed operation, require the construction of structures, require the staging of extraction over a time period and require the alteration of the site design to ensure compliance with the standards in this article. (c) Earth work of more than 50 but less than 1,000 cubic yards of material in a 12-month period may be approved by the city staff.The applicant shall submit the fee required by section 7-39 of this Code. Upon receipt of a completed application,the city staff shall review the application within ten working days and shall notify the applicant of the decision by mail.The city staff may impose such conditions as may be necessary to protect the public interest. Bonding may be required in an amount sufficient to ensure site restoration should the applicant default.Any applicant aggrieved by a decision may appeal the determination to the city council. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec.7-37.-Termination of permit. (a) An earth work permit may be terminated for violation of this article or any condition of such permit. No earth work permit may be terminated until the city council has held a public hearing to determine whether such permit shall be terminated,at which time the operator shall be afforded an opportunity to contest the termination.The city council may establish certain conditions,which if not complied with,will result in immediate suspension of operations until the public hearing to consider termination of the permit can be held. (b) It shall be unlawful to conduct earth work after a permit has been terminated. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Sec.7-38.-Annual permits. (a) Earth work permits shall be renewed annually.The purpose of the annual permit is to monitor compliance with the conditions of approval.The city engineer, after consultation with appropriate city staff, may issue renewal permits upon satisfactory proof of compliance with the issued permit and this article. If the city engineer denies a renewal permit,the applicant may appeal the decision to the city council by filing a notice of appeal with the city clerk within ten days after the city engineer denies the permit. (b) Request for renewal of an earth work permit shall be made 60 days prior to the expiration date. If application or renewal is not made within the required time,all operations shall be terminated,and reinstatement of the permit may be granted only upon compliance with the procedures set forth in this article for an original permit. (c) An earth work permit which is limited in duration cannot be extended by the city engineer. Extensions must be approved by the city council. (Ord. No. 128,§ 1, 5-14-90) Sec.7-39.-Issuance of permit imposes no liability on city, relieves permittee of no responsibilities. Neither the issuance of a permit under this article, nor compliance with the conditions thereof with the provisions of this article shall relieve any person from any responsibility otherwise imposed by law for damage to persons or property; nor shall the issuance of any permit under this article serve to impose any liability on the city, its officers or employees for any injury or damage to persons or property.A permit issued pursuant to this article does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility of securing and complying with any other permit which may be required by any other law, ordinance or regulation. (Ord. No. 128, § 1,5-14-90) Sec.7-40.-Fees. A schedule of fees shall be determined by resolution of the city council,which may,from time to time,change such schedule. Prior to the issuance or renewal of any permit,such fees shall be paid to the city and deposited in the general fund. (Ord. No. 128, § 1,5-14-90) Sec.7-41.-Agreement;irrevocable letter of credit. Prior to the issuance of an earth work permit,there shall be executed by the operator and landowner and submitted to the city an agreement to construct such required improvements and to comply with such conditions of approval as may have been established by the city council.The agreement shall run with the land and be recorded against the title to the property. The agreement shall be accompanied by a letter of credit acceptable to the city in the amount of the costs of complying with the agreement as determined by the city council.The adequacy of the letter of credit shall be reviewed annually by the city. The city engineer may direct the amount of the letter of credit be increased to reflect inflation or changed conditions.The city may draw against the letter of credit for noncompliance with the agreement and shall use the proceeds to cure any default. (Ord. No. 128,§ 1, 5-14-90) Sec.7-42.-Setbacks. Mining for the purpose of selling sand,gravel, black dirt,clay,and other minerals shall not be conducted within: (1) 100 feet of an existing street or highway. (2) 30 feet of an easement for an existing public utility. (3) 300 feet of the boundary of an adjoining property not in mining use except that aggregate processing that creates objectionable noise and dust, including,but not limited to,crushing, must be set back 1,500 feet from the boundary of adjoining property not in mining use. (Ord. No. 128, § 1,5-14-90) Sec.7-43.-Fencing. During operations permitted under this article,any area where excavation slopes are steeper than one foot vertical to one and one-half feet horizontal shall be fenced, unless the city determines that they do not pose a safety hazard.Water storage basins shall also be fenced if the city determines the basins pose a potential safety hazard. Unless otherwise approved by the city, required fencing shall be a minimum six-foot-high chain link fence meeting Minnesota Department of Transportation standards for right-of-way fencing.An initial fencing plan must be approved by the city council.The city engineer may subsequently authorize changes in the plan to accommodate changing conditions. (Ord. No. 128,§ 1,5-14-90) Sec.7-44.-Appearance and screening. The following standards are required at the site of any operation permitted under this article: (1) Machinery shall be kept in good repair.Abandoned machinery, inoperable equipment and rubbish shall be removed from the site. (2) All buildings and equipment that have not been used for a period of one year shall be removed from the site. (3) All equipment and temporary structures shall be removed and dismantled not later than 90 days after termination of the extraction operation and expiration of the permit. (4) Where practical stockpiles of overburden and materials shall be used as a part of the screening for the site. (5) Where the city determines it is appropriate to screen off-site views,the perimeter of the site shall be planted with coniferous trees, bermed, or otherwise screened.Trees shall be at least six feet in height at the time of planting. (6) Existing trees and ground cover shall be preserved to the extent feasible, maintained and supplemented by selective cutting,transplanting of trees,shrubs,and other ground cover along all setback areas. (7) Noxious weeds shall be eradicated. (Ord. No. 128,§ 1, 5-14-90) Sec.7-45.-Operations; noise; hours;explosives,dust,water pollution;topsoil preservation. The following operating standards shall be observed at the site of any operation permitted under this article: (1) The maximum noise level at the perimeter of the site shall be within the limits set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. (2) Earth work shall be performed during only those times established by the city council as part of the permit unless otherwise provided in the permit. Such activity may only take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.Such activity is also prohibited on the following holidays: New Year's Day, Memorial Day,July 4, Labor Day, Christmas Eve Day,and Christmas Day. (3) Operators shall use all practical means to eliminate vibration on adjacent property from equipment operation. (4) Operators shall comply with all applicable city, county,state and federal regulations for the protection of water quality, including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Federal Environmental Protection Agency regulations for the protection of water quality. No waste products or process residue shall be deposited in any lake stream or natural drainage system.All wastewater shall pass through a sediment basin before drainage into a stream. (5) Operators shall comply with all city,county,state and federal regulations for the protection of wetlands. (6) Operators shall comply with all requirements of the watershed where the property is located. (7) All topsoil shall be retained at the site until complete restoration of the state has been taken place according to the restoration plan. (8) Operators shall use all practical means to reduce the amount of dust, smoke,and fumes caused by the operations.When atmospheric or other conditions make it impossible to prevent dust from migrating off-site,operations shall cease. (9) To control dust and minimize tracking sand,gravel, and dirt onto public roadways, internal private roads from a mine to any public roadway shall be paved with asphalt or concrete for a distance of at least 300 feet to the intersection with a public roadway.All internal roadways shall be swept and to minimize dust according to a schedule established by the city.The city may approve alternatives to paved internal roadways that accomplish the same purpose. (10) All haul routes to and from the mine shall be approved by the city and shall only use streets that can safely accommodate the traffic. (Ord. No. 128, § 1,5-14-90; Ord. No.324,§5,7-9-01) Sec.7-46.-Restoration standards. The following restoration standards shall apply to the site of any operation permitted under this article: (1) The plan must be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. (2) Restoration shall be a continuing operation occurring as quickly as possible after the extraction operation has moved sufficiently into another part of the extraction site. (3) All banks and slopes shall be left in accordance with the operation plan submitted with the permit application. (4) Slopes,graded areas and backfill areas shall be surfaced with adequate topsoil to secure and hold ground cover.Such ground cover shall be tended as necessary until its self-sustaining. (5) All water areas resulting from excavation shall be eliminated upon restoration of the site. In unique instances where the city council has reviewed proposals for water bodies at the time of approval of the overall plan and has determined that such would be appropriate as an open space or recreational amenity in subsequent reuse of the site,water bodies may be permitted. (6) No part of the restoration area which is planned for uses other than open space or agriculture shall be at an elevation lower than the minimum required for connection to a sanitary or storm sewer.The city may waive this requirement if the site could not reasonably be served by gravity sewer notwithstanding the proposed operation. Finished grades shall also be consistent with the established plan for the property restoration. (7) Provide a landscaping plan illustrating reforestation,ground cover,wetland restoration,and other features. (Ord. No. 128, 5 1, 5-14-90) Sec.7-47.-Waiver. The city council may allow deviation from the standards set forth herein: (1) For operations that existed prior to the enactment of this article when it is not feasible to comply because of pre-existing conditions. (2) When because of topographic or other conditions it is not possible to comply. (3) When alternates that accomplish the purpose and intent of the standard set forth in this article are agreed upon by the city and the operator. (Ord. No. 128, § 1, 5-14-90) Secs.7-48,7-49.-Reserved. LA18-000084 Exhibit D AGENDA ITEM PC \WA/ Item No.: 8 Date: October 8, 2018 INA- 0 Item Description: LA18-000071 -Dan Mulrennan o/b/o James Van Riemsdyk, 2655 North Shore Drive, Conditional Use Permit-land alteration,Public Hearing- 4- Resolution `'kESHO.0G Presenter: Laura Oakden, Agenda Public Hearing Planner Section: 1. Purpose. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for grading over 500 cubic yards and creating a new engineer grade for the property. 2. 15.99 Deadline The applicant made a complete application on August 29, 2018. The 60-day review period expires October 29,2018 3. Background/Summary. A permit was issued to demolish the existing home. During this activity, it was discovered the existing soil was not suitable to support a home and would need to be replaced. 2,046 cubic yards was cut from the site,and 1,648 yards was used for fill for the property. Additionally,the applicants propose a grading plan that converts the flat lot into a walk-out lot. This transformation, coupled with the grading being done independent of a building permit triggers a Conditional Use Permit. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The planning commission reviewed the proposed conditional use and discussed the application. The commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the condition use permit, 7-0. 5. Public Comment. A neighbor submitted an email asking for review of the water flow and drainage on the site with the proposed topography changes. City Engineer,Adam Edwards customarily reviews grading plans are part of the building permit review process. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Make a motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Proposed Plans Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit D. PC Staff Report 9.17.18 Exhibit E. Public Comments References PC Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit C. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations and Grading Calcs Exhibit E. Narrative Exhibit F. Property Owners List and Map Prepared By: Laura Oakden Reviewed By:J.Barnhart Approved By: .15)2 Op CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. yF t�k�s H 09-t A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-967 FILE NO. LA18-000071 WHEREAS, on August 29, 2018, , Dan Mulrennan o/b/o James Van Riemsdyk ("Applicant"), applied for a conditional use permit from the City Code for the property addressed 2655 North Shore Drive and legally described as: That part of Government Lot 4, Section 9, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the North quarter corner of said section; thence on a bearing of South 0 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East (the North line of the Northeast Quarter of said section being assumed to have a bearing of South 88 degrees 51 minutes 00 seconds East for purposes of this description) a distance of 2878.55 feet; thence South 70 degrees 37 minutes 31 seconds East a distance of 838.42 feet to the point of beginning;thence South 67 degrees 19 minutes 23 seconds East a distance of 266.25 feet; thence South 32 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West a distance of 380 feet, more or less, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka; thence westerly along said shore to its intersection with a line drawn on a bearing of South 23 degrees 15 minutes 29 seconds West from the point of beginning;thence North 23 degrees 15 minutes 29 seconds East a distance of 393 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. (hereinafter the"Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-967 to allow to allow approximately 2,100 cubic yards to be cut from the site and approximately 1,700 cubic yards of fill material into the property; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-967 to allow for the creation of the new engineered grade for the property; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2018, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on September 17, 2018, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit; and Opp CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2 NO. .AESH O G WHEREAS, on October 8, 2018, the City Council continued the public hearing, receiving additional testimony. WHEREAS, on October 8, 2018, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested conditional use permit as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA18-000071. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the LR-1A Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 1.9 acres in area and has a defined lot width of approximately 247 feet. 4. Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit for grading 5. In considering this application for Conditional Use Permit, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the permit 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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: The City 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 use of the property is consistent with the permitted uses for the Property, and is compliant with the zoning code and comprehensive plan. 2 ONp CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL "1K NO. 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. The haul routes will be via County Roads. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system. This proposed use will not impact nor need water or sewage disposal. 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 movement are appropriate and in character with the surrounding land and neighborhood. The grading of the Property will be in conformance with the neighborhood. Once completed, the grading will have no impact on surrounding lands. 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 will help to facilitate stormwater runoff down property lines, and not toward adjacent properties as is the current condition. 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 Applicant is proposing to elevate the land to accommodate a walk out which is not out of character for the neighborhood. Adjacent properties will not be 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; The grading activity will not change the intended residential use of the Property so there is no change in the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties resulting from the export of fill materials. Further, grading activity will occur over a relatively short period, To the degree possible, negative impacts during construction 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. 3 (‘' CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 'kEsHO� 11)Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; To the degree possible, negative impacts during construction will be limited and mitigated. All activity for the proposed project will follow the approved construction hours. 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 Applicant shall be required to keep debris off of the public roadways. Haul routes will utilize county roads, not local city streets. 13)Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; long term effect of the project should result in minimal environmental impacts. The project will be monitored by the City, 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; Lighting is not proposed. ; and 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare; The Applicant 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-967 to allow the cut and fill of over 500 cubic yards of material and creation of a new engineered grade for the property, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the survey dated 8/16/2018 and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A. 4 Op CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. � G 4kEsHOV-1‘' 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the conditional use permit will expire on that date (October 8, 2019). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 8 day of October, 2018. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor 5 /vU 5 S, Exhibit A 41110:111111 . (NoRsiAl A.A AI \ S6>°\ R/��) \_RIGHT OF WAY LINES X923^ \�`j� AS SHOWN ON R L S NO 1467 Resol No. \ ,/ Are �� F L '' s? ��\ \ LA18-000071 / / - /o ��atlil \ —,sp \ PROPOSED o VO 1s@cam 0:401:14fippirs,.........,„ IMPERVIOUSSURFACE: A / Q1L..L ww,�FaX�lalssusF'L� awvw\ aft.IU �►� caaelnHOUSE kP�w P�I FFT. ,' R. {/, sal�XTralANosTesrPsEASTERLY LINE OF TRACT B, t \ •7A 1A' rR r' • \� i iAPPA�000119 418501 FL:REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO 1373 may/ '� `� �A\ I` �� 4ToN PrQ°Ta11°` 'mssIIITAIVNG WALLS 's'A'ss FTAS DESCRIBED i9a\I �r ,. VA ''n : . �\ TOTAL PROPOS®HARDCO ER m+so s0.Fr. h ♦ R ��EASTERLY LINE OF TRACT B, / �'�A��A��1 �Iamu'\ "t'"t'"'"" 'PDsv'R''� ��,' qVI- ...,... �II 1, 2 NET Pwros®Fsu°cova XX.54 FT.'IiIr REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO 1373 /e +y $!�l ,,:i `�, � JA1� \ 'm'O'�'� "A"sQ'`T' AS MONUMENTED iv .40, / I rl// ►I \►I- + ��,r�� \ P.ows®IrAPuvl°us SURFACE :uex �ei.t`. ly 5 Xview' ik 'A ►/Qin w� \I i• _INE OF TRACT B, Jam •A,�A �AS �A,� EROSION CONTROL GENERAL NOTES: 73 ASMONUMENTED Arjrk �,� a-�� ® �r1,L`Pyi'se{�,� r AXIMUM450.0r.ERIVEN mPOSTSMUM2 INTO �� 'C' E+= GROUND dU'OC DRIVEN MINIMUM Td'INTO UN C` Ij • , `,►�;'A �At, R° rA CENTERLINE 0- SIDE ROAD sL cN FINS osTIiONI IAic HR NOwsNOT,CRY PRIOR TO LAND DISTURBANCE R NaysE ' i-� ` / / •i 0 ,P.Clitill4 t,®.�^� � �� ASMONUM ,TED ' NrocRDUNDDNUP-sLDPESIDOFsuPPORr ENS ANC f I '' , Iy/ .�� MOVELFENCES FOR DURATION OF PROJECT. 4 r// � r'� I ACCUMULATED DEBRIS AND SEDIMENT R,/,. . O� DEPOSITS.REMOVE ALL TRACES OF SILT FENCES ',Sr 1 6.' „ y � 3► COMPLETIONDFEARrRDIBTNRBINGADTNITIEE. Fe y'+ OR WIRE REINFORCEINATE SILT FECEONENGINEER /! l�� `- - '4...,... ��. • 6.SURVEY INFORMAEP SLOPES. TION NDP PREPARED BY: \ �:Are O} /I�////i/��• r I` �\•' �1., GRONBERG&ASSOCIATES,INC. • ;/ aa3z:� �/�I/I,' ��c_ .��,► �� 4110/FP , ��j�'T�•ik l ,,�``�•�' '?• -i.Wf� �.'I�p/4°h' O / `�(�.9'' SITE KEY PLAN: %f' / ''7° // _ 'f/,iii.....,. °00 / / JPS r� �. :+ y` Fj�%''ii I%�� o° / °ate° �,� EXISTING TREE 114_404/611k l(R 20551•....,, ppSq,, //r'0' �I�i o G 1401,11110111/ (P)a. �d -' ••fra0a •*�. ^ ati'b EXISTING REETDBEREMONED ��Oi o a. r / ti M/1144110 - l.,i i�/j -Oe ^• l r��!„/ 'D�� m SPOT OFW ELEVATION OR /�/��/� �t /�� • .�y `/� '.gReioc TEDD -EXISTING CHAIN-LINK FENCE iir�� >sr� / / BOLCEveuiDJ Nev CONTOUR -/Af• °prsEr..� ® e EXISTING CONTOUR I/�11w ��l�� 1� �.� WESTERLY LINE OF PROPERTY tnc� J •�i. DESCRIBED IN CERTIFICATE OF \ ►�% �� W. ��11 I, TITLE NO.1168419 041, Nor 14-- .„...,,...h.„--.....„ 461... ...--.- -••••01/4.110 0 \ ---. .k."...„,„‹. .* , ,..0 N LA ic n, . .,...,A.. .....,, . p N . . AS-41-Tr=iik” • FIFIFIIbiI 11 II .]DIr SKD ArcM1itecta :Mil: r I l:I IFir� � A B R1I 11 S lli-li W..¶��yII4T-Ir=�ar�� I I�I�'II l iii New F�BIIjBI1CB 10f. Www • } Vet ,�/■,� 294_ r,/ I II IIIIII"RYIt�ll-Lily�N IIS L'Y°%•r,.„m.:.c..br. ,. 6 CP / L1 E....7..' °NTOI� fr¶.IrIT ISS-i IGI RFIIk11�11=�1w-11p11�51 I, e HORN Nom elf fr i�lf�fi,�R,1fP II_'If- 1.-f_�r _� 2655 North Shore give , SITE P AN } ®®eSITE PIAN Ch VOLLEYBALL 2655 North Shore Drive �. Inv-i' I-Iz Orono,Minnesota �Al AGENDA ITEM rib% Item No.: 12 Date: September 10,2018 Irple... tem Description: LA18-000069—Gordon James Construction o/b/o Jason Pitts,225 Old Crystal Bay Road S, Conditional Use Permit(grading)Public Hearing—Resolution lF 0.E. Presenter: Melanie Curtis Agenda Public Hearing e4kESHOlLt Planner Section: 1. Purpose. This application requires two motions: a. Waive Planning Commission review(requires unanimous approval) b. Consider a Conditional Use Permit to allow import of material in excess of 500 cubic yards in conjunction with the construction of a new home. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received and considered complete on August 15, 2018.Therefore the 60-Day review period expires on October 14,2018. 3. Background. The owner's architect and builder worked with planning staff to develop plans for the new home at 225 Old Crystal Bay Road South. The plans were designed to conform to all of the applicable zoning requirements. The building permit application was submitted and after review was shown to meet all setbacks, height, hardcover,and other lot requirements for the RR- IB district. The builder's plan during pre-application discussions identified the plan to import fill to the site specifically so as to review building height with staff. However the plans for discussion did not call out the quantity of fill; nor did the City's review quantify or specifically identify the import as excessive. There will be 285 cubic yards cut out of the foundation excavation with a total of 2,399 cubic yards of fill needed. The net import will be 2,114 cubic yards,which exceeds what is customary for a new building. During discussions with the builder, staff became aware of the quantities and the need for the conditional use permit.The property is approximately 1.8 acres in area and the grading of the site does not appear to result in a home which would be out of character in the neighborhood or create drainage concerns. 4. Planning Commission Process—Request Waiver The Planning Commission has not reviewed this application. The need for the conditional use permit to address 2,114 cubic yards of material brought to the site was not realized until the builder submitted for building permit. Due to timing of the discovery of the grading CUP, and the minimal impact to the surrounding neighborhood,the applicant is requesting that the City Council hold the public hearing. The City Council may waive reference of a conditional use permit application to the Planning Commission for the public hearing according to City Code 78-912 (Exhibit I).A unanimous vote is required in order to waive the Planning Commission's review. The legal notice was published to allow for a public hearing by the City Council at the September 10th meeting. If the Council votes to waive the Planning Commission's review, and holds the public hearing; staff has prepared an approval resolution for the conditional use permit for consideration. 5. Public Comment. To date,no comments from the public were received regarding this application. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The action requested for this application is as follows: Prepared By:1'YIGG Reviewed By:J.Barnhart Approved By:n52 AGENDA ITEM 1. The Council should first consider a motion to waive the Planning Commission's public hearing and hold the public hearing at the September 10th meeting. 2. Following an affirmative vote to hold the public hearing,the Council should open the public hearing and receive comments. 3. Finally,the Council should consider a motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution as drafted regarding the CUP. Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Application Summary Exhibit C. Project Narrative Exhibit D. Proposed Grading Plan/Survey Exhibit E. Conditional Use Permit Analysis Exhibit F. Proposed House Plans Exhibit G. Certified Property Owner List Exhibit H. Map Exhibit I. City Code Sections Exhibit J. Legal Notice Prepared By: 111GG Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: 152 `Op CITY OF ORONO G RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. t"14-Es ti 00- A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-916 AND 78-967 FILE NO. LA18-000069 WHEREAS, on August 15, 2018, Gordon James Construction, on behalf of Jason Pitts, the property owner, (hereinafter the "Applicant"), applied for a conditional use permit pursuant to the City Code for the property addressed 225 Old Crystal Bay Road South and legally described as: That part of Lot 10 lying South of the North 371.35 feet of said Lot 10 and East of the West 685.18 feet of said Lot 10; That part of Lot 11 lying East of the West 685.18 feet of said Lot 11, Auditor's Subdivision No. 230, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-967 in order to allow the import of approximately 2,200 cubic yards of fill material into the Property; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2018, pursuant to City Code Section 78-912, the City Council unanimously voted in favor of waiving the Planning Commission's review of the application; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2018, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the City Council held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on September 10, 2018, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the City staff and recommended approval of the conditional use permit; and NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested conditional use permit as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA18-000069. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the 1 *D. pCITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. C"Es HOv-t above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the RR-1 B Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 1.77 acres in area and has a defined lot width of approximately 295 feet. 4. Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit for grading 5. In considering this application for a conditional use permit, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed conditional use permit 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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: The City Council may grant a conditional use permit as it was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city finds that the proposed use at the Property 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 2 Op CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. to be used in the future; This criteria relates to whether the proposed grades resulting from the earth movement are appropriate and in character with the surrounding land and neighborhood. The grading of the Property will be in conformance with the neighborhood. 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 will help to facilitate storm water runoff down property lines, and not toward adjacent properties as is the current condition. 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 Applicant is proposing to elevate the land to accommodate a walk out 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 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, activity of exporting approximately 2,100 cubic yards of fill and active grading of the Property can have a temporary adverse impact on neighbors. The applicant is proposing to bring the material in to the site slowly to allow for settling. The grading work on the Property as well as the forthcoming 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. 3 Op CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 2� , NO. G `'ES HO 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 Applicant 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, 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 Applicant 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-967 to allow for the import of approximately 2,200 cubic yards of material, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the survey dated July 19, 2018 and revised on August 7, 2018 by Sathre Bergquist and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B. 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4 4:-/vc- CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (September 10, 2019). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 10th day of September, 2018. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor 5 • IS rg ��z- a %�. 3 ivz� a 7 2z G a ��_° �a Resol. No. ,15!- -.__ li u i '® Ex A a s � II _; - e' 2 LA18-000069 F<< LI z Jaz . '- c- :y 7 : k, i� .• it N Vn f3aa•••egr►pee • F z F, 2. ? viz Z xt.x Y@ I .tet'^/q �a �e W Q ;' a' b '7 d U 0. 12 Y n ga €- E40 6 51'3 Y S o aE a /p :1 3 aet� 1 € .. € a �5 4 sg B 11 3 a a 'q oo Li 5 ui 3 ,s - p s 1-44,--- �o *_-j OO•oa.po•Qo�90s•21.0•®^� zu, g g �. 4. 21' W� s z) r ` -• oz a 2 € a 7ffi 01 _ .i - N . I- D 03E m W 4 '44_, y '` 2 8 c \\ \ , Q�$ x.inos c doll AVq 1VIS C21D CI-10 \ `, `\ s9�t6€ M.6z 0.005 \ T� �� 'II \ �__J \ •.• \ omm • oaI / dd 4i, a � a' .. 5 I I / I b I/ i / 3 1 I o f r I �� © / ] 1 ' I 6 I I 15 i •� r, i ,i0 / / '3 , .i i C wi LA i 1 a ' —1 * yl_— -- ---I 1 / / i I \ / r 1 9 X I l e ,° I� a / / p i �'.- } I / I i �� k. �. - I 11 / j 2 a I I { <� , a i ,G' 1{ / F ,II , . - f 1 I fir? i "� 0 .# €`'0 ®i Y __ I Ii o p/ C] r I 8_tt 1, qq,�,'/ / 0 o s � im,i- f / - / A 1---i N1 t€ = k-,/ v s 2/q\ q / ' ^ / 'I \\h z" a'w'°" ®.. / 1 ,/ la - 4 %k if.? / \\ ,/'f1a' /I "'''-,// •°�• _ _ G. ! k %z <-, "da 11#E /; r } - iii � - i w " \ ! — /--1 ir ii '42 / ( 1 \ 4. ---------1111111,1111111111,, i'5:t 1 CJ : € - i ---te--Kff--= \ , _\ � - n a 2- Q�O 0/ s © �,. - 6 '\ I\ '°`, `'a 11 fi —tea D` • iso.OMkia baa O g g e I" I €: ilk / 04.961 3„IS,40.00N £ \ • fEg / a, I , :111$ ro / V V h- ) \ —_ — G g C) ��'4 1J�- VL, O a 1 V �kVr� \ L, u1§oo lJ 8Z(..o.Ato To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator A� krsxo0' From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: October 15, 2018 Subject: #LA18-44, City of Orono, 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Application Summary: The 2040 Comprehensive Plan is a state mandated update to the City of Orono Comprehensive Plan. No Planning Commission action is requested,staff reintroduces the Plan Draft, to be reviewed and acted on during the November 19th Planning Commission meeting. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends preliminary review of the plan draft,fopr action in November. Process The 2040 Comprehensive Plan has been developed with the Advisory Committee,and distributed to various adjacent agencies and communities in April. The draft plan was submitted to the Met Council in June for preliminary comments. State Statute provides 6 months for area communities and agencies to review and provide feedback,that 6 month period expires at the end of October. On October 25th,the Advisory Committee will host a open house to allow the public to view the plans, and ask any questions of committee members. After,the Committee will review all comments received and provide direction as to responses. On November 19th,the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the plan, and provide a recommendation to the City Council as to any changes suggested. On December 10th,the Council is expected to review and act on the plan for submission to the Metropolitan Council by the December 31, 2018 deadline. The Plan. The complete plan in .pdf format has been uploaded to drop box. The complete plan, and the individual chapters, and exhibits, is also available on the city website. The plan retains the general development and land protection philosophies 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. These projections are shown in the following table. FILE#18-44 October 15,2018 Page 2 of 3 Table 3B-1:Orono Population and Households 1970 -2040 (Sewered and Unsewered Forecasts) Population I 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 In 2016,the city had 3037 households. We must provide opportunity for an additional 523 households by 2030 and 340 new households between 2030 and 2040. 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. The City is not obligated to approve every project that is proposed. Points of interest. Land Use. To meet the growth projections of the Metropolitan Council,the Land Use Map was updated. The map (3B-3) reflects a revised listing of land use categories.These 10 categories are used throughout the document per State and 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. 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.The majority of this density was added to the Wayzata Blvd area. Density increased in Navarre primarily associated with development/ redevelopment of the commercial areas. Update:The Plan shows an Urban Medium Density of 3-10 units per acre in the area primarily west of Crystal bay and Carman's Bay. This land use density was shown to reflect actual development densities and the LR-1C zoning district,with the goal of having the zoning ordinance match the land use plan. This section can be changed to Urban Low Density,though having three different zoning districts serving one land use is FILE#18-44 October 15,2018 Page 3 of 3 bad practice. Utility Plans. Utility Plans were updated to reflect new regulations and rules established 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 requirement that parcels located within the expanded area be developed at 3 units per acre or greater. The MUSA boundary is shown on Map 3B-4, Development Sites. Update. The Council recently supported an expansion of the MUSA to include the western 10 acres at 1003 Wildhurst Trail. The Plan will be updated prior to the November review. 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 3B-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. Public Comments Public comments will be shared with the advisory committee first,then included in the November Planning Commission packet, along with recommended responses. 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