Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-11-2019 Council PacketAgenda Council Meeting Monday, February 11, 2019, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification The public is invited to address the council regarding any item on the regular agenda. If your topic is not on the agenda, you may speak during the Public Comments section. Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Agenda Consent Agenda 1. City Council Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2019 2. Council Work Session Minutes of January 28, 2019 3. Claims/Bills 4. Approval of Rental Licenses 5. Approval of Lawful Gambling License – Orono PTO 6. LA18-000062 – Sven Gustafson, 387 Orono Orchard Road, Revised Preliminary Plat – Resolution 7. LA18-000087 – Robert Brook, 1165 Ferndale Road, Variance – Fence in the street yard of a local street – Resolution 8. LA18-000098 – Jen and Tony Ishaug, 4245 Chippewa Lane, Variance – Resolution 9. LA18-000099 – John Ortiz with Mom’s Design Build o/b/o Bret & Jennifer Riemenschneider, 835 Forest Arms Lane – Resolution Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes per Person) This is an opportunity for the public to address matters not on the agenda. The council will not engage in discussion or take action on items presented at this time. However, the council may refer issues to staff for follow up or consideration at a future meeting. Speakers should state their name and home address at the podium before speaking. HRA Annual Meeting (8:00 p.m.) Planning Department Report 10. LA18-000091 – AJ Helgerson, 2870 Goldenrod Way, Variance – Resolution 11. LA18-000095 – Chuck Alcon, o/b/o Eric and Andrea Larson, 690 Brown Road, Sketch Plan 12. LA18-000102 – Charlie & Co. Design o/b/o North Shore Meadows LLC, 2455 North Shore Drive, Variances & IUP – Resolution 13. LA18-000103 – Isaac Lindstrom, All Energy Solar o/b/o William and Eleanor Ferril, 240 Wakefield Road – Resolution 14. LA18-000044 – Comprehensive Plan Update – Metropolitan Council Response Agenda Council Meeting Monday, February 11, 2019, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification Mayor/Council Report City Administrator Report City Attorney Report Adjournment Upcoming Events 2019 02-18-19 Official Holiday, City Offices Closed 02-19-19 Planning Commission Meeting, Tuesday, 6:30 p.m. (Aaron Printup) 02-25-19 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 02-25-19 City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 03-04-19 Park Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. 03-11-19 City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 03-18-19 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Victoria Seals) 03-19-19 Council Work Session, Tuesday, 5:00 p.m. 03-19-19 City Council Meeting, Tuesday, 7:00 p.m. 04-08-19 City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 04-15-19 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Matt Johnson) 04-22-19 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 04-22-19 City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 28, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Dennis Walsh, City Council Members Richard Crosby, III, Matt Johnson, and Aaron Printup. Representing Staff were City Administrator Dustin Rief, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, Police Chief Corey Farniok, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA 1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 14, 2019 2. CLAIMS/BILLS 3. APPROVAL OF RENTAL LICENSE 4. APPROVAL OF NEW TOBACCO LICENSE 5. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE SQUAD CARS 6. PARKS EQUIPMENT PROCUREMENT 7. 2019 SEASONAL WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS 8. WATER METER REPLACEMENT PLAN 9. REHABILITATION OF GS #9 (BRACKETS POINT ROAD) AND LS #13 (CASCO POINT ROAD) 10. WELL #3 SAND SCREEN 11. APPROVAL OF DESIGN FOR BEDERWOOD SPORTS FIELDS 12. APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPING DESIGN FOR PHASE TWO OF WAYZATA BOULEVARD (CSAH 112) 13. STORMWATER POND ASSESSMENTS 14. WILLOW DRIVE SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION – RESOLUTION NO. Crosby moved, Johnson seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 28, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS None PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/CITY ENGINEER REPORT None MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Johnson reported he recently biked out to Big Island on his fat bike and that he noticed some of the posts have been bent from the movement of the ice. Johnson indicated he will send a picture of it to Council Member Seals. Johnson congratulated Council Member Printup and Mayor Walsh for doing a nice job on the polar plunge, noting that the video does not reflect the five degrees of air temperature. Crosby congratulated Mayor Walsh and Council Member Printup for doing the polar plunge. Chief Farniok displayed pictures from the polar plunge event and noted the Police Department raised $4,000 for the Special Olympics. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Rief stated given the extremely cold weather, Orono City Staff will be allowed to work from home the next couple of days, but that he and Public Works Director Adam Edwards will be manning the office. Rief noted Hennepin County has issued a no travel warning. Walsh noted Orono schools will be closed Tuesday and Wednesday given the extremely cold weather and encouraged everyone to bundle up and to stay safe. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT None ADJOURNMENT Crosby moved, Johnson seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 7:08 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: ______________________________________ _______________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Orono City Council Work Session Minutes Monday, January 28, 2019 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Richard F. Crosby II, and Matt Johnson. Representing staff were City Administrator Dustin Rief and City Clerk Anna Carlson. Guest: LMCD Representative, Mark Kroll Meeting Start Time: 5:54 p.m. 1. LMCD Representative Mark Kroll – Update – (Added to meeting) LMCD Representative Mark Kroll gave a brief update of the LMCD happenings. There was some discussion regarding milfoil harvesters, the safety of them and other issues that surround the purpose for them. Kroll noted that Orono will have a one-year reprieve from the milfoil harvesters. 2. 2019 Mission, Vision & Strategic Values City Administrator Dustin Rief presented the item beginning with the Mission statement. Rief mentioned that the relevance of this item is to make sure that each department is meeting the mission and vision of the Council while staying in line with the long-term strategic values. Mayor Dennis Walsh mentioned that best practices is the main theme for our mission statement. Maintaining and updating any and all best practices for our City’s technology, all infrastructure, human resources, city code, code enforcement, parks and other areas of the city. The City should be an example of best practices for all things; old and new. Council Member Matt Johnson mentioned maintaining a high level of customer service is an important part of our Mission. Johnson noted that customer service standards at city hall has changed significantly over the past year and he would like to see the city keep making those improvement for the citizens. Walsh noted that searching for best practices in an ever changing environment should be an ongoing goal for the City. Walsh mentioned that empowering staff to have flexibility by making improvements to the code has helped facilitate the wants and needs of the citizens. Council Member Richard F. Crosby II noted that one aspect for achieving high level customer service by focusing on getting back to serving the customers because it helps staff to implement positive customer experiences, which is one of the goals of the council. Orono City Council Work Session Minutes Monday, January 28, 2019 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Rief noted that he would like to know what the Council’s goal is for becoming debt free. Walsh explained that the City’s goal is to create a plan to maintain responsible funding for infrastructure; including water and sewer consistently while keeping the levy stable and steady. Walsh also noted if council can condense their ideas and goals by finding out what is most important to them, combine it with staff and commissions, then together they can incrementally build funds responsibly to reach goals. Johnson added that the City should prioritize our goals and find ways to figure out how to measure our progress and gage where we need to be. Meeting End 6:51p.m. ATTEST: ___________________________________ __________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: MLU Reviewed By: MLU Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve payment of claims made on the City for services and/or products provided to the City. 2. Background. The attached claims for payment have been received by the City. Staff has reviewed the claims and is recommending approval of the listing for payment. The claims will be paid by checks 111264 to 111327, totaling $1,195,222.82. 3. Noteworthy Payments. Vendor Amount Description of Payment #111264 Bond Trust Services Corp $1,069,059.39 Payment for 2010A, 2014A and 2016A debt service bonds. #111266 Lake West Development $56,554.00 Refund escrow and security deposit in exchange for letters of credit for Ivy Place. #111294 Hoff Barry, P.A. $8,983.00 Payment for contempt matter. 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing payment to the claims list as presented. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the claims list as presented. Exhibits A. Check Register Item No.: 3 Date: February 11, 2019 Item Description: Claims/Bills Presenter: Maggie Ung Accountant Agenda Section: Consent Agenda City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 1/29/2019 - 2/11/2019 Feb 07, 2019 11:33AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 01/31/2019 111264 46840 321-47000-611 Debt Service Series 2010A 31,196.88 BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 01/31/2019 111264 46840 321-47000-601 Debt Service Series 2010A 205,000.00 BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 01/31/2019 111264 46841 322-47000-611 Debt Service Series 2014A 43,162.51 BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 01/31/2019 111264 46841 322-47000-601 Debt Service Series 2014A 300,000.00 BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 01/31/2019 111264 46842 323-47000-611 Debt Service Series 2016A 24,700.00 BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 01/31/2019 111264 46842 323-47000-601 Debt Service Series 2016A 465,000.00 Total 111264:1,069,059.39 Jonathan Norris/Catherin Morriso 01/31/2019 111265 013019 101-22205 Escrow Refund #2016-00039 470 Orchard Park Rd 1,250.00 Total 111265:1,250.00 Lake West Development 01/31/2019 111266 013019 101-22205 Escrow Refund #17-3962 Ivy Place 2,500.00 Lake West Development 01/31/2019 111266 013019-1 101-22205 Security Deposit Refund Ivy Place 54,054.00 Total 111266:56,554.00 Matt Katterhagen 01/31/2019 111267 013019 101-22205 Escrow Refund #2017-01417 10,000.00 Total 111267:10,000.00 Michael Jones 01/31/2019 111268 013019 101-22205 Escrow Refund LA18-000015 3186 North Shore Dr.700.00 Total 111268:700.00 Patrick & Melissa Mulheran 01/31/2019 111269 013019 101-22205 Escrow Refund #2016-00039 460 Orchard Park Rd 1,250.00 Total 111269:1,250.00 ACE HARDWARE 02/11/2019 111270 B505902 101-42110-221 Squad Supplies Police Department 21.98 Total 111270:21.98 Advance Auto Parts 02/11/2019 111271 455309 701-49800-222 Unit #428 Washer Nozzle 12.16 Total 111271:12.16 ADVANCED FIRST AID INC 02/11/2019 111272 0219-853 101-42110-240 AED Battery Replacement Police Department 282.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 1/29/2019 - 2/11/2019 Feb 07, 2019 11:33AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 111272:282.00 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 02/11/2019 111273 376556387 710-49970-413 CH Copier Lease 1/20/19-2/20/19 1,061.76 Total 111273:1,061.76 ALLWEATHER ROOF 02/11/2019 111274 1905924 101-41900-404 Post Office Roof Repair Central Services 161.25 Total 111274:161.25 BUSINESS ESSENTIALS 02/11/2019 111275 WO-442300-101-41900-201 Copy Paper Central Services 207.25 Total 111275:207.25 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/11/2019 111276 011719 101-19999 Polar Plunge 55.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/11/2019 111276 011819-1 101-43000-437 Tree Care Training Public Works Department 860.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/11/2019 111276 012519 101-42110-404 Paint for PD Gym Police Department 76.32 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/11/2019 111276 012519-1 101-19999 Polar Plunge 25.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/11/2019 111276 012519-2 602-49450-437 Sewer School - Oberaigner, Schumann, Maurer, Rat Sewer 1,560.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/11/2019 111276 012619 101-45200-416 Big Island Security Camera Parks 29.97 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/11/2019 111276 012919 101-42110-404 Paint for PD Gym Police Department 38.18 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/11/2019 111276 013119 701-49800-212 Chainsaw Fuel 13.65 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/11/2019 111276 020419 101-42110-550 Batter Charger for Squad 242 Police Department 128.24 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/11/2019 111276 020619 101-42110-229 Explorer Uniforms Police Department 21.91 Total 111276:2,808.27 CARGILL SALT 02/11/2019 111277 2904500139 101-43000-224 Treated Road Salt Public Works Department 1,780.72 CARGILL SALT 02/11/2019 111277 2904503336 101-43000-224 Treated Road Salt Public Works Department 2,076.66 Total 111277:3,857.38 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/11/2019 111278 012319 602-49450-381 LS #9 Generator Sewer 16.13 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/11/2019 111278 012919 601-49400-381 Gas 12/19/18-1/21/19 Water 988.62 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/11/2019 111278 012919 602-49450-381 Gas 12/19/18-1/21/19 Sewer 900.49 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/11/2019 111278 012919 101-41900-381 Gas 12/19/18-1/21/19 Central Services 1,927.22 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/11/2019 111278 012919 101-42110-381 Gas 12/19/18-1/21/19 Police Department 588.54 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/11/2019 111278 012919 101-45210-381 Gas 12/19/18-1/21/19 Golf Course 264.49 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/11/2019 111278 3000851593 602-16500 LS Backup Generator 18-007 1,226.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 1/29/2019 - 2/11/2019 Feb 07, 2019 11:33AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 111278:5,911.49 CENTURY LINK 02/11/2019 111279 011919 101-45210-321 GC phone/internet 1/19/19-2/18/19 Golf Course 210.60 Total 111279:210.60 CHRIS FISCHER 02/11/2019 111280 020219 101-42110-226 Reimburse-Clothing Police Department 104.69 Total 111280:104.69 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/11/2019 111281 0016382 101-42110-402 #240 Service Police Department 48.31 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/11/2019 111281 0016385 101-42110-402 #248 Service Police Department 85.20 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/11/2019 111281 0016398 101-42110-402 #246 Service Police Department 240.26 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/11/2019 111281 0016408 101-42110-402 #235 Service Police Department 217.62 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/11/2019 111281 0016409 101-42110-402 #242 Service Police Department 381.81 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/11/2019 111281 0016419 101-42110-402 #243 Service Police Department 71.35 Total 111281:1,044.55 CINTAS CORPORATION 02/11/2019 111282 4015712925 101-43000-226 Uniforms Public Works Department 63.47 CINTAS CORPORATION 02/11/2019 111282 4016046244 101-43000-226 Uniforms Public Works Department 77.87 Total 111282:141.34 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON 02/11/2019 111283 1900034 601-49400-489 Bacterial Water Testing Water 283.50 Total 111283:283.50 CONCEPT LANDSCAPING 02/11/2019 111284 7047 101-45200-404 Fire Lane Task 17265 - Shoreline Parks 1,950.00 Total 111284:1,950.00 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 02/11/2019 111285 660000 101-41900-352 Ordinance 223 Central Services 35.76 Total 111285:35.76 FASTENAL 02/11/2019 111286 MNPLY11207 101-43000-224 Plow Mounting Hardware Public Works Department 52.50 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 1/29/2019 - 2/11/2019 Feb 07, 2019 11:33AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 111286:52.50 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #25 02/11/2019 111287 0313949 601-49400-227 Copperhorn 3/4"Water 575.24 Total 111287:575.24 FIELD TRAINING SOLUTIONS 02/11/2019 111288 8704 101-42110-437 FTO Basic Trg Course-K. Kirschner, T. Datwyler Police Department 590.00 Total 111288:590.00 FOTOHAUS 02/11/2019 111289 1215 101-42110-319 PD photos Police Department 312.00 Total 111289:312.00 FRONTIERSMAN SPORTS INC 02/11/2019 111290 20-144-11 101-42110-580 Firearm - Glock 9mm Police Department 433.20 Total 111290:433.20 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/11/2019 111291 0577-073081 701-49800-240 Tool Box Supplies 296.47 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/11/2019 111291 3270-428761 701-49800-222 Truck Filters 422,408,431 147.37 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/11/2019 111291 3270-428839 701-49800-222 Unit #431 Rear Brake Pads 87.48 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/11/2019 111291 3270-428842 101-43000-224 Clamps for Bump Signs Public Works Department 14.18 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/11/2019 111291 3270-429410 101-42110-221 Fuse Holder Police Department 4.29 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/11/2019 111291 3270-429416 701-49800-212 Diesel Fuel Tank Filter 9.98 Total 111291:559.77 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 02/11/2019 111292 1000122301 101-41600-309 Jail Charges-Jan/2019 Law/Legal Services 693.00 Total 111292:693.00 HERC U LIFT 02/11/2019 111293 R051386 101-43000-415 Xmas Deco Take Down Public Works Department 1,154.45 Total 111293:1,154.45 Hoff Barry, P.A.02/11/2019 111294 14756 101-41600-306 Contempt Matter Law/Legal Services 897.00 Hoff Barry, P.A.02/11/2019 111294 14756 101-41600-306 Contempt Matter Law/Legal Services 8,086.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 1/29/2019 - 2/11/2019 Feb 07, 2019 11:33AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 111294:8,983.00 JACKIE YOUNG 02/11/2019 111295 020119 101-41300-319 CC Meeting 1/14/19 Administration 150.00 JACKIE YOUNG 02/11/2019 111295 020119 101-41300-319 CC Meeting 1/28/19 Administration 150.00 JACKIE YOUNG 02/11/2019 111295 020119 101-42400-319 CC Meeting 1/22/19 Building & Zoning 190.00 JACKIE YOUNG 02/11/2019 111295 020119 101-45200-319 CC Meeting 1/7/19 Parks 165.00 Total 111295:655.00 JANE SZCZEPANIK 02/11/2019 111296 012619 101-42110-226 Uniforms-Investigation Clothing Police Department 64.48 Total 111296:64.48 JOHNSON CONTROLS FIRE PR 02/11/2019 111297 85529354 101-42110-403 Service Call-Phone Line Repairs Police Department 384.00 Total 111297:384.00 KYLE KIRSCHNER 02/11/2019 111298 011619 101-42110-317 Xerxes Food Police Department 112.72 Total 111298:112.72 LANO EQUIPMENT 02/11/2019 111299 03-642090 701-49800-222 BPA Battery 107.41 Total 111299:107.41 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 02/11/2019 111300 288880 101-41300-437 2019 Workshops - PW Administration 20.00 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 02/11/2019 111300 288886 101-42400-437 2019 Workshops - P&Z Building & Zoning 20.00 Total 111300:40.00 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/11/2019 111301 B501760 101-45200-223 Ice Rink Shovel Parks 54.99 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/11/2019 111301 B501854 101-41900-223 Ice Melt - City Hall Central Services 47.97 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/11/2019 111301 B502123 101-45210-240 Paint Brush - Golf Accessories Golf Course 11.00 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/11/2019 111301 B503004 101-45210-240 Paint Brush - Golf Accessories Golf Course 16.00 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/11/2019 111301 B503040 701-49800-222 Shop Supplies 6.59 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/11/2019 111301 B503070 101-45200-223 Lurton Fence Bolts Parks 18.96 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/11/2019 111301 B504127 101-45200-223 Lydiard Beach Gate Parks 18.52 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/11/2019 111301 B504135 101-45200-223 Lydiard Beach Gate Parks 103.84 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/11/2019 111301 B504145 101-45200-223 Lydiard Beach Gate Parks 3.49 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 1/29/2019 - 2/11/2019 Feb 07, 2019 11:33AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/11/2019 111301 B504174 101-45200-223 Lydiard Beach Gate Parks .32 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/11/2019 111301 B504274 101-43000-224 Xmas Mounting Brackets Public Works Department 55.96 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/11/2019 111301 B504418 701-49800-222 Unit 85 Generator Repair Task 26630 2.76 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/11/2019 111301 B504478 701-49800-222 Unit 427 Repair Fender 12.99 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/11/2019 111301 B504569 701-49800-222 Unit 451 Bobcat Repair 4.27 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 02/11/2019 111301 B505445 101-43000-224 Sign Bolt Nuts Public Works Department 5.29 Total 111301:362.95 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/11/2019 111302 21142059 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel Police Department 1,297.33 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/11/2019 111302 21142060 701-49800-212 Diesel Fuel 318.60 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/11/2019 111302 21142070 701-49800-212 Diesel Fuel 360.35 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/11/2019 111302 21142126 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel Police Department 890.02 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/11/2019 111302 21157195 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel Police Department 2,368.80 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/11/2019 111302 21157196 701-49800-212 Diesel Fuel 1,041.17 Total 111302:6,276.27 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 02/11/2019 111303 P76788 101-43000-224 Chainsaw Replacement Chains and Oil Public Works Department 125.32 Total 111303:125.32 MINT ROOFING 02/11/2019 111304 853188 101-43000-404 Locate Roof Leak PW Public Works Department 235.28 Total 111304:235.28 MN CHIEF OF POLICE ASSN 02/11/2019 111305 8881 101-42110-433 2019 Membership Voting Police Department 351.00 Total 111305:351.00 MN DNR Ecological & Water Res 02/11/2019 111306 020419 601-49400-405 South Water System Water Permit 1970-1351 Water 305.00 MN DNR Ecological & Water Res 02/11/2019 111306 020419-1 601-49400-405 North Water System Permit 2018-0759 Water 537.80 Total 111306:842.80 MOUND TRUE VALUE 02/11/2019 111307 158017 101-42110-201 Desk Lights - PD1 Police Department 25.98 MOUND TRUE VALUE 02/11/2019 111307 158075 101-42110-221 Squad Supplies Police Department 21.47 Total 111307:47.45 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 1/29/2019 - 2/11/2019 Feb 07, 2019 11:33AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/11/2019 111308 315281 101-42110-402 Squad Car Phone Cords Police Department 25.98 NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/11/2019 111308 315326 601-49400-404 Navarre Water Plant Part for Electrician Water 18.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/11/2019 111308 315335 601-49400-221 Red LED Bulb Water 6.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/11/2019 111308 315380 101-43000-226 PPE Winter Gloves Public Works Department 28.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/11/2019 111308 315451 101-42110-221 PD 2 Squeegee Police Department 22.99 Total 111308:103.94 NCPERS MINNESOTA 02/11/2019 111309 6732000220 101-21710 Pera life 02/2019 352.00 Total 111309:352.00 NEWEGG INC 02/11/2019 111310 1301815821 101-45210-221 GC Cordless Phone Golf Course 150.42 NEWEGG INC 02/11/2019 111310 1301816505 101-45210-221 GC TV Golf Course 417.98 NEWEGG INC 02/11/2019 111310 1301818673 101-41900-221 Phone Headset - A. Hentges - Front Desk Central Services 223.49 NEWEGG INC 02/11/2019 111310 1301820934 701-49800-221 Ipad Cable - PW 18.99 NEWEGG INC 02/11/2019 111310 1301824613 701-49800-221 Ipad Charges - PW Trucks 71.94 Total 111310:882.82 NORTH STAR COUNCIL 02/11/2019 111311 012419 101-42110-229 Reg 2501017700 Explorer Practice Competition Police Department 40.00 Total 111311:40.00 NORTHERN DEWATERING INC 02/11/2019 111312 36277 602-49450-402 #713 Repairs Sewer 123.96 Total 111312:123.96 OFFICE DEPOT 02/11/2019 111313 2644802420 101-41900-201 Office Supplies Central Services 52.95 OFFICE DEPOT 02/11/2019 111313 2644808350 101-41900-201 Office Supplies Central Services 23.92 OFFICE DEPOT 02/11/2019 111313 2645509590 101-41900-201 Office Supplies Central Services 58.79 OFFICE DEPOT 02/11/2019 111313 2663618700 101-42110-201 Office Supplies - PD Police Department 16.78 OFFICE DEPOT 02/11/2019 111313 2663888380 101-42110-201 Office Supplies - PD Police Department 64.40 OFFICE DEPOT 02/11/2019 111313 2663888390 101-42110-201 Office Supplies - PD Police Department 21.46 Total 111313:238.30 OPTUM 02/11/2019 111314 948711 101-41900-319 HSA maintenance fee 4th Qtr 2018 Central Services 129.50 OPTUM 02/11/2019 111314 948955 101-41900-319 HSA maintenance fee 4th Qtr 2018 Central Services 64.75 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 1/29/2019 - 2/11/2019 Feb 07, 2019 11:33AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 111314:194.25 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 02/11/2019 111315 36507 602-49450-406 LS #13 Repair Sewer 409.00 Total 111315:409.00 RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 02/11/2019 111316 JANUARY 20 101-41900-404 Garbage Service Central Services 804.42 RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 02/11/2019 111316 JANUARY 20 101-45200-404 Garbage Service Parks 461.67 RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 02/11/2019 111316 JANUARY 20 101-45210-404 Garbage Service Golf Course 72.47 Total 111316:1,338.56 Schneider, Marsha 02/11/2019 111317 020719 999-10015 UB Refund 1-0724840-08 2484 Sandstone Ln 232.64 Total 111317:232.64 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC 02/11/2019 111318 11400.00-8 408-48800-590 CSAH 112 PH2 Landscape 18-043 2,616.79 Total 111318:2,616.79 STAR TRIBUNE 02/11/2019 111319 012019 101-41300-208 1/3/19 - 4/4/19 - Subscription acct 1913693 Administration 53.30 Total 111319:53.30 SUMMIT COMPANIES 02/11/2019 111320 1339417 101-43000-319 Annual Fire Extinguisher Inspection-PW Public Works Department 37.00 Total 111320:37.00 TALLEN AND BAERTSCHI 02/11/2019 111321 012219 101-41600-306 Prosecution Services-01/2019 Law/Legal Services 2,759.25 Total 111321:2,759.25 THE HOME DEPOT 02/11/2019 111322 202668 101-45210-223 Christmas trees for Clubhouse Golf Course 80.11 THE HOME DEPOT 02/11/2019 111322 4021094 101-45200-223 Brush Site Desk Parks 56.32 THE HOME DEPOT 02/11/2019 111322 5010449 101-45210-223 Clubhouse Mold Removal Golf Course 491.78 THE HOME DEPOT 02/11/2019 111322 7014718 101-45210-223 Clubhouse Repairs Golf Course 172.06 THE HOME DEPOT 02/11/2019 111322 7014718 101-45200-223 Brush Site Repairs Parks 172.06 THE HOME DEPOT 02/11/2019 111322 9010843 101-45210-223 Clubhouse Mold Removal Golf Course 353.09 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 1/29/2019 - 2/11/2019 Feb 07, 2019 11:33AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 111322:1,325.42 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 02/11/2019 111323 10279386 701-49800-222 Welding Supplies 146.77 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 02/11/2019 111323 10279781 701-49800-222 Welding Supplies 25.94 Total 111323:172.71 US Bank Equipment Finance 02/11/2019 111324 376425393 710-49970-413 Copiers 596.76 Total 111324:596.76 VERIZON WIRELESS 02/11/2019 111325 9822885003 601-49400-321 Cell Phones 12/24/18-1/23/19 Water 27.95 VERIZON WIRELESS 02/11/2019 111325 9822885003 602-49450-321 Cell Phones 12/24/18-1/23/19 Sewer 27.96 Total 111325:55.91 WILLIAMS TOWING 02/11/2019 111326 149900 101-42110-436 Tow 2004 Dodge Dakota Police Department 155.00 Total 111326:155.00 XCEL ENERGY 02/11/2019 111327 624084767 602-49450-381 Southway LS Sewer 3,670.00 Total 111327:3,670.00 Grand Totals: 1,195,222.82 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: AMC Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the Rental Licenses for the license period of February 11, 2019 to December 31, 2019. 2. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the rental licenses as listed in Exhibit A for the license period of February 11, 2019 to December 31, 2019. The Rental License Applicants in Exhibit A have submitted all of the requested documents and have met all requirements. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the rental licenses listed in Exhibit A for the license period of February 11, 2019 to December 31, 2019. Exhibits A. Listing of Rental Licenses Item No.: 4 Date: February 11, 2019 Item Description: Approval of Rental Licenses Presenter: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Exhibit A City Council 2019 Rental Licenses License# Licensee Total License Fees RL18-000079 Morgan Nelson 100 RL18-000080 Amber Peifer 100 RL18-000083 Nicole Gadbois 100 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: AMC Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the Gambling Permit for Orono PTO. 2. Background. The Orono PTO is planning to host Spring Break Bingo for students and families attending K-5 at Orono on March 15, 2019. Orono City code requires City Council to approve Gambling permits by resolution. 3. Recommendation. The Applicants have submitted all the requested documents and have met all requirements. Staff recommends approval of the gambling permit. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Gambling Permit for Orono PTO for their Bingo event to be held on March 15, 2019. Exhibits A. Resolution Item No. 5 Date: February 11, 2019 Item Description: Approval of Lawful Gambling License – Orono PTO Presenter: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING APPLICATION FOR EXEMPT PERMIT OF THE ORONO PTO FOR A ONE DAY GAMBLING PERMIT WHEREAS, the Orono PTO has submitted an application to conduct lawful gambling activities; and WHEREAS, the Orono PTO has proposed to conduct a one day gambling activity (raffle) as part of its annual Mid-Winter Fun Fest at the Orono Middle School on Friday, March 15, 2019; and WHEREAS, the Orono PTO is required to obtain approval of the one day gambling activity from the city in which the activity will occur; and WHEREAS, the City of Orono has no objection to the conduct of lawful gambling by the applicant, in accordance with law, at the designated location. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orono City Council does hereby approve the application of the Orono PTO to conduct a one day gambling activity (Bingo) at the Orono Intermediate School, 765 Old Crystal Bay Road North, on March 15, 2019. Adopted at a regular meeting of the Orono City Council this 11th day of February 2019. ____________________________________ ATTEST: Dennis Walsh, Mayor _______________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. This application is a modification of the preliminary and final plat reviewed and approved in 2018 (same application number LA18-000062). The developer recently sold the northern lot and adjusted the boundary line between the two properties to create a more substantial building area on the sold lot (385 Orono Orchard Rd S), and to facilitate the revised preliminary plat. The developer wants to create only one additional buildable lot from the subject property (387 Orono Orchard Road S). 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The revised application was received on December 26, 2018 and was considered to be complete on January 14, 2019. The revised 120-Day review period will expire on May 14, 2019. 3. Background. The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for a residential subdivision of the property addressed 387 Orono Orchard Road South. The applicant proposes to create 2 single family lots; a private driveway will be used. The attached Planning Commission staff report is attached as Exhibit C and provides additional detail. The developer has provided a revised plat which conforms to the zoning and subdivision regulations. The plat will be reviewed by the MCWD prior to the Council’s final plat review; the final plat shall conform to the District’s stormwater requirements. 4. Planning Commission Comment. On January 22nd the Planning Commission opened the public hearing. There was no one present for comment. The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 in favor of approval of the preliminary plat. 5. Public Comment. No comments from the public were received regarding this application. 6. Staff Recommendation. The applicant continues to work with the City’s engineer on a couple minor issues to refine the plan to meet requirements and the MCWD regarding stormwater. Staff recommends approval of the plat. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should consider a motion to adopt or amend the preliminary plat approval resolution. Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Plans Exhibit C. PC Staff Report Exhibit D. Draft PC Minutes References PC Exhibits #LA18-000062: Revised Preliminary Plat 01/22/19 Exhibit A. Preliminary Plat Drawing 12/07/18 Exhibit B. Proposed preliminary grading plan 12/07/18 Exhibit C. Recorded Boundary Line Adjustment Exhibit D. Septic Plans 07/04/18 Item No.: 6 Date: February 11, 2019 Item Description: LA18-000062 – Sven Gustafson, 387 Orono Orchard Road S, Revised Preliminary Plat – Resolution Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR Exhibit E. Conservation Design Plan by Anderson Engineering 06/21/18 Exhibit F. Wetland Delineation – Jacobson Environmental 05/30/18 Exhibit G. MCWD – NOD Wetland Approval 07/10/18 Exhibit H. Map Exhibit I. Property Owners List CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT OF THE PROPERTY AT: 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH FILE NO. LA18 -000062 WHEREAS on December 26, 2018, Sven Gustafson (hereinafter the “Developer”), is the owner of the property within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) addressed 387 Orono Orchard Road South; and WHEREAS, the Developer made application for Preliminary Plat approval to create two buildable lots from the property legally described as: Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, SMITH-DETTLOFF ADDITION, EXCEPT that part lies northerly of a line described as follows; Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence North 0 degrees 05 minutes 55 seconds West along the east line of Lot 2 a distance of 410.99 feet to the northeast corner of Lot 2, the point of beginning; thence North 84 degrees 25 minutes 53 seconds West a distance of 261.89 feet; thence North 50 degrees 30 minutes 10 seconds West a distance of 589.61 feet; thence North 0 degrees 07 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 115.50 feet to the north line of Lot 2 and there terminating, Hennepin County, Minnesota, (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, on January 22, 2019, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission 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 January 22, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2019, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the proposal at a regular meeting held on February 11, 2019, and hereby made the following findings with regards to this application: CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA18-000062. 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 guided for Low Density Residential in the 2030 Community Management Plan. 3. The Property is located in the RR-1B One Family Rural Residential Zoning District. The proposed lots meet the dimensional standards and setbacks established for the RR-1B district. 4. The Property is proposed to be served via a private shared driveway accessing Orono Orchard Road South at the northern point of “Parcel A” on the grading plan attached as Exhibit B and meeting up with the existing drive serving the home. The driveway will be expanded to serve “Parcel B” and an access easement should be established for each of proposed lots; a maintenance agreement for the private driveway should also be provided by the developer. According to Orono Code, a maximum of two lots can be served via a private driveway. 5. The Conservation Design Report by Anderson Engineering dated 06/21/18 provides an overview of the natural site characteristics. The plan outlines the Developer’s intent to protect significant tree stands; and removal of invasive and diseased trees will be done on an as-needed basis. The goal of the development’s design and grading plan is to minimize tree removal and clearing. 6. The Developer has prepared grading plans to manage stormwater on site without negatively impacting adjacent parcels. The developer shall coordinate with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (hereinafter the “MCWD”) and provide confirmation regarding the permits or approvals they will require for this subdivision. According to the Applicant’s Anderson Engineering report, conservation easements shall be established which will protect the wetland buffer areas as required by the MCWD. Additionally, according to the report, there were to be stormwater infiltration basins installed, following MCWD approval of a stormwater plan, the grading plan should be updated to reflect any necessary stormwater pond areas prior to final plat approval. Placement and sizing will be determined by the MCWD Rules. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 7. The Developer has proposed grading on “Parcel B” to establish a new engineered (building pad) grade for building height determination. At this time, the existing home on proposed “Parcel A” will remain. 8. The Property is not located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Therefore City sewer is not available to serve the Property. Septic system designs for each of the lots has been provided which appear to be acceptable. 9. The Parks, Trails and Open Space element of the Orono Community Management Plan (CMP) has no plans for trails that may specifically require dedication of land from the Property. 10. The Park Fee is determined as 8% 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. For the proposed development, the Park Fee would be based only on the one new lot. The City will confirm the park dedication fee required at the time of final plat. 11. The development is subject to the current 2019 Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee. 12. In considering this application for preliminary plat, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed plat 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants Preliminary Plat Approval to allow the subdivision of the Property into 2 building lots, as depicted on the preliminary plat drawing and grading plan dated 12/07/18 prepared by Frank R. Cardarelle, attached as Exhibits A & B, subject to the following conditions: 1) Approval is subject to MCWD approval and permits as required. Final Plat approval shall not be granted until the Developer has provided evidence that all required MCWD permits have been obtained. 2) City Engineer approval is subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer and any forthcoming comments as may be warranted. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 3) Development shall adhere to the proposed Anderson Engineering Conservation Design Report. 4) Erosion control shall adhere to "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" and to the approved SWPPP. All erosion controls as required by the City and the MCWD shall be in place prior to commencing grading and excavation on the site. All such erosion control measures shall be maintained in working order until the site is vegetated and stabilized. 5) The Developer shall provide a maintenance agreement meeting the MCWD’s requirements to outline responsibility for all future maintenance activities related to the stormwater facilities and the Conservation Plan. 6) Existing grade for “Parcel B” building height determination shall be the proposed grades as shown on the Grading and Site Plan dated 12/07/18. The final grading plan as approved will establish new existing grades for building pads. 7) The construction limits shall be clearly marked with adequate fencing to prevent any construction damage or disturbance of any trees and vegetation outside of the construction limits area. Developer shall identify trees to be preserved on site, shall mark them on a site plan, and shall take extraordinary measures such as fencing, signage, etc. to ensure they are not disturbed. 8) This approval is based upon the known issues that may affect this project, but this approval does not limit the City from revising or amending these conditions as the review process continues. 9) Upon evidence of resettlement history, the Developer shall cease all activity and contact the City and the State Historical Preservation Office prior to proceeding. 10) 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. 11) Easements Required. a. Drainage and Utility Easements shall be dedicated to the public on the final plat 10' along all exterior property lines, and 5' either side of interior property lines, except such easements shall be increased to accommodate drainage where required, subject to City staff approval. b. A Drainage and Utility easement shall be dedicated to the public on the plat over the storm water pond area and storm water facilities. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 5 c. A Drainage Easement shall be granted over wetlands on the Property. d. Driveway Easement and Maintenance Agreements. 12) Development Fees: a. Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee: The development is subject to the 2019 Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee of $8,060.00 per lot in a 2 acre zone. Therefore $8,060 x 2 lots = $16,120.00. b. Park Dedication Fee: [$5,550 x 1 new lot] = $5,550. 13) Plans and Specifications. The following plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and approval by the City and other appropriate jurisdictions prior to final plat approval, to ensure that the proposed plat will accomplish the intended purposes: a) Final grading, drainage and erosion control plan showing existing and proposed contours, anticipated building locations, elevations, stormwater facilities and calculations, utilities and erosion control measures to be used during construction. Final Plat Approval will not be granted until the MCWD has approved the stormwater management plans. b) Final stormwater management plan. c) Final stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). d) Final plans for installation of the development identification monument sign, if applicable. A separate Sign Permit is required prior to installation. e) Sufficient detail to meet the recommendations of the City Engineer. 14) Developer shall execute a Developer's Agreement for construction of improvements on the Property to ensure all site improvements are installed to the City's specifications and satisfaction. Said Developer’s Agreement may contain additional conditions not noted in this Preliminary Plat Approval resolution. No land alterations can take place until erosion control is established and the City is in receipt of a final grading. No improvements can begin until the City Engineer has approved all improvement plans. No improvements can begin until 24 hours after the final plat has been recorded with Hennepin County. A Letter of Credit must accompany a fully executed Developer's Agreement written to 150% of the cost of the proposed site improvements. No building permits will be issued until all drainage facilities and improvements have been installed and inspected. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 6 15) A pre-construction meeting shall be required prior to commencement of any development site work on the property. 16) Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 17) Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by filing a Final Plat application within one year of the date of Council approval, or the preliminary plat approvals will expire on that date (February 11, 2010). If Final Plat approval is not granted by that date, the terms and conditions of this resolution shall be null and void. The City Council at its sole discretion may extend the effective period of the preliminary plat. FINAL SUBMITTALS: Developer shall complete all requirements for Final Plat Approval as follows. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the Planning Department at least four (4) weeks prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting on the second and fourth Mondays of the month. These submittals are as follows: 1. Record Plat Drawings. Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. A digital copy is also required. Drawing to include: a. Lot lines platted per preliminary plat survey/drawing by Frank Cardarelle dated December 7, 2018 attached hereto as Exhibit A, except as modified herein. b. Dedication of "Drainage and Utility Easements" 10' along exterior property lines, 5' along the interior property lines, and over the stormwater pond, ditches and facilities. c. Dedication of “Drainage Easements” over the wetlands and drainageways. d. Name of plat. 2. Legal documents required: a. Title opinion addressed to the City or a title insurance policy in favor of the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 7 b. The Developer must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the Property. c. Signed Developers Agreement. d. Signed Private Driveway Easement and Maintenance Agreements. e. Signed Tree Preservation Easement/Covenants. f. Signed Covenant to Protect Drainfield Sites. 3. Financial Guarantee. The Developer shall submit a final plat review escrow in the amount of $2,500.00 with the final plat application. Additionally, the Developer’s Agreement shall include a financial guarantee by the Developer to ensure the completion of site improvements. The Developer’s engineer shall complete an estimate of improvement costs, including but not limited to storm sewers, landscaping, grading, erosion control, utilities, driveways and stormwater management facility construction which the City’s Engineer will verify. The Developer shall provide to the City a financial guarantee of 150% of the improvement costs. 4. Plat approval fees to be paid: Total due: $22,170.00 a. Final plat fee: $500.00. b. Park Dedication Fee: $5,550. c. Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee: $16,120.00. 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 11th day of February, 2019. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor                      &E / < ? / 5 * m < : 7 ? m & 2 & C " ? / 7 5  E      m  :; 7 : 7 < & % m < : 7 ? m & 2 & C " ? / 7 5 m      %/ ; & $ ? / 7 5 m < A ; ) m " $ & m % ; " / 5 " * &  $" 5 ? / 2 & C & ; & % m 7 C &; , " 5 * m $7 , m 7, 2 m *) & m ?) & m 2) & m  7 C & ; , & " % m A ? / 2 / ? G m 2 / 5 &  *" ; " * & m ) 2 7 7 ; m & 2 & C m "m ?/ 7 5  ?7 : m 7 ) m )7 A 5 % " ? / 7 5 m & 2 & C " ? / 7 5 m  27 D & < ? m ) 2 7 7 ; m & 2 & C m " m ?/ 7 5 m 96 \ X ; „ ; @ Q „ 2 , : „ U„ ' „ ( Z Q @ < „ - 8 1 „ $Q „ 3 @ [ „ ( A ? V Y SB = „ 'F 0 = @ 1 6 + m -8 B > ( m                                    „    ]„     „                                   &E / < ? / 5 * m 2& * " 2 m %& < $ ; / : ? / 7 5 m           m 2] e c  m H [ M m   m #V ] K U m   m < 4 / ? .  % & ? 2 7 ) ) m " % % / ? / 7 5  m & E $ & : ? m e R H e m `^ a e m V S N c m [ ] a e R N a W k m ] f m ^m V S [ N m M N c K a S J N M m H c m P ] V V ] j c  m $_ N [ L S [ Q m H e m e R N m c ] h e R N H c e m K ] a [ N a m ] P m c H S M m 2 ] e m   m e R O [ L N m 5] a e R m 9 m M N Q a N N c m   m XS [ i e N c m   m c N K ] [ M c m DN c e m H V ] [ Q m e R N m N H c e m /m S [ N m ] P m 2] e m  m H m M T c eH [ K N m ] P m      m P N N e m e ] m e R N m [ ] a e R N H c e m K] a [ N a m ] P m 2] e m  m eR N m ` ] S [ e m ] P m J NQ S [ [ S [ Q  m e R N [ K N m 5] a e R m   m MN Q a N N c m   m XS [ h e N c m   m cN K ] [ M c m DN c e m H m M S c e H [ K N m ] P m      m PN N e m e R N [ K N m 5 ] a e R m   m M N Q a N N c m   m Y S [ h e N d m   m c N K ] [ M c m D N c e m H m MS c e H [ K N m ] P m      m PN N e ! m e R N \ K N m 5] a e R m 9 m M N Q a NN c m   m X S [ i e N c m  m c N K ] [ M c m D N c e m H m M S c e H [ K N m ] P m      m PN N e m e ] m e R N m [] a e R m / m S [ N m ]P m 3 ] e m  m H [ M m eR N a N m e N b Z S [ H g S [ Q  m . N [ [ O ` S [ m $] h [ e l  m 4 S [ [ N c ] e I  m     O„  „     „ % ( „ IA N „ G$ J ) „ $ „ HC G @ M „ , / * T „ ;r } | „  „ ` o d „   „ & m r c l „   „ P 6 R 4 + . Q ; F „ $ , , 6 Q 6 @ =  „ 0 Q „ } j ` } „ x` y } „ mk e | „ o r y } j e y m ƒ „ r g „ ` „ m k o e „ d e| c y k a e d „ ` | „ g r m m r  | „ (w o c k o i „ ` } „ } j e „ | r  } j e ` | } „ c r y o e y „ r g „ |` k d „ ; r } „  # „ } j e o c e „ =r y } j „ D „ d e i y f e | „  „ n k o  } f | „   „ | f c r o d | „ ^ e | } „ ` m r o i „ }j e „ e ` | } „ mk o f „ r h „ ; r } „  „ ` „ d k | } ` o c e „ r h „       „ g f f } „ } r „ } j f „ o r y } j e ` | } „ cr y p f y „ r g „ ; r } „   „ }j e „ x r k o } „ r h „ b f i k p p k p i ! „ } j f p c f „ = ry } j „   de i y f e | „   nk o  } f | „   |f c r o d | „ ^e | } „ ` „ dk | } ` o c f „ r h „       „ ge e } " „ }j e o c e „ = r y } j „   df i y e f | „   nk o  } e | „   |f c r p d | „ _ | } „ ` „ dk | } ` o c e „ r g „       „ g e e } # „ }j e o c e „ > r y } j „ D „ de i y f e | „   „ { k o  } e | „  „ | e c r o d | „ _ | } „ ` „ d k | } ` o c e „ rg „       „ g e e } „ } r „ }j f „ o r y } j „ m k o e „ rg „ ; r } „  „ ` o d „ }j e y e „ }e y n k o ` } k o i  „ $ ; L E „ 0 Q „ }j ` } „ x ` y } „ r h „ ;r } „  „ m ƒ k o i „ |r  } j „ r g „ ` „ 6 „ ko e „ y  o „ g y u „ ` „ x r k o } „ r o „ } j e „ f` | } „ 6„k o e „ sg „ | ` k d „ ;r } „   dk | } ` o } „       ge e } „ o r y } j „ r g „ } j e „ | r  } j f ` | } „ cr y p f y „ } j f y f r g „ } r „ ` „ x r k p } „ r p „ } j f „ ‚ f | } „ 6 „ kp f „ r g „ | ` k d „ ;r } „   „ ` „ dk | } ` o c e „ r g „      he e } „ o r y } j „ r g „ } j e „ | r  } j  e | } „ c r y o e y „ }j e y f r g „ `p d „ }j e y e „ } e y n k o ` } k o i  „ 3 e o p f x k o „ ( r  o } ƒ  „ < k o q f | r } `  „ G$ K ) „ & „ W` } „ x ` y } „ r g „   „ & m r c l „   „ P6 Q 5 , . Q ; F „ $ , , 6 Q 6 @ = „ m ƒ k p i „ | r  } j „ rg „ ` „ m k p e „ y  p „ hy v „ ` „ xr k p } „ r p „ }j f „ f ` | } „ m kp f „ r h „ | ` k d „ ; r } „   „ dk | } ` o } „       he e } „ o r y } j „ r g „ } j e „ |r € } j e ` | } „ cr y o f y „ } j e y e r g „ } r „ `„ x r k o } „ r o „ } j e „  e | } „ 6 „ k o f „ r h „ |` k d „ ; r } „   „ ` „ dk | } ` o c e „ r g „   „   ge e } „ pr y } j „ r h „ } j e „ | r  }j  f | } „ cr y o f y „ } j e y f r g „ to d „ } j f y e „ }e z k o ` } „ 7o i  „ 3e o o e x k o „ ( r  o ~ ƒ  „ < k o o e | r } `  „                                                                                                                                                        0 50 100 150 SCALE IN FEET = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPO SED SPOT ELEVATION ,• ... = DIRECT ION SU RF ACE DRA INA GE = CANTILEVERED OVERHANG CO H OHL GFE TFE LFE = OVERHEA D UTILITY LINE= GA RA GE FLO OR ELEV A TION = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION = LOWEST FLO OR ELEV A TION INDIVIDUAL LOT GRADING TO BE CUSTOM DESIGNED AT HOUSE CONSTRUCTION EXISTING HOUSE / Ice ·,,o \" i I 9o.o I THE SOUTHEAST CORNER Of?' LOT 2 ·- - -N 89 °05' 48" W 775.97 / / I I J. I I I I I I i I I --r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ADDRESS-387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN EX IST ING LEGA L DESCR IPTION (11/10/18 ) Lots1 and 2, Block 1, SM ITH-DETLO FF ADDITION, EXCEPT that port lies northerly ot o line described as follows; Comnencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence North O degrees 05 minutes 55 seconds West along the east I ine of Lot 2 a distance of 410.99 feet to the northeast corner of Lot 2. the point of beginning; thence North 84 degrees 25 minutes 53 seconds West a distance of 261.89 feet; thence North 50 degrees 30 minutes 10 seconds West a distance of 589.61 feet; thence North O degrees 07 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 115.50 feet to the north I ine of Lot 2 and there terminating, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 483558 SF / 11.1 AC PROPOSED PARCEL A PROPOSED DESCRIPTIONS Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, SMITH--DETLOFF ADDITION, EXCEPT that part lies northerly of a line described as follows; Corrmencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 1; thence North O degrees 05 minutes 55 seconds West along the east line of Lot 2 a distance of 410 .99 feet to the northeast corner of Lot 2, the point of beginning; thence North 84 degrees 25 minutes 53 seconds West a distance of 261.89 feet; thence North 50 degrees 30 minutes 70 seconds West a distance of 589.61 feet; thence North O degrees 07 rninutes 06 seconds West a distance of 115.50 feet to the north line of Lot 2 and there terminating, ALSO EXCEPT that part of Lot 2, lying south of a I ine run from a point on the east I ine of said Lot 2, distant 205.00 feet north of the southeast corner thereof to a point on the west I ine of said Lot 2, a distance of 272.00 feet north of the southwest corner thereof and there terminating, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL B That part of 2, Block 1, SMITH-DETLOFF ADDITION, lying south of a line run from a point on the east line of said Lot 2, distant 205.00 feet north of the southeast corner thereof to a point on the west I ine of said Lot 2, a distance of 272. 00 feet north of the southwest corner thereof ond there terminat Ing, Hennepin County, Minnesota. "8 g ' 0 a I "'O "' C: > o "'"w...J�>a::..,q, Cl st' � Cl f<') q, :::, I!) ... 0 I!) ., ..J z '1J (.) �... :::. . .,.,�a ,.,�a z 0::.,., 0,: >-;:j: I -' 0:: � .lq ... a.,!; qozl ttJ -.:t W N � st' Cl I!) (DI.JO) � � � V) � 1(_)cs (j -.J Cl:: -.J C) t::::) -.J �8 63 C)� � �� � �2 8: �:2 ; � �i�� 1--C >o � -�i!I' i c:, i!���• co VI ,a�g a: �f-l!Ct:i � ,oe � 0 .. ��� N � i►&!8 I,, � � ;;:;1�� -ffi <(j �5�� � � !�i! • I I�-, -•- � � Date (Revised Plan) Application Received: 12/26/18 Date Application Considered as Complete01/14/19 120-Day Review Period Expires: 05/14/19 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 22 January 2019 Subject: #LA18-000062, Stonewood LLC, 387 Orono Orchard Road S, REVISED Preliminary Plat Public Hearing Background/Update This application is a modification of the preliminary and final plat reviewed and approved in 2018 (same application number LA18-000062). The developer recently sold the northern lot and completed a boundary line adjustment between the two properties. The boundary line adjustment created a more substantial building area on the sold lot (385 Orono Orchard Rd S), and to facilitate the revised preliminary plat to create only one additional buildable lot from the subject property (387 Orono Orchard Road S). The previous plat was approved for 5 lots. Many of the previous review comments still apply, the proposal conforms to the RR-1B zoning district and continues to be less dense than the prescribed minimum density contemplated within the 2020-2040 comprehensive plan. The property is outside the MUSA boundary and septic system designs have been submitted for each lot. The existing driveway access point will continue to serve the separate northern lot (385 Orono Orchard Road S) which is not part of this subdivision. A new private driveway access is proposed to serve both of the properties as shown on the grading plan attached as Exhibit B. The preliminary plat drawing illustrates the proposed building pad areas for each new lot; the existing home on the property (shown on Parcel A) is proposed to remain at this time. The RR- 1B setbacks will be met; both lots are shown meeting or exceeding the minimum 200-foot lot width measured at the front setback. Relationship to Surrounding Development Properties in the immediate neighborhood consist of 4 to 21 acre lots; the City’s golf course is to the north of the property. The proposed subdivision is consistent with respect to the rural character of the surrounding neighborhood. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting approval of a revised preliminary plat. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval contingent upon meeting the MCWD and City Engineer’s recommendations and permitting requirements of the MCWD. FILE # LA18-000062 22 Jan 2019 Page 2 of 4 Lot Dimensions as Proposed: Wetland Dry Buildable Total Acres Lot Width Existing 385 Orono Orchard Road South Property - As adjusted 4.46± acres 6.63± acres 11.10± acres ±618’ Lot 1 – “Parcel A” ± 350 square feet 2.1± acres 4.23± acres ±413’ Lot 2 – “Parcel B” ± 570 square feet 4.5± acres 6.9± acres ±205’ General Site Characteristics This site is within the rural residential area south of the City golf course and north of Fox Street, historically made up of larger wooded estate properties. The property contains both natural and cultivated wooded areas as well as sloping grades and wetlands. There is an existing home and small garage located on the subject property, both which may remain following the subdivision; the setbacks are met. The existing driveway configuration will remain with the exception of the new curb cut serving the subject property. The Conservation Design Report by Anderson Engineering submitted for the original plat (see Exhibit E) provides a more detailed overview of the natural site characteristics. The revised subdivision plan reflects the developer’s desire to protect significant tree stands; removal of invasive and diseased trees will be done on an as-needed basis. The goal of the revised development design and grading plan is to minimize tree removal and clearing. They hope to preserve the existing vegetation along the Orono Orchard Road corridor. Planning Commission should review the Report and discuss the recommendations. As each of the lots exceed 1.99 acres in area, there is no limit on overall structural building coverage. City Engineer Comments The City Engineer is reviewing the preliminary plat plans. Engineering comments will be forthcoming once the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has received and reviewed the stormwater plan. If there are any changes needed resulting from the MCWD or City Engineer’s review, the applicant can respond to those prior to placement on the City Council agenda. If the comments result in significant changes to the plat layout it may be brought back to the Planning Commission for another review. Easements Drainage & Utility. The City requires standard perimeter drainage and utility easements around all property boundaries in the Plat and drainage easements over the wetland areas. The easements shown on the proposed preliminary plat drawing should be revised to conform to the standard; the Final Plat must meet the City standards. Drainage and Utility Easements are required over any stormwater facilities that may be required FILE # LA18-000062 22 Jan 2019 Page 3 of 4 by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Private, Shared Driveway. The property is proposed to be served via a private driveway accessing Orono Orchard Road South at the northern point of “Parcel A” and meeting up with the existing drive. The driveway will be expanded to serve “Parcel B” and an access easement should be established for each of proposed lots; a maintenance agreement for the private driveway should also be provided by the developer. A maximum of two lots can be served via a private driveway. Park Dedication The Comprehensive Plan does not suggest the need for new trails or sidewalks along this section of Orono Orchard Road. There are no plans for future park land needs on the subject property, staff anticipates park dedication being satisfied via a cash donation. The Park Fee is determined as 8% 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. For the proposed development, the Park Fee would be based only on the one newly created lot. The City’s Assessor will be consulted to determine the market value of the land for establishing the amount of the fee. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements The developer should coordinate with the MCWD and provide confirmation regarding the permits or approvals they will require for this subdivision. According to the Anderson Engineering report, conservation easements will protect the wetland buffer areas as required by the MCWD. Additionally, according to the report, there were to be two stormwater infiltration basins installed, following MCWD approval of a stormwater plan, the grading plan should be updated to reflect any necessary stormwater pond areas. Placement and sizing will be determined by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Rules. The development is subject to the 2019 Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee of $8,060.00 per lot in a 2 acre zone. Therefore $8,060 x 2 lots = $16,120.00. Utility Locations and Availability The subject property is not located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Therefore City sewer is not available to the property. They have provided septic system designs for each of the lots which appear to be acceptable. The plans will be reviewed more closely at permitting by the Building Official for conformance with the regulations. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval in accordance with the forthcoming recommendations of the City Engineer as well as the requirements of the MCWD. The Planning Commission’s options for action on the proposed plat are: • Recommend approval of the plat as presented, with appropriate conditions; • Recommend denial, stating reasons; or • Table the application providing direction and guidance to the developer. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Preliminary Plat Drawing 12/07/18 Exhibit B. Proposed preliminary grading plan 12/07/18 FILE # LA18-000062 22 Jan 2019 Page 4 of 4 Exhibit C. Recorded Boundary Line Adjustment Exhibit D. Septic Plans 07/04/18 Exhibit E. Conservation Design Plan by Anderson Engineering 06/21/18 Exhibit F. Wetland Delineation – Jacobson Environmental 05/30/18 Exhibit G. MCWD – NOD Wetland Approval 07/10/18 Exhibit H. Map Exhibit I. Property Owners List MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 22, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. LA18-000062 SVEN GUSTAFSON, 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD, PRELIMINARY PLAT, 6:33 P.M. – 6:37 P.M. Sven Gustafson, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting approval of a revised preliminary and final plat approved in 2018. This application only involves 387 Orono Orchard Road, which is the property with the existing home. The developer recently sold the northern lot and completed an administrative boundary line adjustment between the two properties. The boundary line adjustment created a more substantial building area on the north lot and to facilitate the revised preliminary plat to create only one additional buildable lot from the subject property. The existing driveway access point will continue to serve the separate northern lot, which is not part of this subdivision. A new private driveway access is proposed to serve both of the properties as shown on the grading plan. A maximum of two lots can be served by a private driveway. The previous plat was approved for five lots. The revised preliminary plat is less dense and conforms to the RR-1B zoning. The property is outside the MUSA boundary and individual septic sites have been submitted for each lot. The home on Parcel A is proposed to remain at this time. All of the RR-1B setbacks will be met. The revised subdivision plan reflects the applicant’s desire to protect significant tree stands along with removal of invasive and diseased trees on an as-needed basis. The applicant is continuing to follow the guidance in the Conservation Plan as far as tree protection. The goal of the design and grading plan is to minimize tree removal and clearing. The City Engineer is reviewing the preliminary plat plans. Engineering comments will be forthcoming once the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has received, reviewed, and approved the stormwater plan. If the Watershed District requires changes to the plan, it is recommended the applicant respond to those prior to placement on the City Council agenda. If the comments result in significant changes to the plat layout, it may be brought back before the Planning Commission. The property is proposed to be served via a private driveway accessing Orono Orchard Road South at the northern point of Parcel A and meeting up with the existing drive. The driveway will be expanded to serve Parcel B and an access easement should be established for each of the proposed lots. A maintenance agreement for the private driveway should also be provided by the developer. Staff recommends approval in accordance with the forthcoming recommendations of the City Engineer as well as the requirements of the MCWD. Lemke asked what the gradient is for the driveway. Curtis indicated she does not have that information available tonight but that the City Engineer is looking at that. Curtis noted the City does not have driveway standards. Thiesse asked if the septic is allowed within the setbacks. Curtis stated the septic sites will be required to be conforming and that the applicant has plenty of options for relocating them. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 22, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Landgraver asked if it is conceivable that the larger lot could ever be subdivided in the future. Curtis indicated it is precluded by this application. Sven Gustafson, Stonewood, noted they had approval for a private lot and five lots previously, but after reviewing the number of trees that would be lost, it was determined it would be better to have three larger lots. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. Landgraver stated the application is pretty straight forward and that he is okay with it subject to the comments of the Watershed District. Lemke commented in his view it is an improvement. Libby stated he had a chance to review the application earlier and that it is pretty comprehensive. Lemke moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000062, Sven Gustafson, 387 Orono Orchard Road, preliminary plat. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To consider a variance and resolution that would allow a 6 foot tall fence in the street yard where a 42 inch high fence is permitted. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on October 17, 2018 and considered to be complete on October 17th. The 60-Day review period has been extended and will expire on February 16, 2019. 3. Background The applicant is requesting a variance to install a 6 foot tall fence in the street yard adjacent to Ferndale. 42 inch high fences are permitted here. If Ferndale was a county or state road, the fence could be up to 6 feet high. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On January 22, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 on a motion to approve the requested variance. The members of the Commission were in agreement that the additional height of the fence, the configuration of the lot (it is bisected by Ferndale), the use of Ferndale, and the design of the fence support the variance while preserving the neighborhood character. 5. Public Comment. No comments have been received for or against the application 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council adopt the resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should review the approval resolution and adopt or amend. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Draft Planning Commission Minutes C. Planning Commission Staff report D. Site Plan References Planning Commission exhibits 1-22-2019. Item No.: 7 Date: February 11, 2019 Item Description: LA18-000087 – Robert Brook, 1165 Ferndale Road, Variance – Fence in the street yard of a local street – Resolution Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1405 a.(8)b.1 FILE NO. LA18-000087 WHEREAS, on October 17, 2019, Robert Brook, Property Owner (“Applicant”), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 1165 Ferndale Road W and legally described in Exhibit A (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1405 a.(8)b to allow a six foot privacy fence where a 42 inch fence is allowed; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2019, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission 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 January 22, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended [approval/denial] of the variance; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2019, 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/denies] the requested variance 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 #LA18-000087. 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. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 3. The Property contains 4.65 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 120 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25 % according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance: To allow a 6 foot tall fence to be locate din the street yard, not adjacent to a County or State Highway. 6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and 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. ANALYSIS: 1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The City determines that the 6 foot tall fence in the street yard is in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance which is to balance the privacy needs of property owners on busy streets with the desire to preserve a natural streetscape environment in residential neighborhoods. 2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” An addition of a fence to a property with an existing home is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The use of a fence is a reasonable accessory use within the LR-1A District. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 The applicant states the section of Ferndale is busy and acts like a county road and so, should follow the city code exception to allow for a 6 foot fence. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” A fence should not alter the character of the area. 4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.” This condition is not applicable. 6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” This condition is not applicable, as the use for a fence is an allowed accessory use in the LR-1A District. 7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable. 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The property is bisected by a road the serves downtown Wayzata. Due to the unique shape and configuration of the lot, the home is located near this road, creating the need for separation and privacy. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.” The applicant finds this to be true due to the position of the home to the right of way creating the need separation. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The applicant has stated this to be true, the City concurs. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 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.” The applicant has stated this to be true, the City concurs. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” The applicant has stated this to be true, the City concurs. 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 (78-1405 a.(8)b.1.) to allow a 6 foot fence where a 42 inch high fence is permitted, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the site plan survey dated October 10, 2018 submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 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. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by completing the work within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (February 11, 2020). 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 11th day of February, 2019. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 5 Exhibit A DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Parcel 1: Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 522, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel2: Lots 2 and 8 And That part of the abandoned County Road adjoining Lots 2 and 8, and that part of the abandoned undesignated street adjoining the Westerly line of Lot 2, all described as beginning at the most Northerly corner of Lot 8; thence Westerly along the Northerly line of Lot 8 to the Easterly line of Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 522, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin; thence Northerly along the Easterly line of said Tract B to the Northeasterly comer of said Tract B; thence Southeasterly, deflecting to the right 120 degrees 17 minutes to the Westerly line of Lot 2, thence Southerly along said Westerly line to the most Southwesterly corner of Lot 2; thence Easterly along the Southerly line of Lot 2 to its intersection with the extension Northwesterly of the Northeasterly line of Lot 8; thence Southeasterly along said extension to the point of beginning. All in NORTH SHORE COTTAGE ACRES LAKE MINNETONKA. Keenan & Sveiven, Inc. 15119 Minnetonka Blvd. Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 Telephone 952 475 1229 Facsimile 952 475 1667 D E S I G N · B U I L D Landscape Architecture BR O O K / Q U I N N R E S I D E N C E 11 6 5 F E R N D A L E R O A D W E S T O R O N O , M N 2018-10-10 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Todd Irvine date:00/00/00 reg. no.46008 date: revisions: drawn: FENCE PLANS 1 TI North F E R N D A L E R O A D W E S T MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 22, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 2. LA18-000087 ROBERT BROOK, 1165 FERNDALE ROAD WEST, VARIANCE, 6:38 P.M. – 6:47 P.M. Robert Brook, Applicant, was present. Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 6-foot tall privacy fence to be constructed in the side street yard between the two driveway entrances. Ferndale Road is a local street, and per City Code, a maximum of a 42-inch tall fence is allowed. Staff finds the request to be reasonable. While not a county road or state highway, Ferndale Road is a busy street that connects Orono to Wayzata’s downtown area. City Code would allow for a 6-foot fence in this location if the home was located on a major thoroughfare. The applicant has stated the high volume of traffic and use of the road has created a burden on the property. The shape of the lot is also unique compared to its neighbors in the shape and location of the principal structure sitting close to the right-of-way where separation could improve safety conditions for the property. The questions the Planning Commission should discuss the intent of the fence setbacks to determine if the proposed fence location is in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance and they should consider the impact of the proposed fence upon the neighborhood as well as existing and anticipated traffic conditions. Barnhart stated it does seem reasonable that a 6-foot high fence be allowed given the level of traffic on Ferndale Road. Lemke asked whether the fence on the western side of the property is existing and is also a 6-foot fence. Barnhart stated that fence can be six feet high and that the variance is only being requested for the proposed fence in the front yard setback. Thiesse asked whether Staff has any traffic numbers. Barnhart indicated he is not aware of any numbers and that he can check with Wayzata to see whether there have any traffic counts for the road. Thiesse stated if the high amount of traffic is the reason for the variance, he would like to see some documentation of that. Todd Irvine, Landscape Architect, stated the property owner is unable to be here tonight. The proposal is pretty straight forward. The house is very close to the intersection of County Road 15 in addition to being located on a busy road. There is also a large gravel leftover area that people use to park when they go for walks or bike on the trail. Part of the reason for the fence is to attenuate the noise from Ferndale and also provide some privacy from the cars parking in that gravel area. Irvine noted the right-of-way on Ferndale is a little wider than a normal right-of-way and that it is 22 feet from the edge of the road back to the proposed fence location. Irvine stated in his view it will not impact cars visually as they drive down Ferndale. There are also fences and hedges much closer to the street further down the street than what is being proposed here and it is in character with the rest of the neighborhood. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 22, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 2 Landgraver asked what the finished product will look like from the street side. Irvine indicated it will be horizontal cedar 1 x 6’s and the posts will be kind of hidden to create a contemporary feel to it. The fence will either be natural stained or black to match the trim on the house. Lemke noted the plans state the fence will be painted black. Irvine stated he was not aware of that but it appears it will be painted black. Thiesse asked if there is a row of arborvitae in the front. Irvine indicated there is not. There is a row of arborvitae over to the east and the other fence is located on the neighbor’s property. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. Lemke stated in his view a 6-foot fence is not intrusive in that location but that he would prefer a more natural color than black. Landgraver commented he normally is not a fan of fences, but given the location and the traffic, he would be in favor of it. In addition, the fact that it is not being extended along the whole property line lessens the harshness of the fence. Libby asked whether the applicant could incorporate more greenery or a berm to help mitigate some of the privacy issues. Irvine noted the area is pretty-well treed already and that they have a concern that any additional trees would be shaded out. An arborvitae hedge was planted further down. Libby asked whether the fence is more for private or noise abatement. Irvine indicated it is more for privacy and that the house is one level. Erickson stated he has a high level of comfort for this variance given the number of unique factors for the variance. The shape of the lot is unusual, the house is close to the road, there is the nearby parking area, and it is very close to a county road. Erickson noted that county road is the most highly traveled road in the city and that he would approve the application. Landgraver moved, Libby seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000087, Robert Brook, 1165 Ferndale Road West, fence variance. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Date Application Received: October 17, 2018 Date Application Considered as Complete: October 17, 2018 60-Day Review Period Expires: Application was extended To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: January 22, 2019 Subject: LA18-000087, Robert Brook, 1165 Ferndale Road, Variance, Public Hearing Background The applicant is requesting a 6 foot tall privacy fence to be constructed in the side street yard between the two driveway entrances. Ferndale road is a local street and per City Code only allows a maximum 42 inch tall fence on local roads. The applicant has stated the high volume of traffic and use of the road has created a burden on the property. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-1405 a.(8)b.: DISTRICT LR-1A Required Max Fence Height Proposed Fence Height Street Street 42 inches (3.5’) 72 inches (6’) Lakeshore 75’ Met Average Lakeshore Setback is met Applicable Regulations: Variance (78-1405 a.(8)b.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. 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 Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 6 foot tall fence in the side street yard where a 42 inch tall fence is permitted. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends the planning commission review the findings. LA18-000087 11/19/2018 Page 2 of 3 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 Planning Commission should discussion the intent of the fence setbacks to determine if the proposed fence location is in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. An addition of a fence to a property with an existing home is 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 use of a fence is a reasonable accessory use within the LR-1A District. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The applicant states the section of Ferndale is busy and acts like a county road and so, should follow the city code exception to allow for a 6 foot fence. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. A fence should not alter the character of the area. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a fence is an allowed accessory use in the LR-1A District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property abuts a roadway that is heavily used and accesses other municipality’s business district. Due to the unique shape of the lot the home is located close to the right of way creating the need for separation for safety and privacy. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The applicant finds this to be true due to the position of the home to the right of way creating the need separation. LA18-000087 11/19/2018 Page 3 of 3 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has stated this to be true. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The applicant has stated this to be true. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The applicant has stated this to be true. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Staff finds the request to be reasonable. While not a county road or state highway, Ferndale Road is a busy street that connects Orono to Wayzata’s downtown area. Our Code allows for a 6 foot fence in this location if the home was located on the major thoroughfare such as a county road or state highway. The shape of the lot is also unique compared to its neighbors in the shape and location of the principle structure sitting close to the right of way where separation could improve safety conditions for the property. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. The Planning Commission should discussion the intent of the fence setbacks to determine if the proposed fence location is in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance. 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. If the Commission does not feel that the standards for variance have been adequately met, they could consider directing an amendment to the fence regulations. 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission should discuss the proposed questions provided by staff. If the Planning Commission supports the proposed findings a MOTION to recommend approval is supported. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Site Plan Exhibit D. Site Photos Exhibit E. Property Owners List and Map Keenan & Sveiven, Inc. 15119 Minnetonka Blvd. Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 Telephone 952 475 1229 Facsimile 952 475 1667 D E S I G N · B U I L D Landscape Architecture BR O O K / Q U I N N R E S I D E N C E 11 6 5 F E R N D A L E R O A D W E S T O R O N O , M N 2018-10-10 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Todd Irvine date:00/00/00 reg. no.46008 date: revisions: drawn: FENCE PLANS 1 TI North F E R N D A L E R O A D W E S T AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To consider a variance and resolution that would allow an accessory building to be located within the front yard setback of the principal structure. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on December 12, 2018 and considered to be complete on January 4th, 2019. The 60-Day review period has been extended and will expire on March 5, 2019. 3. Background The recent changed to the accessory structure regulations allow detached garages to be located streetward of the principal structure, provided they meet the front yard setbacks and other regulations. The applicant has designed and sized the structure to meet those regulations, but the proposed location is 20 feet from the front property line; this zoning district requires 100 feet. The property is located at the end of Chippewa Lane, the right of way does not extend beyond the property 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On January 22, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 on a motion to approve the variance. The members of the Commission the end of the right of way which an extension of the road not being likely, and the logical placement of the structure given the topography and features of the site. 5. Public Comment. The applicants were not present at the Planning Commission meeting. No comments for or against the proposal have been received, though adjacent property owners have acknowledged the request. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council adopt the resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should review the approval resolution and adopt or amend. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Draft PC Minutes C. PC Staff report D. Site Plan and elevations References Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Hennepin County Topography Map Exhibit D. Pictures Item No.: 8 Date: February 11, 2019 Item Description: LA18-000098 – Jen and Tony Ishaug, 4245 Chippewa Lane, Variance – Resolution Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR Exhibit E. Property Owners List and Map Exhibit F. Adjacent Property Owner Signatures CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-395 FILE NO. LA18-000098 WHEREAS, on December 12, 2019, Anthony Ishaug and Jennifer Ishaug, husband and wife (“Applicant[s]”), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 4245 Chippewa Lane and legally described as: The east Quarter of South Half of northwest Quarter of southeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 118, Range 23, Except the railroad rightaway, together with an Easement for passage and travel over the north 1 rod of south half of northwest Quarter of southeast Quarter of said Section 31, according to the U.S. Government Survey thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property”); made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-395 to allow an accessory building to be located within the front yard setback; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2019, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission 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 January 22, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 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 variance 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 #LA18-000098. 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. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 2. The Property is located in the RR-1A Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 4.86 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 329 feet. 4. The Property is exempt from the Stormwater Quality Overlay District regulations. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance Front Yard setback, permitting an accessory building to be located within 20 feet of the front property line, where a 100 foot setback is required. 6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and 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. ANALYSIS: 1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” A detached garage as an accessory use to a single family home is in harmony in the RR-1A district. 2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” A detached garage as an accessory building in a single family zone is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The use of the property for the single family home with a detached garage is reasonable for the RR-1A district. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The applicant has stated this to be true due to the existing structures on the lot and the unique topography located in the front yard of the property. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 The applicant has stated the proposed location would be placed behind existing mature trees and outside of existing challenging topography limiting the need to excessive grading. The property is located at the end of a dead- end road limiting its visibility in the neighborhood. 4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.” This condition is not applicable. 6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” This condition is not applicable, as the use for a single family home with a detached garage 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 property has some unique topography with the grading sloping down along the East side of the parcel limiting some of the buildable footprint forward of the principal structure. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.” The topography is unique to this lot within the neighborhood, dropping off sharply to the east and the south. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The applicant has stated this to be true by allowing the property owners to maintain the appearance of the property. 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.” The property owners believe that granting the proposed variance will not in any way impair the health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” The property owners believe the granting of the variance CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 is necessary to alleviate the demonstrable difficulties of topography along the East side of the property and in the rear of the property. 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 78-395 to allow an accessory building to be located 20 feet from the front property line, where 100 feet is required, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the site plan dated December 12, 2018 and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. 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 variance will expire on that date (February 11, 2020). 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 11th day of February, 2019. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor S i t e P l a n D e c e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 1 8 F R O N T E L E V A T I O N 1 A 1 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1'- 0 " 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 N O T E : 1 . W A L L H E I G H T F R O M F I N I S H E D F L O O R I S 1 0 ' - 2 " 2 . P E A K O F R O O F H E I G H T F R O M F I N I S H E D F L O O R I S 2 3 ' - 0 5 / 1 6 " 3 . T Y P I C A L 1 ' - 0 " O V E R H A N G O N D O R M E R S 23'-0 516" 10'-2" 9 ' - 0 " 8'-0" 3 8 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " A 1 LEFT ELEVATION2A13/16" = 1'-0"1'-0" 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 22'-0"23'-0 516"10'-2" R E A R E L E V A T I O N 4 A 1 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " R I G H T E L E V A T I O N 3 A 1 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " D R A W N B Y P R O J E C T JAUSTIN CONSTRUCTION PHONE:320.492.6364 FAX:320.398.3132 15998 93rd AVENUE, KIMBALL MN 55353 D. POST 22 X 38 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 22, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 4. LA18-000098 JEN AND TONY ISHAUG, 4245 CHIPPEWA LANE, VARIANCES, 7:21 P.M. – 7:29 P.M. The applicant was not present. Barnhart stated the applicants are requesting a front yard setback variance for a detached garage. The new accessory building requirements allow a detached garage 1,000 square feet or smaller to be forward of the principal building, subject to conditions, which includes the requirement that the building should be consistent in material and color with the principal structure. The applicants have sized and designed the garage to fit these requirements. The new accessory building ordinance requires any accessory building forward of the principal building to meet the front yard setback. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow a 20-foot setback instead of the 100-foot required setback due to the topography of the property. The improvement will be consistent in character with the principal structure. This house is located at the end of a dead-end street so the impact to the neighborhood is relatively minimal. Staff has completed a preliminary review of the project for compatibility with the septic system and has determined that the project is not likely to impact the existing or future septic sites. The site plan for the building permit should call out the alternate septic site. Due to the unique topography and configuration of improvements on the property, the request for a front yard setback variance seems reasonable. There are no issues with the proposed grading. When the building permit is submitted, the associated site plan should depict the location of the erosion control measures and call out the top and bottom elevation of the proposed retaining wall. Staff recommends approval of the variance as proposed. Thiesse asked if Staff has confirmed that Chippewa is a dead-end road and there is no right-of-way that continues past the property line. Barnhart pointed out the cul-de-sac and the proposed building. Thiesse stated to his knowledge the right-of-way also ends there so there will not be a through road constructed there at some point. Landgraver asked if the adjacent property to the east is landlocked. Curtis indicated they front on Watertown Road. The applicant was not present. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 22, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 2 Lemke asked if there are any trees that will be removed as part of this project. Barnhart indicated he has not spoken to the applicant, but that it is his understanding some trees will be removed. A picture of the site shows the trees in that area to be around two inches in girth. Landgraver asked whether any screening was proposed between the accessory structure and the street. Barnhart stated it does not appear so and nor is any required. Libby commented it appears the applicant has made a concerted effort to match it to the principal structure and that there does not appear to be a lot of soil disruption or change in grade. Libby stated it is a nice design. Landgraver noted they already have a four-stall garage. Erickson commented he likes the sketch. Landgraver moved, Libby seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000098, Jen and Tony Ishaug, 4245 Chippewa Lane, front yard setback variance. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Date Application Received: December 12, 2018 Date Application Considered as Complete: January 4, 2019 60-Day Review Period Expires: March 5, 2019 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: January 22, 2019 Subject: LA18-000098, Jen and Tony Ishaug, 4245 Chippewa Ln, Variance, Public Hearing Background The new accessory building requirements allow a detached garage 1000 sq.ft. or smaller to be forward of the principal building, subject to conditions which include the structure should be consistent in material and color with the principal structure. The applicants have sized and designed the garage to fit these requirements. The new accessory buildings ordinance requires any accessory building forward of the principal building to meet the front yard setback. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow a 20 foot setback instead of the 100 foot required setback due to the topography of the property. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-395 - Setbacks: DISTRICT RR-1A Required Principal Existing Accessory Proposed Front 100’ 192’ 20’ Rear 100’ 320’ +/- 600’ Side (West) 50’ 50’ +/-230’ Side (East) 50 198’ 50’ Section 78-395 - Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT RR-1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 217,800 s.f. (5 acres) 300’ Actual 211,701 s.f. (4.86 acre) 330’ Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: The property is over 2 acres and does not have any structure coverage requirements. Section 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: The property is not located in the hardcover zone. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting front yard setback variance for a detached garage. Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission should discuss the findings, if there is support a motion can be made to recommend approval. LA18-000098 January 22, 2019 Page 2 of 4 Applicable Regulations: Variance (78-1440 b.) (b) Within the RR-1A and RR-1B districts, an accessory building less than 1,000 square feet may be located streetward of the principal building provided the following condition 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. 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. A detached garage as an accessory use to a single family home is in harmony in the RR-1A district. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. A detached garage as an accessory building in a single family zone is 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 use of the property for the single family home with a detached garage is reasonable for the RR-1A district. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The applicant has stated this to be true due to the existing structures on the lot and the unique topography located in the front yard of the property. and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant has stated the proposed location would be placed behind existing mature trees and outside of existing challenging topography limiting the need to excessive grading. The property is located at the end of a dead-end road limiting its visibility in the neighborhood. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. LA18-000098 January 22, 2019 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 with a detached garage 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 property has some unique topography with the grading sloping down along the East side of the parcel limiting some of the buildable footprint forward of the principal structure. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The topography is unique to this lot within the neighborhood. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has stated this to be true by allowing the property owners to maintain the appearance of the property. 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. The property owners believe that granting the proposed variance will not in any way impair the health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The property owners believe the granting of the variance is necessary to alleviate the demonstrable difficulties of topography along the East side of the property and in the rear of the property. 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 Staff has completed a preliminary review of the project for compatibility with the septic system, and has determined that the project is not likely to impact the existing or future septic sites. The site plan for the building permit should call out the alternate septic site. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Due to the unique topography and configuration of improvements on the property the request for a front yard setback variance seems reasonable. Engineer Comments LA18-000098 January 22, 2019 Page 4 of 4 There are no issues with the proposed grading, When the building permit is submitted the associated site plan should depict the location of the erosion control measures and call out the top and bottom elevation of the proposed retaining wall. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission shall consider the submitted finding. If the commission agrees with the findings a MOTION to recommend approval would be required. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Hennepin County Topography Map Exhibit F. Pictures Exhibit G. Property Owners List and Map Exhibit H. Adjacent Property Owner Signatures S i t e P l a n D e c e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 1 8 F R O N T E L E V A T I O N 1 A 1 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1'- 0 " 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 N O T E : 1 . W A L L H E I G H T F R O M F I N I S H E D F L O O R I S 1 0 ' - 2 " 2 . P E A K O F R O O F H E I G H T F R O M F I N I S H E D F L O O R I S 2 3 ' - 0 5 / 1 6 " 3 . T Y P I C A L 1 ' - 0 " O V E R H A N G O N D O R M E R S 23'-0 516" 10'-2" 9 ' - 0 " 8'-0" 3 8 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " A 1 LEFT ELEVATION2A13/16" = 1'-0"1'-0" 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 22'-0"23'-0 516"10'-2" R E A R E L E V A T I O N 4 A 1 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " R I G H T E L E V A T I O N 3 A 1 3 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " D R A W N B Y P R O J E C T JAUSTIN CONSTRUCTION PHONE:320.492.6364 FAX:320.398.3132 15998 93rd AVENUE, KIMBALL MN 55353 D. POST 22 X 38 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. This application is regarding an average lakeshore setback for additions to the existing home. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on December 12, and considered to be complete on January 4th. Therefore the 60-Day review period expires on March 3, 2019. 3. Background/ Summary. The applicants are planning to remove the existing lake side grade- level deck and replaced it with a larger elevated patio; construct a kitchen addition; and construct an open, pergola-roofed area on the new patio. The proposed improvements will extend as much as 11 feet closer to the lake than the existing home; approximately 33 feet into the average lakeshore setback. The 30” elevated patio is less than 42” from grade, therefore is not required to be located behind the average lakeshore setback line. A variance to allow the structural improvements (addition and pergola) to encroach up to 33 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback is requested. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On January 22, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 in favor of a motion to approve the requested variance noting the setback of the home, the uniqueness of the property, and the channel shoreline were practical difficulties. 5. Public Comment. Comments from the neighbors were received and are attached as Exhibit D. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Proposed Plans C. Draft PC Minutes D. Public Comment E. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits 01/22/19 Exhibit A. Application Summary & Narrative Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing Survey - Annotated Exhibit D. Side-by-side Existing & Proposed Site Plan Exhibit Exhibit E. Proposed Site Plan Drawing Exhibit F. Proposed Plans & Elevations Item No.: 9 Date: February 11, 2019 Item Description: LA18-000099, John Ortiz with Mom’s Design Build o/b/o Bret & Jennifer Riemenschneider, 835 Forest Arms Ln – Resolution Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR Exhibit G. Site Photos Exhibit H. Aerial Photos Exhibit I. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit J. Neighbor Comments Exhibit K. Property Owners List Exhibit L. Plat Map CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1279 FILE NO. LA18-000099 WHEREAS, Bret C. Riemenschneider and Jennifer S. Riemenschneider, a married couple (hereinafter “the Applicants”) are the owners of the property located at 835 Forest Arms Lane within the City of Orono (hereinafter the “City”) and legally described as Lot 4, Block 2, Forest Arms, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property”); and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2018, the Applicants made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow construction of an addition to the existing home and a pergola to encroach up to 33 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2019, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission 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 January 22, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2019, 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 variances 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 # LA18-000099. 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-1B Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 3. The Property contains 45,933 square feet (1.05 acres) in area and has a defined lot width of 140 feet at the OHWL, and 172 feet at the 75-foot setback. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25 % according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance: a. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance 6. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances 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. ANALYSIS: 1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The requested average lakeshore setback variance is in harmony with the Ordinance as the most adjacent neighbors are situated such that their channel/lake views are not across the subject property and their views will not be impacted by the improvements. 2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The variances resulting in a permit for construction of an addition to an existing single family residence in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The request to permit construction of building and structural improvements lakeward of the average lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable as the owners of the adjacent properties have stated that they are not adversely impacted; the mature vegetation, topography, and home orientation separate the Property from the adjacent neighbors. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The location of the existing home, the orientation and location of the neighboring homes, the depth of the lake yard, and the channel character of the lake shoreline in question are conditions not created by the landowner. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” It does not appear that the requested average lakeshore setback variance to permit additions to the home will adversely impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the adjacent property owners or alter the character of the locality. 4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.” This condition is not applicable. 6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” This condition is not applicable, as the use for a residential home is an allowed use in the LR-1B District. 7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable. 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The location of the existing home, the orientation and location of the neighboring homes, the depth of the lake yard, and the channel character of the lake shoreline in question are unique conditions affecting the subject property and the immediately adjoining properties. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.” The location of the existing home, the orientation and location of the neighboring homes, the depth of the lake yard, and the channel character of the lake shoreline in question are unique conditions affecting the subject property and the immediately adjoining properties and are not common conditions of properties in the LR- 1B district overall. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The applicant states that the variance is necessary to preserve their right to improve their home and property. 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” Granting the requested variances will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; nor will it be contrary to the intent of the Code. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” The application of the average lakeshore setback severely limits the options for improving the property/home; the granting of the requested variance is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty resulting from the location of the existing home, the orientation and location of the neighboring homes, the depth of the lake yard, and the channel character of the lake shoreline. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow construction of an addition to the lake side of the home and an open sided pergola 33 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback on the Property, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the site plan annotated by staff and building plans submitted by the Applicants, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B. Any amendments to the plan which are not in conformity with City codes will require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Proposed hardcover levels are conforming to the Tier 1 standards and no hardcover variances are granted. 3. Submittal of an updated existing conditions survey showing the proposed improvements shall be required for the building permit application. 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 addition and pergola and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed for the addition within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (February 11, 2020). CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 5 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 11th day of February, 2019 ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Ex i s t i n g H o u s e F o o t p r i n t P r o p o s e d N e w F o o t p r i n t – w i t h P e r g o l a La n d s c a p e . R e m o d e l . M a i n t a i n . 12 2 7 6 J o h n s o n M e m o r i a l D r i v e Sh a k o p e e , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 7 9 mo m s d e s i g n b u i l d . c o m 9 5 2 . 2 7 7 . 6 6 6 7 No t e s a n d R e v i s i o n s : D e s i g n e d f o r t h e DI S C L A I M E R : A l l i d e a s , d e s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s , p l a n s a n d sp e c i fi ca t i o n s i n d i c a t e d o r r e s p e c t e d b y t h e d r a w i n g s a r e ow n e d b y a n d t h e p r o p e r t y o f M o m ’ s D e s i g n B u i l d a n d w e r e cr e a t e d , e v o l v e d o r d e v e l o p e d f o r t h e u s e o n a n d i n co n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e s p e c i fi c p r o j e c t . n o n e o f t h e i d e a s , de s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s , p l a n t s , a n d s p e c i fi ca t i o n s s h a l l b y us e d o r d i s c l o s e d t o a n y p e r s o n , fi rm o r c o r p o r a t i o n f o r a n y pu r p o s e w h a t s o e v e r w i t h o u t t h e w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f M o m s De s i g n B u i l d . C o n t a c t w i t h t h e s e p l a n s o r s p e c i fi ca t i o n s s h a l l co n s t i t u t e c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e o f a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e s e re s t r i c t i o n s . W r i t t e n d i m e n s i o n s o n a l l d r a w i n g s s h a l l h a v e pr e c e d e n c e o v e r s c a l e d d i m e n s i o n s ; c o n t r a c t o r s s h a l l v e r i f y , an d b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l d i m e n s i o n s a n d c o n d i t i o n s o n t h e jo b . T h i s o f fi ce m u s t b e n o t i fi ed f o r a n y v a r i a t i o n s f r o m di m e n s i o n s a n d c o n d i t i o n s s h o w n b y t h e s e d r a w i n g s . © 2 0 1 8 M o m ’ s D e s i g n B u i l d . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . B C # 6 3 8 3 8 4 Ve r s i o n : Da t e : Sh e e t T i t l e : Sh e e t N u m b e r : De s i g n e d b y : Dr a w n b y : HE A T H E R S W E E N E Y & KA R I E Z E M L I C K A HE A T H E R S W E E N E Y & JO H N O R T I Z 8 3 5 F O R E S T A R M S L A N E , O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 6 4 R I E M E N S C H N E I D E R R E S I D E N C E N I H K J AV E R A G E H O U S E S E T B A C K L I N E F R O M L A K E SI D E - Y A R D S E T B A C K CB A PR O P O S E D AD D I T I O N PR O P O S E D PER G O L A OV E R A L L P R O P O S E D S I T E P L A N sc a l e : 1 / 1 6 “ = 1 ’ - 0 ” L- 1 SI T E P L A N - R E V I S E D 1/ 4 / 1 9 1 . 1 Le g e n d A: H o u s e B: C o n c r e t e D r i v e w a y C: F r o n t W a l k a n d S t o o p D: N e w H o u s e A d d i t i o n E: N e w P a t i o F: S t o n e l a n d s c a p e s t e p s & l a n d i n g s G: N e w P e r g o l a H: S t o n e s t e p p e r s t o l a k e I: E x i s t i n g S h e d J: W o o d s t e p s t o l a k e a b o v e 7 5 ’ s e t b a c k l i n e K: W o o d s t e p s t o l a k e b e l o w 7 5 ’ s e t b a c k l i n e E F F D G PR O P E R T Y L I N E FR O N T Y A R D S E T B A C K SI D E - Y A R D S E T B A C K 75 F T S E T B A C K F R O M O H W L AV E R A G E H O U S E SE T B A C K L I N E FR O M L A K E La n d s c a p e . R e m o d e l . M a i n t a i n . 12 2 7 6 J o h n s o n M e m o r i a l D r i v e Sh a k o p e e , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 7 9 mo m s d e s i g n b u i l d . c o m 9 5 2 . 2 7 7 . 6 6 6 7 No t e s a n d R e v i s i o n s : D e s i g n e d f o r t h e DI S C L A I M E R : A l l i d e a s , d e s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s , p l a n s a n d sp e c i fi ca t i o n s i n d i c a t e d o r r e s p e c t e d b y t h e d r a w i n g s a r e ow n e d b y a n d t h e p r o p e r t y o f M o m ’ s D e s i g n B u i l d a n d w e r e cr e a t e d , e v o l v e d o r d e v e l o p e d f o r t h e u s e o n a n d i n co n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e s p e c i fi c p r o j e c t . n o n e o f t h e i d e a s , de s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s , p l a n t s , a n d s p e c i fi ca t i o n s s h a l l b y us e d o r d i s c l o s e d t o a n y p e r s o n , fi rm o r c o r p o r a t i o n f o r a n y pu r p o s e w h a t s o e v e r w i t h o u t t h e w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f M o m s De s i g n B u i l d . C o n t a c t w i t h t h e s e p l a n s o r s p e c i fi ca t i o n s s h a l l co n s t i t u t e c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e o f a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e s e re s t r i c t i o n s . W r i t t e n d i m e n s i o n s o n a l l d r a w i n g s s h a l l h a v e pr e c e d e n c e o v e r s c a l e d d i m e n s i o n s ; c o n t r a c t o r s s h a l l v e r i f y , an d b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l d i m e n s i o n s a n d c o n d i t i o n s o n t h e jo b . T h i s o f fi ce m u s t b e n o t i fi ed f o r a n y v a r i a t i o n s f r o m di m e n s i o n s a n d c o n d i t i o n s s h o w n b y t h e s e d r a w i n g s . © 2 0 1 8 M o m ’ s D e s i g n B u i l d . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . B C # 6 3 8 3 8 4 Ve r s i o n : Da t e : Sh e e t T i t l e : Sh e e t N u m b e r : De s i g n e d b y : Dr a w n b y : HE A T H E R S W E E N E Y & KA R I E Z E M L I C K A HE A T H E R G R O S S M A N N & JO H N O R T I Z 8 3 5 F O R E S T A R M S L A N E , O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 6 4 R I E M E N S C H N E I D E R R E S I D E N C E N OV E R A L L S I T E P L A N sc a l e : 1 “ = 2 0 ’ A L- 1 SI T E P L A N & L A N D S C A P E PL A N 12 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 . 0 EN L A R G E D L A N D S C A P E P L A N sc a l e : 1 “ = 1 0 ’ B A B Le g e n d A: H o u s e B: C o n c r e t e D r i v e w a y C: F r o n t W a l k a n d S t o o p D: N e w H o u s e A d d i t o n E: N e w P a t i o F: S t o n e l a n d s c a p e s t e p s & l a n d i n g s G: A i r C o n d i t i o n e r H: S t o n e s t e p p e r s t o l a k e I: E x i s t i n g S h e d J: W o o d s t e p s t o l a k e a b o v e 7 5 ’ s e t b a c k l i n e K: W o o d s t e p s t o l a k e b e l o w 7 5 ’ s e t b a c k l i n e C EF FDG HI J K ABC D E F F G PR O P E R T Y L I N E FR O N T Y A R D S E T B A C K SI D E - Y A R D S E T B A C K SI D E - Y A R D S E T B A C K 75 F T S E T B A C K F R O M O H W L AV E R A G E H O U S E SE T B A C K L I N E F R O M L A K E AV E R A G E H O U S E SE T B A C K L I N E FR O M L A K E La n d s c a p e . R e m o d e l . M a i n t a i n . 12 2 7 6 J o h n s o n M e m o r i a l D r i v e Sh a k o p e e , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 7 9 mo m s d e s i g n b u i l d . c o m 9 5 2 . 2 7 7 . 6 6 6 7 No t e s a n d R e v i s i o n s : D e s i g n e d f o r t h e DI S C L A I M E R : A l l i d e a s , d e s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s , p l a n s a n d sp e c i fi ca t i o n s i n d i c a t e d o r r e s p e c t e d b y t h e d r a w i n g s a r e ow n e d b y a n d t h e p r o p e r t y o f M o m ’ s D e s i g n B u i l d a n d w e r e cr e a t e d , e v o l v e d o r d e v e l o p e d f o r t h e u s e o n a n d i n co n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e s p e c i fi c p r o j e c t . n o n e o f t h e i d e a s , de s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s , p l a n t s , a n d s p e c i fi ca t i o n s s h a l l b y us e d o r d i s c l o s e d t o a n y p e r s o n , fi rm o r c o r p o r a t i o n f o r a n y pu r p o s e w h a t s o e v e r w i t h o u t t h e w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f M o m s De s i g n B u i l d . C o n t a c t w i t h t h e s e p l a n s o r s p e c i fi ca t i o n s s h a l l co n s t i t u t e c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e o f a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e s e re s t r i c t i o n s . W r i t t e n d i m e n s i o n s o n a l l d r a w i n g s s h a l l h a v e pr e c e d e n c e o v e r s c a l e d d i m e n s i o n s ; c o n t r a c t o r s s h a l l v e r i f y , an d b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l d i m e n s i o n s a n d c o n d i t i o n s o n t h e jo b . T h i s o f fi ce m u s t b e n o t i fi ed f o r a n y v a r i a t i o n s f r o m di m e n s i o n s a n d c o n d i t i o n s s h o w n b y t h e s e d r a w i n g s . © 2 0 1 8 M o m ’ s D e s i g n B u i l d . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . B C # 6 3 8 3 8 4 Ve r s i o n : Da t e : Sh e e t T i t l e : Sh e e t N u m b e r : L- 1 Ex t e r i o r E l e v a t i o n s a n d pe r s p e c t i v e s 12 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 8 2 . 4              So u t h V i e w E l e v a t i o n Ph a n t o m S c r e e n h o u s i n g Pe r g ol a 16 ' - 0 " 8 ’ - 0 ” 12 ' - 0 " Ex i s t i n g H o u s e Fr o s t f o o t i n g s f o r p er g ol a Ra i s e d S t o n e P a t i o De s i g n e d b y : Dr a w n b y : HE A T H E R S W E E N E Y HE A T H E R S W E E N E Y 8 3 5 F o r e s t A r m s L a n e , O r o n o , M N . 5 5 3 6 4 R I E M E N S C H N E I D E R R E S I D E N C E N La n d s c a p e . R e m o d e l . M a i n t a i n . 12 2 7 6 J o h n s o n M e m o r i a l D r i v e Sh a k o p e e , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 7 9 mo m s d e s i g n b u i l d . c o m 9 5 2 . 2 7 7 . 6 6 6 7 No t e s a n d R e v i s i o n s : D e s i g n e d f o r t h e DI S C L A I M E R : A l l i d e a s , d e s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s , p l a n s a n d sp e c i fi ca t i o n s i n d i c a t e d o r r e s p e c t e d b y t h e d r a w i n g s a r e ow n e d b y a n d t h e p r o p e r t y o f M o m ’ s D e s i g n B u i l d a n d w e r e cr e a t e d , e v o l v e d o r d e v e l o p e d f o r t h e u s e o n a n d i n co n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e s p e c i fi c p r o j e c t . n o n e o f t h e i d e a s , de s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s , p l a n t s , a n d s p e c i fi ca t i o n s s h a l l b y us e d o r d i s c l o s e d t o a n y p e r s o n , fi rm o r c o r p o r a t i o n f o r a n y pu r p o s e w h a t s o e v e r w i t h o u t t h e w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f M o m s De s i g n B u i l d . C o n t a c t w i t h t h e s e p l a n s o r s p e c i fi ca t i o n s s h a l l co n s t i t u t e c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e o f a c c e p t a n c e o f t h e s e re s t r i c t i o n s . W r i t t e n d i m e n s i o n s o n a l l d r a w i n g s s h a l l h a v e pr e c e d e n c e o v e r s c a l e d d i m e n s i o n s ; c o n t r a c t o r s s h a l l v e r i f y , an d b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l d i m e n s i o n s a n d c o n d i t i o n s o n t h e jo b . T h i s o f fi ce m u s t b e n o t i fi ed f o r a n y v a r i a t i o n s f r o m di m e n s i o n s a n d c o n d i t i o n s s h o w n b y t h e s e d r a w i n g s . © 2 0 1 8 M o m ’ s D e s i g n B u i l d . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . B C # 6 3 8 3 8 4 Ve r s i o n : Da t e : Sh e e t T i t l e : Sh e e t N u m b e r : La n d s c a p e P l a n sc a l e : 1 / 4 “ = 1 ' A L- 1 IN T E R I O R A N D E X T E R I O R DE S I G N P L A N 12 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 8 2 . 4 Bl u e s t o n e S t o n e S t e p s Fo n D u L a c W a l l (3 )Bo x e d o u t p os t s w i t h l i g ht s EX I S T I N G F A M I L Y R O O M (V A L U T E D C E I L I N G ) EX I S T I N G D I N I N G R O O M EX I S T I N G K I T C H E N OU T D O O R D I N I N G R O O M PH A N T O M S C R E E N S X 3 7' - 0 " 7' - 0 " 1 6 ' - 0 " 7 ' - 0 " Re m o v e B u i l t i n T a b l e O p ti o n a l C a b i n e t s Bl u e s t o n e I n - l a y (8 ) C a n l i g ht s Pr o p os e d T a b l e O p ti o n Bl u e s t o n e S t e p s 2’ x ’ 2 B l u e s t o n e S t e pp er L a n d i n g Lo l l i p o p C r a b a pp le T r e e Fo o t i n g s a n d b o x e d o u t c o l u m n s f o r P e r g o l a Dr a i n a g e o u t f r o n t 2 c o l u m n s Cu s t o m T a b l e 18 ' - 0 " 8' - 8 " 2' - 3 3 / 6 4 " Ce n t o r S c r e e n 9' - 8 " 60 0 0 W a t t B r o m i c T u n g st e n E l e c t r i c H e a t e r RE T A I N I N G W A L L HE I G H T : 2 F T RE T A I N I N G W A L L HE I G H T : 3 0 I N C H E S RE T A I N I N G W A L L H E I G H T : 3 0 I N C H E S RE T A I N I N G W A L L H E I G H T : 1 8 I N C H E S RE T A I N I N G W A L L H E I G H T : 1 F T De s i g n e d b y : Dr a w n b y : HE A T H E R S W E E N E Y HE A T H E R S W E E N E Y 8 3 5 F o r e s t A r m s L a n e , O r o n o , M N . 5 5 3 6 4 R I E M E N S C H N E I D E R R E S I D E N C E N Existing House Footprint Proposed New Footprint –with Pergola Council Exhibit B LA18 -000099 Landscape.Remodel.Maintain. 12276 Johnson Memorial Drive Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 momsdesignbuild.com 952.277.6667 Notes and Revisions: De s i g n e d f o r t h e DISCLAIMER: All ideas, designs, arrangements, plans and specifications indicated or respected by the drawings are owned by and the property of Mom’s Design Build and were created, evolved or developed for the use on and in connection with the specific project. none of the ideas, designs, arrangements, plants, and specifications shall by used or disclosed to any person, firm or corporation for any purpose what so ever without the written permission of Moms Design Build. Contact with these plans or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidence of acceptance of these restrictions. Written dimensions on all drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions; contractors shall verify, and be responsible for all dimensions and conditions on the job. This office must be notified for any variations from dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. © 2018 Mom’s Design Build. All rights reserved. BC#638384 Version:Date: Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Designed by: Drawn by: HEATHER SWEENEY & KARIE ZEMLICKA HEATHER SWEENEY & JOHN ORTIZ 83 5 F O R E S T A R M S L A N E , O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 6 4 RI E M E N S C H N E I D E R R E S I D E N C E N I H K J AVERAGE HOUSE SETBACK LINE FROM LAKE SIDE-YARD SETBACK C B A PR O P O S E D AD D I T I O N PR O P O S E D PER G O L A OVERALL PROPOSED SITE PLAN scale: 1/16“=1’-0” L-1 SITE PLAN - REVISED 1/4/19 1.1Legend A: House B: Concrete Driveway C: Front Walk and Stoop D: New House Addition E: New Patio F: Stone landscape steps & landings G: New Pergola H: Stone steppers to lake I: Existing Shed J: Wood steps to lake above 75’ setback line K: Wood steps to lake below 75’ setback line E F F D G PROPERTY LINE FRONT YARD SETBACK SIDE-YARD SETBACK 75FT SETBACK FROM OHWL AVERAGE HOUSE SETBACK LINE FROM LAKE Landscape.Remodel.Maintain. 12276 Johnson Memorial Drive Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 momsdesignbuild.com 952.277.6667 Notes and Revisions: De s i g n e d f o r t h e DISCLAIMER: All ideas, designs, arrangements, plans and specifications indicated or respected by the drawings are owned by and the property of Mom’s Design Build and were created, evolved or developed for the use on and in connection with the specific project. none of the ideas, designs, arrangements, plants, and specifications shall by used or disclosed to any person, firm or corporation for any purpose what so ever without the written permission of Moms Design Build. Contact with these plans or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidence of acceptance of these restrictions. Written dimensions on all drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions; contractors shall verify, and be responsible for all dimensions and conditions on the job. This office must be notified for any variations from dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. © 2018 Mom’s Design Build. All rights reserved. BC#638384 Version:Date: Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Designed by: Drawn by: HEATHER SWEENEY & KARIE ZEMLICKA HEATHER GROSSMANN & JOHN ORTIZ 83 5 F O R E S T A R M S L A N E , O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 6 4 RI E M E N S C H N E I D E R R E S I D E N C E N OVERALL SITE PLAN scale: 1“=20’ A L-1 SITE PLAN & LANDSCAPE PLAN 12/11/2018 1.0 ENLARGED LANDSCAPE PLAN scale: 1“=10’ B A B Legend A: House B: Concrete Driveway C: Front Walk and Stoop D: New House Additon E: New Patio F: Stone landscape steps & landings G: Air Conditioner H: Stone steppers to lake I: Existing Shed J: Wood steps to lake above 75’ setback line K: Wood steps to lake below 75’ setback line C E F F D G H I J K A B C D E F F G PROPERTY LINE FRONT YARD SETBACK SIDE-YARD SETBACK SIDE-YARD SETBACK 75FT SETBACK FROM OHWL AVERAGE HOUSE SETBACK LINE FROM LAKE AVERAGE HOUSE SETBACK LINE FROM LAKE Landscape.Remodel.Maintain. 12276 Johnson Memorial Drive Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 momsdesignbuild.com 952.277.6667 Notes and Revisions: De s i g n e d f o r t h e DISCLAIMER: All ideas, designs, arrangements, plans and specifications indicated or respected by the drawings are owned by and the property of Mom’s Design Build and were created, evolved or developed for the use on and in connection with the specific project. none of the ideas, designs, arrangements, plants, and specifications shall by used or disclosed to any person, firm or corporation for any purpose what so ever without the written permission of Moms Design Build. Contact with these plans or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidence of acceptance of these restrictions. Written dimensions on all drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions; contractors shall verify, and be responsible for all dimensions and conditions on the job. This office must be notified for any variations from dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. © 2018 Mom’s Design Build. All rights reserved. BC#638384 Version:Date: Sheet Title: Sheet Number:L-1 Exterior Elevations and perspectives 12/10/2018 2.4 Side View Elevation South View Elevation Phantom Screen housing Pergola 16'-0" 8’ - 0 ” 12'-0" Existing House Frost footings for pergola Raised Stone Patio Designed by: Drawn by: HEATHER SWEENEY HEATHER SWEENEY 83 5 F o r e s t A r m s L a n e , O r o n o , M N . 5 5 3 6 4 RI E M E N S C H N E I D E R R E S I D E N C E N Landscape.Remodel.Maintain. 12276 Johnson Memorial Drive Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 momsdesignbuild.com 952.277.6667 Notes and Revisions: De s i g n e d f o r t h e DISCLAIMER: All ideas, designs, arrangements, plans and specifications indicated or respected by the drawings are owned by and the property of Mom’s Design Build and were created, evolved or developed for the use on and in connection with the specific project. none of the ideas, designs, arrangements, plants, and specifications shall by used or disclosed to any person, firm or corporation for any purpose what so ever without the written permission of Moms Design Build. Contact with these plans or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidence of acceptance of these restrictions. Written dimensions on all drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions; contractors shall verify, and be responsible for all dimensions and conditions on the job. This office must be notified for any variations from dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. © 2018 Mom’s Design Build. All rights reserved. BC#638384 Version:Date: Sheet Title: Sheet Number: Landscape Plan scale: 1/4“=1' A L-1 INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR DESIGN PLAN 12/10/2018 2.4 Bluestone Stone Steps Fon Du Lac Wall (3)Boxed out posts with lights EXISTING FAMILY ROOM (VALUTED CEILING) EXISTING DINING ROOM EXISTING KITCHEN OUTDOOR DINING ROOM PHANTOM SCREENS X 3 7'-0"7'-0" 16 ' - 0 " 7' - 0 " Remove Built in Table Optional Cabinets Bluestone In-lay (8) Can lightsProposed Table Option Bluestone Steps 2’x’2 Bluestone Stepper Landing Lollipop Crabapple Tree Footings and boxed out columns for Pergola Drainage out front 2 columns Custom Table 18'-0" 8'-8" 2'-33/64" Centor Screen 9'-8" 6000 Watt Bromic Tungsten Electric Heater RETAINING WALL HEIGHT: 2FT RETAINING WALL HEIGHT: 30 INCHES RETAINING WALL HEIGHT: 30 INCHES RETAINING WALL HEIGHT: 18 INCHES RETAINING WALL HEIGHT: 1 FT Designed by: Drawn by: HEATHER SWEENEY HEATHER SWEENEY 83 5 F o r e s t A r m s L a n e , O r o n o , M N . 5 5 3 6 4 RI E M E N S C H N E I D E R R E S I D E N C E N MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 16, 2018 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 5. LA18-000099 JOHN ORTIZ, 835 FOREST ARMS LANE, VARIANCES, 7:29 P.M. - 7:38 P.M. John Ortiz, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to permit the construction of an addition to the home on the lakeside of the home with a pergola covered deck completely ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. Also proposed is a new 30-inch raised patio. Based on the neighboring home locations, the existing home is approximately 19 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The applicant would like to construct a small addition to the home over the deck on the lakeside but not further toward the lake than the existing home. An open pergola-roofed area is proposed to be constructed lakeward of the new addition on a new elevated patio. The patio will be elevated 30 inches from grade, which is permitted in the average lakeshore setback. The existing lake side grade-level deck will be removed and replaced with a larger patio and then elevated 30 inches from existing grade. Construction of an addition to fill in a notched-in area to the home and an open pergola-roofed area on the new patio is also proposed. The proposed improvements will extend as much as 11 feet closer to the lake than the existing home and approximately 33 feet into the average lakeshore setback. The patio is less than 42 inches from grade and therefore is not required to be located behind the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed improvements will be entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. The applicants’ home encroaches into the average lakeshore setback line and there is no conforming location on the lake side of the home to construct structural improvements. The neighboring properties likely have no lake views over the applicant’s property as both of the adjacent homes are oriented away from this property. A variance to allow the structural improvements to encroach up to 33 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback is requested. The applicant’s property fronts on a long channel and is somewhat disconnected from the lake. The configuration of the subject property along the end of the channel creates a unique view. The neighboring home to the south at 855 Forest Arms Lane is set back further on their property than the subject home. It has no lake view of the applicant’s property and their home is oriented to the south. The neighbor to the north faces more directly west toward the channel rather than over the applicant’s property. The properties along the lake side of Forest Arms Lane have deep lake yards and the homes are situated nearer to the street side of the properties. The depth of the lake yards, combined with the curvature of the channel shoreline, result in difficulty for the property owner in identifying a conforming location for improvements to their property. In addition, there are mature trees separating the applicant’s property from both of their neighbors which will likely screen most of the views of the improvements. Staff finds practical difficulties supporting the variances given the location of the existing home, the orientation and location of the neighboring homes, the depth of the lake yard, and the channel character of the lake shoreline. Public comments have been received and have been included in the Planning Commission’s packet. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 16, 2018 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of the home addition and pergola as shown on the proposed plans. Approval should be subject to the applicant providing an updated survey accurately depicting the existing conditions as well as the proposed improvements prior to issuance of any permits for the project. Landgraver asked what the constraint would be for a second story to be placed on the pergola in the future. Curtis indicated they would require a variance for an expansion. Jim Sweeney, Mom’s Design Build, stated he can answer any questions the Commissioners may have. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Landgraver commented this appears to be an example where the views are not being impacted by the proposed variance. Thiesse stated the intent of the average lakeshore setback is the view and that the City has received letters from both neighbors stating that it will have no impact on their view. Thiesse stated the applicants have very little area to develop and that he takes that as a practical difficulty. Landgraver stated to his recollection there was a similar application from one of the other houses on the street. Curtis indicated the City reviewed variances for this lot and possibly another lot in 2014. Landgraver stated in his view there are extenuating circumstances that support the variance. Erickson stated one aspect of this goes back to the uniqueness factor, which is oftentimes looked for in variance applications, and that relates to the fact that it is a channel lot. Erickson noted there are also five other channel lots and there could be more lots that are located on the channel. The City looked at another lakeshore lot where the shoreline jutted out and created a peninsula, which none of these have, and as a result it would be difficult to refer to this as unique to this property. Lemke stated in this situation the proposal works perfectly and that he is fine with it. Libby noted variances are taken on a case-by-case basis and that he does not see any detrimental outcome from this so he would be in favor of approving it. Lemke moved, Erickson seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000099, John Ortiz, 835 Forest Arms Lane, variances. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 12/12/18 Date Application Considered as Complete: 01/04/19 60-Day Review Period Expires: 03/05/19 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 22 January 2019 Subject: #LA18-000099, John Ortiz with Mom’s Design Build o/b/o Bret & Jennifer Riemenschneider, 835 Forest Arms Ln, Average Lakeshore Setback Variance Public Hearing Background Building improvements must meet all required setbacks; on a lakeshore property this includes the 75-foot lake setback and the average lakeshore setback. Based on the neighboring home locations, the home on the subject property is approximately 19 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. They would like to construct a small addition to the home over the deck on the lakeside however, not further toward the lake than the existing home. An open pergola- roofed area is proposed to be constructed lakeward of the new addition on a new elevated patio. The patio will be elevated 30” from grade, which is permitted in the average lakeshore setback. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-350 & 78-1279 - Setbacks: LR-1B Required Existing Proposed Rear/Street 30’ 38.6’ No Change West Side 10’ 36’ No Change East Side 10’ 33’ No Change Lakeshore 75’ 200’ (house) Pergola ±193’ House 200’ Average Lakeshore A portion of the existing home as well as the improvements are lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to permit the construction an addition to the home on the lakeside of the home with a pergola covered deck completely ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. Also proposed is a new 30” raised patio. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. FILE #LA18-000099 22 Jan 2019 Page 2 of 5 Section 78- 350 - Lot Area/Width: LR-1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acre) 140’ Actual 45,933 s.f. (1.05 acres) 140’ at the OHWL & 172’ at the 75’ SB Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 45,933 s.f. (1.05 acre) Allowed: 9,186 s.f. (20%) Proposed: 3,964 s.f. (8.6%) Section 78-1680 - Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 45,933 s.f. 11,483 s.f. (25 %) 6,018 s.f. (13.3%) 6,585 s.f. (14.3%) Applicable Regulations: Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) The existing lake side grade-level deck will be removed and replaced with a larger patio, elevated 30” from existing grade. Construction an addition to fill in a notched-in area of to the home and an open, pergola-roofed area on the new patio is also proposed. The proposed improvements will extend as much as 11 feet closer to the lake than the existing home; approximately 33 feet into the average lakeshore setback. The patio is less than 42” from grade, therefore is not required to be located behind the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed improvements will be entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. The applicants’ home encroaches into the average lakeshore setback line, there is no conforming location on the lake side of the home to construct structural improvements. The neighboring properties likely have no lake views over the applicants’ property as both of the adjacent homes are oriented away from the applicants’ property. A variance to allow the structural improvements (addition and pergola) to encroach up to 33 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback is requested. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties FILE #LA18-000099 22 Jan 2019 Page 3 of 5 also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1.The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The requested average lakeshore setback variance is in harmony with the Ordinance as the most adjacent neighbors are situated such that their channel/lake views are not across the subject property and their views will not be impacted by the improvements. 2.The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a permit for construction of an addition to an existing single family residence in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3.The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of building and structural improvements lakeward of the average lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable as the owners of the adjacent properties have stated that they are not adversely impacted; the mature vegetation, topography, and home orientation separate the Property from the adjacent neighbors. b.There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; the location of the existing home, the orientation and location of the neighboring homes, the depth of the lake yard, and the channel character of the lake shoreline in question are conditions not created by the landowner; and c.The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. It does not appear that the requested average lakeshore setback variance to permit additions to the home will adversely impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the adjacent property owners or alter the character of the locality. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4.Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5.Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.This condition is not applicable. 6.The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a residential home is an allowed use in the LR-1B District. 7.The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8.The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The location of the existing home, the orientation and location of the neighboring homes, the depth of the lake yard, and the FILE #LA18-000099 22 Jan 2019 Page 4 of 5 channel character of the lake shoreline in question are unique conditions affecting the subject property and the immediately adjoining properties. 9.The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The location of the existing home, the orientation and location of the neighboring homes, the depth of the lake yard, and the channel character of the lake shoreline in question are unique conditions affecting the subject property and the immediately adjoining properties and are not common conditions of properties in the LR-1B district overall. 10.The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant states that the variance is necessary to preserve their right to improve their home and property. 11.The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variances will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; nor will it be contrary to the intent of the Code. 12.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The application of the average lakeshore setback severely limits the options for improving the property/home; the granting of the requested variance is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty resulting from the location of the existing home, the orientation and location of the neighboring homes, the depth of the lake yard, and the channel character of the lake shoreline. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the applicable Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis The applicants’ property fronts on a long channel and is somewhat disconnected from the lake. The configuration of the subject property along the end of the channel creates a unique situation regarding the view. The neighboring home to the south at 855 Forest Arms Lane is set back further on their property than the subject home. It has no lake view the applicants’ property; their home is oriented to the south. The neighbor to the north at 825 Forest Arms Lane faces more directly west toward the channel rather than over the applicants’ property. The properties along the lake side of Forest Arms Lane have deep lake yards and the homes are situated nearer to the street side of the properties. The depth of the lake yards combined with the curvature of the channel shoreline result in difficulty for the property owner in identifying a conforming location for improvements to their property. Additionally, there are mature trees separating the applicants’ property from both of their neighbors which will likely screen most of the views of the improvements. Staff finds practical difficulties supporting the variances in the location of the existing home, the orientation and location of the neighboring homes, the depth of the lake yard, and the channel FILE #LA18-000099 22 Jan 2019 Page 5 of 5 character of the lake shoreline in question. Public Comments Public comments have been received and area attached as Exhibit J. Issues for Consideration 1.Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2.Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3.Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4.Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of the home addition and pergola up to 33 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback line as shown on the proposed plans. The 30” patio is permitted ahead of the average lakeshore setback. Approval should be subject to the applicant providing an updated survey accurately depicting the existing conditions as well as the proposed improvements prior to issuance of any permits for the project. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Summary & Narrative Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing Survey - Annotated Exhibit D. Side-by-side Existing & Proposed Site Plan Exhibit Exhibit E. Proposed Site Plan Drawing Exhibit F. Proposed Plans & Elevations Exhibit G. Site Photos Exhibit H. Aerial Photos Exhibit I. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit J. Neighbor Comments Exhibit K. Property Owners List Exhibit L. Plat Map 17 8 E 9 T H S T R E E T | SU I T E 2 0 0 | SA I N T P A U L , M N | 55 1 0 1 | 65 1 . 2 8 6 . 8 4 5 0 | WS B E N G . C O M Memorandum To: Long Lake Creek Watershed Partnership City of Orono City of Medina City of Long Lake Long Lake Waters Association Minnehaha Creek Watershed District From: Tony Havranek, WSB Date: January 22, 2019 Re: Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Carp Management WSB Project No. 011933-00 The purpose of this memo is to provide an update on the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed Common Carp Management Project-Phase 1. This project was initiated in 2018, as part of a larger effort by the Long Lake Creek Subwatershed partnership as one of several strategies to improve water quality and ecological integrity of lakes and streams within the subwatershed. Phase 1 had two objectives; implant 10 high frequency radio transmitters to document carp movement within the subwatershed and the Long Lake basin to identify migration routes and winter aggregations for carp removal and develop a carp population and biomass estimate. Six (6) high frequency radio tags were implanted during electrofishing surveys on May 23, 2018; the remaining four (4) were implanted during a subsequent electrofishing survey on October 24, 2018. Subsequent telemetry surveys completed between June and October, showed some indication that a portion of carp were swimming upstream of Long Lake to access Wolsfeld. No radio tagged carp were documented in Wolsfeld, but one radio tagged carp died in the rock spillway that acts as the outlet for Wolsfeld. The remaining radio tags have remained within the Long Lake basin. Telemetry surveys planned or late December 2018 and 2019 will document aggregations within Long Lake and used to target those aggregations for removal. Carp population and biomass estimates were completed using an electrofishing catch per unit effort (CPUE) model. This model uses the number of carp caught in a specific period of time while electrofishing and calculates the number of individual carp per acre. Using weight data obtained in 2018 during electrofishing surveys, we could calculate a population and biomass estimate. Two (2) electrofishing surveys were employed to calculate this estimate. The estimated number of individual number of carp in Long Lake based on this methodology ranges from 9,367 to 24,518 with an average value of 17,316 individual carp. The total biomass using this estimate ranges from 90,056 pounds to 232,262 pounds of carp biomass in Long Lake; the average estimate is 166,477. We can compare this to published threshold values for carp biomass density. The identified threshold is 100 kg/ha or 89 lbs./acre. Ecological damage can occur below this value. The average stated carp biomass density for Long Lake is 570.6 ±209 lbs./acre, well above the threshold value. K:\011933-000\Admin\Docs\Report\MEMO_CityCouncilUpdate_LLCarp_121018.docx Long Lake City Council, Long Lake Creek Carp Management-Phase 1 December 10, 2018 Page !2 ! The orange line represents the 89 lbs./acre threshold value. To mitigate this and reverse the impacts on water quality, the partnership is planning to collect additional data on the carp population within the entire subwatershed under a BWSR Accelerated Implementation Grant. This funding has not been secured yet, but BWSR will be notifying recipients by the end of December 2018. A parallel effort is being planned to begin removal of carp biomass in Long Lake beginning in early 2019. This will be part of a large plan to holistically address carp within the entire subwatershed through barrier installation, biomass removal, predator fish, and habitat improvement. Residents of Long Lake, Orono, and Medina, have had hands-on opportunities to be involved with carp data collection. Members of the LLWA, community youth, and Orono Advanced Placement Science students assisted with carp electrofishing, marking, and telemetry surveys throughout phase 1. K:\011933-000\Admin\Docs\Report\MEMO_CityCouncilUpdate_LLCarp_121018.docx Phase 2 Carp Project Long Lake Creek Watershed Partnership Budget For Winter/Spring 2019 Biomass Removal on Long Lake Task Cost/unit # of Units WSB Project Management Tony Havranek 130 5 $650 Telemetry Mary Newman 90 16 $1,440 Removal Coordination Tony Havranek 130 6 $780 Removal supervison/data collection Tony Havranek 130 0 $0 Mary Newman 90 25 $2,250 Data Assessment/Update database Tony havranek 130 4 $520 Mary Newman 90 6 $540 Report Tony Havranek 130 0 $0 Mary Newman 90 0 $0 Subtotal:$6,180 Commercial Fisherman $5,000 Community Volunteers 30 hours Total Costs Range $6180 up to $11,180 February 11, 2019 Dear Mayor Walsh, Orono City Council, and Adam Edwards; I am writing to update you on some of the most recent activities in the Long Lake Creek Watershed and let you know what the next step would be to move towards Phase 2 of the Carp Project in the watershed. In December at a Long Lake Creek Partnership meeting, Tony Havraneck from WSB reported the findings of the 2018 Carp Phase 1 Project on Long Lake (short report attached). If you would like the full report I can email a you a copy. The Phase 1 Project (May -November) was part of a larger effort by the Long Lake Creek Sub-watershed Partnership (LLCP) as one of several strategies to improve water quality. Phase 1 had two objectives: (1) implant 10 high frequency radio transmitters to document carp movement to identify migration routes and winter aggregations for carp removal and (2) develop a carp population and biomass estimate. The Phase 1 Project cost approximately $14,000 and was funded by the cities of Long Lake and Medina and LLWA. The data indicate the levels of carp in the Long Lake are 4 to 5 times the threshold level that impacts water quality and ecological integrity. The data supports the ongoing work that Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is doing to develop a comprehensive long range watershed management plan. The Phase 1 project also added momentum to help leverage a larger grant which was awarded in December to MCWD and the LLCP to work in the northern part of the Long Lake Creek Watershed. The Phase 1 Carp Project was a very positive collaborative project including many community volunteers and Orono high school students. From the WSB report, the estimated number of carp in Long Lake is approximately 17,000, equivalent to about 167,000 lbs or 570 lbs/acre. Ecological damage is projected for values of 89 lbs./acre. One management option is to remove a large number of carp from the lake. This process can be done using commercial fishing in the winter under the ice or in the spring using boats in open water. WSB would be hired to be the biomass removal supervisor and they conducted a carp survey in January and mapped the location of the fish (map attached) to aid this effort. We are asking the partners of the LLCP, including the Cities of Orono, Medina, Long Lake, and MCWD to support the important Phase 2 Carp Project to reduce the number of carp in the watershed. Because there are variables during a biomass removal, the total cost of the project will range between $6,180 and $11,180. LLWA held a community fundraising event at Birches and also participated in Give to The Max Day in November to raise funds for this effort. Using these contributions, LLWA will contribute $5,000 to a winter or spring biomass removal. The costs to each of the other partners would be between $295 up to $1545, depending on the amount of fish captured. Attached is the biomass removal budget. Please let me know if you have any questions. For a small investment by each of the partners and LLWA providing a large portion of the cost - by working together, we can have a very positive impact. I look forward to talking with you about the biomass removal and I hope the LLCP can count on Orono’s support for the Phase 2 Project towards improving the water quality and lowering phosphorus loads in Long Lake. Thank you very much. Megan Dayton Long Lake Waters Association 612-201-7673 Agenda for Annual HRA Meeting Monday, February 11, 2019, 8:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, Minnesota 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Roll Call Approval of Agenda Consent Agenda 1. Approval of HRA Meeting Minutes of April, 9, 2018 2.Election of Officers 3.Amend Bylaws City Administrator's Report New Business Adjournment MINUTES OF THE ORONO HRA ANNUAL MEETING Monday, April 9, 2018 8:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 1 ROLL CALL The Orono Housing and Redevelopment Authority met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Richard Crosby, III, Wendy Dankey, Aaron Printup, and Victoria Seals. Representing Staff were City Administrator Dustin Rief, Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Finance Director Ron Olson, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 8:50 p.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA 1. HRA MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 Printup moved, Seals seconded, to approve the minutes of the HRA meeting of September 25, 2017, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. SECRETARY’S REPORT 2. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Crosby moved, Printup seconded, to elect Mayor Dennis Walsh as HRA chair, Aaron Printup as HRA vice-chair, and Ron Olson as HRA secretary. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. BY-LAWS DISCUSSION City Administrator Rief requested permission for Staff to review the bylaws and to bring forward suggested changes, specifically as it relates to the time and date of the annual HRA meeting. Rief noted the bylaws have not been reviewed since 1992. Crosby moved, Printup seconded, to direct Staff to review the HRA bylaws and to bring forward suggested changes to a future HRA meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Crosby moved, Dankey seconded, to adjourn the Orono HRA meeting at 8:53 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: RJO Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: 1. Purpose. To hold the annual meeting of the HRA and elect the HRA Officers. 2. Background. The Bylaws of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) provide for an annual meeting to be held annually at which time the officers are elected. The current officers are: a) Chair – Dennis Walsh b) Vice-Chair – Aaron Printup c) Secretary – Ron Olson Mayor Walsh was elected as Chair at the February 17th 2017 HRA meeting. Council Member Printup was originally elected as the Vice Chair at the February 14, 2011 HRA meeting. The bylaws designate the City’s Finance Director, Ron Olson, as the Secretary and non-voting member of the HRA. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to elect the officers of the HRA as presented. Item No.: 2 Date: February 11, 2019 Item Description: Election of Officers Presenter: Ron Olson Finance Director Agenda Section: HRA Meeting AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: RJO Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: 1.Purpose. To amend the bylaws of the Orono Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA). 2.Background. The bylaws of the HRA currently set the date and time of the HRA annual meeting at being the second Monday in February at 8:00 o’clock P.M. The meeting is held during a regularly scheduled council meeting. At times, the regular council meeting has been either been completed prior to 8:00 o’clock, or the scheduled time for the meeting will occur during the discussion of an item on the regular council agenda. In order to avoid either of these situations, staff is recommending that the bylaws of the HRA be amended to remove the specific time of 8:00 o’clock P.M. In order to provide flexibility on the date of the annual meeting, staff recommends removing the language “on the second Monday” so that the bylaws would only specify that the meeting be held in February. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion amend section 1 of article IV of the bylaws of the Orono HRA to read: All future annual meetings will be held in February at the regular place of the Authority. Exhibits: A.Bylaws of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Orono, Minnesota. Item No.: 3 Date: February 11, 2019 Item Description: Amend Bylaws Presenter: Ron Olson Finance Director Agenda Section: HRA Meeting - 1 - BYLAWS OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA ARTICLE I – THE AUTHORITY Section 1. Name of Authority. The name of the Authority shall be the “Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Orono, Minnesota”. Section 2. Seal of Authority. The seal of the Authority shall be in the form of a circle and shall bear the name of the Authority and the year of its organization. Section 3. Office of Authority. The offices of the Authority shall be at City offices of the City of Orono, State of Minnesota, but the Authority may hold its meetings at such other place or places as it may designate by resolution. ARTICLE II – COMMISSIONERS Section 1. The five members of the Orono City Council shall serve as Commissioners of the HRA pursuant to the Resolution of City Council Resolution 2998, passed on July 22, 1991 and amended on August 12, 1991. Pursuant to the same resolution a Commissioner’s term of office shall be concurrent with their term as City Council members. A successor Council member shall succeed to a term as Commissioner upon taking the oath of office as a Council member. ARTICLE III – OFFICERS Section 1. Officers. The officers of the Authority shall be a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman, and a Secretary. Section 2. Chairman. The Chairman shall preside at all meetings of the Authority. Except as otherwise authorized by resolution of the Authority, the Chairman shall sign all contracts, deeds and other instruments made by the Authority. At each meeting the Chairman - 2 - shall submit such recommendations and information as he/she may consider proper concerning the business, affairs and policies of the Authority. Section 3. Vice-Chairman. The Vice-Chairman shall perform the duties of the Chairman in the absence or incapacity of the Chairman; and in case of the resignation or death of the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman shall perform such duties as are imposed on the Chairman until such time as the Authority shall select a new Chairman. Section 4. Secretary. The City Finance Director shall serve as the Secretary, who shall be a non-voting member, and shall perform the duties of a Secretary for the Authority. (amended May 29, 2007) The Secretary shall sign all orders and checks for the payment of money and shall pay out and disburse such monies under the direction of the Authority. All such orders and checks shall be counter-signed by the Chairman except as otherwise authorized by resolution of the Authority. Section 5. Executive Director. The Authority may employ an Executive Director or Consultant who may have general supervision over the administration of its business and affairs, subject to the direction of the Authority. He/she may be charged with the management of the housing projects of the Authority. As assistant to the Secretary, the Executive Director or Consultant in his/her own name and title shall keep the records of the Authority, shall act as Secretary of the meeting of the Authority and record all votes, and shall keep a record of the proceedings of the Authority in a journal of proceedings to be kept for such purposes, and shall perform all duties incident to his/her office. He/she shall keep in safe custody the seal of the Authority and shall have power to affix such seal to all contracts and instruments authorized to be executed by the Authority. Under the direction of the Secretary, the Executive Director shall have the care and custody of all funds of the Authority and shall deposit the same in the name of the Authority in such bank or - 3 - banks as the Authority may select. He/she shall keep regular books of accounts showing receipts and expenditures and shall render to the Authority, at each regular meeting (or oftener when requested), an account of his/her transactions and also of the financial condition of the Authority. He/she shall give such bond for the faithful performance of his/her duties as the Authority may determine. The compensation of the Executive Director shall be determined by the Authority. Section 6. Additional Duties. The officers of the Authority shall perform such other duties and functions as may from time to time be required by the Authority of the bylaws or rules and regulations of the Authority. Section 7. Election or Appointments. The first Chairman shall, pursuant to his/her appointment, serve in the capacity of Chairman until continuation or expiration of his/her term of office as Commissioner. The Vice-Chairman, Secretary, and except in the case of the first Chairman, the Chairman shall be elected at the annual meeting of the Authority from order of the Commissioner of the Authority, and shall hold office for one year or until their successors are elected and qualified. The Executive Director shall be appointed by the Authority. Any person approved to fill the office of Executive Director, or vacancy therein, shall have terms as the Authority fixes, but no Commissioner of the Authority shall be eligible to this office. Section 8. Vacancies. Should the office of Chairman, Vice-Chairman, or Secretary become vacant the Authority shall elect a successor from its membership at the next regular meeting, and such election shall be for the unexpired term of that office. When the office of Executive Director becomes vacant, the Authority shall appoint a successor, as aforesaid. Section 9. Additional Personnel. The Authority may from time to time employ such personnel as it deems necessary to exercise its powers, duties and functions as prescribed by the - 4 - Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Laws of Minnesota applicable thereto. The selection and compensation of such personnel (including the Executive Director) shall be determined by the Authority subject to the laws of the State of Minnesota. ARTICLE IV – MEETINGS Section 1. Annual Meeting. The annual meeting of the Authority shall be held on the second Monday in January, 1992 at 8:00 o’clock P.M. at the regular meeting place of the Authority. All future annual meetings will be held on the second Monday in February at 8:00 o’clock P.M. at the regular place of the Authority. Section 2. Regular Meeting. Regular meetings, to the extent they are held, shall be held at a convenient time with proper notification. (amended May 29, 2007) Section 3. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Authority may be called by the Chairman, or two members of the Authority for the purpose of transacting any business designated in the call. The call for a special meeting may be delivered at any time prior to the time of the proposed meeting to each member of the Authority or may be mailed to the business or home address of each member of the Authority at least two (2) days prior to the date of such special meeting. All appropriate news media offices must be contacted two (2) days prior to the call of a special meeting. At such special meeting no business shall be considered other than as designated in the call, but if all of the members of the Authority are present at a special meeting, any and all business may be transacted as such special meeting. Section 4. Quorum. The powers of the Authority shall be vested in the Commissioners thereof in office from time to time. Three Commissioners shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting its business and exercising its powers and for all other purposes, but a smaller number may adjourn from time to time until a quorum is obtained. When a quorum is in - 5 - attendance, action may be taken by the Authority upon a vote of a majority of the Commissioners present. Section 5. Order of Business. At the regular meetings of the Authority the following shall be the order of business: 1. Roll Call 2. Reading and approval of the minutes of the previous meeting 3. Bills and communication 4. Report of the Secretary/Executive Director 5. Reports of Committees 6. Unfinished business 7. New business 8. Adjournment All resolutions shall be in writing and shall be copied in the journal of the proceedings of the Authority. Section 6. Manner of Voting. The voting on all questions coming before the Authority shall be by roll call, and the yeas and nays shall be entered upon the minutes of such meeting. ARTICLE V – INDEMNIFICATION Section 1. Indemnification. The HRA shall be authorized to the fullest extent permitted by law to indemnify any person against expenses and liabilities arising by reason of the fact that the person is or was a Commissioner, officer, employee, or agent of the HRA. Section 2. Insurance. The HRA may purchase and maintain insurance ‘on behalf of any indemnified person in that person’s official capacity against any liability asserted against that person and incurred by that person in such capacity whether or not the HRA would have been required to indemnify the person against the liability under Section 1 hereof. - 6 - ARTICLE VI – AMENDMENTS Amendments to Bylaws. The bylaws of the Authority shall be amended only with the approval of at least three (3) of the members of the Authority at a regular or a special meeting. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1.Purpose. To consider a variance to allow an air conditioning unit in the side yard setback and direct staff to draft a resolution of approval or denial for consideration at a later date. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on October 25, 2018 and considered to be complete on December 20th. The 60-Day review period will expire on February 18, 2019. 3.Background. The applicant recently purchased the home from the builder. The permit for the home was issued in October, 2017. In the review of the permit, the builder provided a survey, showing the location of the A/C unit. Staff redlined the location, including a note that the A/C unit cannot be located in a D/U easement. During the final review of the as-built survey, (required at the conclusion of the project) it was noted that the Air Conditioning condenser unit (A/C) was located to the other side of the house, but also within an easement. City Code requires they be placed within 5 feet of the structure, and no closer than 5 feet to the property line, and outside of any easements. Approval of a variance would allow the A/C unit to remain in its location, denial would require it to be located anywhere within 5 feet of the home, in the rear yard. The City typically requires an encroachment agreement to be signed by the property owners for improvements in an easement. The property owners have signed an agreement. 4.Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On January 22, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-1 on a motion to approve the requested variance. Landgraver opposed. The members of the Commission were in agreement that there were extenuating circumstances and practical difficulty supporting the variance, subject to the signing of an encroachment agreement. Landgraver did not support the variance due to the after the fact request and other factors. Planning Commission draft minutes are provided as Exhibit A. The applicant has agreed to sign an encroachment agreement. 5.Public Comment. Two neighboring property owners voiced support for the variance. 6.Staff Recommendation. While staff understands the desirability of the proposed location for the A/C unit by both the Planning Commission and applicant, Staff does not support the variance because, simply, the legal standards to support the variance have not been provided by the applicant. If the Council desires to approve the variance, they should provide those reasons. If the council chooses to deny the variance, the standards listed in the Staff report would form the basis for denial. The Council is asked to direct staff to draft a resolution either way. The Council may also direct staff to review this particular code provision for possible amendments, the expectations for noise suppression for large homes on large lots may be different that the expectation for homes on smaller, more dense lots. An amendment could be considered that would allow the A/C unit to remain, but not require a variance. Item No.: 10 Date: February 11, 2019 Item Description: LA18-000091 – AJ Helgerson, 2870 Goldenrod Way, Variance– Resolution Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP, Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should review the approval resolution and adopt or amend, or direct staff to consider an ordinance amendment. Exhibits A. Draft Planning Commission Minutes B. Planning Commission Staff report C. Practical Difficulties Statement D. Annotated Grading as-built survey E. Applicant exhibits, including building permit survey, annotated F. Signed Encroachment Agreement References PC Staff Report & Exhibits 1/22/19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 22, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 4 3. LA18-000091 AJ HELGERSON, 2870 GOLDENROD WAY, VARIANCE, 6:50 P.M. – 7:20 P.M. AJ Helgerson, Applicant, was present. Barnhart stated the applicant recently purchased the home and is requesting a variance to allow an air conditioning unit within five feet of a property line and within the drainage and utility easement, which is not permitted by City Code. This is a new home, constructed in 2018. When the home survey was first submitted, the proposed plan showed the A/C unit on the west side yard where it was noted as not permitted for being placed in a drainage and utility easement and within the side yard setback. The air- conditioning unit was relocated to the north side and is currently located within two feet of the property line and completely within the drainage and utility easement. Due to noise concerns, the City adopted an ordinance prohibiting air-conditioning units from being located within setbacks. Barnhart noted this property has an opportunity to move the A/C unit to the rear yard of the property to meet City Code. Granting this variance would serve as a convenience and the submitted request does not meet the standards for granting a variance. The options are for it to be located in the front or rear yard. The applicant has provided some information with some concern about having it in the back yard since that is where his children will play. In reviewing the standards, Staff recommends denial of the requested variance to allow the existing A/C unit to remain in the side yard since it appears to be more of a convenience for the applicant. If the Planning Commission recommends approval and the City Council approves the request, it will be contingent on an executed encroachment agreement and moving the A/C unit to the west side of the property. If it is necessary at some point to perform work within the side yard setback, the applicant will assume responsibility for the cost of the relocation. Thiesse asked whether four other properties within this development have had to physically relocate their air-conditioning units. Barnhart indicated four other properties within this development, in addition to this property, all had A/C units installed in nonconforming locations. The four other properties were able to move the A/C unit to meet City Code. Landgraver asked if those other homes were occupied. Barnhart stated to his knowledge one was occupied and the other ones were in various stages of completion. Thiesse stated in his view this situation is a little bit different since the houses are much closer together than in other developments. AJ Helgerson, Applicant, stated he is here asking for forgiveness versus permission. The air-conditioning units for some of the other houses have already been changed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 22, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 4 Helgerson displayed a picture of the property when it was first staked taken on October 14, 2017. The certificate of survey from David Weekly Homes is dated October 12, 2017. By that date the building design had been denied by the City of Orono due to the air conditioner being located on the side of the house it was on, which was never told to them prior to purchase. The builder then moved the air- conditioner to the south side of the building. In talking with a couple of people in the neighborhood and the next-door neighbor to the south, they were told they had to move the air-conditioners. Helgerson indicated he asked the builder to explain to him what was going on and the builder’s response was very vague but that they have to move some of the air-conditioners. Helgerson indicated a temporary certificate of occupancy was issued from the City to David Weekly. The temporary certificate of occupancy stated all exterior improvements had to be completed, driveway completed as shown on the survey, final grade completed as shown on the survey, and erosion control needs to remain in place until the sod is down. Orono issued that certificate of occupancy to David Weekly 48 hours prior to when they closed on the property and there was no mention by the City of any air-conditioning unit or any variance being required. That was dated March 28 and the closing was to occur on March 30, which was Good Friday. Because there was an issue with the fireplace, the closing took place on April 2. In an email dated October 5 from Jason Thomas of David Weekly Homes it stated that the City of Orono is requiring a new certificate of temporary occupancy and that they have to get the air-conditioner worked out. Helgerson noted this is the first actual document he has in his possession that they are not supposed to be living in the house until the air-conditioner issue is worked out, six months after they purchased the property. Helgerson noted they did not place the air-conditioner there knowing that it was in violation and that it was six months after they moved in that they were told about the problem. Four other houses in the development had the air-conditioner on the side versus the back but only one was actually occupied at the time. One of them was the very first house in the development, which has a gigantic bump-out that they placed the air-conditioner behind. Helgerson indicated since they did not know about the problem initially, they did not have a choice not to purchase the property. The other people who purchased homes in the development had the choice to walk away or get it changed with the builder. Helgerson stated in his view there is a hardship. According to the legal definition of a hardship, there is a case to be made. In addition to there being a monetary hardship to relocate it, some local realtors have indicated that there is between a $17,000 to $40,000 decrease in value because of noise and safety. The neighbors prefer the air-conditioner where it sits currently, which is against the neighbor’s garage. Helgerson indicated they have already made improvements to the house, such as a deck and concrete pad for a play area. The proposed location where David Weekly would like to move it is directly below a window where they are planning to build another builder. Helgerson stated in his view this is a very different situation from the other homes that had to relocate theirs. Helgerson stated relocating it to their back yard would impede their ability to use that area. Helgerson stated they were also supposed to have a berm for privacy and to block the noise from Highway 12 but that the builder decided not to do that. Helgerson stated there is lots of noise from the highway versus an air-conditioner. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 22, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 4 Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Jason Bergman, Goldenrod Way, noted they are proposing to move it over to his side and that he fully supports that along with everything else Mr. Helgerson said. There is noise from trains that pass by the front yard and noise from cars on the road. Bergman commented this is not a typical development and that the houses are extremely close together. The area where the air-conditioner is proposed to be relocated is very wide and someone could drive a jeep through there. Bergman indicated his wife also supports it. Jeremy Phillips, 2860 Goldenrod Way, stated he would agree with everything his other two neighbors said and that they did pay a significant premium to be on that side of the road with the idea that they would be next to the swamp. Helgerson stated if the Planning Commission looks at what happened, the need for a variance was a shock to them. Helgerson noted he is on the fire department and that he realizes they need to get equipment in and out of there and have access to the area. When the final grade was being done, large bulldozers went through that area so it is more than wide enough for an air-conditioner. Helgerson stated if he could ask for an encroachment agreement, he would prefer to go that route. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Erickson stated after reading the staff report, he had developed a high level of comfort in denying the variance, primarily because of the other four homes that had moved theirs already. Erickson stated he understands this one does involve an unusual set of circumstances which led to this situation, but uniqueness as it relates to a practical difficulty relates directly to the property, such as the shape or topography of the property. Erickson commented he has sympathy for Mr. Helgerson over the way that this developed, but when he looks at just the property, it is hard to see how it is different from the other properties in the neighborhood. Erickson indicated he is inclined to follow Staff’s recommendation. Lemke stated he understands Staff’s recommendation, but given the situation and the neighbors’ comments, in his view it is the best location for it. Lemke stated this might be an okay solution and that he is leaning more towards approving the variance. Libby stated without playing the blaming game, it appears there was not a lot of transparency in this situation. Libby noted air-conditioners built nowadays are high efficiency and quieter and that he is sensitive to children playing. Libby stated as far as some of the compunctions here about the electrical hazards and children playing, that can be alleviated with the unit being located above the ground, but when you start talking about the issues with the planned improvements, that could be a practical difficulty if the air-conditioning unit is actually moved. Libby asked if the builder is willing to actually relocate the air-conditioner at no cost to the homeowner. Helgerson indicated they are going to move it to whatever location the City decides. As to the point of it being off the ground and elevated, it is currently elevated, and if it is relocated to that one corner, it cannot be elevated since it will be under a window. Libby stated due to the circumstances, moving the air-conditioning unit would be preferable, but if there is no place to relocate it, that is another situation. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 22, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 4 Helgerson noted it could be relocated to the other side, which is a lot wider, and then it will be off the ground in that location. Landgraver stated he tends not to approve after-the-fact variances but that the argument has been rather compelling. The builder was relatively new to the area and overlooked the notation on the plan. Landgraver stated he is kind of against approving the variance but that there are extenuating circumstances, and if the City Council approves it, there should be an encroachment agreement. Thiesse stated in his view there are extenuating circumstances and practical difficulties. In addition, the City allowed them to build so close to the property line, which did not allow the air-conditioner where it typically goes, which is on the side of the house, and that this was an unintended consequence of the smaller side yard setback. If it is relocated to the back, it would be impeding their use of the back yard and it would be under a window, which is not ideal. Thiesse stated in his view it is more of a builder education than anything else and also a safety issue. If there is an encroachment agreement, he would be in favor of the variance, but that he would like the City to have a discussion about the 5-foot side setback. Lemke moved, Thiesse seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000091, AJ Helgerson, 2870 Goldenrod Way, variance, subject to an encroachment agreement. Erickson asked what steps the City can take to not set a precedent and prevent it from happening again. Thiesse stated in his view they can’t, but in his mind the air-conditioner is in the right spot and that the City currently does not allow it. Libby noted the variance carries forward along with the encroachment agreement and hopefully any future homeowner will know about it. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1, Landgraver opposed. Date Application Received: October 25, 2018 Date Application Considered as Complete: December 20, 2018 60-Day Review Period Expires: February 18, 2019 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: January 22, 2019 Subject: LA18-000091, AJ Helgerson, 2870 Goldenrod Way, Variance Public Hearing Background The applicant is requesting to leave the A/C unit in its current location on east side yard of the property. It is currently within 5 feet of the property line and within a drainage and utility easement, which is not permitted by City Code 78-1405 (7). This is a new home, constructed in 2018; When the home survey was first submitted the proposed home showed the A/C unit on the west side yard where it was noted as not permitted for being placed in a drainage and utility easement and within the side yard setback. The applicant has submitted practical difficulty statement explaining the challenges with moving the A/C unit to the rear of the home. Orono Preserve is a new subdivision, and many of the homes are built setback to setback. There have been 4 other homes within the Orono Preserve development where the A/C unit was placed in a not permissible location. The property owners were able to move the A/C unit to a conforming location, either to the rear yard or other side yard where it met city standards. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET DISTRICT RPUD Orono Preserve Required Existing Front 25’ 25.5’ Rear 40’ +/- 270’ Side (east) 5’ 5’ Side (west) 10’ 10’ Wetland and D/U in Rear yard N/A 40’ Applicable Regulations: Variance (78-1405 (7)) 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 Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an Air Conditioning unit within 5 feet of a property line and within the drainage and utility easement. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial of the request LA18-000091 1.22.2019 Page 2 of 4 lot line. 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. An A/C unit in a nonconforming location is not in harmony with City Code. The intent of the requirement (of not being placed in the side yard) is to separate the noise caused by the unit and minimize the impact on the neighboring property. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The placement of the A/C unit is accessory to the single family home on the property. The principle structure follows the comprehensive plan, but placement of the A/C unit seems to be a convenience for the property. 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 single family home is a reasonable use for the property. The variance request for the A/C unit is a convenience to the property owner when a reasonable conforming location is available in the rear yard. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; Staff find this not the be true. 4 other homes in addition to this address had A/C units located in nonconforming locations. The other 4 properties were able to move the units to meet City Code. and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will alter the character of the neighborhood by allowing the A/C unit within a few feet of a property line and in a utility easement. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as LA18-000091 1.22.2019 Page 3 of 4 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 with an A/C unit is an allowed use in this 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. Staff finds this not to be true. No unique or special conditions were submitted to staff regarding this property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. Staff finds this not to be true. No unique or special conditions were submitted to staff regarding this property. Other properties in this development have to follow the same standards and have similar setbacks and drainage and utility easements. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has stated that granting this variance will improve the enjoyment of the property for the owner and neighbors due to noise abatement and visually. Staff finds this does not meet the standards for a variance. 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. The applicant has stated this to be true and noted that the location on the side of the home verses the rear makes the area safer for the children because it is further away from the play area. It would “alleviate the potential of electrocution, dismemberment as well as other potential hazards from high rpm fan blades and 240 volt electricity.” Staff finds by placing the A/C unit in a conforming location in the rear yard would meet the code and variance request does not meet this standard. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Staff finds granting this variance would be a convenience to the applicant and does not meet the variance standards. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis The applicant did not submit complete written practical difficulties. The Commission should consider asking the applicant to supply verbal comment for the variance standards. Staff recommends denial of the submitted variance request to allow for the existing A/C unit to remain in the side yard, where is it placed within 2 feet of the property line and completely within LA18-000091 1.22.2019 Page 4 of 4 the drainage and utility easement. Four other properties, in addition to this property all had A/C units installed in nonconforming locations. The four other properties were able to move the A/C unit to meet City Code. This property has an opportunity to move the A/C unit to the rear yard of the property to meet City Code. Granting this variance would serve as a convenience and the submitted request does not meet the standards for granting a variance. Engineer Comments Then encroachment into the easement should not be permitted unless there is some hardship. As the AC could be moved to the rear of the building there does not appear to be a hardship. If Council was to allow the encroachment and encroachment agreement should be required. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty? 2. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? Planning Commission options for consideration The Planning Commission may consider the following alternative motions: 1. Motion to recommend denial the variance request and have the applicant move the A/C unit to a conforming location. 2. Motion to recommend approval of the request contingent on an executed encroachment agreement 3. Motion to recommend approval of the request contingent on the executed encroachment agreement and moving the A/C unit to the west side of the property. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Site Pictures Exhibit E. Map of other A/C unit violations, but able to move to conforming locations. Exhibit F. Property Owners List and Map Letter View file:///C/Users/loakden/Downloads/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(6).htm[1/3/2019 10:29:13 AM] PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA18-000091 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted bythe Zoning Chapter. Response: N/A 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by thelandowner. Response: NA 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: NA 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use forthe property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: NA 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight forsolar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined inMinnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: NA 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any usethat is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's landis located. Response: NA 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling asa two-family dwelling. Response: N/A 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to suchproperty or immediately adjoining property. Response: N/A 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which saidland is located. Response: NA 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of asubstantial property right of the applicant. Response: The granting of the application will improve the enjoyment of the property for the owner as wellas the enjoyment of the adjacent properties of the neighbors on both sides due to noise abatement as well as visually. Letter View file:///C/Users/loakden/Downloads/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(6).htm[1/3/2019 10:29:13 AM] 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort,morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Response: The granting of the variance will improve Safety, Health, Comfort, and enjoyment of the ownerand the owners neighbors as well. In moving the AC unit to the side of the structure vs the back yard wewould be making it the area safer for our children and our neighbors children, by having the unit locatedaway from the main back play area and our of sight. This would alleviate the potential of electrocution,dismemberment as well as other potential hazards from high rpm fan blades and 240 volt electricity. Thisalso provides enough space for city vehicles and equipment to access to the easement and/or right-of-way. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but isnecessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: NA AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To consider the sketch plan of a proposed 7 lot single family subdivision at 690 Brown Road. 2. Background. The applicant, on behalf of the property owners Eric and Andrea Larson, proposes the subdivision of their 24.37 acres parcel into 7 lots for single family residential use. This parcel has been the subject of proposed development in the past, the most recently in 2016 where 25 lots where proposed (included an adjacent 4 acre parcel not included with this proposal. Each lot meets the minimum lot size of 2 acres of dry buildable, and 5 of the 7 meet the minimum lot width requirements. The lot width question is the main issue for the Council. Area (Gross) Area (Dry, Buildable) Width Width @Lake Lot 1 2.04 2.04 206 Lot 2 5.41 4.16 476 Lot 3 3.08 2.08 143 - 351 Lot 4 3.35 3.27 224 201 Lot 5 2.33 2.01 220 206 Lot 6 4.06 3.23 205 185 Lot 7 2.46 2.46 322 Lot 3 is a lot at the end of a cul de sac, and the calculated width is 143 feet. (200 is required) Lot 3 could be adjusted to accommodate the width requirements, though the lot line configuration may be unusual. Lot 6 is a proposed lake lot, and based on the lot width definition, provides 185 feet (200 is required. This lot has over 200 feet of shoreline. For subdivisions or boundary line adjustments, the Council has supported deviation of the lot width requirement at the lake in the past, notably for 800 North Arm (16-3883) and 1298 Wildhurst Trail (17-3912). In both situations, new lake shore lots were created that did not meet the width requirement. The Planning Commission staff report, attached as Exhibit B outlines the project in greater detail. 3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On January 22, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal. The members of the commission were generally in favor of the proposal and supported the lot width flexibility. Planning Commission minutes (draft) are provided as Exhibit D. Item No.: 11 Date: February 11, 2019 Item Description: LA18-000095, Chuck Alcon o/b/o Eric and Andrea Larson, 690 Brown Road, Sketch Plan Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 4. Public Comment. A neighborhood meeting was held on January 10, 2019. The Council may wish to ask the applicant some questions related to this meeting. Written comments received to date are attached as Exhibit E. 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff supports the concept and the flexibility of the lot width. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should provide comment related to the proposed subdivision. Exhibits A. Plans B. Applicant’s Narrative C. Planning Commission staff report D. Draft Planning Commission minutes E. Comments received References A. Application B. Location Map C. Aerial Photo Date Application Received: November 7, 2018 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: January 22, 2019 Subject: #LA18-000095, Chuck Alcon o/b/ Eric and Andrea Larson, 690 Brown Road, Sketch Plan Background The city has reviewed development proposals for this property several times in the past, most recently in 2016. Those proposals often suggested a zoning change, introducing higher densities 2+ units per acre into an area guided for Low Density Residential (0.5 to 2 units per acre). The property currently contains one house, located on the south side. This house will be retained on lot 6. The existing driveway off of Brown Road serving this house will be removed. Proposal On behalf of the owner, the applicant proposes subdividing the existing 24.37 acre parcel into 7 buildable lots. The land use and density are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan guidance for the property. Roads/ Access. Access to the subdivision will be a new private road off of Brown Road. This private road will terminate in a cul de sac. This new road appears to line up with the exit drive out of the Sugarwood development to the West. This will need to be verified. The 50 foot wide ROW is consistent with Orono Code. The paved width is not defined, but Orono Code prescribes 28 feet for this number of lots. The length of the cul de sac is approximately 927 feet, less than the 1000 foot maximum. Parks/ Trails. There is an existing trail on the west side of Brown Road North. The plans do not suggest any interior sidewalks or trails through the development. The plans also do not show any proposed parkland dedication. The Comprehensive Plan does not identify the need for additional park land; it is anticipated that park dedication will be satisfied by a cash donation for the 6 new lots. Utilities. The property is in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA); the applicant Application Summary: The applicant is requesting sketch plan consideration on a proposed 7 lot single family residential development to be served by municipal services and a new private road. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff requests input on the flexibility requested for lot width noted. It does appear that the intent of ordinance is satisfied with the proposed configuration. FILE #LA 18-000095 January 22, 2019 Page 2 of 3 proposes connection to Sanitary Sewer. A new liftstaion will likely be necessary. City water will serve the new lots. The roads and all utilities will be installed by the developer. The water, sanitary sewer, and storm utilities will ultimately be accepted by the City. Lots 7 lots are proposed. Each lot meets or exceeds the lot area requirements of the zoning district (2 acres, dry buildable). Two lots do not meet the strict reading of the lot width standards (200 feet). The width of Lot 3 is measured at the building setback line, parallel 50 feet from the right of way line. This width is 144 feet, short of the required 200 feet. However, due to a tributary to Long Lake through this lot, a 75 lake yard also applies to each side of the tributary. At the 75 lake yard the width is approximately 351 feet. Area (Gross) Area (Dry, Buildable) Width Width @Lake Lot 1 2.04 2.04 206 Lot 2 5.41 4.16 476 Lot 3 3.08 2.08 143 - 351 Lot 4 3.35 3.27 224 201 Lot 5 2.33 2.01 220 206 Lot 6 4.06 3.23 205 185 Lot 7 2.46 2.46 322 The width of Lot 6 measured at the lake is 185 feet, where 200 feet is required. While this lot has 211 feet of shoreline, Orono Ordinances measure the width “…a straight line between the points at which the side lot lines intersect the OHWL, and at the required structure setback from the OHWL, measured in a straight line between the points of intersection of the side lot lines with the structure setback line.” The Planning Commission should provide feedback whether or not some flexibility from the lot width standard will be supported. As a single lot, the average lake shore setback (ALS) is based on the location of the existing homes at 770 Brown Road to the north, and 650 Brown Road to the south. The City may wish to consider an ‘interim’ ALS to prevent the need for a variance for lot 5, should it be built first. Natural Environment. The developer proposes to retain vegetation along the north, south, and west property lines. The grading plan will need to be further evaluated to ensure that this goal can be met. The 75 lake yard setback for sewered lots adjacent to Recreational Development lakes is provided for lots 4, 5, and 6. A small creek runs through the property, running from the wetland in Lot 2, through lots 3 and FILE #LA 18-000095 January 22, 2019 Page 3 of 3 4, to Long Lake Lake. This creek is considered a tributary, and the 75 lake yard applies. Lots 2 – 4 retain adequate buildable area, though a driveway to serve Lot 3 will need to go through this setback area, and over the creek. The watershed district may have some comment on this proposal. A Conservation Design Plan will be required for this development per Section 82-300, and with it the wetland delineations will be confirmed. This project will trigger stormwater management rules. The applicant has been advised to visit with the watershed district early in the subdivision design process. Docks for lake lots 4, 5, and 6 may encroach into a wetland; these docks are limited to 8 feet in width. Public Comments The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on January 10th. Staff was not in attendance, but the applicant reported that about 9 neighboring residents were at the meeting and the concept was generally well received. Staff has received one comment letter. Though the letter incorrectly references a January 10, 2019 Council meeting, their comments are based on potential impacts to the wetland and creek; these issues we are looking for feedback from the watershed district on. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission have an opinion on the lot width issues identified for Lots 3 and 6? 2. Does the Planning Commission support some flexibility to the Average Lake Shore Setback for lots 4 and 5? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Proposed Plan Exhibit C. Applicants Narrative Exhibit D. Neighbor Comment Letter Exhibit E. Location Map Exhibit F. Aerial Photo MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 22, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 8. LA18-000095 CHUCK ALCON ON BEHALF OF ERIC AND ANDREA LARSON, 690 BROWN ROAD NORTH, SKETCH PLAN, 8:22 P.M. – 8:42 P.M. Chuck Alcon, Applicant, and Michael Stedman, Developer, were present. Barnhart stated the applicants are proposing a sketch plan for a 7-lot single-family residential development on the 24.37-acre parcel. Each of the lots meets the required 2-acre dry buildable requirement for the zoning district. Rezoning is not being proposed. Plat improvements would include extension of the road to serve the seven lots. The property is located in the MUSA and the ordinance requires it to be served by sanitary sewer. The main question for the Planning commission is two of the lots do not meet the lot width requirement. As noted in the staff report, the width of Lot 3 is based on the distance at the building setback line adjacent to the right-of-way. In this situation it is an arc 50 feet back, which is approximately 143 feet of width by definition. That would be within a 75-foot creek setback. The house, however, will actually be built back further into the property and will be approximately 200 feet back. The strict reading of the rule requires it to be measured at the building setback line. While the lot is large, it does not meet the strict requirements for width. Lot 6 is a lake lot. In this case width is measured at two locations. One is where the lines intersect at the ordinary high water mark and then the other is 75 feet back from there. That distance for Lot 6 is 185 feet. The actual main footage is 209 feet but it does not meet the strict reading of the lot width requirement. The width at the 75-foot line is conforming. Barnhart stated there really is no opportunity to adjust the side property lines to achieve the 200 feet and the applicant is requesting some flexibility to the lot widths. The applicant is proposing vegetation and buffering along the north and south property lines as well as along the road. The land use and proposed density are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan guidance for the property. The property currently contains one house located on the south side. This house will be retained on what will be Lot 6. The existing driveway off of Brown Road serving this house will be removed. Access to the subdivision will be a new private road off of Brown Road. This private road will terminate in a cul-de-sac. The new road appears to line up with the exit drive out of the Sugarwood development to the west. The 50-foot right-of-way is consistent with Orono Code. The paved width is not defined but is required to be 28 feet for this number of lots. The length of the cul-de-sac is approximately 927 feet, which is less than the 1,000-foot maximum. There is an existing trail on the west side of Brown Road North. The plans do not suggest any interior sidewalks or trails through the development. The plans also do not show any proposed park land dedication. The Comprehensive Plan does not identify the need for additional park land. At this stage the applicant is looking for feedback from the Planning Commission prior to submitting a formal application. Thiesse asked if everything else is compliant except for those two lots. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 22, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 3 Barnhart indicated it is. Landgraver asked if the lot line could be adjusted between Lots 3 and 4. Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, stated Lot 4 does not meet it either. Gronberg stated he is aware of at least 15 other applications that do not meet the width requirement. Some of the lot lines can be adjusted to meet the 200 feet but then you would get ugly lot lines, which is why it has not been an issue at the end of a cul-de-sac in the past. On the lakeshore lot, there is 619 feet of lakeshore. When you measure point to point, one lot is 15 feet short. At the 75-foot setback, all the lots are compliant. At the average lakeshore setback, Gronberg stated they are proposing a straight line between the two adjoining houses. The house to the north is located way across the ravine and the other house further to the north is a lot closer to the lake because the lake curves. Gronberg noted they are 275 feet back from the lake with two of the houses that are being proposed and that they would like to go on that sightline to line the homes up straight. Barnhart noted the average lakeshore line has no impact on this property. In the past the City has artificially created a setback, but when it comes to the building permit, issues come up. If Lot 4 is developed first, the average lakeshore setback is at one distance. If Lot 5 is developed first, the average lakeshore setback is almost in the road. As a result, the City might want to create an artificial setback line in this situation. Barnhart indicated he is not looking for solutions at this stage. Barnhart noted Lot 4 does not meet the width requirement. Staff does not measure Lot 4 at the cul-de-sac since Lot 4 is a lake lot and it would be measured at the lake. The average lakeshore setback is something that will need to be looked at. Thiesse stated the intent of the average lakeshore setback line is to protect lake views. Barnhart stated that is correct. Thiesse noted those homes are not impacting any lake views. Barnhart stated it might become an issue at some point in the future. Erickson stated he is comfortable with it as proposed, but as it relates to the lot line between Lots 5 and 6, if that was bumped five feet, they would have 201 feet on one side and 190 feet on the other side, which is closer to the requirement. Gronberg pointed out the 206 feet is along the lakeshore and the other two northerly lots are at the minimum. Gronberg stated it is 200, 200, 185 point to point, and along the actual lakeshore they are all over 200 feet. Barnhart noted back in 2016 for 800 North Arm, the Planning Commission supported a width variance. Mike Stedman, Developer, commented this is a very special property and probably one of the last large properties in Orono that offers City sewer and water. The key aspect to the development is the low density and great effort has been made not to impact the wetlands. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 22, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 3 Landgraver asked if he has met with the neighbors. Stedman indicated a neighborhood meeting was held on January 10, which in his view was positive. A number of the neighbors were surprised that it was only seven lots but overall appeared pleased with the development. Thiesse asked if there is anyone who would like to comment on the sketch plan. There were no public comments. Landgraver stated as it relates to lot width, in his view there has been a good faith effort to accommodate irregular shaped property and that the applicants are attempting to comply with the spirit of the law. Because the house is so far back on Lot 3, it does not appear the lot width rules are meaningful for that lot. Erickson commented the plan appears to be well done. Libby asked what the lakeshore lots will be priced at. Stedman indicated they do not have any final pricing yet, but they are probably looking at $1.5 million plus for the lot and house. Libby commented it is an interesting project and he would be in favor of it. Thiesse stated he is in agreement and that there could be some flexibility to the lot width for those two lots. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. This application is regarding approvals for a new home on the property. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received and was considered to be complete on December 12, 2018. The original 60-day review period was extended due to the holiday meeting schedule, therefore the 60-Day review period will expire on April 11, 2019. 3. Background/ Summary. The applicants are requesting lot area; lot width; average lakeshore setback; and hardcover variances in order to redevelop the property with a new single family home. An Interim Use Permit (IUP) is also requested due to the total amount of grading activity within 75 feet of the lake. The hardcover variance requested is a 176 square foot total reduction from existing, but also reflects removal of nearly all of the nonconforming hardcover within the 75-foot setback. Please refer to pages 2 & 3 in the attached planning commission memo for greater detail on the requested variances. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On January 22, 2019, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 in favor of a motion to approve the requested variances and IUP. 5. Public Comment. Comments from the neighbors were received and are attached as Exhibit D. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should consider a motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Proposed Plans C. Draft PC Minutes D. Public Comment E. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits 01/22/19 Exhibit A. Application Summary Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Summary Exhibit C. Supplemental Narratives with Photos - by the applicants Exhibit D. Existing Survey Exhibit E. Average Setback Site Plan Exhibits Exhibit F. Average Setback Cross Section Exhibit G. Hardcover Site Plan Exhibits Item No.: 12 Date: February 11, 2019 Item Description: LA18-000102 – Charlie & Co. Design o/b/o North Shore Meadows LLC, 2455 North Shore Drive, Variances & IUP – Resolution Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Planning Department AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR Exhibit H. Submitted Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Exhibit I. Aerial Photos Exhibit J. Public Comments Exhibit K. Property Owners List Exhibit L. Plat Map CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-305; 78-1279; and 78-1700 AND GRANTING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO MUNICPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1726 FILE NO. LA18 -000102 WHEREAS, on December 12, 2018, Colby Mattson with Charlie & Company Design (hereinafter the “Applicant”), on behalf of North Shore Meadows LLC (hereinafter the “Owner”), applied for a land use application for the property addressed 2455 North Shore Drive and legally described as: Lot 1, and Outlot A, Scotch Pine Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305 to allow redevelopment of the Property which contains 1.12 acres in area and 160 feet in width where 2.0 acres in area and 200 feet of width are required; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow construction of portions of a lakeside terrace elevated more than 42 inches above existing grade lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1700 to permit redevelopment of the Property resulting in 29.3% hardcover where 25% is permitted and where 29.6% currently exists; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for an interim use permit (hereinafter the “IUP”) pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1276 to conduct land alterations including 315 cubic yards of fill within the 75-foot setback; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2019, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 WHEREAS, on January 22, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances and the IUP; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2019, 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 variances and IUP 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 #LA18-000102 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 Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 1.12 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 160 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following: a. Lot Area Variance b. Lot Width Variance c. Hardcover Variance d. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance; and e. IUP for grading 6. In considering this application, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances and IUP 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. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ANALYSIS: 1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” A single family residence is a permitted use within the LR-1A zoning district. 2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The residential principal structure and associated amenities are residential uses which are consistent with the comprehensive plan guiding of this and surrounding properties for residential use. 3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The Owner is proposing to use the Property in a reasonable manner but the size and width of the lot is below the minimum lot size standards for the LR-1A District. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The lot size and width were not created by the Owner and are unique conditions within the LR-1A District. The shape of the Property and the application of the average lakeshore setback are not created by the Owner. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The proposed home and associated amenities will not alter the character of the neighborhood. 4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.” This condition is not applicable. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 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 residence is an allowed use in the LR-1A District. 7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable. 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The lot area, lot width, and average setback standards applying to the Property are similar to those of other properties in the neighborhood. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.” The standards applicable to this property apply to all other properties in the neighborhood; however, due to the shape of the Property as well as the setbacks, the Owner’s requested hardcover variance may permit similar development of the Property that other similar-sized lots in the neighborhood are afforded, a variance to lot area and width is required. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The property rights of the Owner will be diminished if the lot area and lot width variances are not granted, as the new residence would not be able to be developed. 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 variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and would not be contrary the intent of the zoning code. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” The size, shape, and width of the Property, as well as the configuration create practical difficulties affecting the Property; the variances are necessary and will not merely serve as a convenience to the Owner. INTERIM USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: An IUP may be granted if the Council determines that the use will comply with the following: 1. “The use will meet the general performance standards in section 78-916 of this chapter.” The proposed grading will conform to the standards within Section 78-916 of the Zoning Code. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 5 2. “The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district.” Grading to support a residence is permitted in the LR-1A district. 3. “The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site.” The proposed grading activity will be conducted in conjunction with the development of the new single family home on the Property. 4. “The use will not be in conflict with any provisions of the city code on an ongoing basis.” The proposed grading activity will not be in conflict with the Code. 5. “The use will not adversely affect the adjacent property, the surrounding neighborhood, or other uses on the property where the use will be located.” This standard requires that the proposed grading and improvements must not substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the properties 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 importing approximately 315 cubic yards of fill and active grading of the Property during construction can have a temporary adverse impact on neighbors. 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. 6. “The use will not impose additional unreasonable costs on the public.” The Owner will be responsible for keeping 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, building inspectors, and planning staff so as to minimize nuisances during the project. 7. “The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty.” The conclusion of the grading activity will coincide with the finalization of the construction of the proposed home on the Property. An as-built survey will be submitted by the Owner to confirm compliance with the approved grading plan at the closing of the permits. 8. “And, the applicant agrees in writing to any conditions that the city council deems appropriate for the use, including a requirement for a financial security to ensure removal of all evidence of the use upon termination, and restoration of the site to prior or better conditions. The conditions shall be set forth in a development agreement between the property owner and CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 6 the city, which agreement shall be recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Deeds.” The conditions of approval will be documented as required. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305 to allow redevelopment of the Property having substandard area and width; and Section 78-1279 to allow construction of portions of a lakeside terrace elevated more than 42 inches above existing grade 5.5 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line; and Section 78-1700 to permit redevelopment of the Property resulting in 29.3% hardcover where 25% is permitted and where 29.6% currently exists; and an IUP pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1276 to conduct land alterations 315 cubic yards of fill within the 75-foot setback, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The project shall conform to the following: a. Hardcover variance: The approved hardcover level of 14,320 square feet (29.3%) according to the site plan attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A; b. Average lakeshore setback variance: The approved average lakeshore setback encroachment for the terrace as shown in the average lakeshore setback site plan and exhibits attached to this Resolution as Exhibit 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. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Owner, 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 variances will expire on that date (February 11, 2020). 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. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 7 ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 11th day of February, 2019. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor EXISTING HARD COVER Scale: 1"=30' HC-1 14,496 (29.60%) E '03- 12 - nooN - edutitlA '03- 86 - nooN - edutitlA N W S S u m m e r S o l s t i c e J u n e 2 2 Autumnal Equinox Sept 23 March 21 Vernal Equinox June 22 Summer Solstice W i n t e r S o l s t i c e D e c 2 2 Dec 21 Winter Solstice P R O P E R T Y L I N E KCABTES '57 P R O P E R T Y L I N E PR OPERT Y LINE KCABTES '7.48 1 6 . 2 ' S E T B A C K 1 6 . 2 ' S E T B A C K 16.2' SET B A C K DRIVEWAY PARKING COURT STRUCTURAL COVER SIDEWALKS/STEPS/PATIOS DECKS 1 76 4 2 3 5 8 X KEY TO EXISTING SITE IMAGES CRYSTAL BAY HOUSE EXISTING OUT BLDG. EXIST. PROPOSED HARD COVER 14,325 (29.25%) Scale: 1"=30' HC-2 E '03- 12 - nooN - edutitlA '03- 86 - nooN - edutitlA N W S S u m m e r S o l s t i c e J u n e 2 2 Autumnal Equinox Sept 23 March 21 Vernal Equinox June 22 Summer Solstice W i n t e r S o l s t i c e D e c 2 2 Dec 21 Winter Solstice P R O P E R T Y L I N E KCABTES '57 PR OPERT Y LINE KCABTES '7.48 P R O P E R T Y L I N E 1 6 . 2 ' S E T B A C K 16.2' SET B A C K 1 6 . 2 ' S E T B A C K DRIVEWAYA PARKING COURTB STRUCTURAL COVERC SIDEWALKS/STEPS/PATIOSD DECKSE CRYSTAL BAY HOUSE PROPOSED RIP RAP EXISTING HARD COVER (NON-CONFORMING) Scale: 1/16"=1'-0" HC-3 E '03- 12 - nooN - edutitlA '03- 86 - nooN - edutitlA N W S S u m m e r S o l s t i c e J u n e 2 2 Autumnal Equinox Sept 23 March 21 Vernal Equinox June 22 Summer Solstice W i n t e r S o l s t i c e D e c 2 2 Dec 21 Winter Solstice P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E PR OPERT Y LINE CKA' SETB57 KACTB' SE7.84 1 6 . 2 ' S E T B A C K 16.2' SET B A C K 1 6 . 2 ' S E T B A C K PARKING COURT DRIVEWAY STRUCTURAL COVER=473 Sq. Ft. SIDEWALKS/STEPS/PATIOS=705 Sq. Ft. DECKS=104 Sq. Ft. TOTAL NON-CONFORMING HC= 1,282 (2.62%) RIP RAP CRYSTAL BAY HOUSE EXISTING OUTBUILDING EXISTING 6 '-1 1 " 6'-0" 5 '-7 " 3 3 '-7 " 4 '-3 " PATIO EXIST. DECK EXIST. EXIST. STEPS EX IST . WALK ON PLASTIC EXIST. ROCK FOUNTAINEXIST. ROCK 16.2' SETBACK HOUSE EXISTING HOUSE PROPOSED HOUSE CARRIAGE EXISTING Scale: 1/16"=1'-0" HC-4 HARD COVER & EXISTING PROPOSED E '03- 12 - nooN - edutitlA '03- 86 - nooN - edutitlA N W S S u m m e r S o l s t i c e J u n e 2 2 Autumnal Equinox Sept 23 March 21 Vernal Equinox June 22 Summer Solstice W i n t e r S o l s t i c e D e c 2 2 Dec 21 Winter Solstice P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E PR OPERT Y LINE CKA' SETB57 KACTB' SE7.84 1 6 . 2 ' S E T B A C K 16.2' SET B A C K 1 6 . 2 ' S E T B A C K EXISTING STRUCTURAL COVER PROPOSED STRUCTURAL COVER EXISTING HARDCOVER PROPOSED HARDCOVER CRYSTAL BAY DASHED HARDCOVER EXISTING 1'-6" 4 '-8 " 2 '-1 1 " 5 ' - 7 " 1 2 '-4 " 7'-8" 11'-5" 5'-1" 9 '-4 " 950 944 942 940 938 936 934 932 930 938 936 934 932 930 938 936 950 948 946 942 944 946 940 944 940 948 948 948 942 "=1'-0"32 3Scale: E '03- 12 - nooN - edutitlA '03- 86 - nooN - edutitlA N W S S u m m e r S o l s t i c e J u n e 2 2 Autumnal Equinox Sept 23 March 21 Vernal Equinox June 22 Summer Solstice W i n t e r S o l s t i c e D e c 2 2 Dec 21 Winter Solstice AVERAGE SETBACK (AS-1) P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E CKABT' SE57 ACKBTES '7.84 1 6 . 2 ' S E T B A C K 1 6 . 2 ' S E T B A C K EXISTING NON-CONFORMING HARDCOVER TO BE REMOVED (782 SQ FT) PROPOSED CONFORMING TERRACE BEHIND AVERAGE SETBACK (503 SQ FT) PROPOSED CONFORMING TERRACE WITHIN EXISTING HOUSE FOOTPRINT (257 SQ FT) PROPOSED NON-CONFORMING TERRACE SUBMITTED FOR VARIANCE (282 SQ FT) CRYSTAL BAY HOUSE PROPOSED RIP RAP 948'-0" 950'-0" 942'-0" 949'-0" 948'-0" FOUNTAIN EXISTING ROCK TO BE REMOVED EXISTING PATIO TO DECK EXIST. STEPS EXIST. DECK -DASHED EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING STAIR 950'-0" 950'-6" AS-3 AS-3 "=1'-0"8 1Scale: "=1'-0"16 1Scale: AVERAGE SETBACK (AS-2) AVERAGE SETBACK (AS-3)-PENDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROPOSED FILL (WITHIN 75' of OHWL)= 315 C.Y. P R O P E R T Y L I N E P R O P E R T Y L I N E 950 948 946 944 942 940 938 936 934 932 952 954 956 958 960 930 FIRST FLOOR = 955.0' PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR = 950.5' PROPOSED GRADE LINE DISTANCE BETWEEN MAIN LEVELS DISTANCE BETWEEN LAWNS ABOVE PROPOSED GRADE MAX. BRICK CURB WALL. KEEP AT 42" GUARDRAIL BEYOND PROPOSED DECK & CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROPOSED FILL -PENDING 4 '- 6 " 6 '- 0 " EXISTING GRADE LINE TERRACE PAVERS BEYOND (950.0') EXISTING LEVEL YARD & TERRACE (945.0') BEYOND (SCHEMATIC) PROPOSED HOUSE (2465 NORTH SHORE DRIVE) NEIGHBOR TO WEST 950 948 946 944 942 940 938 936 934 932 952 954 956 958 960 930 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR = 950.5' PROPOSED GRADE LINE DISTANCE BETWEEN MAIN LEVELS DISTANCE BETWEEN LAWNS ABOVE PROPOSED GRADE MAX. BRICK CURB WALL. KEEP AT 42" GUARDRAIL BEYOND PROPOSED DECK & 3 '- 6 " 1 '- 6 " 2 '- 0 " 3 '- 0 " 3 '- 6 " 3 '- 6 " CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROPOSED FILL -PENDING 4 '- 6 " 6 '- 0 " EXISTING GRADE LINE TERRACE PAVERS BEYOND (950.0') EXISTING LEVEL YARD & TERRACE (945.0') BEYOND (SCHEMATIC) PROPOSED HOUSE MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 16, 2018 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 6. LA18-000102 MARIA LARENAS AND CHARLIE AND CO DESIGN, 2455 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES/INTERIM USE PERMIT, 7:39 P.M. – 7:50 P.M. Maria Larenas, Applicant, and Corbin Benson, Builder, were present. Curtis stated the owners of the property have retained an architect to design a new home on the property. Their goal is to reduce the number of nonconformities to setback and hardcover while designing a functional home for the property. Due to the existing lot size and width, the project requires variances to lot area, lot width, average lakeshore setback, hardcover, and an interim use permit for grading activity within 75 feet of the lake. Previously this interim use permit would have been reviewed as a conditional use permit. The applicants are proposing to construct the home to conform to all setbacks, including the 84.7-foot average lakeshore setback as determined by the home to the west at 2465 North Shore Drive. The home to the east is currently vacant and does not contain a principal structure. The plan reflects a raised terrace/patio area which is situated partially within the previous/existing home footprint. The portion within the existing home footprint qualifies as an in-kind improvement. However, there is a narrow portion which does not qualify. This elevated terrace encroaches, at most, approximately 5.5 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. Further, the terrace is an encroachment due to the applicants’ grading plan for the lake yard which proposes to balance out the side-sloped yard. The proposed home will have a first-floor elevation of 950.5’, which is 4.5 feet lower than the first floor of the home to the west. Curtis noted the red line on the sketch illustrates the first-floor elevation of the home to the west. The proposed terrace, including the curved wall, sits at about 951.5 feet, which is 42 inches from the new grade and 3.5 feet lower than the first floor of the home to the west. The interim use permit is requested to allow approximately 315 cubic yards of fill within the 75-foot setback and for the establishment of new engineered grade elevation. The applicants do not wish to modify the grade to result in a taller home than what is allowed but, rather, they wish to balance the slopes on the lake side from an aesthetic and drainage standpoint. The terrace exceeds 42 inches from existing grades within the average lakeshore setback as a result. The current property has a 29.6 percent hardcover level, including 772 square feet of hardcover in the 75- foot setback. The applicant is proposing 29.3 percent hardcover, which is a 176 square foot reduction, including removal of all of the existing non-conforming hardcover in the lake yard. A total of 2,320 square feet of driveway is proposed, not including the car court area. The applicants have attempted to reduce the impact of the home and the proposed structural/building coverage is 1,547 square feet less than the maximum footprint allowed. This is being done to reduce the total hardcover on the site. The driveway accounts for approximately 16 percent of the proposed hardcover and 4.74 percent of the site. Public comments were received and have been included in the Planning Commissioners’ packets. Staff finds practical difficulties inherent to the property’s shape, size and orientation which support the requested variances for lot area, lot width, average lakeshore setback, and possibly hardcover based on the length of the driveway and the shape of the lot. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the lot width, MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 16, 2018 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ lot area, and average lakeshore setback variances. As it relates to the hardcover variance, should the Planning Commission determine that practical difficulties exist supporting the proposed level, a recommendation for approval of a hardcover variance would also be appropriate. Regarding the interim use permit, the proposed plan conforms to the standards of IUP review. The grading will be tied to the building permit review and reviewed by the City Engineer. Staff recommends approval of the IUP. Landgraver asked which lot is currently vacant. Curtis stated the home to the east has been demoed and there is an accessory structure on the property which does not factor into the average lakeshore calculation. Because there is no home on the property, the calculation is made from a distance rather than a line. Corbin Benson, Charlie & Company Design, stated there are two main variance requests, and those are the hardcover variance for the driveway and the average lakeshore setback for the terrace. Benson stated his understanding of the intent of the setback is to keep that terrace as low as possible. One thing that is interesting about the property is that it transitions from the higher elevation to the west down towards marsh land, and so a lot of the existing slope gradually runs down the width of the lot. The property owners would like to flatten out that area, keep the terrace within 42 inches, and maintain the character of the shoreline. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Erickson stated he would like to congratulate the applicants in their effort to fit the project into the City’s existing ordinances in spite of the handicap that it is a one-acre lot in a two-acre zone. The applicants have done a terrific job in complying with that and still have a viable project. Libby stated the dirt movement appears to be very complementary and the efforts to reduce the hard surface on the property are commendable. Landgraver stated he agrees with what has already been said. As it relates to the hardcover, whenever the Planning Commission is approving a blank sheet, they do try to have the hardcover comply, but given the need for the long driveway, that should not be held against them. Thiesse indicated he is agreeable with that. Lemke commented he is a little upset about the amount of hardcover. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Erickson moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Maria Larenas and Charlie and Co. Design, 2455 North Shore Drive, lot area, lot width, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover variances as well as an interim use permit. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 12/12/18 Date Application Considered as Complete: 12/12/18 60-120 Day Review Extension Period Expires: 04/11/19 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 22 January 2019 Subject: #LA18-000102, Charlie & Co. Design o/b/o North Shore Meadows LLC, 2455 North Shore Drive Variances & Interim Use Permit (IUP) Public Hearing Background The new owners of the property have enlisted the architects at Charlie & Co. Design to design a new home on the property. Their goal is to reduce the number of nonconformities to setback and hardcover while designing a functional home for the property. Due to the existing lot size and width, the project requires variances. The applicants are requesting lot area; lot width; average lakeshore setback; and hardcover variances to support their plans. An Interim Use Permit* (IUP) is also requested due to the total amount of grading activity within 75 feet of the lake. *The recent text amendment (Ordinance No. 219) modified how land alterations are handled. This proposed grading activity would have been previously covered under a CUP. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting the following in conjunction with redevelopment of the property: 1. Lot area variance; 2. Lot width variance; 3. Average lakeshore setback variance; 4. Hardcover variance; and 5. An IUP for grading activity within 75 feet of the lake. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the IUP, the average lakeshore setback, lot width and lot area variances as noted. If the planning commission determines there are practical difficulties supporting the hardcover variance an approval recommendation may also be appropriate. FILE #LA18-000102 22 Jan 19 Page 2 of 7 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-305; 78-1279 - Setbacks: LR-1A Required Proposed Rear / Street 50’ ±200’ West Side 16.2’* 22’ East Side 16.2’* 17’ Lakeshore 75’ 88’ Average Lakeshore The home meets the average lakeshore setback; a portion of the new patio is proposed within the average lakeshore setback area. *Sec 305 (c) Within the LR-1A zoning district, the 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. Section78- 305 - Lot Area/Width: LR-1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200’ Actual 48,787 s.f. (1.12 acre) 161.2’ @ 75’ / 160’ @ OHWL Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 48,787 s.f. (1.12 acre) Allowed: 9,757 s.f. (20%) Proposed: 8,210 s.f. (16.8%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 48,787 s.f. 12,196 s.f. (25 %) 14,496 s.f. (29.6%) 772.3 w/in 75’ 14,320 s.f. (29.3%) 0 w/in 75’ Note, there is a slight (5 square foot) discrepancy between the submitted hardcover calculation worksheets and the notations on the HC-2 site plan provided by the applicants. The applicants should clarify. The calculations used above are from the Hardcover Calculation worksheet Exhibit H. Applicable Regulations: Lot Area & Lot Width Variances (Section 78-305) Zoning Code Section 78-72 provides options for the redevelopment of lots which do not meet the minimum area or width requirements for the respective zoning district. Substandard properties within the Shoreland Overlay District, like the subject lot, are able to be redeveloped without variances if specific standards are met; such as: 1. All setback requirements can be met. 2. A Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, can FILE #LA18-000102 22 Jan 19 Page 3 of 7 be installed or the lot is connected to a public sewer; and 3. The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square footage restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of hardcover does not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot area. 4. All other zoning district standards can be met. The applicants’ request for a hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances results in the property’s inability to conform to standards 1, 3, & 4 above. Therefore, lot width and area variances are also required in order to develop the property as proposed. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) The applicants are proposing to construct the home to conform to all setbacks including the 84.7’ average lakeshore setback as determined by the home to the west at 2465 North Shore Drive. The plan reflects a raised terrace/patio area which is situated partially within the previous/existing home footprint. The portion within the existing home footprint qualifies as an in kind (or less) improvement. However there is a narrow portion which does not qualify. This elevated terrace shown as the cross-hatched area Exhibit E (the applicants’ AS-1 site plan) encroaches at most approximately 5.5 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. Further the terrace is an encroachment due to the applicants’ grading plan for the lakeyard which proposes to balance out the side-sloped yard. The proposed home will have a first floor elevation of 950.5’, 4.5’ lower than the first floor of home to the west. As illustrated in the applicants’ AS-3 section view (Exhibit F) looking from the lake, the proposed terrace including the curb wall sit at about 951.5’ which is 42” from the new grade, and 3.5 feet lower than the first floor of the home to the west. Lastly, one purpose of the requested IUP is to permit the approximate 315 cubic yards of fill within the 75-foot setback; a secondary purpose is the establishment of new engineered grade elevation. The applicants do not wish to modify the grade to result in a taller home than is allowed, rather, they desire to balance the slopes. The terrace exceeds 42” from existing grades within the average lakeshore setback as a result. Hardcover Variance (Section 78-1700) The current property has a 29.6% hardcover level; including 772 square feet of hardcover in the 75-foot setback. The applicant is proposing 29.3% hardcover, a 0.3% (176 square foot) reduction, including removal of all of the existing non-conforming hardcover in the lake yard. There is a total of 2,320 square feet of driveway proposed, not including the car court area. This driveway accounts for approximately 16% of the proposed hardcover and 4.74% of the site. The property has a long narrow “neck” from the shared access outlot to the buildable area of the lot which may result in an excess of driveway hardcover. The applicants have attempted to reduce the impact of the home size as they are not maximizing the size of the home. The proposed structural/building coverage is 1,547 square feet less than the maximum footprint allowed. They have prepared a number of illustrations to show how they propose to improve the existing nonconformities on the property, those exhibits are attached. FILE #LA18-000102 22 Jan 19 Page 4 of 7 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. . A single family residence is a permitted use within the LR-1A zoning district. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The residential principal structure and associated amenities are residential uses which are consistent with the comprehensive plan guiding of this and surrounding properties for residential use. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner but the size and width of the lot is below the minimum lot size standards for the LR-1A District. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The lot size and width were not created by the landowner and are unique conditions within the LR-1A District. The shape of the lot and the application of the average lakeshore setback are not created by the landowner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed home and associated amenities will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a single family residence is an allowed use in the LR-1A District. FILE #LA18-000102 22 Jan 19 Page 5 of 7 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The lot area, lot width, and average setback standards applying to this property are similar to those of other properties in the neighborhood. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The standards applicable to this property apply to all other property in the neighborhood; however, due to the shape of the property as well as the setbacks, the applicants’ hardcover variance requested may permit similar development of the property that other similar-sized lots in the neighborhood are afforded, a variance to lot area and width is required. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. In the opinion of staff, the property rights of the owner will be diminished if the lot area and lot width variances are not granted, as the new residence would not be able to be developed. 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 variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and would not be contrary the intent of the zoning code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The size, shape, and width of the property, as well as the configuration create practical difficulties affecting the subject property; the variances are necessary and will not merely serve as a convenience to the owner. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Applicable Regulation: Interim Use Permit (Section 78-1726) The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant an Interim Use Permit (IUP). On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city council determines that the use will comply with the following: 1) The use will meet the general performance standards in section 78-916 of this chapter; the proposed grading will conform to the standards within Section 78-916 of the Zoning Code. 2) The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district; this statement is true. 3) The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site; the proposed grading activity will be conducted in conjunction with the development of the new single family home on the property. This statement is true. 4) The use will not be in conflict with any provisions of the city code on an ongoing basis; the proposed grading activity will not be in conflict with the Code. 5) The use will not adversely affect the adjacent property, the surrounding neighborhood, or other uses on the property where the use will be located; this FILE #LA18-000102 22 Jan 19 Page 6 of 7 standard requires that the proposed grading and improvements must not substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the properties 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 importing approximately 315 cubic yards of fill and active grading of the Property during construction can have a temporary adverse impact on neighbors. 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. 6) The use will not impose additional unreasonable costs on the public; the will be responsible for keeping 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. 7) The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty; the conclusion of the grading activity will coincide with the finalization of the construction of the proposed home on the property. An as-built survey will be submitted to confirm conformance with the approved grading plan at the closing of the permits. 8) And the applicant agrees in writing to any conditions that the city council deems appropriate for the use, including a requirement for a financial security to ensure removal of all evidence of the use upon termination, and restoration of the site to prior or better conditions. The conditions shall be set forth in a development agreement between the property owner and the city, which agreement shall be recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Deeds. The conditions of approval will be documented as required. 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 & Interim Use Permit Analysis Staff finds practical difficulties inherent to the property’s shape, size, and orientation which support the requested variances for lot area, lot width, and average lakeshore setback, and possibly hardcover to some extent based on the length of the driveway and the shape of the lot. Regarding the IUP, the proposed plan conforms to the standards of IUP review, the grading activity will be tied to the building permit. Engineer Comments The grading plan will be given a cursory review prior to the City Council’s review of the application and thoroughly at the time of the building permit. Public Comments FILE #LA18-000102 22 Jan 19 Page 7 of 7 Comments from the public have been received and are included as Exhibit J. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning staff recommends approval of the IUP to permit the grading as proposed, as well as the variances for lot area, lot width, and average lakeshore setback relating to the development of the new home. Additionally, regarding the hardcover variance should the planning commission determine that the lot’s shape and the necessary driveway length serve as practical difficulties supporting the requested hardcover variance then a recommendation for approval of a hardcover variance would be appropriate. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Summary Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Summary Exhibit C. Supplemental Narratives with Photos - by the applicants Exhibit D. Existing Survey Exhibit E. Average Setback Site Plan Exhibits Exhibit F. Average Setback Cross Section Exhibit G. Hardcover Site Plan Exhibits Exhibit H. Submitted Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Exhibit I. Aerial Photos Exhibit J. Public Comments Exhibit K. Property Owners List Exhibit L. Plat Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To consider a variance and resolution that would permit the placement of solar panels on a rack, versus on a building. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on December 19, 2018 and considered to be complete that same day. The 60-Day review period will expire on February 17, 2019. 3. Background. The applicant, on behalf of the property owner, propose the placement of a solar array (a collection of solar panels) on a rack in the rear yard, facing south. Solar arrays are a permitted improvement in all districts, provided the array is placed on a building. The proposed structure will comply with setbacks applicable to both accessory building and accessory structures (15 feet). 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On November 19th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 on a motion to approve the requested variance. The members of the Commission felt the variance was appropriate for a variety of reasons, including solar panels on a building would be more visually obtrusive Full Commission discussion in included in the draft PC minutes, attached as Exhibit B. 5. Public Comment. Comments from the neighbors were received and were included in the Planning Commission packet. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council adopt the resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should review the approval resolution and adopt or amend. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Draft PC minutes C. PC staff report D. Plans E. Site visit pictures 2-5-19 References (from PC packet) A. Application B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C. Solar and Shade Report D. Glare information E. Section 78-1379 Alternative Energy Systems F. Notification Map and Property Owners List G. Adjacent Neighbor Acknowledgment form Item No.: 13 Date: February 11, 2019 Item Description: LA18-0000103, Isaac Lindstrom, All Energy Solar o/b/o William and Eleanor Ferril, 240 Wakefield Road – Resolution Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department Report CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1379 FILE NO. LA18-000103 WHEREAS, on December 19, 2018, All Energy Solar (“Applicant”), on behalf of the property owners William and Eleanor Ferril (Owners) applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 240 Wakefield Road and legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Wakefield Farms 2nd Addition (hereinafter the “Property”); made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78- 1379 to allow a solar array to be located on a rack, rather than an building; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2019, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission 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 January 22, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 2019, 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 variance 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 #LA18-000103. 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 RR-1B Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 3 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 268 feet. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 4. The Property is exempt from the Stormwater Quality Overlay District regulations. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. Variance to permit the placement of a solar array on a rack mounted to the ground, versus mounted to a building as required by Ordinance. 6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and 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. ANALYSIS: 1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The use of the property as residential, with a permitted use solar array is reasonable. The Commission should discuss whether the ground mounted array is reasonable. 2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The Comprehensive Plan supports the use of alternative energies. Thought it should be noted that this support is not given at the expense of the existing natural environment, meaning trees should not need to be removed en- mass to support solar. 3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The solar array mounted on a rack versus a building is reasonable from a hardcover, structural limitation, and massing perspective. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The location of existing buildings are shielded by existing trees, limiting location of solar arrays with minimal impact to vegetation. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 a. Whether the array is located on a building or a rack, some trees may be removed. These trees are not protected, and may be removed at any time. The location is well screened from Wakefield Road, and from property to the west. Existing vegetation will screen it from the east and the south. An existing large berm will screen the improvement from the public Luce Line Trail. The character is protected. The Commission may wish to have the applicant further define the tree and vegetation removal. 4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.” To meet the ordinance, the array would need to be installed on the principal structure whose roof planes and existing vegetation do not lend itself to the desired affect, or the applicant would need to construct an undesired detached accessory building. 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 solar array is a permitted use in all zones. 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 requirement for the solar array to be placed on the roof of a building is intended to minimize hardcover and structural impact. Both of those concerns do not apply to this lot. The land itself is not peculiar. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.” The desire to place a solar array on the ground could be found in many zoning districts. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The ability to harness solar power is a right. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 The City’s goals is to consider the natural environment in the placement of these and other improvements. 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.” The proposed variance would allow a solar array to be ground mounted. A solar array is permitted to be placed on a building, including a new building in the same location as a proposed array. There is no impact to the health, safety, or welfare based on the difference between the two. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” It may be cheaper and easier to place the array on the roof of the existing structure, the applicants propose a variance to better suit their long range plans for the property, which include restoration of wildlife habitat. 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 78-1379 to allow a ground mounted solar array, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the plans dated January 30, 2019 submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. 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 permit for the project and commencing construction of said project within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (February 11, 2020). 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. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 5 ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this day of February 11, 2019. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor COMPANY INFORMATION CLIENT INFORMATION SYSTEM DETAILS PROJECT-PAGE TITLE ALL ENERGY SOLAR, INC 1642 CARROLL AVE ST PAUL, MN 55104 (800) 620-3370 INFO@ALLENERGYSOLAR.COM PAGE NUMBER A1 WILLIAM C FERRIL 240 WAKEFIELD ROAD ORONO, MN 55391 PO 18101 REVISIONS LAST: 01/30/19 CR AZIMUTH NOTES: 1. (24) JA SOLAR 360W MODULES = 8.640kW 2. MOUNTING TYPE: FLUSH ROOF MOUNT 3. (24) ENPHASE IQ 7+ INVERTER(S) 4. ARRAY 1: 35° TILT, 180° AZIMUTH 5. ARRAY 2: [Tilt]° TILT, [Azimuth]° AZIMUTH 6. ARRAY 3: [Tilt]° TILT, [Azimuth]° AZIMUTH 7. ARRAY 4: [Tilt]° TILT, [Azimuth]° AZIMUTH COVER PAGE ELEANOR & WILLIAM FERRIL 240 WAKEFIELD ROAD ORONO, MN 55391 PO 18101 N WAKEFIELD ROAD ARRAY 1 SETBACK 6 0 ' SEPTIC METER LOCATION PROPERTY LINE 1 5 ' 15' 15' 15' 25' 39'-1" 1 0 '-9 " 2 1 ' - 0 " COMPANY INFORMATION CLIENT INFORMATION SYSTEM DETAILS PROJECT-PAGE TITLE ALL ENERGY SOLAR, INC 1642 CARROLL AVE ST PAUL, MN 55104 (800) 620-3370 INFO@ALLENERGYSOLAR.COM PAGE NUMBER A2 WILLIAM C FERRIL 240 WAKEFIELD ROAD ORONO, MN 55391 PO 18101 REVISIONS LAST: 01/30/19 CR NOTES: 1. ELEVATIONS MAY VARY DEPENDING ON GROUND ELEVATION BUT ARE DRAWN TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY 2. [2x4 TRUSS 24" OC, for example] ELEVATION DRAWINGS NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION MAX SLOPE EXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE ZERO SLOPE MAX SLOPE MAX SLOPEZERO SLOPE ZERO SLOPE 38'-11" 11'-0" 38'-11" 1 0 '-0 " 1 1 '-4 " MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 22, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 4 7. LA18-000103 ALL ENERGY SOLAR ON BEHALF OF ELEANOR FERRIL, 240 WAKEFIELD ROAD, VARIANCE, 7:51 P.M. – 8:21 P.M. Eleanor Ferril, Applicant, and Isaac Lindstrom, All Energy Solar, were present. Barnhart stated the applicant, on behalf of the property owner, is proposing to install a solar array on a rack to be installed in their rear yard. Solar arrays are a permitted use in all districts and the requirements that they be screened from view as much as practice presents challenges as it is virtually impossible to screen the roof of a building. The intent is, however, to minimize the visual impact of the improvements on the neighbors and protect against glare and reflection. Because the solar array is located on a rack, a variance is required to allow a ground mounted solar array where only those mounted to a roof are permitted. At the rear of the property there is a large berm so it will likely be screened from the Luce Line. However, the solar array would be visible to the house to the south. Staff has completed a preliminary review of the project for compatibility with the septic system and has determined that the project is not likely to impact the existing or future septic sites. The applicant has provided some additional information regarding the glare of these arrays. The proposed location within trees at the southwest corner of the property is intended to offer a visual buffer from the neighboring properties. Some of the impacts include glare, tree removal. The Applicant and the property owner are here tonight and would be happy to address the glare issue. Barnhart noted glare might be a misnomer to a point since what they are proposing is photovoltaic that absorbs the sunlight. The property owner will also provide some information on tree cutting. There is currently quite a bit of buckthorn and other invasive species in that area and their plans are to remove that and replant with native vegetation. Barnhart commented this is a difficult one regarding a recommendation from Staff since solar arrays are allowed but not on a rack. Thiesse asked if the property owners would be allowed to put an accessory structure there. Barnhart indicated they are. Thiesse noted the applicants would be allowed to place solar panels on top of the accessory structure and not be required to go before the City for approval in that situation. Thiesse stated he did sit in the parking lot across from the trail and that the house was visible so he is not so sure the rack will be hidden. Barnhart noted he was on the trail and not the parking lot and that he could not see beyond the berm. Lemke asked if this would be considered an accessory structure. Barnhart indicated it would not be since it would not be a building or a structure. Thiesse asked what the City’s intent was for requiring solar panels to be placed on a roof rather than a rack. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 22, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 4 Barnhart noted he was not with the City at that time but that it likely related to a massing concern and an impact to the neighborhood. Landgraver stated to his belief the discussion revolved around solar panels being less intrusive on the roof versus their back yard and that the Council felt people could go through the variance process if they wanted something different. Thiesse noted the applicants are pushing the rack as far away from the house as possible, which is probably against the intent of the ordinance. Isaac Lindstrom, All Energy Solar, stated this location was chosen because it has the best access to sunlight, which is the primary goal, and that they have designed the best system available for her needs. Pictures of the house and property were displayed. Lindstrom noted even in the fall the roof is shaded pretty considerably by a tree, which is the primary reason it was not proposed for the roof. There is an approximate 15 percent shade loss in the proposed location. Landgraver asked how the Planning Commission can be assured that these will not create a lot of glare. Lindstrom indicated the purpose of the panels is to absorb sunlight and that it would not make sense if the panels are reflecting a lot of that sunlight. The panels manufactured nowadays are covered with an antireflective coating to make sure there is minimal glare, and, in fact, vertical windows generate more glare. Lemke asked if they have a steel or glass surface. Lindstrom indicated they have a glass surface with an antireflective coating but that he does not have the exact specifications. Libby commented he would like to have solar panels on his home but in the winter time they would not gather enough energy to make it feasible. Libby stated this is a technology that has changed and rapidly accelerated in proficiency within the past three years. If someone looks at solar gardens and farms, both private and public, in order for them to use this as a technology, many of them have to be ground mounted, and that this might be something for the City to discuss in the future. Libby stated in his view solar panels themselves are effective and produce more energy than they did two years ago but that there are other methods of gathering solar energy. For example, in Europe they are using a solar array that tracks the sun and those are relatively unobtrusive. The panels also close up and fold down to protect itself from the elements. Libby indicated he would tend to be open-minded about the placement of the array as long as it is not intrusive to the neighbors. Lemke asked if these are fixed panels. Lindstrom indicated they are fixed panels with a 35 percent tilt. Ferril stated they moved into the house 36 years ago and it was solid buckthorn that she thought was pretty until she took a course at the technical college. The lot is just short of three acres and is very MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 22, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 4 beautiful. There are a number of beautiful trees and the buckthorn has been removed. Along the Luce Line is a ridge. Ferril indicated she has tried to get solar for a long time but was told in the past that the roof is too shaded. One day she went up to the top of the hill and saw that the area was eroding. Ferril stated she asked if there is a possibility of putting it by the Luce Line and hiding it with native vegetation that will grow up to the bottom of the rack. Ferril indicated she met with Keith Parker with the DNR about the Luce Line, and he was fine with her clearing it out as long as she paid for it. Ferril indicated she keeps planting more trees and flowers on her property. In addition, Prairie Restoration will work with her on a landscaping plan and that she will probably plant low mow fescue or Pennsylvania sedge underneath the rack and then prairie grass around it. Ferril indicated her idea is to have a mosaic garden out by the Luce Line. Libby asked if there will be acid batteries and an inverter. Lindstrom indicated there will be micro-converters that attach to each individual panel that convert the energy into AC/DC current. Libby asked where the acid batteries will be stored. Lindstrom stated there will be no batteries being installed as part of this design. Chair John Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Kris stated she lives behind the subject property and that their topography is higher than this lot so they will look down on it. Kris stated she is in full support of alternative energy, but their concerns relate to what it will look like and that they also had a concern about reflection during the winter. The prairie grasses will not do them any good since their house is above this property. When the Planning Commission considers these individual situations, they also need to take into the topography of the lot and the surrounding area. Kris noted they were told the array will be nine to ten feet tall. Kris stated in spite of all that, they are in support of the proposal. Ferril pointed out there are some trees along the top of the hill where their roots are being eroded. In addition, the limbs are dying and dropping off down onto the hill. The hill itself is quite steep and currently it is kind of a jungle. Prairie Restoration would like to clean that up and carry the debris away and do erosion control. As far as the landscaping is concerned, even if someone is looking down on it, there will be enough variety of trees and plants to help shield it. Ferril indicated she has a lot of faith in Prairie Restoration and that they will certainly work with Kris and her husband to see that it works. Chair John Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Landgraver stated the variance process allows for some guardrails and the neighbor has had a chance to review and comment on the proposal. The applicants would be able to put up a shed instead of a rack and put the panels on the roof and the City would not be discussing this. Landgraver stated in his view this is an interesting proposal and that there is good faith among the neighbors. Landgraver stated in his opinion it will set a good precedent and give people an opportunity to see how it looks. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 22, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 4 Libby commented he is proud to be part of a community that has some guardrails against certain things, but that he is also glad to be part of a community that is progressive. The applicant desires to obtain electricity from the sun and that he tends to be in favor of the applicant being able to do this without an accessory structure. Erickson stated he does not have solar at his house, but he was among the first to adopt a significant amount of prairie grass around his house, and after a few years it has turned into an asset. Erickson stated he appreciates the effort the applicant is doing in that regard. Lemke stated he is in agreement with the comments by Commissioner Landgraver and that solar panels on the house or an accessory structure would be more obtrusive. Thiesse indicated he is in agreement. Part of the intent of the ordinance was to keep it close to the house but the applicants have done the opposite of that and moved it as far away from the house as possible. If the area is turned into prairie, it will be more visible, and it will be difficult to screen since the panels need to be exposed to the sunlight. Thiesse stated the use of solar energy outweighs those concerns and he would be in favor of it. Landgraver asked if he is suggesting that the City review their code that it be X feet from the house. Thiesse stated in his view it should be closer to the house and that he is not really in favor of making that area prairie. Libby moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000103, All Energy Solar on behalf of Eleanor Ferril, 240 Wakefield Road, variance. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Date Application Received: December 19, 2018 Date Application Considered as Complete: December 19, 2018 60-Day Review Period Expires: February 17, 2019 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: January 22, 2019 Subject: #LA18-0000103, Isaac Lindstrom, All Energy Solar o/b/o William and Eleanor Ferril, 240 Wakefield Road Variance to allow Ground Mounted Solar Array where only those attached to structures are permitted. Public Hearing Background The owner desires to install a solar array on a rack to be installed in their rear yard. Because the solar array is located on a rack, a variance is required; solar arrays are required to be roof mounted. The applicant’s plans, including the site plan noting the location, are attached as Exhibit C. The variance requested is not a question of whether the array can be located on the property; the question is can the array be located on a rack, rather than on a building. Alternative Energy Systems are governed by Section 78-1379, attached as Exhibit E. Arrays are a permitted accessory use in all zoning district, though with the following requirements. Staff notes are in bold: (2) Standards. a. Exemption. Passive or building-integrated solar energy systems are exempt from the requirements of this section and shall be regulated as any other building element. N/A b. Roof-mounted systems allowed. The only solar energy systems allowed in the city are those that are roof-mounted, Variance Requested c. Height. Roof-mounted solar energy systems shall comply with the maximum height requirements in the applicable zoning district. At its highest point, the array will be 9-10 feet above grade. d. Setbacks. Roof-mounted solar energy systems shall comply with all building setbacks in the applicable zoning district and shall not extend beyond the exterior Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a ground mounted solar array where only those mounted to a roof are permitted. Staff Recommendation: If the Commission finds that the standards for variance are satisfied, they should recommend approval. FILE # LA18-000103 January 22, 2019 Page 2 of 5 perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted. To be verified, but as proposed the setbacks are met for both accessory buildings (as a shed), and for accessory structures. See Table below. e. Roof mounting. Roof-mounted solar collectors shall be mounted parallel to the surface of the roof and within three feet of the roof surface, unless manufacturer's documentation is provided indicating that collectors must be angled to provide optimum performance. No portion of the collectors or their mounting system shall extend above the peak or ridge height of a pitched roof. On a flat roof, collectors and their mounting systems shall not extend more than 5 feet above the roof surface. N/A f. Easements. Solar energy systems shall not encroach on public drainage, utility, roadway or trail easements. Known Drainage and Utility easements are located within the setbacks. g. Screening. Solar energy systems shall be screened from view to the extent possible without impacting their function. The applicant proposes removal of invasive species and replacing with natural vegetation. A plan should be provided prior to the City Council review of the variance. h. Maximum area. In all residential zoning districts, the collector and mounting system of a roof-mounted solar energy system shall cover no more than 70 percent of the roof to which it is affixed. N/A i. Aesthetics. All solar panels shall be designed, installed, positioned and constructed of materials so as not to cause any glare or reflective sunlight onto neighboring properties or structures, nor toward vehicular traffic on land or on a lake, and so as to not obstruct views. Reflection angles from collector surfaces shall be oriented away from neighboring windows. Where necessary, screening may be required to address glare. The applicant should be asked to discuss glare. Additional information has been provided as Exhibit D. j. Feeder lines. The electrical collection system shall be placed underground within the interior of each parcel. The collection system may be placed overhead near substations or points of interconnection to the electric grid. N/A LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-420 - Setbacks: (For accessory structures DISTRICT Required Setbacks for an Accessory Structure (no Building) Required Setbacks for an Accessory Building less than 1,000 sf Proposed Front 25 50 300+ Rear 15 15 21 Side 15 15 15 Side 15 15 200+ feet The two sets of setbacks, though identical in the side and rear yards, illustrates the requirements if the array was placed on a building or rack. In both cases, the setbacks can be maintained. FILE # LA18-000103 January 22, 2019 Page 3 of 5 Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 130,680 s.f. (3 acres) Structural Coverage Limit does not apply as the property is over 2 acres. Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations. The property is exempt due to its distance from receiving waters. 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 use of the property as residential, with a permitted use solar array is reasonable. The Commission should discuss whether the ground mounted array is reasonable. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan supports the use of alternative energies. Thought it should be noted that this support is not given at the expense of the existing natural environment, meaning trees should not need to be removed en-mass to support solar. 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 solar array mounted on a rack versus a building is reasonable from a hardcover, structural limitation, and massing perspective. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; This property is not unique with respect to the variance. and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Whether the array is located on a building or a rack, some trees may be removed. These trees are not protected, and may be removed at any time. The location is well screened from Wakefield Road, and from property to the west. Existing vegetation will screen it from the east and the south. An existing large berm will screen the improvement from the public Luce Line Trail. FILE # LA18-000103 January 22, 2019 Page 4 of 5 The character is protected. The Commission may wish to have the applicant further define the tree and vegetation removal. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. To meet the ordinance, the array would need to be installed on the principal structure whose roof planes do not lend itself to the desired affect, or the applicant would need to construct an undesired detached accessory building. 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 solar array is a permitted use in all zones. 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 requirement for the solar array to be placed on the roof of a building is intended to minimize hardcover and structural impact. Both of those concerns do not apply to this lot. The land itself is not peculiar. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The desire to place a solar array on the ground could be found in many zoning districts. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The ability to harness solar power is a right; the Commission will need to determine that there are no other options on the property. 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. The proposed variance would allow a solar array to be ground mounted. A solar array is permitted to be placed on a building, including a new building in the same location as a proposed array. There is no impact to the health, safety, or welfare based on the difference between the two. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. It may be cheaper and easier to place the array on the roof of the existing structure, the applicants propose a variance to better suit their long range plans for the property. 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 Staff has completed a preliminary review of the project for compatibility with the septic system, and has determined that the project is not likely to impact the existing or future septic sites. FILE # LA18-000103 January 22, 2019 Page 5 of 5 Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Solar arrays are a permitted use in all districts, and the requirements that they be screened from view as much as practical presents challenges as it is virtually impossible to screen the roof of a building. The intent, is, though, to minimize the visual impact of the improvement on the neighbors, and protect against glare and reflection. The application has provided some additional information regarding the glare of these arrays, attached as Exhibit D. Though written from the perspective of impact to airports, it includes some information on glare. The proposed location within trees at the SW corner of the property is intended to offer a visual buffer from the neighboring properties. Variances are applied to the property, not the owner. The property is not unique supporting a variance from this code section. In lieu of variances, it seems appropriate to reevaluate the ordinance that requires a solar array to be mounted to a building only. Public Comments To date, no written comments have been received. Staff has fielded a phone call from a nearby property owner with questions as to reflection or glare from the array, and its location. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? In particular, what is the extent of the tree removal? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Site Plan and plans Exhibit D. Solar and Shade Report Exhibit E. Glare information Exhibit F. Section 78-1379 Alternative Energy Systems Exhibit G. Notification Map and Property Owners List Exhibit H. Adjacent Neighbor Acknowledgment form COMPANY INFORMATION CLIENT INFORMATION SYSTEM DETAILS PROJECT-PAGE TITLE ALL ENERGY SOLAR, INC 1642 CARROLL AVE ST PAUL, MN 55104 (800) 620-3370 INFO@ALLENERGYSOLAR.COM PAGE NUMBER A1 WILLIAM C FERRIL 240 WAKEFIELD ROAD ORONO, MN 55391 PO 18101 REVISIONS LAST: 01/30/19 CR AZIMUTH NOTES: 1. (24) JA SOLAR 360W MODULES = 8.640kW 2. MOUNTING TYPE: FLUSH ROOF MOUNT 3. (24) ENPHASE IQ 7+ INVERTER(S) 4. ARRAY 1: 35° TILT, 180° AZIMUTH 5. ARRAY 2: [Tilt]° TILT, [Azimuth]° AZIMUTH 6. ARRAY 3: [Tilt]° TILT, [Azimuth]° AZIMUTH 7. ARRAY 4: [Tilt]° TILT, [Azimuth]° AZIMUTH COVER PAGE ELEANOR & WILLIAM FERRIL 240 WAKEFIELD ROAD ORONO, MN 55391 PO 18101 N WAKEFIELD ROAD ARRAY 1 SETBACK 6 0 ' SEPTIC METER LOCATION PROPERTY LINE 1 5 ' 15' 15' 15' 25' 39'-1" 1 0 '-9 " 2 1 ' - 0 " COMPANY INFORMATION CLIENT INFORMATION SYSTEM DETAILS PROJECT-PAGE TITLE ALL ENERGY SOLAR, INC 1642 CARROLL AVE ST PAUL, MN 55104 (800) 620-3370 INFO@ALLENERGYSOLAR.COM PAGE NUMBER A2 WILLIAM C FERRIL 240 WAKEFIELD ROAD ORONO, MN 55391 PO 18101 REVISIONS LAST: 01/30/19 CR NOTES: 1. ELEVATIONS MAY VARY DEPENDING ON GROUND ELEVATION BUT ARE DRAWN TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY 2. [2x4 TRUSS 24" OC, for example] ELEVATION DRAWINGS NORTH ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION MAX SLOPE EXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE ZERO SLOPE MAX SLOPE MAX SLOPEZERO SLOPE ZERO SLOPE 38'-11" 11'-0" 38'-11" 1 0 '-0 " 1 1 '-4 " Ground Mounted Array that is the same size as proposed array. Ground Mounted Array Located at: 480 Stubbs Bay Rd Orono, MN 55356 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To consider the response to the Metropolitan Council’s letter of incomplete. 2. Background. On December 10, the City Council passed a resolution directing staff to submit the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the Met Council. Staff did so on December 27th, and on January 18th, received a letter (Exhibit A) noting several items that needed to be addressed in order for the Met Council to consider the submittal complete and continue its review. Staff has made appropriate modifications to the Comprehensive Plan, summarized in the point by point response letter, attached as Exhibit B. Chapters seeing changes are provided as exhibits C- F. The balance of the comprehensive plan and its’ maps are found on the city website. 3B Land Use Land Use Area calculations and employment assumptions 3C Housing Housing tools and sequence of use 4A Transportation Bus Route # changed 4B Sewer Sewer and MUSA expansion, I/I tables and response The Met Council identifies certain plan components that must be included, based on the type of community. Exhibit G lists those components and where the corresponding information may be found. This was provided to the Met Council at the time of our submittal 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council authorize staff to forward the response as drafted to the Met Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should review the approval resolution and adopt or amend. Exhibits A. Met Council Incomplete Letter B. Staff’s Point by Point response letter C. Chapter 3B Land Use D. Chapter 3C Housing E. Chapter 4A Transportation F. Chapter 4B Sewer G. Original Summary Letter Item No.: 14 Date: February 11, 2019 Item Description: LA18-000044 – Comprehensive Plan Update – Metropolitan Council Response Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department Report February 12, 2019 Mr. Jake Reilly Sector Representative VIA EMAIL Metropolitan Council Jake.Reilly@metc.state.mn.us 390 Robert Street North Saint Paul, MN 55101-1805 Re: City of Orono Comprehensive Plan Incomplete resubmittal Mr. Reilly, Thank you for your comments of December 18, 2019, received January 22, 2019 regarding the City of Orono’s Comprehensive Plan submittal. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify areas within our Comprehensive Plan. Below, our responses to your request for additional information are provided in bold. This is intended to help and expedite the review of our submittal. REQUIRED INFORMATION Forecasts (Todd Graham, 651-602-1322)) The Plan needs to include some measure of employment-bearing land use intensity. Acceptable measurements of intensity include Floor Area Ratio (FAR) or building footprint. This was not found in the Plan. Response: Additional text was added to the Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Category and the Industrial Land Use Categories. Advisory Comments In table 3B-1A, the City's Utility Department estimates that the City in 2016 was already at 2,253 sewer-serviced households. The City could request that the sewer-serviced forecast be revised to stage more growth in the MUSA portion of Orono; and less growth in the rural portion. This is recommended. Response: Orono does not intend to add more residential growth to the sewered areas above what is already prescribed by the Metropolitan Council. Council staff recommend adding +145 sewer-serviced households and +450 sewer-serviced population to each of the 2020, 2030, and 2040 milestones. (Unserviced households forecasts would be reduced by the same amount.) This is advisory; the sewer-serviced forecast will not be changed unless the City makes this request. Please contact your Sector Representative to discuss. Response: The City does not intend to add additional growth over what is already estimated. Housing (Hilary Lovelace, 651-602-1555) Jake Reilly, Sector Representative February 12, 2019 Incompleteness Response Implementation Plan • The Plan needs to include circumstances and sequence each housing tool described on pages 15 and 16 of Part 3C. The description of circumstance of use for CDBG is a great example of language of how to structure that description, because it describes what types of projects the City will consider. The Plan should extend this type of description of when tools will be used for all tools. Response: Additional information was added to each tool, the tool list was expanded, and a new table (3C-9) was added, summarizing the sequencing of each tool. • To be consistent with Council policy, the Plan needs to describe all widely accepted tools to address the housing needs. The Plan must discuss in what circumstances the City will use the following tools: site assembly, AHIF, HOME, effective referrals, fair housing policy, first-time homebuyer down payment assistance, participation in housing-related organizations, rental licensing and inspections, and low-interest rehab programs. Response: Additional information was added to each tool, the tool list was expanded, and a new table (3C-9) was added, summarizing the sequencing of each tool. More information about these tools can be found in the Local Planning Handbook online. • The Plan also needs to clearly and directly link identified needs to tools. The Plan clearly identifies three needs in the narrative of the Housing Needs Identification Section on pages 11 and 12 of Part 3C. The description of CDBG describes the reason the City will partner with a developer to get the funds, and the need that will be addressed by the use of these funds. This is a great example of language that helps make a Plan complete. Council staff recommend extending this type of description of when tools will be used for all tools. Response: A Table, (Table 3C-9) was added linking needs to tools. • The Plan needs to link tools to the AMI band (i.e. households earning 30% AMI or less) that is intended to be helped by each tool. One way to do this is to define needs with AMI Bands (i.e. senior housing for households making less than 80% AMI) and connect all tools to needs. Another way is to mention the AMI bands intended for each tool in the narrative description of the tools. Response: A Table (3C-9) was added linking needs to tools. Advisory Comment: The Plan lists Livable Communities Act (LCA) awards as a tool. Please note that the Council will require a local Fair Housing policy as a requirement to draw upon LCA awards beginning in 2019. Please contact Council staff for additional resources related to Fair Housing policies. Response: Comment received Land Use (Jake Reilly, 651-602-1822) Existing Land Use • Map 3B-1 appears to represent areas with urban services verses rural. However, the map legend shows the entire City within the 2040 MUSA which is incorrect. Response: Map 3B-1 has been updated. Map 3B-4 more accurately shows the area within the city that has urban services. Map 3B-1 and Map 3B-4 should reflect the same information. • The land use titles in Table 3B-2, need to be consistent with those used in the Existing Land Use Map on Map 3B-2a. Response: Table 3B-2 has Jake Reilly, Sector Representative February 12, 2019 Incompleteness Response been adjusted. Since open water is not a land use, that has been removed from the tables. Though the land uses are the same, some of the titles between the table and map do not match. • If land uses in the Existing Land Use section, specifically Rural Preserve, Rural Residential, and Island Residential are not expected to develop further, then the text should not read as if additional housing units are possible in those areas. Response: The city does not anticipate these land uses to expand, but we do anticipate that, due to their size and/or configuration, some lots may accommodate subdivision, provided each new lot meets or exceed the lot width and area requirements of the applicable zoning district. Planned Land Use • The land use titles in Table 3B-3, should be consistent with those used in the Planned Land Use Map on Map 3B-3a. Though the land uses are the same, some of the titles between the table and map do not match. Response: Table 3B-3 has been updated. • The MUSA Expansion section (Part 4B, page 13) states that the City proposes a minor expansion of the MUSA and that additional expansion will be determine over time. It is unclear where this expansion is proposed. The Plan should specifically identify which properties are proposed, and also under what conditions the City would consider additional expansions. Response: The property proposed to be added was illustrated on Map 4B-2. Additional text is added the MUSA expansion page 4B-13. Conditions upon which the City will consider expansion to MUSA is outlined on Table 4B-12. Wastewater (Roger Janzig, 651-602-1119) • The statement in Part 4B, Page 2 last paragraph must be revised to state: "Potential future demands on regional capacity will be primarily from the retrofitting of existing rural residential neighborhoods where sewer is readily available and where residents are willing to pay the costs associated with its installation; and it is within the MUSA." Response: Text added. • The Plan does not include a local sanitary sewer system map. The system map should include pipe type (gravity or force Main), and pipe diameter. Response: Map 4B-3 has been updated. Map 3B-4 "Planned Development Sites" identifies the "2040 MUSA" or planned regional wastewater service area via map shading using a pale-yellow color which is difficult to identify in both electronic and print formats. Revise map so that these areas are easily identifiable. Response: The boundary line of the MUSA was added. We did add parcel boundaries for clarity. • Local lift station capacities were given in Table 4B-1. Their current design flow was not stated. Given the fact that the City is predominately served by local lift stations (44 in total), the requirement to provide capacities and design flow for the trunk sewers can be waived. However, each lift stations design flow needs to be added. Response: Table 4B-1 was amended to add lift station design flow. • Flow projections by Metropolitan Interceptor facility was included in the Jake Reilly, Sector Representative February 12, 2019 Incompleteness Response Plan in Table 4B-8 (part 4B, page 9). Population, household, and employment forecasts by interceptor facility was not provided in the Plan. However, the Plan states that the flow projections were based on residential equivalent connections (RECs), therefore the information is available to the City to provide the forecasts by interceptor for 2020, 2030, and 2040. Response: Table 4B-7 shows the changes to each sewer shed based on Res Unit (top) and Flow (bottom). Table 4B-8 incorporates that growth in projections by interceptor 2010, 2020, 2030, and 2040. Table 3B-4, Community Management Plan, part 3B, page 22 refers to "MUSA Part" expressed in roman numerals. Table has been updated to reflect Arabic numerals, to be consistent with Map 4B-2. These areas are in reference to the City's previous 2030 plan and nowhere in the 2040 Plan are these areas delineated. Include map that identifies these areas. • Council staff encourage the City to review the www.metrocouncil.org/iandi website and Thrive MSP 2040 for current policy and as context in addressing the following requirements for the Plan: o Describe the sources, extent, and significance of existing inflow and infiltration in both the municipal and private sewer systems Response: Included on page 4B-11-12 including a breakdown of residential housing stock age within the community into pre- and post-1970 era, and what percentage of pre-1970 era private services have been evaluated for I/I susceptibility and repair. Response: Table 3C-4 shows the age of housing stock. We did not link that to I/I assumptions because a significant portion of our housing is on private septic, and unmeasurable. We do not see where housing stock breakdowns pre and post 1970 is a requirement in the I/I discussion. Please also include the measured or estimated amount of clearwater flow generated from the public municipal and private sewer systems Response: Table 4B-10 compares measurable sewer flows during wet and dry periods. o Describe the implementation plan for preventing and eliminating excessive inflow and infiltration from entering both the municipal and private sewer systems and include a schedule and the related financial mechanisms planned or needed to implement the I/I mitigation strategy. Response: Municipal I/I reduction starts on page 4B-11. • The Plan does not identify specific locations of future trunk sewer connections to any regional interceptors, nor does it state that none are planned. However, the Plan does state in Part 4B, page 13, under Future Sanitary Sewer System, that future demands for municipal sewer may come up as areas within the MUSA develop. This would infer that the locations of potential trunk sewer extensions would correlate with the projects identified on Map 3B-4 "Planned Development Sites". At least three of the planned Development sites are in proximity to a regional interceptor. Response: Verification added to Future Sanitary Sewer Improvements Paragraph, Page 4B-14 Water Supply (Dave Brown, 651-602-1072) Jake Reilly, Sector Representative February 12, 2019 Incompleteness Response • All components of the local water supply plan, including appendices, need to be consistent with the information submitted to MN Department of Natural Resources (DNR) through MPARS. This ensures that all required elements of the comprehensive plan are together and accessible. Response: Agree. The Water Supply Chapter has been developed with this premise. • Although the MN DNR has not yet completed its review of the local water supply plan, Council staff have reviewed the version of it that was included as Appendix 4C-A in the comprehensive plan update (Council Review File 22055-1). The Plan needs to include all of the local water supply plan appendices are not included when submitted to the Council. Please include all appendices referenced in MnDNR Local Water Supply Template as "APPENDICES TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE WATER SUPPLIER." Response: The appendices to the Water Plan have been added. Advisory Comments: • Section 1.D provides a description of the approach used to project future water demand. However, the values provided in Table 7 for max day demand do not match the description provided in the text on how max day demand was calculated. Ratio of average day to maximum day that is used to calculate max day demand is not 2.0 as described in the text and instead appears to start at 3.83 in 2016 and gradually reduce over the years to 3.70 in 2040. Either revise the table or the text to reflect the calculation used for projected max day demands. Response: Will update document once all comments are received from all interested parties, including the DNR. • If changes are made to this water supply plan resulting from DNR's review of the plan or from changes during review of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan update - such as changes to forecasts - the City will need to provide the Council and DNR with the updated information. Response: Agree. We will provide the DNR approved copy once received. OTHER ADVISORY INFORMATION Council staff offer the following additional advisory comments for your consideration. Regional Parks & Trails (Colin Kelly, 651-602-1361) Council staff recommend revising the legend to Map 4E-1 Parks and Trails to reflect the appropriate names of these state facilities: Luce Line State Trail, Wolsfeld Woods Scientific and Natural Area, and Wood-Rill Scientific and Natural Area. Response: Map 4E-1 has been updated. Surface Water Management (Jim Larsen, 651-602-1159) Council staff request that the City provide to the Council the date the Watershed District approves the final LWMP, and the date the City adopts the final LWMP. Response. Agree. We anticipate this occurring in the next 30 days. We also request that the City provide the Council with a copy of the final adopted LWMP that will be included in the final Plan document that the City adopts, if it differs from the version contained in this Plan. Response: Agree, if different. Jake Reilly, Sector Representative February 12, 2019 Incompleteness Response Transit (Steve Mahowald, 612-349-7775) The Transit section on page 344 states Orono is served by Route 675. That route has been renumbered as Route 645. Response: The text has been adjusted as suggested. Orono’s goal is to adopt its’ Comprehensive Plan as soon as possible, if there is anything we can provide that will ease your review, please let us know. Please feel free to contact me at 952.249.4626 or by email at jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us if you have any questions. Sincerely, CITY OF ORONO Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS CMP PART 3B GENERAL LAND USE PLAN Introduction 3B-2 Scope 3B-3 Basic Land Use Concepts and Principles 3B-3 Table 3B-1: Orono Population and Households 1970-2040 3B-4 Table 3B-1a: Orono Populations and HH adjusted 3B-5 Land Use Goals and Policies 3B-6 2040 Regional Development Framework 3B-12 Existing and Future Land Use Summary 3B-13 Table 3B-2: Orono Existing Land Use Summary 3B-13 Table 3B-3: Orono 2040 Planned Land Use 3B-14 Navarre Area Plan 3B-18 What Changed 3B-21 Future Development/ Staged Plan 3B-21 Table 3B-4: Planned Development Sites 3B-22 Table 3B-5: Net Density 3B-24 Table 3B-6: Planned Development by Decade 3B-24 Employment 3B-25 Figure 3B-1 Employment 3B-25 Figure 3B-2 Employment by Industry 3B-25 Historic Site Preservation Plan 3B-26 Appendices Map 3B-1 Urban and Rural Areas Map 3B-2 Existing Land Use Map 3B-2B Existing Land Use-Navarre Area Map 3B-3 Proposed Land Use Map 3B-3B Proposed Land Use Navarre Area Map 3B-4 Planned Development Sites 3B-A Navarre Area Plan CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 2 CMP PART 3B LAND USE PLAN INTRODUCTION This Land Use Plan is a refinement and restatement of the ongoing planning practices of Orono citizens. It respects and maintains the historic development patterns of the City. It continues the basic land use concepts developed by Orono Township in 1950 and it conforms to the goals established by the first organized comprehensive planning attempts in the mid 1960's. This Plan is prepared and presented for the following purposes: 1. The Land Use Plan is intended to be a management tool for City officials, City staff, and other parties involved in land development and growth management in Orono. Orono's land use plan indicates the basic location, density and types of land uses in the City that are considered to be compatible with environmental conditions and beneficial to the long term health, safety and welfare of the City and its citizens alike. 2. The Land Use Plan is intended to be a guide for future development so as to reinforce our environmental protection commitment and to ensure such development will be consistent with existing land use. This Plan is compatible with the plans of nearby cities for land use of abutting neighborhoods and for overall levels of services and facilities. 3. The Land Use Plan is intended to advise the Metropolitan Council and our municipal neighbors of Orono's planning and growth management programs. The Land Use Plan illustrates and coordinates the various goals and policies of all the elements of the Community Management Plan. 4. The Land Use Plan is intended to be used as a basis for public facilities planning. The Land Use Plan plays an important role in determining each neighborhood's ultimate population, the required capacity of public facilities, and an appropriate capital improvements program. 5. The Land Use Plan is intended to be used as the basis for developing responsible ordinances for land use management. Zoning and subdivision controls have been established and will continue to be refined to implement the intent of this Land Use Plan. CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 3 SCOPE The time framework of the Land Use Plan is intended to be consistent with the regional planning period of 2020 through 2040 and with the City's permanent planning policy for rural Orono. Orono's long range land use plans call for permanent maintenance of the existing low density rural residential areas. There is to be no staged growth plan and no expansion of the existing urban service area. This commitment is particularly important to the many Orono citizens who are making private investments based upon this concept. BASIC LAND USE CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES Orono's planning programs have long recognized the development paradox, or urbanization spiral, which often results from arbitrary planning assumptions or from incomplete analysis of planning alternatives. The most striking example in Orono's situation is the documented evidence that over- extension of sanitary sewers, ostensibly to solve a pollution problem, can easily in itself cause irretrievable water quality degradation of Lake Minnetonka. Chapter 1 of this Plan outlines the “urbanization spiral”. Nutrient management technologies such as NURP ponds, alum treatments, and a wide variety of Best Management Practices provide added tools to manage runoff from rural densities. However, Orono cannot and will not rely solely on man- made systems for preserving water quality, and will not increase density to pay for stormwater management infrastructure. A principal goal of Orono's planning program is the protection of natural resources and environmental amenities, particularly the water quality of Lake Minnetonka. The Environmental Protection Plan emphasizes Orono's unique environmental position in relation to the long-term health of Lake Minnetonka. Retention of natural vegetation, light, air, and open space will be promoted. Shorelines will be protected from erosion and alteration. Water quality preservation is dependent upon effective sewage treatment programs. Urbanized areas, shoreland areas and remaining existing higher-density housing clusters within the Rural area have been or will be provided with municipal sanitary sewer to prevent discharge of untreated or insufficiently treated sewage effluent into the Lake. In the rural areas, low density land use can be safely served long- term by individual on-site sewage treatment systems. Historic development patterns have resulted in a city which is partially urban and partially rural. These two development patterns offer a variety of housing to meet residents’ lifestyle and service desires. The citizens of Orono have determined that a long range planning objective of the City is the permanent retention of the rural community. This objective is in line with the existing developed density of the area, and with the similar plans of other cities abutting the rural area. Orono is partly in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and partly outside the current MUSA. The MUSA was established by Metropolitan Council to define the extent of areas where urban services will be provided and urban scale development will occur. Urban and rural neighborhoods require differing levels of public services and facilities. The urban areas of Orono have sufficient density to require, and to financially support, municipal sewer and water CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 4 services, increased police and fire protection, public works projects and public recreational facilities. These areas have such facilities in place and in sufficient capacity to accommodate all projected urban development. The rural areas have limited density and have environmental restraints prohibiting urban density encroachments. Orono expects future development in both the urban and the rural portions of the city. The urban area is expected to have new residential infill development on the existing vacant lots and undeveloped parcels at densities consistent with the Community Management Plan. Additional of higher density housing is anticipated in the planning term to accommodate a wider range of affordability and lifecycle housing needs, overall urban density will remain relatively low. The rural area is expected to have continued infill residential development. Non-residential development will likely be limited to open space recreation. Over time, changes in national priorities, population trends, metropolitan plans and metropolitan facilities have continued to reinforce the planning and development objectives of Orono. Community leaders have consistently held firm to the quality over quantity in approving development proposals, and will continue to do so. The projected population is a direct result of Orono's environmental protection policies and is consistent with the proposed public facilities plans of Orono, the Hennepin County Public Works Department, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). Table 3B-1 illustrates Orono Population and Household growth, from 1970, projected through 2040. The most recent data supplied by the Met Council, in 2016, shows 7,691 people in 3,037 households. Table 3B-1: Orono Population, Households, and Employment 1970 - 2040 (Sewered and Unsewered Forecasts) Population Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 2020 2030 2040 Sewered -- -- -- -- 4,429 -- 5,150 6,170 6,740 Unsewered -- -- -- -- 3,008 -- 2,950 2,630 2,760 Total City 6,787 6,845 7,285 7,538 7,437 7,691 8,100 8,800 9,500 Household Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 2020 2030 2040 Sewered -- -- -- -- 1,780 2,253 2,105 2,455 2,785 Unsewered -- -- -- -- 1046 784 1,095 1,105 1,115 Total City 2,146 2,291 2,613 2,766 2,826 3,037 3,200 3,560 3,900 Persons/HH 3.16 2.99 2.79 2.73 2.63 2.53 2.53 2.47 2.44 Employment 500 809 980 951 1562 1579 1700 1780 1800 Source: Metropolitan Council System Statement CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 5 Table 3B-1a illustrates the number of households need to be created based on the 2016 updated numbers. In summary, the city will need to add 523 sewered households to meet 2030 projections, and 340 households in the 2030s to meet 2040 forecasts. Table 3B-1a: Orono Households 2010 - 2040 (Sewered and Unsewered adjusted Forecasts) Household Year 2010 2016 2020 Est. Change from 2016 2030 Est. Change from 2016 2040 Est Change from 2030 Sewered 1780 2253 2105 -148 2,455 202 2,785 330 Unsewered 1046 784 1095 311 1105 321 1,115 10 Total City 2,826 3037 3,200 163 3,560 523 3,900 340 Source: Metropolitan Council System Statement, City Utility Accounts Regional transportation plans have been revised since the 1970's to accommodate the increased traffic levels on Highway 12 through Orono and Long Lake. Environmental and social pressures have eliminated any plans for expansion of County Road 15 along the lakeshore. Orono will continue to promote and implement strategies to reroute traffic away from the lakeshore areas. Regional sewer service facilities plans were revised three decades ago in response to Orono’s plans for low-density development. The final Orono-Long Lake Interceptor is in place with a design capacity for less than 8,400 Orono residents and a limited service area. In the early 1980's, the Maple Plain Interceptor was similarly designed to provide only limited capacity for Orono. These capacity limitations are consistent with Orono's goals for the rural area. Orono's commercial and economic development has always been centered in the historic town centers. The shopping, employment, education and social needs of Orono residents have been met by commercial facilities and shopping centers located in Navarre and in surrounding communities. Promotion of duplicate facilities in Orono would tend to be uneconomic and counterproductive. Orono's housing plan is intended to accommodate all planned population growth in a wide variety of housing opportunities. New urban housing will be in a variety of forms including single family homes on scattered vacant lots throughout the sewered area; planned residential developments including mixed single family, attached townhome, and apartment dwelling units on vacant sewered parcels along Wayzata Boulevard and in the Navarre Area. Most new rural housing will be on new lots of two to five acres net dry-buildable area, all with prior approved site evaluation and proof of adequate septic system operation. In Shoreland areas previously brought into the MUSA, new low- density rural development may be provided with municipal sewers to afford the maximum level of protection for Lake Minnetonka and other Orono lakes. Orono's comprehensive sewer policy plan is designed to provide an adequate, safe level of sewage treatment and waste water disposal for all urban and rural properties. Sewage treatment policies respect the limited regional capacity and the differing levels of service required by urban and rural CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 6 neighborhoods. Municipal sewer capacity is available for projected urban development within the existing urban service area. Orono's transportation plan is tailored to the different needs of urban and rural neighborhoods. Near the lakeshore and in some rural areas, the collector roads are relatively slow speed with circuitous alignment dictated by the hills and bays rather than by commuter preference. The urban areas are provided with a typical network of city streets connecting residential and shopping areas with each other. The rural area is gridded-off with a core system of publicly maintained collector and minor arterial streets running at regular intervals. Orono's parks and open space facilities reflect different urban and rural characteristics. In the urban area, the City provides numerous small neighborhood parks and playgrounds offering centers for neighborhood activities such as swimming, skating, softball, and soccer. In addition, three larger preserves (Casco Circle, Saga Hill, and Highwood) offer substantial "natural" areas. In the rural area, a variety of City-owned parks and preserves offer a range of active and passive recreation opportunities. Large public and quasi-public recreational facilities include Three Rivers Park District lands, several golf courses, a gun club, the Luce Line state Trail, the Dakota Rail Trail, as well as two 'big woods' Scientific and Natural Areas. LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES Orono's Land Use Plan is based upon the following goals and policies which in turn have been actively developed and fostered by Orono residents over the last 45 years. Land Use Goals 1. To reinforce Orono's environmental protection commitment, with special emphasis on the protection of Lake Minnetonka and Orono’s other lakes. 2. To maintain the historic identity and character of the separate urban and rural neighborhoods. 3. To provide appropriate places for a variety of local residential, educational, recreational, industrial and neighborhood commercial activities. 4. To protect neighborhoods from encroachment of incompatible land uses. 5. To coordinate Orono's land uses with that of neighboring communities. 6. To coordinate land uses and developed density with the financial and physical capabilities of the City. General Land Use Policies 1. The boundary between Orono's Urban and Rural Areas is fixed. Orono's Urban Area will not be strictly defined by the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary or future expansions of the MUSA boundary but will be fixed by this and the other elements of the Community Management Plan. Orono’s defined Urban and Rural Areas are best described by CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 7 the planned development types and densities. Orono’s Urban and Rural areas are depicted and fixed by Map 3B-1. 2. The Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) will define the areas of Orono where municipal sewers may be extended. The MUSA will include all parts of Orono's Urban Area and may include parts of Orono's Rural Area where appropriate. The MUSA boundary in Orono will define areas where sewer exists or where it may be extended to serve existing or new development, but will not define the areas where general urban services will be provided, and it will not strictly define the boundary between higher density and low-density development. 3. Orono's land use plans will be based upon environmental protection policies. Land use and development must assure the conservation, protection and preservation of sensitive environmental resources in accordance with the goals and policies of the Environmental Protection Plan. 4. Development density will be limited throughout the city to a level which will not overload the natural surface water drainage and filtration system. Urbanization increases the rate and quantity of surface runoff while decreasing the water quality. To the extent that it is practical and feasible, the City will supplement existing natural assimilation capacities with man- made ponding areas, but will not allow increases in development density beyond the defined density as a result of such supplementation. 5. The wetlands, floodplains, and marshlands of the city will be protected and preserved as wildlife habitats, as unique open spaces, and as an economically practical and effective method of flood protection and storm water runoff filtration. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage easements for conservation of these lands. The city will not support the filling of a wetland to provide a buildable lot. 6. Protection of lake resources will allow reasonable access, use and enjoyment while preventing overcrowding and excessive encroachment. In conformance with Orono's Shoreland Management regulations, Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. 7. Lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach or floodplain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to limit surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. Where determined to be feasible and practical, alternative natural methods of shoreline protection other than rip-rap will be promoted. Excavation, filling and other grade changes at or near the shoreline for the sole purpose of accommodating development will be discouraged. CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 8 8. The City will work to encourage and facilitate slope stabilization measures prior to slope failures. 9. Development or alteration of floodplains will be restricted. The City will observe and administer Flood Plain regulations as required by the DNR. 10. Orono's land use plan will promote the preservation of open space, light and air. Sufficient open spaces will be provided in each neighborhood and on each lot to prevent overcrowding and to ensure adequate light, air and recreation for all residents. 11. Private ownership, maintenance and stewardship of the land, including open space and many types of improvements, is favored over public ownership as being in the best and most beneficial interests of the property owner and the public, providing for more intimate, responsive and economical land management. 12. No land owner should be denied the right to develop his land by any staged growth, land banking or no-growth policy, provided the development can be accomplished within the performance standards, policies and requirements of the Community Management Plan. 13. Future development must enhance the community. Land development should respect preserve the value of the land and the integrity, stability and beauty of the community. 14. Physical improvements required to accommodate new development must be provided by the developer. It is the policy of the City that development pays for itself, physical improvements such as roads, drainage and utilities required to accommodate new subdivisions or development should be designed, financed and installed directly by the benefited developer as a precondition to development In addition, this philosophy includes developer responsibility for special fire protection equipment or devices in the case of unusual land uses or building configurations, and/or special security services in the case of unusual public safety situations. 15. All physical improvements must conform to city standards. Physical improvements related to health, safety or community systems such as roads, pathways, drainage or utility systems will be designed, located and constructed to uniform, City-established standards to ensure proper functioning and compatibility with overall City plans. 16. Developers must dedicate lands required for public use. Land subdivision or any development that results in increased land use density, and hence increased demand for municipal services, will be expected to include public dedication of lands necessary for additional road rights of way, parks, playgrounds, trails, open space, ponds or storm water holding areas whenever such facilities are directly used by the subdivided land or required by such density increase. If the individual development's property is not conducive to public land dedication, then in lieu of lands the developer may be required to contribute funds for the municipal purchase of such CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 9 lands or the improvement of such facilities proportionate to the cumulative effect of such density increase from multiple small developments. 17. No land will be permitted to be subdivided or built upon which is held unsuitable by the City for the proposed use because of flood hazards, inadequate drainage, soil formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewage disposal capabilities, or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. Urban Land Use Policies 1. The majority of Orono's urban area will be reserved for residential land use. Many urban residences will be intimately associated with the lake shoreline and will be subject to density restrictions because of sensitive environmental conditions. Medium and High Density multi- family residential uses will be limited to locations near existing shopping and transportation services, but will not be appropriate within 1,000 feet of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka except when in close proximity to the Navarre commercial area abutting CR 15 or CR 19. 2. Commercial areas will be provided for neighborhood service businesses. The primary function of Orono's commercial areas will be to provide those retail, commercial and service businesses which are directly necessary to serve Orono's urban and rural residents. Commercial development will be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer and adequate transportation are available. Commercial development of a regional nature (i.e. “big box” retail) which would increase traffic, particularly on collector streets serving low density residential development, will be discouraged. Mixed Use Residential and Commercial Development is targeted for select traditionally commercial areas to provide a healthy base of customers for these limited commercial areas. 3. Lakeshore commercial areas will be provided for public access and limited lake-user services. Orono's residents and other lake users require lake access, fishing supplies, boat service and boat repair facilities which are unique to our location on a recreational development lake. Orono's Land Use Plan will provide locations for such special-purpose businesses where appropriate from both the land use and the lakeside environmental standpoint. No use or location will be permitted to adversely affect the lake quality or the public's general usage of the lake. All lakeshore commercial is to be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer and adequate transportation are available. 4. The City will encourage private unification and coordination of the existing commercial areas. Unplanned strip commercial developments will be discouraged. Coordinated projects designed to aesthetically enhance, unify and identify the business areas will be encouraged. 5. Future industrial development will be limited to the area of the existing Orono industrial park. No other location in Orono combines the availability of transportation and public utilities with remoteness from sensitive environmental features. In addition, this land use is consistent CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 10 with Long Lake's neighboring industrial development. 6. Commercial and industrial development will not be permitted to adversely affect neighboring residential property. The location, scale and types of commercial and industrial development will be controlled so as not to encroach upon or adversely impact the primary residential land uses in Orono. Wherever possible, natural land forms or buffers will be required between different land uses. 7. Public urban services must be available for all future commercial, industrial and urban- residential development. Commercial, industrial and urban-density residential uses will be permitted only where municipal sanitary sewer, water, adequate transportation, police and fire protection services are available. 8. Urban development will utilize the capacity of existing public facilities. New land uses and development will be allowed to infill existing vacant properties within the urban service area consistent with environmental limitations and with the existing or planned capacities of water, sewer, drainage transportation and recreational facilities. New development will not be permitted to overburden these services at the expense of the existing users. 9. Land use standards will limit the impact of urban encroachment on Lake Minnetonka. Minimum lot width will space out docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation. Lake use regulations promulgated by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and supplemented with City regulations if necessary will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat storage. 10. Retention of natural vegetation will limit the impact of urbanization as visible from the lake. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. Rural Land Use Policies Orono's rural area will be reserved for permanent low-density residential land use. Orono's rolling rural area is not suitable for commercial agriculture. Likewise, the delicate balance of storm water nutrient loading vs. marshland assimilative capacity precludes expansion of the urban service area without major environmental problems for Lake Minnetonka. Therefore, the ideal land use for that portion of Orono located outside of the Urban Service Area is the planned low- density rural residential land use. Commercial and industrial uses will not be permitted in the rural area. Orono's rural area provides the opportunity for quasi- agricultural land uses. Greenhouses, orchards, small hobby farms, riding stables, and recreation areas such as large golf courses and park reserves are not possible in more crowded urban areas but they are compatible with rural residential properties. Thus, the total commercial activity of Orono is broader and more varied than if the City were all urban or all rural. CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 11 Rural density is limited by natural conditions. Development of rural Orono is naturally limited by a number of conditions including wetlands, steep slopes and areas of high water table, factors which influence building locations and transportation options as well as the location and spacing of on-site sewage treatment systems which rely on soil treatment of sewage effluent. The existing rural area will not be urbanized. Orono's Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. Municipal urban services will not be extended into the rural area or across open, rural lands. Rural land uses and densities do not require urban services. Urban services are not compatible with rural land use. Extension of certain urban services, such as extensive public road maintenance or municipal sewer or water cannot be economically justified or easily provided to developments in rural areas or at rural densities. Rural development will be subject to proven on-site sewage treatment capability. Future development in the rural area will be contingent upon the developer providing prior technical evidence that the site contains sufficient suitable land for all development, an acceptable primary drainfield area, and reserved space for at least one alternate drainfield area. The zoning area requirements for rural Orono will therefore be based upon minimum areas of dry, buildable, contiguous land exclusive of roadways, wetlands, streams or areas of high water table. Rural land use densities will allow maximum retention of private woods and open space. Low rural densities will accommodate home-sites without affecting the traditional vistas of open fields and woods. The retention of these woodlands and marshlands will then assure permanent habitat for our wildlife. Public open space will be provided on a large-scale or Park Reserve basis, but neighborhood or mini-parks are unnecessary because of the large amount of available privately owned and maintained open space. Rural lakeshore areas within the Shoreland and within the MUSA will be provided with municipal sewer service upon request. Municipal sewer service connections will be available to new or existing residences within the designated Shoreland Overlay District and within the MUSA when requested, costs to connect will be the responsibility of the property owner. However, this policy will not preclude development of such areas using fully conforming Individual Sewage Treatment Systems. Lakeshore Residential Land Use Policies Although Orono’s lakeshore has a wide range of diversity in lot size and home size, the predominant character of Orono’s lakeshore is natural. Natural is defined in part by much of the lakeshore being historically developed as large estate lots with homes set back a substantial distance from the lakeshore, or being developed as moderate homes on moderate lots leaving substantial open space. Natural includes remnants of native forests and vegetation, protection of the lakeshore from hardcover and impervious surface encroachments. The exception to the natural lakeshore is the areas where historically small cottages were built on small lots close to the lakeshore. These cottages in many cases have been updated, remodeled or expanded into year- round homes. The key goal of the City’s Comprehensive Plan is to protect Lake Minnetonka, and other Orono CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 12 lakes and waterways which includes the preservation of the natural character of the lakeshore and the water quality of the lakes. As the demand for, and value of, lakeshore property has dramatically increased, so has the pressure to expand or replace older homes with much larger homes. This pressure has the potential to substantially alter the natural character of the lakeshore, and the more open and natural environment enjoyed by property owners along much of the lakeshore in Orono. The following policies will guide the City in addressing development on the lakeshore. 1. Lake Minnetonka shall be protected as a natural and recreational resource. 2. The natural character of the lakeshore shall be preserved, and when possible, enhanced. 3. The views and open space currently enjoyed by lakeshore property owners shall be reasonably protected. 4. The size of a house to be allowed on a lot shall be determined, in part, based on the size of the lot, as well as on the shape and topography of the lot. 5. The increase in massing of structures on the lakeshore shall be limited. 2040 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Accommodating future growth of the Metro Area is a concern that will require wide-ranging resources. The Metropolitan Council in 2015 adopted “Thrive MSP 2040” to provide a plan for addressing the challenges that will be faced by the Twin Cities area over the next two decades in accommodating expected growth in the region. Forecasts indicate the metro area will grow by 820,000 people between 2010 and 2040, and as the average household size continues to shrink (from 2.55 in 2010 to 2.43 by 2040) an additional 389,000 households must be accommodated. In addressing the challenges of growth, Metropolitan Council has acknowledged that a “one size fits all” approach to implementing the Regional Development Framework is not appropriate, and has designated Geographic Planning Areas to identify communities with similar types of growth. In general, Orono’s area within the MUSA boundary is designated as “Emerging Suburban Edge” and the areas outside the MUSA boundary are “Rural Residential”. Metropolitan Council has identified a set of implementation strategies for each of these categories, as well as an umbrella of strategies that will apply to all communities. Map 3C-1 outlines the Community Designations and the community responsibilities. Each local community is required to address how it will plan for its share of regional affordable housing needs for the decade 2021-2030. Metropolitan Council has apportioned the forecasted need among each of the municipalities in the 7-county metro area. Minnesota Statutes require that comprehensive plans include an implementation program that describes public programs, fiscal devices and other specific actions to be undertaken in stated sequence to implement the comprehensive plan and ensure conformity with metropolitan system plans. One required element is a housing implementation program, “…including CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 13 official controls to implement the housing element of the land use plan, which will provide sufficient existing and new housing to meet the local unit's share of the metropolitan area need for low and moderate income housing.” Orono’s share is forecasted at 154 new affordable housing units for the decade 2021- 2030. EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE SUMMARY Map 3B-2 depicts the existing land uses in Orono as of 2016. Table 3B-2: Orono Existing Land Use Summary, shows just over 1/3 of Orono’s total area is in open water; of the remaining 2/3 that is land area, 92% is devoted to residential, parks & open space uses, or underdeveloped. Table 3B-2: Orono Existing Land Use Summary (2016) Land Use Category Acreage % of City Rural Preserve 302 1.97% Rural Residential 2,098 13.66% Island Residential 76 0.49% Urban Low Density Residential 2,441 15.90% Urban Medium Density Residential 32 0.21% Urban High Density Residential 21 0.14% Commercial/ Office 86 0.56% Industrial 35 0.23% Park, Recreational and Open Space 1,529 9.96% Undeveloped 3367 21.93% Right-of-Way 137 TOTAL 15,356 65% Source: Existing Land Use Map Table 3B-2: Orono Existing Land Use Summary (2016) Land Use Category Acreage % of City Rural Preserve 1,214 7.88% Rural Residential 2,677 17.38% Urban Low Density Residential 3,130 20.33% Urban Medium Density Residential 52 0.34% Urban Medium High Density Residential/ Mixed Use 102 0.66% CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 14 Urban High Density Residential Island Residential 65 0.42% Commercial/ Office 54 0.35% Industrial 42 0.27% Park/Open Space 1,720 11.17% Open Water 5,241 34.03% Major Highway and Railroad 773 5.02% Undeveloped 329 2.14% TOTAL 15,399 100% Source: GIS, Existing Land Use Map Note: Open Water is a dominant natural feature of Orono and represents 34.03 percent of the “land” area of Orono. However, because it is not a land use, it is not included in Table 3B-2 above or on Map 3B-2a. CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 15 Map 3B-3 indicates the proposed land use plan of the city, identifying appropriate land uses and densities for each individual neighborhood. This land use map will form the basis for land use and zoning decisions over the next 20 years. Table 3B-3 is a summary of Orono’s Planned Land Use. Note that the Summary reflects that the planned uses are to be allowed to take effect immediately rather than being staged over a period of years, thus the 2030 and 2040 predicted acreages are the same as 2020 levels. Table 3B-3: Orono Planned Land Use Summary Land Use Category 2020 Acreage % of City 2030 Acreage % of City 2040 Acreage % of City Rural Preserve 1214 8.44% 1214 8.44% 1214 8.44% Rural Residential 2795 19.43% 2795 19.43% 2795 19.43% Island Residential 65 0.45% 65 0.45% 65 0.45% Urban Low Density Residential 2180 15.16% 2180 15.16% 2180 15.16% Urban Medium Density Residential 152 1.06% 152 1.06% 152 1.06% Urban Med-High/ Mixed Use Density Residential 82 0.57% 82 0.57% 82 0.57% Urban High Density Residential 64 0.45% 64 0.45% 64 0.45% Commercial/ Office 54 0.38% 54 0.38% 54 0.38% Industrial 42 0.29% 42 0.29% 42 0.29% Park, Recreational and Open Space 1720 11.96% 1720 11.96% 1720 11.96% Lake and Open Water 5241 36.44% 5241 36.44% 5241 36.44% Major Highway and Railway 773 5.37% 773 5.37% 773 5.37% TOTAL 14,382 100% 14,382 100% 14,382 100% Source: Proposed Land Use Map The Plan does not suggest a change in land use over the next 20 years, after the adoption of this Update. The land uses identified in Map3B-3a and Map 3B-3b are outlined in greater detail below. 1. Lakes and Open Water Areas within the city boundary of open water. The Lakes and associated watersheds are a significant influence on the quality of life and character of the City. However, since they are not a land use, they are not included in the land use calculations for the city. Open water constitutes approximately 34% Land Use Category 2020 Acreage % of City 2030 Acreage % of City 2040 Acreage % of City Rural Preserve (1 unit / 5 acres)1214 8.44%1214 8.44%1214 8.44% Rural Residential (1 unit / 2 acres)2808 19.52%2808 19.52%2808 19.52% Island Residential 65 0.45%65 0.45%65 0.45% Urban Low Density Residential (0.5 – 2 units /acre)2180 15.16%2180 15.16%2180 15.16% Urban Medium Density Residential (3 -10 units/ acre)152 1.06%152 1.06%152 1.06% Urban Med-High Residential/Mixed Use (10 –20 units / acre)82 0.57%82 0.57%82 0.57% Urban High Density Residential (20 -25 units per acre)64 0.45%64 0.45%64 0.45% Commercial/ Office 54 0.38%54 0.38%54 0.38% Industrial 42 0.29%42 0.29%42 0.29% Park, Recreational and Open Space 1720 11.96%1720 11.96%1720 11.96% TOTAL 8,381 58%8,381 58%8,381 58% Table 3B-3: Orono Planned Land Use Summary Source: Proposed Land Use Map CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 16 of the surface area of the City. 2. Rural Preserve (1 unit per 5 acres) The northwest corner of the City is planned for a lower density of one unit per five acres. This area has been developed to provide large lot and quasi agricultural home sites. The extension of municipal water or sewer is not intended for these areas. Residential dwelling units will be provided as single family detached structures. 3. Rural Residential (1 unit per 2 acres) This is the typical rural residential density developed and planned to be permanently self-supporting. No rural density will be allowed greater than one unit per two acres except for those residences in existing rural housing clusters that were originally developed many decades ago and in most cases have been provided with municipal sewer within the past 3 decades. New rural developments may include housing clustering when environmental and site conditions allow, provided the overall density within the development conforms to these requirements, and provided that all sewage treatment needs can be adequately met within. Residential dwelling units will be provided as single family detached structures. 4. Urban Low Residential (0.5-2 units per acre) This is intended for areas that have developed in a land use pattern of lots developed many decades ago smaller than 1 acre, and have access to sanitary sewer services. These lots have a particular impact on lake water quality, and lake character and storm water management, massing, and hardcover controls are critical to the retention of this character. Residential dwelling units will be provided as single family detached structures. 5. Urban Medium Residential (3-10 units per acre) This higher density will be reserved for properties deemed by the City Council to be so uniquely situated that residential development at the prescribed density will not negatively impact surrounding land uses. Such properties must have municipal sewer and water available. Other factors that will be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate locations for this density will include proximity to and the need for other urban utilities and services in relation to the proposed use; transportation system impacts and site access; and the ability of the proposed use to meet City housing goals. Residential dwelling units will be provided as single and two family structures. 6. Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 units per acre) This land use designation is reserved for specific sites, which based on their proximity to services and transportation corridors are deemed appropriate for higher density projects. The Mixed Use Residential designation is intended for established commercial areas on higher classification transportation routes to introduce an element of higher density residential. This residential component will serve to augment the commercial uses with a near-by customer base and to provide an efficient use of land. The properties targeted for Mixed Use classification are in the Navarre area, including a number of commercially zoned properties abutting Shadywood Road, and additional commercial and residential properties abutting Shoreline Drive. This Mixed Use designation is intended to allow for the possibility of higher density multi-family residential development such as senior and assisted living, townhomes, condominiums or apartment buildings. Under the Mixed Use designation, properties currently zoned for residential use are not intended to be converted to commercial property, but existing commercial property could be converted to higher-density CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 17 residential use or mixed residential-commercial uses in the same buildings. The City may also consider new zoning standards to regulate potential mixed-use projects. The Metropolitan Council requires that communities provide a measurement of forecasted employment. Acceptable measures include floor area ratios, building footprint percentages or impervious surface percentages. The City anticipates mixed use within the context of the neighborhood, and not necessarily specific to a particular parcel. Where employed, the City can envision ground level commercial services, with 2nd and 3rd level residential, though that is not the expected universal development pattern. The employment and service centers in Orono are very suburban in nature, equating to low Floor Area Ratios (FAR). The City anticipates development and redevelopment of its employment and service centers to continue that development pattern, given the City’s goals toward open space, stormwater management, and relatively modest building scale. The City anticipates its commercial and mixed use areas to be driven by retail and service industries, with a corresponding FAR between 0.2 and 0.35. Properties in Area E of Table 3B-4 and Map 3B-4 are the primary candidates for mixed use development, which can be both vertical or horizontal. The City has identified 48 net acres of properties that could be developed or redeveloped in the next 20 years. Based on the height limit (30 feet) and the desire for commercial services to mix with residential, the City anticipates no more than 70% of Area E to convert to residential uses, the remaining 30% to Commercial. . Assuming a FAR ratio of 0.25 to 0.45, there is the potential of 418,000 and 731,000 sq ft of building area. Assuming up to a third of that being used for Commercial purposes, that nets between 125,400 and 219,500 sq ft of commercial space, in Area E. Total Sq Ft (Total SF * FAR) 1/3 of area for Commercial Jobs, Assuming 1000 sqft per worker FAR 0.25 522,720 172,498 172 FAR 0.45 940,896 310,496 310 Applying the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey findings*, in particular the median square feet per worker, we can extrapolate a conservative estimate of 1000 sq ft per worker, based on likely retail, office or service employment, census region, climate, and number of floors. This yields a range of potential employment of between 172 and 310 workers in Area E alone. * Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey completed by the US Energy Information Administration, updated December, 2016 7. Urban High Density Residential (20-25 units per acre) This land use designation is reserved for specific sites, which based on their proximity to services and transportation corridors, are deemed appropriate for higher density projects. Other factors that will be taken into consideration in determining the appropriate locations for this density will include proximity to and the need for other urban utilities and services in relation to the proposed use; transportation system impacts and site access; and the ability of the proposed use to meet City housing goals. Residential dwelling units are anticipated to be provided as 4 unit townhomes, apartments, CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 18 condominiums, and senior housing structures, no higher than 30 feet in defined height. 8. Island Residential (1 unit per 5 acres) The Island residential is characterized by limited access, utilities, and municipal services for properties originally developed as seasonal cabins. The Land use category is intended to preserve this land use without encouraging additional subdivision. This area is envisioned for seasonal occupancy in single family detached structures. 9. Commercial/ Office Commercial/ Office is the general land use describing 3 sub land use categories: Lakeshore Commercial, Navarre Commercial District, and Orono/ Long Lake Business District. Urban commercial development is limited to two areas which are provided with all the necessary urban services and facilities. LAKESHORE COMMERCIAL Lakeshore Commercial, restricted to lake access and lake user service businesses, including marinas, are appropriate for a lakeside community and require a lakeshore location. Special performance standards are necessary to assure protection of the lake environment. Parking, utilities, lake/ Highway access, and pedestrian circulation must be considered in siting new Lake Shore Commercial Uses. NAVARRE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. See also Urban Medium High Density Residential/ Mixed Use. The major commercial center of Orono will continue to be Navarre. This area will provide opportunity for neighborhood retail and service businesses, plus professional offices. Accessory functions such as offices and living units or limited multi-family developments will be considered appropriate in or near the Navarre commercial area. The scale and type of retail uses in a pedestrian-friendly environment is the most important development parameter for the Navarre commercial area. The City will encourage redevelopment of individual commercial sites in Navarre to allow for an expanded range of neighborhood services and local small business opportunities. The Navarre Commercial District extends along either side of Shoreline Drive from the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19 westward to the Orono-Spring Park border, and along both sides of Shadywood Road from Lyric Avenue to Lydiard Avenue. The commercial uses along these intersecting corridors are typically only one tier deep, with virtually all commercial properties abutting either Shoreline Drive or Shadywood Road. Additionally, the commercial properties are not continuous, with residential properties scattered among them, making for a somewhat fragmented business district that is spread out over a mile in length from end to end. Along these two corridors the second tier of development is typically residential. Past City planning efforts for the Navarre area have identified a number of challenges to be addressed as Navarre redevelops in the years to come: 1. High traffic volumes and the existing traffic management infrastructure result in poor pedestrian accessibility. Pedestrians have limited options for crossing CR 15 or CR 19. The Park and Ride facility location and inflexibility of bus routes (partially due to the location and configuration of the P&R lot) requires that bus patrons cross CR 15 on at least one leg of their commute. CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 19 2. Parking availability is a limiting factor for expansion or redevelopment of existing businesses. 3. Beautification efforts are hindered by road width and right-of-way constraints as well as financial constraints. 4. Aging buildings are ripe for redevelopment yet provide low rental rates that allow local businesses to survive and thrive, reducing the incentive to redevelop. 5. There is little architectural cohesiveness among the existing buildings. 6. Compatibility of certain business uses with the closely adjacent residential neighborhood can become an issue. 7. Desire to expand pedestrian connectivity to adjoining neighborhoods and to Dakota Rail Trail. 8. Introduction of higher density mixed use (residential and commercial) development to select sites identified in the Land Use Plan. ORONO/LONG LAKE BUSINESS AREA An additional commercial area is designated along Wayzata Boulevard where the availability of transportation and utilities as well as proximity to similar commercial developments in Orono and Long Lake, make commercial use appropriate. Orono will coordinate its commercial development planning related to Wayzata Boulevard area with the City of Long Lake to ensure the Long Lake downtown area remains vital and viable, to focus retail development in a compact downtown retail area, and to prevent the extension of retail development west of Willow Drive in Orono. The retail development in the Wayzata Boulevard area will be community or neighborhood scale rather than “big box‟ regional scale development. The types of retail uses will be those that focus on providing services to the residents and businesses of Long Lake and Orono, while also drawing from the reduced traffic stream on Wayzata Boulevard resulting from opening of the new Highway 12 corridor. However, the retail development is not to draw substantial traffic from beyond Orono. The development plans for the Highway 12 area will encourage locally-owned and operated businesses that provide services to Orono and Long Lake residents. Additionally, the Highway 12 retail area will be a pedestrian-friendly area. This involves providing trails/sidewalks along the roadways providing access to the retail uses. It also involves providing public amenities that provide a sense of place and provide a gathering place for the public. Parameters for commercial use of this area are as follows: 1. The area affected is property lying between Kelley Parkway and Wayzata Boulevard, west of Willow Drive and east of Old Crystal Bay Road. CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 20 2. Allowed uses in this area include professional offices, limited service uses, retail uses accessory to the office use, and senior and assisted living uses. 3. Access to all uses will be via Kelley Parkway. Direct access to Willow Drive, if allowed, are intended to be right-in/right-out only. There shall be no direct access points onto Wayzata Boulevard. 4. “Big box” retail uses will not be allowed within this area. 9. Park/ Recreation/ Open Space Park, Recreation, and Open Space Land Use includes public and private parks and natural areas throughout the community. The recreational facilities identified on the Land Use Plan are principally large natural or open space areas which are compatible with their Rural Area location. 10. Industrial This district provides space for industrial activities for companies that are able and willing to achieve superior standards of design and environmental protection. Industrial land uses should be restricted to areas abutting major transportation corridors and individually cited so as to minimum negative impacts on residential areas. Based on their heavy hardcover needs, industrial areas should be located further than 1,000 feet from lakes. The Metropolitan Council requires that communities provide a measurement of forecasted employment. Acceptable measures include floor area ratios, building footprint percentages or impervious surface percentages. Orono anticipates that new development in the Industrial land use will tend to result in FAR of 0.32 to 0.4. There is about 10 acres of vacant or underdeveloped industrially guided property. Applying the same methodology as outlined in the Mixed Use section: Total Sq Ft (Total SF * FAR) Jobs, Assuming 1500 sqft per warehouse worker FAR 0.32 139,392 93 FAR 0.40 174,240 116 The City can anticipate an additional 93-116 jobs upon the full buildout of the Industrial areas. These two areas, using the conservative estimates outlines, demonstrate Orono can accommodate employment growth projections. 11. Major Highway and Railway Uses Identifies land occupied by federal or state highways and railway improvements. NAVARRE AREA PLAN In 2018, the City completed the Navarre Area Plan (NAP) with the aid of a Planning Consultant, WSB and Associates. This planning process focused on the land range vision and land use goals for the Navarre area, and to inform the Comprehensive Plan, for this update. The proposed land uses shown on Map 3B- 3 include the findings from the Navarre Area Plan. Map 3B-3a shows the Navarre area specifically. CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 21 The Navarre Planning Process employed a Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), consisting of 13 members of the Navarre area community, including business owners and operators and residents. The Planning Process included three PAC meetings, an open house in January, and a Joint Work session in April. Public comment was collected via the open house, work session, on-line surveys, and the use of a social media tool, Social Pinpoint. The full report, including the appendices detailing the comments received, and the market study, are attached in Appendix 3B-A of this chapter. The NAP evaluated several factors influencing the changes in the Navarre neighborhood over the next 20 years, including the market, traffic and transportation. The goal of the PAC was to influence and guide this change toward a Navarre area that can serve as a pseudo “downtown” of Orono, while still respecting the core Orono values as a small, rural community. A market study was completed by Maxfield and Associates, tested the land use assumptions made by the land use plan. The market study was used to adjust the planned land use map from the 2030 to the 2040 Plan. Traffic and transportation issues are a major influence on the character and change in Navarre. In 2019, Hennepin County is expected to improve the intersection of County Roads 15 and 19 (Shoreline and Shadywood Road), though these improvements are not expected to increase capacity. Capacity challenges of this section of the community are discussed in the Transportation Chapter. The findings of the Navarre Area Plan are highlighted below. Interaction with Lake Minnetonka  As part of any redevelopment proposals involving parcels on the south side of Shoreline Drive between Carman Street and Kelly Avenue, the City should work with developers to identify opportunity areas that allow for viewing, sitting, and walking near the lakeshore. Fishing or boating connections to Lake Minnetonka are not anticipated. Future Development  Cautiously consider allowing increased building heights and residential density in areas along Shoreline Drive and Shadywood Road (where appropriate) to increase pedestrian traffic and encourage additional retail development.  Consider incorporating incentives into the zoning ordinance that allow for higher density in exchange for enhanced architectural features, underground parking, public amenities, plazas, open spaces, and recreation areas.  Adopt architectural and design regulations where appropriate to require pedestrian scale design. Consider regulations for maximum building setbacks, minimum window coverage, location of parking facilities, architectural materials, façade articulation, and entryways.  Review all permitted and conditional commercial uses within zoning districts along Shoreline Drive and Shadywood Road to ensure that the types of desired businesses are allowed in Navarre. Types of allowable uses should focus on small scale neighborhood goods and services and avoid those that do not have a large customer draw.  Consider reduced parking requirements for businesses that provide bicycle parking.  Explore acquiring additional property for providing shared parking and periodic public gatherings for Navarre businesses. CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 22  Host a developer round table to discuss obstacles to development in Navarre. Be prepared to address those obstacles.  Consider developing a façade improvement program to encourage the revitalization of neglected commercial buildings. Revolving loan funds may keep the money working within Navarre. Transportation Improvements  Work with Hennepin County on a plan for future improvements to Shoreline Drive and Shadywood Road that improves safety and mobility for pedestrians and cyclists. Consider eliminating some of the free right turns at the northwest, southwest, and southeast corners to help narrow the intersection, reduce speeds, and improve vehicle predictability. Check in with Hennepin County staff bimonthly and use the Navarre Small Area Plan PAC as the review committee for potential improvements.  Explore options for adding pedestrian and streetscaping amenities with any roadway improvements such as wider sidewalks, decorative pavement, landscaping, benches, and other ornamental features.  Meet with Hennepin County transportation staff to discuss potential improvements to alternate arterials that would relieve traffic pressure on Shoreline Drive and Shadywood Road through Navarre. Discuss options to reduce traffic volumes on Shoreline Drive and Shadywood Road.  Consider plans for access and the impact of expected traffic volume on Shoreline Drive and Shadywood Road with any redevelopment along these roads. Work with Hennepin County on developing an access management plan for properties that may redevelop along these roadways. Shadywood Trail Connection  Continue to have discussions with Hennepin County and Three Rivers Park District regarding the trail connection along Shadywood Road to keep the process moving forward.  Engage with impacted property owners early to identify necessary mitigation required.  Conduct additional public engagement regarding the trail as part of the community engagement surrounding the intersection improvements. Community Events  Encourage the development of a community festival.  Consider collaboration with nearby communities on an event that incorporates multiple destinations along the trail.  Utilize the city-owned parking lot on the north side of Shoreline Drive and west of Shadywood Road as a possible location for hosting tents, bands, and vendors associated with an event.  Should the block northwest of Shoreline Drive and Shadywood Lane (Maxfield Study Block 4) redevelop, that redevelop should include a space available for public gatherings such as an annual festival.  Leverage an annual festival as an opportunity to do enhanced branding for Navarre.  Explore opportunities for collaboration with the Mound farmers’ market to organize a farmers’ market along the Dakota Rail Trail in Navarre. CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 23  Consider the formation of a Navarre Business Association. Tear Downs  Review development standards applicable to single-family homes in Navarre. Review to ensure that adequate controls are in place to ensure that new development is compatible with the existing character and scale of the neighborhood, while still encouraging the redevelopment of blighted properties. Such standards could include requirements for floor area ratio, height, hardcover, architectural materials, landscaping, and accessory structures.  Proactively address blighted properties through the City’s code enforcement process so that existing homes are well maintained. Consider revisions to the City’s code enforcement process or adopting fines if non-compliance is an issue.  Review its demolition and construction regulations. If the regulation updates require addition administration and monitoring by City staff, consideration should be given to increasing the demolition permit fee commensurate with the addition staffing demand. WHATS CHANGED This update of the Comprehensive Plan introduces higher residential density along Kelley Parkway and Wayzata Boulevard, lowers density for the properties adjacent to the fire station on Willow, removes residential mixed use density along Shadywood, and introduces additional properties to potential mixed use development/ redevelopment along Shoreline in Navarre. These changes are all reflected on maps 3B-3a and 3B-3b. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT/ STAGED DEVELOPMENT The City does not intend to establish a staged growth plan, limiting a property owner from the use of their land, provided the development can be accomplished within the performance standards, policies and requirements of the Community Management Plan. The City anticipates its growth to occur in the same manner has been employed over the last three decades. The majority of subdivision based growth will occur via the splitting of larger lots into subdivisions of less than 6 new building sites. Small areas of the community are conducive to higher density. These projects have served to accommodate our aging community, and provide additional housing and neighborhood options not prevalent in Orono. The City’s new residential growth within the MUSA area is expected in one of 5 primary areas, depicted on Map 3B-4 Planned Development areas, and summarized in Table 3B-4, Predicted Growth in Sewered Areas. The table predicts growth over the next 2 decades and identifies the MUSA part and the Traffic Analysis Zone impacted. Assuming development at the minimum range, the city will meet its household growth projection for 2030 and 2040. The city also maintains opportunity for property owners to provide housing to meet affordability goals. The Net Density for the sewered areas of Orono identified in Table 3B-4, is summarized for clarity on Table 3B-5. The 891 units planned to be served by sanitary sewer services over the next 20 plus years yields a net density of 4.16 units per acre. CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 24 A B C D E F G H I Dumas Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)25.1 10 251 251 32 921 Eisinger Flats Urban High (20-25 u/a)10 20 200 200 50 921 35.1 451 451 0 St. Thomas Prop Urban High (20-25 u/a)3.69 20 73.8 73.8 10 922 2060 Wayzata Urban High (20-25 u/a)2.51 20 50.2 50.2 10 923 6.2 124 50.2 73.8 Area C, North Fire Station Area Hwy 12 frontage Urban Medium 1.71 3 5.13 5.13 34 929 Garden Prop.Urban Medium 3.41 3 10.23 10.23 34 929 Glendale Drive Urban Medium 3.82 3 11.46 11.46 34 929 8.94 26.82 0 26.82 Area D (Sewer extension into large lot areas/ Lake protection) Urban Low Density 690 Brown Rd Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)18 0.5 9 9 40 927 740 Brown Rd Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)3.18 0.5 1.59 1.59 40 927 3400 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)5.26 0.5 2 2 31 954 3295 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)4.23 0.5 2 2 31 931 3345 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)4.69 0.5 2 2 31 931 3350 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)7.12 0.5 3 3 31 954 3320 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)3.06 0.5 1 1 31 954 3300 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)4.55 0.5 2 2 31 954 3280 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)4.95 0.5 2 2 31 954 3250 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)5.31 0.5 2 2 31 954 3200 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)4.12 0.5 2 2 31 954 3175 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)7.49 0.5 3 3 31 954 3125 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)7.44 0.5 3 3 31 954 825 Old Crystal Bay R Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)17.61 0.5 8 8 31 954 1700 Shoreline Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)20.14 0.5 10 10 37 955 1100 Millston Rd Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)12.7 0.5 6 6 37 955 1003 Wildhurst Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)10 0.5 4 4 1 953 139.85 62.59 0 62.59Area D Total Area A Area A Total Area B Area B Total Area C Total Name Land Use Category Net Residential Acres (NRA) Lowest Guided Density Predicted Growth in Sewered Areas, Net Density Table 3B-4 (Continued) Predicted # of units (C x D) 2021-2030 Growth (Households) 2031-2040 Growth (Households) MUSA Part TAZ Zone CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 25 A B C D E F G H I Dumas Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)25.1 10 251 251 XXXII 921 Eisinger Flats Urban High (20-25 u/a)10 20 200 200 L 921 35.1 451 451 0 St. Thomas Prop Urban High (20-25 u/a)3.69 20 73.8 73.8 X 922 2060 Wayzata Urban High (20-25 u/a)2.51 20 50.2 50.2 X 923 6.2 124 50.2 73.8 Area C, North Fire Station Area Hwy 12 frontage Urban Medium 1.71 3 5.13 5.13 XXXIV 929 Garden Prop.Urban Medium 3.41 3 10.23 10.23 XXXIV 929 Glendale Drive Urban Medium 3.82 3 11.46 11.46 XXXIV 929 8.94 26.82 0 26.82 Area D (Sewer extension into large lot areas/ Lake protection) Urban Low Density 690 Brown Rd Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)18 0.5 9 9 XL 927 740 Brown Rd Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)3.18 0.5 1.59 1.59 XL 927 3400 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)5.26 0.5 2 2 XXXI 954 3295 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)4.23 0.5 2 2 XXXI 931 3345 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)4.69 0.5 2 2 XXXI 931 3350 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)7.12 0.5 3 3 XXXI 954 3320 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)3.06 0.5 1 1 XXXI 954 3300 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)4.55 0.5 2 2 XXXI 954 3280 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)4.95 0.5 2 2 XXXI 954 3250 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)5.31 0.5 2 2 XXXI 954 3200 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)4.12 0.5 2 2 XXXI 954 3175 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)7.49 0.5 3 3 XXXI 954 3125 Fox Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)7.44 0.5 3 3 XXXI 954 825 Old Crystal Bay Ro Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)17.61 0.5 8 8 XXXI 954 1700 Shoreline Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)20.14 0.5 10 10 XXXXVII 955 1100 Millston Rd Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)12.7 0.5 6 6 XXXXVII 955 1003 Wildhurst Urban Low (0.5-2 Units /Acre)10 0.5 4 4 I 953 139.85 62.59 0 62.59 Name Land Use Category Net Residential Acres (NRA) Lowest Guided Density Predicted # of units (C x D) 2021-2030 Growth (Households) 2031-2040 Growth (Households) MUSA Part TAZ Zone Predicted Growth in Sewered Areas, Net Density Table 3B-4 Area D Total Area A Area A Total Area B Area B Total Area C Total CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 26 A B C D E F G H I Area E Navarre Area 3880 Shoreline (Hennepin County) Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)9.37 10 93.7 93.7 1 958 3890 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.68 10 6.8 6.8 1 958 3860 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.64 10 6.4 6.4 1 958 3850 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.78 10 7.8 7.8 1 958 3800 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.7 10 7 7 1 958 3596 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.62 10 6.2 6.2 1 958 2389 Blaine Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)1.11 10 11.1 11.1 1 958 3574 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.47 10 4.7 4.7 1 958 3572 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.31 10 3.1 3.1 1 958 3542 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.46 10 4.6 4.6 1 958 3502 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.31 10 3.1 3.1 1 958 3496 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.31 10 3.1 3.1 1 958 3480 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.15 10 1.5 1.5 1 958 3472 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.15 10 1.5 1.5 1 958 3468 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.15 10 1.5 1.5 1 958 3465 Lyric Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.62 10 6.2 6.2 1 958 3440 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.15 10 1.5 0.9 1 958 Forfiet Land Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.15 10 1.5 1.5 1 958 Forfiet Land Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.1 10 1 1 1 958 Parking Lot Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.86 10 8.6 8.6 1 958 2520 Shadywood Urban Medium Density (3-10 u/a)2.02 3 6.06 6.06 1 956 3770 Shoreline (Firestation) Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)4 10 40 40 1 958 24.11 226.96 46.06 180.3 Planned Totals 214.2 891 547 344 Area E Total Name Land Use Category Net Residential Acres (NRA) Lowest Guided Density Predicted Growth in Sewered Areas, Net Density Table 3B-4 (Continued) Predicted # of units (C x D) 2021-2030 Growth (Households) 2031-2040 Growth (Households) MUSA Part TAZ Zone CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 27 A B C D E F G H I Area E Navarre Area 3880 Shoreline (Hennepin County) Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)9.37 10 93.7 93.7 I 958 3890 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.68 10 6.8 6.8 I 958 3860 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.64 10 6.4 6.4 I 958 3850 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.78 10 7.8 7.8 I 958 3800 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.7 10 7 7 I 958 3596 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.62 10 6.2 6.2 I 958 2389 Blaine Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)1.11 10 11.1 11.1 I 958 3574 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.47 10 4.7 4.7 I 958 3572 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.31 10 3.1 3.1 I 958 3542 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.46 10 4.6 4.6 I 958 3502 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.31 10 3.1 3.1 I 958 3496 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.31 10 3.1 3.1 I 958 3480 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.15 10 1.5 1.5 I 958 3472 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.15 10 1.5 1.5 I 958 3468 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.15 10 1.5 1.5 I 958 3465 Lyric Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.62 10 6.2 6.2 I 958 3440 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.15 10 1.5 0.9 I 958 Forfiet Land Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.15 10 1.5 1.5 I 958 Forfiet Land Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.1 10 1 1 I 958 Parking Lot Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)0.86 10 8.6 8.6 I 958 2520 Shadywood Urban Medium Density (3-10 u/a)2.02 3 6.06 6.06 I 956 3770 Shoreline (Firestation) Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a)4 10 40 40 I 958 24.11 226.96 46.06 180.3 Planned Totals 214.2 891 547 344 Net Residential Acres (NRA) Lowest Guided Density Predicted Growth in Sewered Areas, Net Density Table 3B-4 (Continued) Area E Total Predicted # of units (C x D) 2021-2030 Growth (Households) 2031-2040 Growth (Households) MUSA Part TAZ ZoneNameLand Use Category CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 28 Table 3B-5 Net Density by Land Use Planned Development Area Net Residential Acres (NRA) # of units (NRA x lowest guided density) Urban Low Residential (0.5-2 u/a) 139.9 62.5 Urban Medium Residential (3-10 u/a) 11.0 32.9 Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10-20 u/a) 47.2 471.9 Urban High Density Residential (20- 25 u/a) 16.2 324.0 Totals 214.2 891 Net Density of Sewered Growth 4.16 This Net Density of Sewered Growth is consistent with the Emerging Suburban Edge designation requiring 3-5 units per acre. 63% of the land (and 6% of the number of households) identified for future sewered growth falls within Orono’s Urban Low Density areas. Development of these areas typically follows a piecemeal pattern as individual properties split into 1-3 units, where lots can accommodate subdivision. 20% of the land (and 40% of the identified for future growth) is in the Navarre area; Due to the costs associated with redevelopment, including acquisition of multiple parcels, and the city’s conservative view of public financial aid to private sector development, it is anticipated that this growth will be slow. The balance of the predicted sewered growth will occur on the remaining larger parcels where municipal services are available currently. Table 3B-6 below illustrates that based on predicted development patterns, the City can meet its projected growth in the sewered areas. Table 3B-6 Planned Development in MUSA areas by Decade Households Year 2010 2016 2020 Est. 2030 Est. Change from 2016 2040 Est Change from 2030 Households (all city) 2826 3037 3200 3,560 523 3,900 340 Growth predicted (MUSA areas only) 547 343 Surplus (Deficit) 24 3 Source: Metropolitan Council System Statement, City Utility Accounts, Table 3B-4 Based on the planned growth identified in Table 3B-4, there are no negative impacts to wastewater or transportation systems. At build out, additional water storage and/or conservation measures may be necessary in the Navarre area, as described in Chapter 4C of this Plan. CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 29 EMPLOYMENT Employment levels in the City have grown slowly, and are expected to remain static over the next two decades, as shown in Figure 3B-1 below and Table 3B-1. Figure 3B-1 Employment As illustrated in Figure 3B-2, Education services are highest employer by industry at 32% of all jobs in Orono. Retail trade is the third highest employer at 15% of jobs. The City anticipates employment growth to occur as existing businesses evolve and grow. With the exception of new commercial areas along the west side of Shadywood, the City does not anticipate the expansion of commercial areas in the city. Figure 3B-2 Employment by Industry 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2020 2030 2040 Employment 1970 -2040 CMP Part 3B. General Land Use Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3B, Page 30 HISTORIC SITE PRESERVATION PLAN Orono began to develop in the mid 19th Century, and many of the vestiges of early development are still present, in the form of standing buildings and structures, foundations, fence lines, roadway corridors, place names and other more subtle reminders of the past. Additionally, due to Orono’s unique location on the shores of Lake Minnetonka, prehistoric native burial mound sites are known to have existed in various locations throughout the City. Orono has long encouraged the preservation of historic sites and structures, but has never adopted a formal preservation plan. Because no formal plan has been in place, many historic properties have been lost or significantly changed as development and redevelopment progressed. The subdividing of many of the old lakeshore estate properties has typically left a stately mansion surrounded by modern high-end homes rather than formal grounds. The City is fortunate that the West Hennepin Pioneer’s Association Museum is located in neighboring Long Lake, with its members serving as an invaluable resource for helping to preserve the past. Historic Preservation Policies 1. In order to ensure that Orono’s heritage is preserved, the City will consider development of a Historic Preservation Plan. The intent of such a plan would be to establish goals, policies and local regulations resulting in preservation of historic sites, buildings, place names, corridors, etc. 2. Orono will work with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in determining whether properties proposed for development contain historically significant resources which should be preserved. CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS CMP PART 3C HOUSING PLAN Introduction 3C-2 2040 Regional Framework 3C-2 Figure 3C-1 Community Designation 3C-3 Basic Housing Concepts and Principles 3C-4 Table 3C-1: Population and Households 1970-2040 3C-6 Summary of Existing Housing Statistics 3C-7 Table 3C-2: Dwelling Units by Type (2005-2016) 3C-7 Table 3C-3: Owner/Renter Statistics (2000-2015) 3C-8 Table 3C-4: Age of Existing Housing Stock 3C-8 Table 3C-5: Housing Demolitions 3C-9 Table 3C-6: Valuation of Owner-Occupied Units 3C-9 Figure 3C-2 Owner Occupied Housing by Est. Mkt Value 3C-10 Table 3C-7: Housing Cost Burden Households 3C-11 Table 3C-8: Cost Burdened Households 3C-11 Housing Needs Identification 3C-11 Housing Implementation Plan 3C-12 Housing Action Plan 3C-14 Table 3C-9 Housing Tools, Circumstance, and Sequence 3C-18 CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 2 CMP PART 3C HOUSING PLAN INTRODUCTION An increasing priority of national, regional and local concern is for the provision of an adequate supply of safe, affordable housing for all citizens. Land costs and other development factors suggest that these affordable and lifecycle housing needs can most practically be addressed within the urban areas of Orono. A secondary concern is that much of Orono’s existing affordable housing is aging, and there is an increasing need for neighborhood preservation and housing rehabilitation. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires that local comprehensive plans include "official controls and land use planning to promote the availability of land for the development of low and moderate income housing" (Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.859, Subd. 2). To further address housing needs, the Minnesota Legislature in 1995 enacted the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act (LCA), establishing a fund for communities to invest in local economic revitalization and affordable housing initiatives. The Act provided for funding in three specific areas: cleaning up polluted land; revitalizing communities and promoting efficient development; and providing housing affordable to people with moderate incomes. As the Metropolitan Area continues to grow, the provision of adequate housing poses ongoing challenges for local and regional governments. The three primary facets of the problem include: 1. Supply - Inadequate supply of lower-cost housing in good condition; 2. Location - Concentration of low and moderate income housing in the core cities and inner suburbs; and 3. Affordability - A widening gap between the price of housing and income. 2040 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK Accommodating future growth of the Metro Area is a concern that will require wide-ranging resources. The Metropolitan Council in 2014 adopted its “Thrive MSP 2040” to provide a plan for addressing the challenges that will be faced by the Twin Cities area over the next two decades in accommodating expected growth in the region. In addressing the challenges of growth, Metropolitan Council has acknowledged that a “one size fits all” approach to implementing the Regional Development Framework is not appropriate, and has designated Geographic Planning Areas to identify communities with similar types of growth. CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 3 Figure 3C-1: Community Designations CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 4 Community Designation Orono has been classified as a mix between Rural Residential and Emerging Suburban Edge. Within the “Rural Residential”, Metropolitan Council’s role includes encouraging rural development patterns that will protect natural resources and preserve areas where post 2040 growth can be provided with cost-effective and efficient urban infrastructure, and work with communities to plan development patterns that will protect natural resources and water quality and quantity, and maintain existing contiguous lots that are 10 or more acres in size. The local community’s role is to: 1. Discourage future development of rural residential patterns (unsewered lots of 2.5 acres or less) and where opportunities exist, plan for rural development at densities that are not greater than 1 unit per 10 acres. 2. Implement conservation subdivision ordinances, cluster development ordinances, and environmental protection provisions in local land use ordinances, consistent with the Council’s flexible residential development guidelines. 3. Promote best management practices for stormwater management, habitat restoration, and natural resource conservation in development plans and projects. The Metropolitan Council has established Orono’s growth forecasts for the Planning term. Orono’s populations is anticipated to increase to 9,500 persons by 2040, an increase of 1,800 persons from 2016 levels. See also Table 3C-1 in this Chapter. As an Emerging Suburban Edge, local government’s role is 1. Plan and stage development for forecasted growth through 2040 and beyond at overall average net densities of at least 3-5 dwelling units per acre in the community. Target higher-intensity developments in areas with better access to regional sewer and transportation infrastructure, connections to local commercial activity centers, transit facilities, and recreational amenities. 2. Identify and protect an adequate supply of land to support growth for future development beyond 2040, with regard to agricultural viability and natural and historic resources preservation. 3. Incorporate best management practices for stormwater management and natural resources conservation and restoration in planning processes. 4. Plan for local infrastructure needs including those needed to support future growth. BASIC HOUSING CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES This Housing Plan is an indication of the ongoing policies and concerns of Orono residents toward addressing our own housing goals while taking considered and appropriate measures to address regional housing concerns. This Plan is a refinement and restatement of the planning direction established in the 1974 Orono Village Comprehensive Guide Plan, and updated in 1980, 2000, and 2008. CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 5 The Housing Plan is an integral part of Orono's Community Management Plan. The policy decisions relating to Orono's housing improvement programs complement and balance regional plans with local concerns for historic development patterns, environmental protection, public health, fiscal responsibility and general land use. Orono's urban and rural areas provide distinctly different lifestyles, amenities and services which jointly characterize the community as a whole. Each area has separate planning priorities and separate environmental considerations. Urban areas and urban services will not be permitted to encroach on or destroy the rural area of the city. Orono has acknowledged the need for a wider range of housing alternative and has taken steps to provide new locations for development of urban density housing where it will not be in conflict with the rural area. Many of these areas have been guided or rezoned to allow for appropriate urban housing densities and have become a part of Orono's urban area. Orono's land use plan calls for development in both the urban and the rural portions of the City. The urban area will see new residential development on the existing vacant lots and undeveloped parcels similar to the forms of development typical of the closer-in suburbs. Opportunities exist for substantial rehabilitation projects in the older urban neighborhoods and for scattered-site new construction of affordable and lifecycle housing units. Overall urban density will not increase dramatically because of the ecological considerations of proximity to Lake Minnetonka. The rural area will see continued residential development at a steady pace. Strict subdivision review will ensure adequate retention of privately owned and maintained open space, wetland conservation, and on- site sewage treatment system site evaluation. The typical rural lot will continue to provide for a rural lifestyle as the low investment in public services continues to make the land competitive with more fully developed suburban properties. Orono's land use plans and programs allow new urban and rural developments to provide comparable cost housing opportunities. The projected population numbers for 2020 through 2040 shown in Table 3C-1 reflect the gradually decreasing size of the typical household, reduced from 3.16 persons per household (PPH) in 1970 to 2.63 PPH at the 2010 census. Household sizes are projected to shrink even further to a level of 2.47 PPH by 2030. Orono’s 2030 population projection of 8,800 reflects an estimated 3,560 households at 2.47 persons per household. In Orono, the Land Use Plan is the determinant factor in future growth, rather than allowing growth to drive the Land Use Plan. This is the cornerstone of Orono’s long-term development philosophy and policies. CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 6 Table 3C-1: Orono Population and Households 1970 - 2040 (Sewered and Unsewered Forecasts) Population Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 2020 2030 2040 Sewered -- -- -- -- 4,429 -- 5,150 6,170 6,740 Unsewered -- -- -- -- 3,008 -- 2,950 2,630 2,760 Total City 6,787 6,845 7,285 7,538 7,437 7,691 8,100 8,800 9,500 Household Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 2020 2030 2040 Sewered -- -- -- -- 1,780 -- 2,105 2,455 2,785 Unsewered -- -- -- -- 1046 -- 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 Orono's land use plan accommodates all planned population growth in a variety of housing opportunities. The forecast population increase of approximately 2,000 persons in the next twenty years translates into a housing demand of approximately 800 new dwelling units. This average of 40 new dwellings per year is consistent with Orono's rate of building permit issuance during the past two decades. Based on the Land Use Plan, approximately two-thirds of these new units are expected to develop in the urban area. Successful development of a wide range of housing alternatives is directly related to the ability to obtain the necessary infrastructure and public services. Affordable housing and many forms of lifecycle housing are most appropriate at urban densities where services, employment, and transportation are available, without the need for an automobile. In Orono, with urban infrastructure such as municipal sewer and water, and the wide range of urban services not available to 80% of Orono planned for low- density rural residential development, affordable housing may not be practical. New housing alternatives in Orono are anticipated to occur within the existing urban area as well as in specified urban area expansions that are detailed in the Land Use Plan. These housing options will include a range of housing styles and types at densities of 2 to 25 units per acre. Where feasible, affordable housing units will be incorporated within High Density Residential in the Land Use Plan. These designated areas are depicted in the Land Use Plan chapter of this Plan. Development Density and Housing Goals Minnesota Statutes 473.859 Subd. 2(c) states that the content of the land use plan element of comprehensive plans shall “include a housing element containing standards, plans and programs for providing adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and regional housing needs, including but not limited to the use of official controls and land use planning to promote the availability of land for the development of low and moderate income housing.” CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 7 2021-2030 Housing allocation. For the period 2021-2030, Met Council established an allocation of 154 affordable units for the City of Orono. See also Table 3C-7. SUMMARY OF EXISTING HOUSING CONDITIONS The following sections provide a brief summary of the housing types, occupancy tenure, structural condition and price range of housing in Orono. Housing Types The predominant housing type in Orono is single-family detached dwellings. This is true of both the urban and the rural areas of the City. However, the number of multi-family housing units has increased substantially since 2000, primarily along the Highway 12 corridor with the addition of the Orono Woods Senior Housing building and the Stonebay development. Table 3C-2 Dwelling Units by Type (2005-2016) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Single Family (One unit detached) 2942 2953 2954 2944 2960 2952 2962 2944 2956 3019 2988 3006 Townhome 88 94 101 102 108 74 98 74 74 74 80 96 Duplex, Tri, Quad 19 19 19 19 19 30 60 30 30 30 30 30 Apartment (5 or more units) 62 110 119 119 119 153 76 206 215 215 215 215 Mobile Home/Trailer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 13 13 0 0 0 Total Dwelling Units 3111 3176 3193 3184 3206 3209 3209 3267 3288 3338 3313 3348 Source: US census A review of the Owner/ Rental statistics shows that the number of rental housing units is rising quickly, from 5 percent in 2000 to over 15 percent in 2015. CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 8 Table 3C-3: Owner/Renter Statistics (2000-2015) 2000 2015 Occupancy Type Number of Units % of All Units Number of Units % of All Units Owner-occupied 2,604 89.60% 2,808 84.76% Renter-occupied 162 5.60% 505 15.24% Total Occupied Units 2,766 3,313 Source: 2010 census, Metropolitan Council Age of Existing Housing Stock The range in ages of Orono's existing housing stock by defining the decade of construction is indicated in Table 3C-4. Approximately 56% of the housing stock is more than 50 years old, which raises concern about its continued functionality if maintenance is deferred. The numbers in Table 3C-4 do not necessarily reflect the extensive remodeling and upgrading that many Orono residences, especially lakeshore homes, have undergone in the last three decades. Table 3C-4: Age of Existing Housing Stock (2000 and 2016) Year Built 2000 % 2017 % unknown 150 5% 345 10% Pre-1940 693 24% 663 20% 1940-49 172 6% 150 4% 1950-59 343 12% 426 13% 1960-69 298 10% 304 9% 1970-79 415 15% 366 11% 1980-89 412 14% 447 13% 1990-00 359 13% 367 11% 2000-09 420 13% 2010-17 203 6% Total 2,845 100% 3,346 100% Source: 2000 U.S. Census; Hennepin County Records CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 9 Housing Demolitions Table 3C-5 reports the demolition of residential principal structures over the last 7 years. An average of 20 homes are removed per year. With land values continuously increasing and a substantial supply of older lakeshore homes still remaining in Orono, this trend is expected to continue. The City will monitor this trend to guard against the erosion of neighborhood character. Table 3C-5: Housing Demolitions Year # of Principal Structure Demolitions 2010 10 2011 15 2012 13 2013 25 2014 20 2015 27 2016 19 2017 33 Source: City Permitting records Cost Valuation of Housing in Orono Owner-occupied Housing The valuation of housing units in Orono is strongly tied to the location in relation to the lakeshore, though to some extent the age of the housing impacts the value. Much of the housing in Orono has been constructed as 'custom' housing rather than tract housing. Hennepin County Records were used to create the following table of housing values in Orono in 2015, illustrated as a percentage of total housing. Of note, almost 75% of all owner occupied housing is valued at $300,000 or more. Figure 3C-2 graphically illustrates the location of owner occupied housing and indicates value of the home. Table 3C-6: Valuation of Owner-occupied Units 2015 Valuation 2015 $75,000 to $99,999 0.43% $100,000 to $124,999 0.93% $125,000 to $149,999 2.76% $150,000 to $174,999 3.39% $175,000 to $199,999 3.23% $200,000 to $249,999 8.10% $250,000 to $299,999 7.52% $300,000 to $399,999 10.51% $400,000 to $499,999 9.93% $500,000 or more 53.15% Source: Hennepin County CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 10 Figure 3C-2: Owner Occupied Housing by Estimated Market Value CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 11 Affordable housing Table 3C-7 shows the current (2016) number of households with incomes 80% of the AMI, or less. These 639 households represent 21% of the total households in Orono. We consider this the supply of housing units that are affordable. Table 3C-7: Affordable Housing Currently (2016) Projected need 2021- 2030 Income at or below 30% of AMI 78 69 Income 31-50% of AMI 76 56 Income 51-80% of AMI 485 29 Totals 639 154 Source: Metropolitan Council Table 3C-7 also illustrates Orono’s share of additional affordable homes for the 2021-2030 decade. Orono intends to provide opportunity for these units in the form of 15.4 acres of development at densities higher than 10 units per acre. Table 3B-4 predicts all developable properties within the sewered area. 63.4 acres are identified for development at densities greater than 10 units per acre. Table 3C-8 shows the number of costs burdened households, households whose housing costs are at least 30% of their income. We consider this the demand of affordable housing. The demand of affordable housing, at 30% or less of the AMI is almost double the supply. Based on these calculations and estimates, the greatest need of housing is for incomes at or below 30% of the AMI. Table 3C-8 : Cost Burdened Households At or Below 30% AMI 148 Between 31% and 50% AMI 64 Between 51% and 80% AMI 104 Total Units 316 Subsidized Housing Units At the present time, the City of Orono does not contain any units of subsidized housing. This is due in part to the lack of or limited shopping and employment opportunities, public transportation, and medical facilities. HOUSING NEEDS IDENTIFICATION In assessing local housing needs, Orono has identified the need for a broader range of housing choices including starter homes, empty-nester, and senior housing, and an ongoing need for substantial housing rehabilitation. Our aging population is retiring and on fixed incomes. Orono has identified one of our greatest needs as housing rehabilitation for senior-citizen homeowners and for alternative senior housing accommodations in the immediate lake area. A second pressing need is for a wider range of housing options for middle CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 12 income residents, such as those who grew up in Orono and would like to raise a family here, but cannot find suitably priced homes. A third identified need is for the empty nesters or professionals whose lifestyle better matches the amenities of attached unit housing. The Land Use Plan (Chapter 3B, and Maps 3B-3a) identifies development opportunities in a variety of densities to meet the diverse housing demands of the City of Orono. In 1995 the Minnesota legislature enacted the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, which established funding for metro-area cities to invest in local economic revitalization and affordable housing initiatives. The Metropolitan Council is responsible for implementing the Metropolitan Livable Communities Program, and negotiating with individual municipalities to establish affordable and life-cycle housing goals consistent with the Metropolitan Development Guide HOUSING IMPEMENTATION PLAN Orono's Housing Implementation Plan is based upon the following Goals and Policies which are designed to be consistent with our regional housing responsibilities and with the Goals, Policies and Plans of the other elements of the Community Management Plan. SCOPE The time framework of the housing improvement plan is intended to address the requirements of the Metropolitan Council for the planning period of 2020 through 2040 and retain Orono’s own housing character. The goals, policies and proposed housing programs contained in this Chapter are set in the context of the legislative mandate to plan for regional needs through the year 2040. In addition, the housing programs also reflect Orono's plans for permanent maintenance of the low density rural residential community. Housing Goals 1. To provide housing types and residential densities consistent with environmental and land use plans and with the availability of public services and facilities. 2. To provide opportunities for a mix of housing types, locations, and cost ranges which will meet the needs and provide adequate housing for a broader range of ages, family groups, lifestyle needs and levels of income to the greatest extent practical. 3. To improve the housing conditions of persons residing in substandard housing. 4. To provide safe, healthful, and blight-free residences and neighborhoods. 5. To provide immediately beneficial housing programs for the greatest number of Orono residents with affordable housing needs. Urban Housing Policies 1. The residential areas of urban Orono are primarily suitable for single family development. Because of historic development patterns, most of Orono's urbanized CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 13 neighborhoods are located along the Lake Minnetonka shoreline, or within 1,000 feet of the shoreline. These lands are environmentally sensitive to overuse or over development such as typically occurs with large scale developments. Urban residential development in a limited number of areas further from the shoreline at a density of 2-25 units per acre is compatible with Orono's environmental policies of limited hardcover and maximum retention of natural open space and vegetation to protect Lake Minnetonka. 2. A wider range of housing types will be provided by planned residential developments. A limited amount of land is available within the Urban Service Area for planned developments of townhomes, garden type apartments or mixed residential and limited commercial land uses. These housing clusters or multiple family developments will be acceptable only where full urban services are available and only where the proposed density is compatible with the neighborhood and with local environmental constraints. Multiple family developments generally will not be considered appropriate for lands within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Additionally, County Road 15 is the key roadway serving Orono’s urban areas and particularly the Navarre area. It is not practical from an economic or environmental standpoint to expand County Road 15 to increase its capacity. Therefore, additional housing options will be primarily developed along Orono’s Highway 12 corridor in specifically identified areas that are or will be served by urban services. The City will consider proposals for developments that will provide housing types in furtherance of Orono’s housing goals as established in this Housing Plan. 3. Urban density residential development must occur within the defined Urban Area. Orono's Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. The Urban Area as defined in this Plan will not be greatly expanded into the defined rural area, and urban services and facilities will not be extended into the rural area for purposes of fostering or allowing increased development in those areas. 4. Urban density residential development will utilize existing or planned public services and facilities. New residential development will be allowed to infill existing vacant properties within the Urban Area consistent with environmental limitations and with the existing or planned capacities of water, sewer, drainage, transportation and recreational facilities. New development will not be permitted to overburden these services at the expense of the existing users. New urban development will not be permitted if it requires additional unplanned local or regional facilities capacity. 5. The City will promote scattered site development as opposed to large scale tract development within the existing developed urban area. 6. The City will promote rehabilitation of existing older or substandard homes. Whereas there is no identifiable block of deteriorated housing in the City, there are a substantial number of older homes or converted cottages that are in need of repair, energy conservation measures, or major rehabilitation. In many cases, these homes are occupied by low income or fixed CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 14 income persons who cannot undertake the needed work within their means. Maintaining existing neighborhoods and existing homes enables maintenance of affordability. Replacement of these homes, even with higher density development, would result in substantially increased housing prices. The City will promote private and subsidized public rehabilitation efforts to improve the existing housing stock, to improve and maintain the neighborhoods, and most importantly to improve the living conditions of the affected citizens. 7. The City will promote development or rehabilitation that is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The City will encourage all homeowners and developers to be conscious of the neighborhood, the site and the environment in the design and improvement of residential properties. The City will encourage, and in many cases, require the retention of woods and vegetation, open spaces, light, air and scenic views. No new development will be permitted to conflict with or to adversely affect the established neighborhood character. Rural Housing Policies 1. Housing in rural Orono will be limited to single family homes at established rural densities. The majority of the rural area has been zoned to require a minimum of 2 acres of dry buildable land per residential lot, with an area in the northwest corner of the City requiring at least 5 dry buildable acres. 2. The City will promote rehabilitation of existing older or substandard rural homes. Rural Orono contains a significant number of older homes, which also require repair, energy conservation measures or major rehabilitation. These rural owners also require the same type of assistance often reserved for urban areas. Therefore, the City will promote private and subsidized public rehabilitation efforts in both urban and rural housing improvements programs. HOUSING ACTION PLAN Orono's Housing Action Plan is a set of implementation policies designed to achieve the above stated Housing Goals and Planning Policies. A top priority in Orono must be improving the housing conditions of persons who are presently inadequately housed and eliminating substandard housing. There are deteriorated and dilapidated housing units located throughout the City. Orono's Housing Action Plan is aimed principally at improving the condition of Orono's older homes, both urban and rural, and improving the housing conditions of Orono's many low, moderate and fixed income residents. 1. Orono will cooperate with neighboring cities to fulfill area-wide housing needs. Most apparent is the need of many senior Orono residents who desire to live in the immediate area, but who cannot find available senior housing. Orono will actively participate with nearby municipalities to facilitate the provision of senior housing at locations that are near to home yet also convenient to necessary shopping, transportation and medical facilities. 2. Orono will continue to participate in housing rehabilitation subsidy programs. Many Orono residents, both urban and rural, are occupying older housing that has code-related structural, safety or CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 15 health hazards, substandard living conditions or energy inefficiencies. They would like to improve their housing condition and their neighborhood's appearance, but are unable to because of insufficient income. Orono will continue to actively participate in Community Development Block Grant and Minnesota Housing Finance Assistance programs designed to help these citizens meet their very immediate housing needs. 3. Orono will encourage developers to provide a variety of housing types and cost ranges. Whenever a multiple family or clustered housing development is proposed, Orono will actively encourage setting aside a reasonable number of units for large families and/or for low and moderate income families. Orono will participate and assist developers in applications for loan guarantees or other suitable forms of housing subsidy aids which may be available. Orono will also consider proposals for lifecycle housing options for sites which have not been guided for such use, but where such use may be appropriate if developed in a manner that is sensitive to the surrounding land uses and has the necessary services available. Such areas may include property that is currently guided or zoned for more intense uses such as commercial or industrial, or may include sites adjacent to existing higher intensity uses. 4. Housing construction will be subject to uniform state building code requirements but will not be burdened with unnecessary zoning requirements. Orono does not intend to require arbitrary minimum dwelling sizes or minimum amenity installations as these artificial standards only drive up the cost of housing while limiting the buyer's freedom of choice. 5. Orono will promote energy conservation methods and procedures. Orono will actively pursue and advertise all available programs for energy conservation funding. 6. To achieve its housing goals outlined above, the City will evaluate opportunities to utilize public and non-profit programs or to partner with other agencies in these programs. There is a wide variety of tools and programs available to cities and property owners, developed to encourage affordable housing, and include the following. 6. Property owners and developers should be advised that while available to the city, Orono feels that market driven development is desirable over financially subsidized projects. Therefore the City has historically applied the use of Orono tax dollars very conservatively, only for projects that strongly met City housing, land use, environmental, and quality of life goals. 1. Zoning and Subdivision Policies: The City frequently reviews its zoning and subdivision regulations to support development that meets its comprehensive goals. The City also employs a planned unit development (PUD) process. Through this process, the City currently provides zoning incentives such as increased density and potential staging plan flexibility for projects which achieve the city’s housing goals. The City will consider applications that addresses the City’s need allocation of 154 units below 80% AMI based upon how well the proposed projects meet City objectives. The City has identified land where we feel higher density development is most appropriate, given the proximity to transportation support, services, and jobs. 1.2.Orono Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The City Established an HRA in 1991. The City has used its HRA to assist in the development of Senior housing complex and may do so in the future. CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 16 2. Housing Bonds: Minnesota State Statute allows HRAs to issue housing bonds to provide affordable housing via the acquisition of an existing buildings, development of elderly or disability housing, or the acquisition of accumulated equity for low income preservation. 3. Tax Abatement: Cities may issue bonds to be used to support the construction of affordable housing, using a portion of the property tax received (tax abatement) from the development to finance these bonds. This removes this property from paying taxes for the services needed for this property, its residents and the community in general. The City may develop a tax abatement policy to determine if and when the level of affordable housing and the guaranteed length of affordability provide sufficient public benefit to justify the use of tax abatement. 4. Tax Increment Financing: Cities may create a housing district to create a tax increment financing (TIF) district. The TIF bonds issued on this district are to be used to support the construction of affordable housing, and property taxes received above the original tax value (increment) from the development are utilized to finance these bonds. The property tax revenue that otherwise would be available to pay for city services would be restricted and not available to pay for the services. The City may develop a TIF policy to determine if and when the level of affordable housing and the guaranteed length of affordability to provide a public benefit is great enough to justify the use of tax increment financing. 5. Minnesota Housing Consolidated Request for Proposals: The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency provides a request for proposal (RFP) once annually where affordable housing developers can apply for funding to construct affordable housing. The City may consider supporting applications for new housing that addresses the City’s need allocation of 267 units below 50% AMI based upon how well the proposed projects meet City objectives. 6.3.Community Development Block Grants (CDBG): The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides CDBG funds to communities with over 45,000 residents for the use of providing and maintaining affordable housing. Hennepin County HRA administers these CDBG funds for the City of Orono. The City will consider applications that addresses the City’s need allocation of 267 154 units below 5080% AMI based upon how well the proposed projects meet City objectives. 7.4.Energy Assistance: Xcel energy and Wright-Hennepin offer programs intended to encourage energy efficiency and responsible use of energy resources. Xcel energy promotes a bill payment assistance program. These programs and rebates rapidly change and the City encourages the resident is encouraged to check with their energy providerd periodically. These programs help make expenses related to housing more affordable for Orono residents. 8.5.Livable Communities Grants: Administered by the Metropolitan Council, the Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) funds innovative (re)development projects that efficiently link housing, jobs, services and transit in an effort to create inspiring and lasting Livable Communities. Grants are available to fund basic public infrastructure and site assembly. The City will consider supporting applications that provide a range of housing types, or for those that assist affordable housing goals. 9. Fee Waivers or Adjustments: State rules require that city fees correlate to the cost CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 17 of providing the services. The city will closely monitor expenses as they relate to project review to ensure fees closely match expenses. 10. Zoning and Subdivision Policies: The City frequently grants variances and adjusts its zoning and subdivision regulations through a planned unit development (PUD). The City currently provides zoning incentives such as increased density and potential staging plan flexibility for projects which achieve the city’s housing goals. 11. 4(d) Tax Program: The 4(d) tax program provides a 40% tax credit to property owners of affordable housing, to be leveraged with local government financial assistance. 6. Land Trusts: A land trust achieves affordable home ownership by owning the land on which a house is located, allowing the resident to seek financing only on the house. The resident enters into a long-term lease for the home. The advantage of a land trust is that the largest contributor to housing prices in Orono is the land, and the land trust removes that cost from the purchasing equation. The trust can control the future sale of the property to ensure that affordability can be maintained and have the ability to scatter the land trust sites throughout the community. The disadvantage of a land trust is that it will take significant financial resources to purchase the land rights and those resources are never recovered during the period that the property remains affordable. Orono may evaluate if joining the West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust is the most efficient way to use its resources to provide affordable housing. 7. Site Assembly: The City or other agencies assist with the acquisition of parcels. The City may partner with potential developers by selling developable land it owns, the city is not likely to acquire land for the purpose of transferring ownership for developers. 8. HOME Investment Partnership: The City will consider partnering with Hennepin County for grants that provide rental assistance for senior housing projects. 9. Effective referrals. We will review our internal procedures to refer residents to applicable Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, and private utility programs that assist homeowners and prospective homeowners. 10. Fair housing policy. The City will continue to review its housing polices to ensure that they meet or exceed applicable Fair Housing Laws and regulations, in particular in the areas of Race/ Color, gender, National Origin, Religion, Family status, and disability. 11. First time homebuyer down payment assistance. The City will support a homebuyers application for down payment assistance, especially where existing these purchases are within the existing housing stock to support use of a mix of housing types, cost ranges, and locations. 12. Participation in housing related organizations. The City will continue to recognize and promote the work outside organizations do toward the betterment of housing opportunities for Orono residents. 13. Rental licensing and inspections. The City employs a Rental Licensing program intended to identify rental landlords and capture up to date contact information to address concerns related to overcrowding, maintenance, and noise impacts. 14. Low interest rehab programs. The City will support a property owner’s application for low income rehab dollars for those projects that serve to retain existing housing stock. CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 18 15. Minnesota Housing Consolidated Request for Proposals: The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency provides a request for proposal (RFP) once annually where affordable housing developers can apply for funding to construct affordable housing. The City may consider supporting applications for new housing that addresses the City’s need allocation of 154 units below 80% AMI based upon how well the proposed projects meet City objectives, however the City is not likely to write down land cost, or reduce development related fees to support applications. 16. Tax Abatement: Cities may issue bonds to be used to support the construction of affordable housing, using a portion of the property tax received (tax abatement) from the development to finance these bonds. This removes this property from paying taxes for the services needed for this property. While the City may develop a tax abatement policy to determine if and when the level of affordable housing and the guaranteed length of affordability provide sufficient public benefit to justify the use of tax abatement, the City does not anticipate using Tax Abatement to meet any housing goals at present. 17. Tax Increment Financing: Cities may create a housing district to create a tax increment financing (TIF) district. The TIF bonds issued on this district are to be used to support the construction of affordable housing, and property taxes received above the original tax value (increment) from the development are utilized to finance these bonds. The property tax revenue that otherwise would be available to pay for city services would be restricted and not available to pay for the services. The City may develop a TIF policy to determine if and when the level of affordable housing and the guaranteed length of affordability to provide a public benefit is great enough to justify the use of tax increment financing. 18. Housing Bonds: Minnesota State Statute allows HRAs to issue housing bonds to provide affordable housing via the acquisition of an existing buildings, development of elderly or disability housing, or the acquisition of accumulated equity for low income preservation. The City does not anticipate using its HRA to develop a new housing project in the next 10 years. 19. 4(d) Tax Program: The 4(d) tax program provides a 40% tax credit to property owners of affordable housing, to be leveraged with local government financial assistance. The City does not anticipate providing financial assistance to private development. 20. Fee Waivers or Adjustments: State rules require that city fees correlate to the cost of providing the services. The city will closely monitor expenses as they relate to project review to ensure fees closely match expenses. The City will not waive fees in whole or part to support private sector development. 12. Table 3C-9 below links the housing related goals identified in the Housing Needs Assessment, Table 3C- 7, and the tools listed above. Generally, the City will apply tools consistent in sequence to how they are listed below, for each of the Goals. Table 3C-9: Housing Tools, Circumstance, and Sequence Summary Identified Goals Tool, Circumstance and Sequence To provide housing types and residential densities consistent with environmental and land use plans and with the availability of public services and facilities. 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 CMP Part 3C. Housing Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 3C, Page 19 To provide opportunities for a mix of housing types, locations, and cost ranges which will meet the needs and provide adequate housing for a broader range of ages, family groups, lifestyle needs and levels of income to the greatest extent practical. 1, 2 (senior only), 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Allocation of Affordable Housing Need below 30% AMI: 69 units 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12 Allocation of Affordable Housing Need between 31% and 50% AMI: 56 units 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12 Allocation of Affordable Housing Need between 51% and 80% AMI: 29 units 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12 To improve the housing conditions of persons residing in substandard housing. 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14 To provide safe, healthful, and blight-free residences and neighborhoods. 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 To provide immediately beneficial housing programs for the greatest number of Orono residents with affordable housing needs. 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 7. Update Housing study. Recognizing multiplication of households that rent, the City may consider an update of a housing study, last completed in the Navarre area in 1997-1998, to better understand this trend. Further, the city will work to educate renters and owners on Fair Housing practices. CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS CMP PART 4A TRANSPORTATION PLAN Introduction 4A-2 Purpose and Scope 4A-2 Roadways 4A-3 Table 4A-1 Roadways Classification Summary 4A-4 Table 4A-2 A Minor Arterials 4A-5 Table 4A-3 Collectors 4A-6 Table 4A-4 MSA Roads 4A-7 Table 4A-5 Road Design Capacity 4A-8 Table 4A-6 Road Capacity 4A-9 Fig. 4A-2 Ring Road Concept 4A-10 Table 4A-7 Future Capacity 4A-11 Fig 3 Access Curve 4A-11 Fig. 4 Maintenance/ Cost Curve 4A-12 Table 4A-8 Maintenance 4A-13 Trails 4A-14 Lake Access 4A-16 Table 4A-9 Lake Access Points 4A-17 Transit 4A-20 Freight 4A-20 Aviation 4A-21 Implementation Plan. 4A-21 Table 4A-10 Goals and Objectives 4A-22 Table 4A-11 Transportation History 4A-25 Appendices 4A-A. TAZ Zones Map 4A-1 Functional Classification Map 4A-2 Jurisdiction Classifications Map 4A-3 Traffic Analysis zones Map 4A-4 Traffic and Crash Information Map 4A-5 Forecasted Traffic Information Map 4A-6 Non-motorized facilities and Points of Interest Map 4A-7 Existing and Planned Transit Infrastructure Map 4A-8 Freight, Rail, and Heavy Commercial Corridors CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 2 CMP PART 4A TRANSPORTATION PLAN INTRODUCTION The City of Orono’s transportation system generally operates well today. The City’s multimodal transportation system includes facilities for personal vehicles, freight, walking, and bicycling. Facilities are operated by a number of agencies, including the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Three Rivers Park District, MnDOT, and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad. This transportation chapter has been prepared in compliance with state statues and applicable Metropolitan Council guidelines. As part of this plan, the City has reviewed existing and future conditions for each mode and identified safety, operations, and network improvements that will be important to address before 2040. The City has also developed goals, objectives, and strategies to preserve and improve the transportation system. PURPOSE AND SCOPE Metropolitan Council 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) This plan has been prepared to be consistent with the regional transportation strategies outlined in the Metropolitan Council 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP). The TPP is a regional plan that evaluates the existing transportation system, identifies transportation challenges to the region, and sets regional goals, objectives, and priorities to meet the transportation needs of current residents while accommodating the region’s anticipated growth. The TPP also guides local agencies in coordinating land use and transportation and established regional performance measures and targets. The TPP is guided by the following goals:  Transportation system stewardship: Sustainable investments in the transportation system are protected by strategically preserving, maintaining, and operating system assets.  Safety and Security: The regional transportation system is safe and secure for all users.  Access to Destinations: People and businesses prosper by using a reliable, affordable, and efficient multimodal transportation system that connects them to destinations throughout the region and beyond.  Competitive Economy: The regional transportation system supports the economic competitiveness, vitality, and prosperity of the region and State.  Healthy Environment: The regional transportation system contributes to communities’ livability and sustainability while protecting the natural, cultural, and developed environments.  Leveraging Transportation Investment to Guide Land Use: The region leverages transportation investments to guide land use and development patterns that advance the regional vision of stewardship, prosperity, livability, equity, and sustainability. CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 3  Lake Access, Preservation, and Management. Access to the Lake recognizes the value of the lake and reinforces the desire to protect its value to the community and the region. Funding is a key constraint that is acknowledged in the TPP. Current transportation revenue will not meet the region’s transportation needs through 2040. As a result, the TPP includes two long- term investment scenarios: a fiscally-constrained scenario under current revenue, and an increased revenue scenario that identifies priorities should additional transportation funding become available. Under the current fiscally constrained revenue scenario, the TPP is focused on operations and maintenance of the existing transportation system. Investments in highway mobility and access are limited to those that address multiple TPP goals and objectives. The increased revenue scenario would allow additional investments in operations and maintenance, as well as regional mobility, access, safety, and bicycle/pedestrian improvements. However, congestion cannot be greatly reduced under even the increased revenue scenario. Under both scenarios, proposed investments are focused on areas of the metro with the greatest existing and future challenges and anticipated growth. Orono’s Place within the TPP Orono is classified by the Metropolitan Council under the Emerging Suburban Edge and Rural Residential community designations. The TPP does not include any planned regional investments in Orono. Density Allocation With two communities in one, rural and urban, Orono finds that higher density development sites are most appropriate adjacent to high volume transportation corridors, within MUSA, and near commercial services (employment, shopping, etc.) While historically located primarily in the Navarre area, additional appropriate sites were identified in the north Orono area, due in part to capacity and safety constraints of the County Road 15 and 19 intersection in Navarre. ROADWAYS The sections below provide information about the existing and future roadway system within Orono; including functional classification, jurisdictions, capacity, safety, access management, and maintenance. Functional Classification System The Functional Classification System organizes a roadway and street network that distributes traffic from local neighborhood streets to collector roadways, then to minor arterials and ultimately the principal arterial system. Roads are placed into categories based on the degree to which they provide access to adjacent land and mobility for through traffic. Functional classification gives an indication of the relative hierarchy of roadways in the transportation network. Four classes of roadways are included in the Seven-County Metropolitan Area functional classification CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 4 system: principal arterials, minor arterials, collector streets, and local streets. Map 4A-1shows the existing functional classification of each road in the City of Orono and Map 4A-2 shows existing roadway jurisdiction. The following sections describe each functional class in greater detail and indicate which roadways fall into each classification. Table 4A-1 Roadway Classification Summary Table Criteria Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local Street Place Connections Interconnects metro centers and regional business concentrations Interconnects major trip generators Interconnects neighborhoods and minor business concentrations Interconnects blocks within neighborhoods and land parcels within Intersections Grade separated or high-capacity intersection controls Traffic signals, roundabouts and cross-street stops All-way stops, roundabouts and some traffic signals As required for safe operation Parking None Restricted as necessary Restricted as necessary Usually unrestricted Mobility Highest High Moderate Low Access No direct property access Limited access to property Access to properties is common Unrestricted property access Typical Average Daily Traffic 15,000-200,000 5,000-30,000 1,000-15,000 Less than 1,000 Posted Speed Limits 45-65 mph 35-45 mph 30-40 mph Maximum 30 mph Right-of-way Width 100-300 feet 60-150 feet 60-100 feet 50-80 feet Transit Accommodations Priority access for transit in peak periods Preferential treatment where needed Designed for use by regular route buses Normally used as bus routes only in non- residential areas Principal Arterials Principal arterials are roadways that provide the greatest level of mobility and access control. Within the metropolitan area, the great majority of principal arterials are under MnDOT jurisdiction. Principal arterials are typically Interstate highways or other state or US freeways or expressways. Principal arterials also connect to other cities, regions, and states outside of the metropolitan area. Principal arterials are intended to maintain average speeds of 40 mph during peak traffic periods. To maintain mobility and speeds on principal arterials, land access and transportation system connections are limited. There is little to no direct land access from principal arterials. Access is limited to interstate freeways, other Principal Arterials, and A Minor Arterials. Access points are typically grade-separated or controlled with a signal and are spaced approximately one to two miles apart. Within the City of Orono, there is one principal arterial: US Highway 12. The TPP does not identify CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 5 any specific regional mobility improvements on this highway, including expansion of any lanes, although maintenance and preservation investments will be made on all highways. Highway 12 is currently 2 lanes, in the “Super Two” Concept. The lanes are separated by a concrete barrier to address safety concerns raised in the last 10 years. Minor Arterials The minor arterial system supplements the principal arterial system and provides connections to the principal arterial system. Minor arterials also support access to major traffic generators, including regional job concentrations and freight terminals, and between rural centers within and just outside the region. Access points along minor arterials are generally at-grade and typically controlled with signals or stop signs. The Metropolitan Council has established a system of “A” Minor and Other Minor arterials. “A” Minor arterials are eligible for federal funding administered by the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council has further split “A” Minor arterials into four types, described below. The City has three (3) miles of minor arterial roads. Table 4A-2: A Minor Arterials A Minor Arterials Other Relievers Augmenters Expanders Connectors Purpose Provide supplementary capacity for congested, parallel principal arterial Supplement the principal arterial system in more densely developed or redeveloping areas Supplement the principal arterial system in less densely developed or redeveloping areas Provide safe, direct connections between rural centers and to principal arterials in rural areas without adding continuous general purpose lane capacity These roadways connect major traffic generators in the region. Other arterials are not eligible for federal funding Hennepin County System CSAH 112 (3 Lanes) CSAH 6 (2 Lanes) CSAH 15 (2 Lanes) CSAH 19 (S of 15, 2 Lanes) CSAH 6 (West of McCulley Rd, 2 Lanes) CSAH 19 (N of CSAH 15; 2 Lanes) Orono System McCulley Road (2 Lanes) Collector Streets Collector streets provide linkages to larger developments and community amenities. They generally do not link communities to one another. Collector streets generally favor access to the system over mobility, but try to balance the two competing needs. These roadways are generally lower speed than the principal or minor arterial routes. They are usually owned and operated by cities, although counties operate some of these facilities. Orono has 20 miles of Collector Streets. CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 6 Table 4A-3: Collectors Major Collector Minor Collector Purpose Major collectors serve higher density residential areas (often penetrating residential neighborhoods for significant distances), job and activity centers and freight terminals that are not on the arterial system, and they serve longer local trips, including local bus service. Minor collectors serve shorter local trips and lower density land uses (often penetrating residential neighborhoods only for a short distance). Existing Other Jurisdictions CSAH 84 (Bayside/Leaf Fox St/Old Crystal Bay Rd) CSAH 51 North Shore Dr) CSAH 146 (Brown Road S) CR 201 (Homestead Tr) CSAH 135 (Tonkawa Rd) CSAH 151 (West Branch North Arm Dr) Existing Orono System Brown Road N Old Crystal Bay Road (N of Fox) Watertown Road Willow Drive (S of CSAH 112, north of Fox) Fox Street (Willow to Brown) Ferndale Road W) Stubbs Bay Rd (Bayside to Watertown) Ferndale Rd N Kelley Pky Leaf Street Casco Point Road Dunwoody Ave Ferndale Rd W Hunter Dr North Arm Dr Orono Orchard Rd Tamarack Dr Wildhurst Trail Fox Street (W of Willow and E of Brown) Local Streets Local streets connect blocks and land parcels, and the primary emphasis is on land access. In most cases, local streets connect to other local streets and collectors. In some cases, they connect to minor arterials. Local streets serve short trips at low speeds. Local streets are under the jurisdiction of the City of Orono. Orono currently has 27 miles of publicly owned local streets. Orono’s history has had a significant impact on the local road way systems. Northern Rural Orono Roads The straight-line road grid system in central and northern Orono was established along section lines a century ago to efficiently serve the agricultural activity in the City. This grid has readily adapted to use as a collector system for the many local and private roads created to serve new rural residential subdivisions in the last 40-50 years. Southern Lakeshore Roads The seasonal recreational uses that grew up along Orono’s 40 miles of Lake Minnetonka shoreline a CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 7 century ago resulted in a network of winding roads that commonly followed the center of the narrow peninsulas between bays, creating local road frontage for lakeshore lots while also often serving as the main road between settlements. A large number of these roads do not meet current specifications as they are narrow, winding roads with steep slopes. Private Roads A private road is a privately owned and privately maintained road, located in the rural area or within a planned development that functions as a local access street. In order to curb maintenance expenses the city has, since the 1980s, maintained a policy that developments in Orono’s rural area would be serviced by privately maintained roads. The city does require that the private roads are built to city standards and that the city is granted an underlying easement to ensure right of access. As a result Orono currently has 20 miles of privately owned and maintained roads. All urban properties should be directly served by the public street system. Rural properties should be served by private streets unless through streets. State Aid Roads To support the state's system of streets, roads and bridges, MnDOT distributes funds for highway maintenance and construction to counties, cities and townships based on a formula determined by the Legislature. The roads that are on the state aid system typically carry heavier traffic volumes, connect major points of interest, and provide an integrated and coordinated road system. The majority of the county Roads within Orono are designated County State Aid Highways (CSAH). The City has 9.45 miles of roadway eligible for Municipal State Aid (MSA). Planned Functional Classification Changes There are no planned changes to functional classifications of roads within Orono. However, four jurisdictional transfers are under consideration based on existing functional classification and traffic patterns. McCulley Road to Hennepin County to tie CSAH 19 to CSAH 6. Bayside Road (CSAH 84) From Hennepin County to Orono. Tonkawa Road (CSAH 135) from Hennepin County to Orono. West Branch / North Shore (CSAH 151) from Hennepin County to Orono. Table 4A-4: MSA Roads Name Description State Aid # Willow Dr County Rd 6 to Fox St MSAS 101 Old Crystal Bay Rd County Rd 6 to Fox St MSAS 102 Watertown Rd Willow Dr to County Road 6 MSAS 103 McCulley Rd Entirety MSAS 104 Fox St Old Crystal Bay Rd to Brown Rd MSAS 105 Brown Rd N County Road 6 to Wayzata Blvd MSAS 107 Leaf St Watertown Rd to Bayside Rd MSAS 109 Ferndale Rd County road 6 to City Boundary MSAS 110 CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 8 Roadway Capacity A roadway’s capacity indicates how many vehicles may use a roadway before it experiences congestion. Capacity is largely dependent upon the number of lanes. Table 4A-5 lists planning- level thresholds that indicate a roadway’s capacity. Additional variation (more or less capacity) on an individual segment is influenced by a number of factors including: amount of access, type of access, peak hour percent of traffic, directional split of traffic, truck percent, opportunities to pass, and amount of turning traffic, the availability of dedicated turn lanes, parking availability, intersection spacing, signal timing and a variety of other factors. Roadway Capacity – Traffic Forecasting The Metropolitan Council uses Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) for traffic forecasting. Each forecast study area, in this case the City of Orono, is divided into a series of TAZs (see Map 4A-3). The TAZ data for Orono can be found at Appendix 4A-A. The modeling shows the majority to the projected growth in the city within the TAZs that correspond with City Municipal Utility Service Areas (MUSA) which further corresponds to the cities areas for higher existing and planned densities. Current and Future Regional / Hennepin County Capacity At the planning level, capacity problems are identified by comparing the existing number of lanes with current traffic volumes. The table below illustrates the existing number of lanes on state and county arterial roadways within the City. To identify the need for potential future capacity improvements, Hennepin County compared 2030 forecasts to planning-level roadway capacities. Nearly all State and County roadways within the City have adequate capacity to handle forecast 2040 traffic volumes with little to minimal congestion. (See Map 4A-4). Based on traffic counts in 2015 the only Hennepin County road currently undersized based on capacity is Shoreline Drive (CSAH 15). The 2015 ADT for CSAH 15 was 17,600. Those roads projected to exceed their design capacity by 2030 are highlighted red below. Table 4A-5 Design Capacity Roadway Type Daily Capacity Planning Level (ADT) Two-lane undivided urban 10,000 Two-lane undivided rural 15,000 Three-lane urban (two-lane divided with turn lanes) 17,000 CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 9 County Road 15 is the primary minor arterial for commuter traffic through southern Orono. Because County Road 15 abuts the shoreline along much of its route, the City is committed to retaining its character as that of a scenic parkway serving local residences. Such a character is incompatible with its minor arterial function. It would therefore be preferable to reduce the volume of traffic on County Road 15 by providing an additional east-west corridor in southern Orono. However, the configuration of Lake Minnetonka’s bays and the severe topography between them, as well as the large number of wetlands in the shoreland Table 4A-6: Road Capacity Road Name Type # of Lanes State Aid Route # Current ADT 2040 ADT Estimated * Highway 12 Principal Arterial Two Lane-divided NA 23,100 UKN Wayzata Blvd Minor Arterial Three-lane-urban CSAH 112 11,000 15,900 County Road 6 Minor Arterial Two-lane, undivided-rural CSAH 6 11,000 8000 Watertown Road (CR6) Minor Arterial Two-lane, undivided-rural CSAH 6 10,000 14200 Shoreline Drive Minor Arterial Two-lane, undivided-rural CSAH 15 17,600 22,000 Shadywood Drive(N of 15) Minor Arterial Two-lane, undivided-rural CSAH 19 5,700 7400 Shadywood Drive (S of 15) Minor Arterial Two-lane, undivided-rural CSAH 19 11,900 13100 Northshore Drive Collector Two-lane, undivided-rural CSAH 51 4650 5700 Brown Road S Collector Two-lane, undivided-rural CSAH 146 1450 2200 West Branch Collector Two-lane, undivided-rural CSAH 151 1750 2300 Bayside, Leaf, Fox Streets Collector Two-lane, undivided-rural CSAH 84 690 1100 Old Crystal Bay Road S Collector Two-lane, undivided-rural CSAH 84 1800 2600 Tonkawa Road Collector Two-lane, undivided-rural CSAH 135 560 800 Homestead Trail (CR 201) Collector Two-lane, undivided-rural ----- 1050 1400 * Data from Hennepin county’s 2040 ADT Forecast prepared in 2018 CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 10 areas, preclude the development of such a corridor. To address this issue, the Ring Route was established in 1980 by connecting County Road 19 to County Road 6 via McCulley Road, providing a relatively direct route northeastward to Highway 12 from the western Lake Minnetonka area. The City will encourage the use of this ring route to address traffic congestion through the Navarre Area. Congestion policies The City will continue to work with the County and other transportation agencies to facilitate improvements to the transportation networks. This assistance may include right of way or easement procurement, staging of Orono projects, and information outreach. Orono Roadway Current and Future Capacity Collector and minor arterial roads under the City’s jurisdiction are all two-lane roadways, are currently, and are projected to remain under their maximum capacity guidelines of 15,000 Average Daily Traffic (ADT). Forecasted 2040 traffic volumes are shown on Map- 4A-5. Right of Way Expansion The City has not identified any critical right of way acquisition needs. Figure 4A-2 Ring Road Concept CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 11 Table 4A-7: Future Capacity Road Name Type # of Lanes State Aid Route # 2015 ADT 2040 ADT Estimated* Fox St Collector 2 Lane, Undivided - Rural MSAS 105 1025 1639 Old Crystal Bay Rd Collector 2 Lane, Undivided - Rural MSAS 102 1948 3116 Willow Dr Collector 2 Lane, Undivided - Rural MSAS 101 4319 6908 Old Crystal Bay Rd Collector 2 Lane, Undivided - Rural MSAS 102 4708 7530 Watertown Rd Collector 2 Lane, Undivided - Rural MSAS 103 4428 7083 McCulley RD Minor Arterial 2 Lane, Undivided - Rural MSAS 104 5633 9010 * the 2040 ADT estimate is based on the 2015 ADT x the Increase in the # of households which is 60% Roadway Safety Providing a safe transportation system for all users is a high priority for the city. This needs to be accomplished through a combination of engineering, education, and enforcement and is to be targeted towards all users including drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The City continues to proactively work with the county and other regional local and state partners to incorporate safety into all transportation designs and efforts. In order to address safety issues on city streets the City adopted a Traffic Management Policy in 2014. The policy is intended to provide a systematic process for the City to address traffic concerns by a consistently applying City Code and other applicable laws and regulations while incorporating a wide variety of traffic management and safety techniques. Access Management The purpose of access management is to provide adequate access to adjacent land development while maintaining acceptable traffic flow on higher level roadways. Management consists of carefully controlling the spacing and design of public street intersections and private access points to the public roadway system. Arterials, being designed for higher speed, longer distance trips, generally have reduced or restricted access, while local streets can accommodate much greater access. Collector roadways fall in between arterials and local roadways regarding the amount of access that is permitted. The agency with jurisdiction over a roadway sets access management guidelines. Figure 4A-3: Access Curve CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 12 Regional / County Road Access Access to US 12 must meet MnDOT access management guidelines. Hennepin County has established access management guidelines for county roads. Hennepin County requires permits for new driveway access to county roads and when land uses change at a site adjacent to a county road. In addition, the county reviews development plats for access management compliance. Hennepin County typically requires that new access points meet its guidelines; however, the county can make exceptions to the guidelines with sufficient justification. (See Hennepin County Transportation Plan for detailed county access requirements and guidelines). Orono Access Management Management of access to principal and minor arterials is necessary to ensure a safe and efficient arterial system. Direct individual property access to arterials is regulated in the Orono Municipal Code by requiring development of local or private roads to serve new residential developments of 3 or more units; by limiting the number of curb cuts per residence; by prohibiting direct access to principal arterials; and by a number of other regulations involving the location, type and number of access points to the arterial roadway system. However, many of southern Orono’s arterials near the Lake Minnetonka shoreline have historically served a dual function as both arterials and as local/collector streets, due to geographic and topographic limitations. It should be noted that there are existing access points that do not meet City, County, and MnDOT access spacing guidelines. In most cases these access points were established prior to agency access spacing guidelines. In other cases the agency has granted an exception to the existing guidelines. As roadways are reconstructed, each of these agencies generally works to modify and/or relocate access points that do not meet current access spacing guidelines in the interest of long term safety and efficiency. Pavement Preservation / Maintenance. Pavement Preservation is a program employing a network level, long-term strategy to enhance pavement performance by using integrated, cost- effective set of practices that extend pavement life, improve safety and meet resident’s expectations. As the diagram to the right illustrates, as the pavement condition decreases, the cost for the appropriate method of repair can increase significantly. Maintenance activities applied to surfaces in better condition, such as sealcoats, thin or structural overlays may prove to be more cost effective than waiting until the pavement is in poor condition when it is necessary to perform more costly maintenance or reconstruction. Source: “The Hole Story,” American Public Works Association Figure 4A-4: Maintenance/ cost curve CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 13 An effective preservation programs addresses pavements while they are still in good condition. A cost-effective treatment in a timely manner will restore the pavement almost to its original condition. By doing so, the cumulative costs of such treatment are substantially less then reconstruction or major rehabilitation over the life of the pavement. In addition the disruption of traffic is less for more frequent and minimal treatments in comparison to larger construction treatments. A proper Pavement Preservation program consists of three primary components: Table 4A-8 Maintenance Type Description Examples Preventive maintenance A planned strategy of cost-effective treatments to an existing roadway system and its appurtenances that preserves the system, retards future deterioration, and maintains or improves the functional condition of the system (without significantly increasing the structural capacity). Chip sealing Slurry or micro surfacing Thin overlay Routine maintenance Day-to-day activities that are scheduled by maintenance personnel to maintain and preserve the pavement at a satisfactory level. Cleaning of ditches & structures Pavement markings maintenance Crack filling Pavement patching Minor rehabilitation Minor Structural enhancements that extend the service life of an existing pavement and/or improve its load carrying capacity. Overlays Mill and Overlay Geiger, D.R., Pavement Preservation Definitions, FHWA Memorandum dated 12 September 2005. County Road/ Pavement Maintenance Hennepin County implemented a pavement management system in 1996 to identify roadway maintenance priorities. The pavement management system tracks pavement condition to help decision making regarding the cost / benefit trade-offs of road reconstruction versus lower level maintenance strategies. The Program is used by the County to develop priorities for pavement maintenance projects on county roads. (See Hennepin county Transportation Plan for details on their Maintenance program) Orono Road/Pavement Maintenance The primary need for Orono Roadways in the coming years is maintenance. Over the last decade Orono had underfunded road maintenance and replacement operations and therefore the roads have fallen in to disrepair. Orono adopted a pavement management system in 2014 to identify roadway maintenance priorities. The pavement management system tracks pavement condition to help decision making regarding the cost / benefit trade-offs of road reconstruction versus lower level maintenance strategies. While a certain share of the City’s annual levy is dedicated to Pavement Management Fund (PMF) each year for maintenance, much of the city’s infrastructure is aging. This is particularly challenging in the older, more developed parts of the city. Many of these roads are old, were not initially designed to support the land use forms desired today, are not pedestrian or bicycle friendly, and are in need of both infrastructure and land use revitalization. Also a lack of adequate funding for preventive maintenance activities has resulted in a great deal of deferred maintenance. This deferred maintenance has undesirable consequences from a financial as well as a user perspective, and effective planning is needed to ensure that quality infrastructure is sustained over time. Streets that receive no preventive maintenance are often beyond repair in just ten years, while streets that are properly maintained at critical stages in the life-cycle can last up CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 14 to twenty-five years or more. Local roadway maintenance has the potential to become more of an issue in the future due to Orono’s reliance on privately maintained roads to serve the rural neighborhoods. Orono’s 20 miles of private rural area roadways are currently maintained by individual property owners or through neighborhood homeowners associations. Conversion of these private roadways to a public status with public maintenance would result in Orono’s road maintenance costs increasing substantially. Bridge Maintenance State and County Bridges The vast majority of bridges located within Orono fall under the jurisdiction of the state and county. Orono Bridges All three bridges under Orono roadway jurisdiction have been completely replaced within the past ten years. These include the bridges on West Ferndale Road, Fox Street, and McCulley Road. The three bridges are enrolled in the state bridge maintenance system and receive bi-annual inspections. The weight capacity of the bridges under Orono jurisdiction are as follows: Ferndale, 36 ton; Fox, 60 ton; and McCulley, 33 ton. TRAILS This section addresses network needs for walking and bicycling within the City of Orono. This section includes information on the existing non-motorized transportation network within Orono, connections to land use planning, the planned local non-motorized transportation network, and the planned regional non- motorized transportation network. This section also includes recommendations for intersection improvements and design best practices. This section also addresses the needs of people using wheelchairs and assistive mobility devices such as mobility scooters, as they are considered pedestrians. Existing Non-Motorized Transportation System The existing non-motorized transportation system consists of sidewalks, multi-use paved trails, turf trails, and paved shoulders. Map 4A-6depicts the existing and planned trails within the City limits of Orono. There are currently limited facilities for walking and bicycling in the City, and these facilities serve recreational uses better than transportation uses. There is not currently a connected network in place to serve the needs of people bicycling and walking for transportation. Regional Non-Motorized Transportation Network The Metropolitan Council established a Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN) in 2015. The RBTN establishes regional priorities for bicycle transportation so that regional destinations are accessible by bicycle. Regional multi-use trails within the City limits include the Luce Line, Dakota and Independence Regional trails and are owned and operated by Three Rivers Park District and the Minnesota DNR. Several existing and planned trails and shoulders will be key links in the expanding regional non-motorized transportation network. A Tier 1 alignment, identified in the RBTN, includes a segment of Shadywood, north from excelsior, connecting to the Dakota Rail Trail. There are no other connections contemplated by the RBTN. CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 15 Orono Non-Motorized Transportation Network Sidewalks are generally located within newer residential developments and more dense residential and commercial portions of the city. As part of our recreation-open space plan, Orono has developed a trail plan focused on providing links between both local and regional recreational and open space areas, as well as links within the urban areas for pedestrian and bicycle access to Orono’s Navarre commercial area and links between the Orono Schools and the Long Lake downtown area. Connections to Land Use Planning The City of Orono has development patterns consistent with its designation as an Emerging Suburban Edge and Rural Residential community. Existing residential development is low density and commercial land uses are separated from residential land uses. This means that people walking and bicycling must cover greater distances to reach commercial areas from their homes. The development patterns in the City are better suited to bicycling than walking, due to the distance between residential and commercial areas of the City. Non-Motorized Transportation Design Considerations As non-motorized facilities are planned and designed, the City should consult additional planning and design resources, including:  Hennepin County Bicycle Transportation Plan  Hennepin County Pedestrian Plan  MnDOT Bikeway Facility Design Manual  Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices  Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities – American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials  Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities – American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials  Public Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) – US Access Board Accessibility Accessibility is a very important consideration for non-motorized design. All new pedestrian and bicycle facilities must meet the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) accessibility guidelines. To address accessibility issues, the City developed and adopted and ADA transition plan in 2017 aimed at bringing sidewalks, trails, and intersections into compliance with ADA guidelines. Trail Policy It is the policy of the City to encourage the development of sidewalks and trails. In urban densities, sidewalks should be added to at least one side of roads. In all development densities, connections to the existing or planned trail network should be made or rights preserved. The City will support the expansion of trails and or bike lanes if feasible. CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 16 LAKE ACCESS, PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT Orono's lakes provide a significant recreational resource for all Orono residents. This value was long ago realized by City leaders. In order to provide lake access for the general public, as well as to provide for fire department access to the lake as a water source, a number of lake access corridors were created as the shore land developed. These typically are platted, dedicated right-of-ways leading from the local road system to the shoreline, and are commonly from 16' to 66' in width. These right-of-ways (often referred to as “fire lanes” or “lake access roads”) vary considerably in their proximity to traffic, parking availability, proximity to housing, lakeshore conditions, and other factors that effect their recreational value. Some of these corridors have been maintained by the City for local swimming beaches or as winter snowmobile and ice-fishing accesses. Certain accesses have docks for fishing, and some have ramp areas suitable for launching a small boat. However, most do not have designated parking available, and are primarily intended to serve the neighborhood rather than the general public. A number of these access corridors have steep topography, shallow water depths, undesirable lake bottom conditions, and/or dense vegetation and experience little or no usage. Of the City lake accesses shown in Table 4A-9, half of those located outside of Big Island are either undeveloped or closed to public use. In addition to Orono's relatively small public lake access corridors, other governmental agencies own and operate significantly larger lake access properties in Orono. These include the DNR Maxwell Bay Access, Hennepin County's North Arm Access and Hennepin County's Noerenberg Gardens Memorial Park. These three large facilities benefit from Metro Transit bus service on their County Road 51 frontage, and are used regularly by visitors from the greater metropolitan area and beyond. The Noerenberg Gardens lack the docks and ramps supplied at the nearby Maxwell Bay and North Arm locations, however the Noerenberg shoreline in Maxwell Bay is a popular place for boaters to anchor and swim. Even more popular destinations for Lake Minnetonka boaters are the Hennepin County beach at Cruiser's Cove on Big Island, and Orono's Big Island Park, which has dockage and hiking areas. Orono also owns and operates Summit Park on Long Lake. Orono offers public lake access through five commercial marinas within its boundaries. Its private recreational facilities with lake shore are Camp Teko on North Arm Bay and the Minnetonka Power Squadron on Big Island. CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 17 Table 4A-9: City of Orono Lake Minnetonka Access Points - Designated Use and Current S ID Access Name or Street Name Plat Section Between Address #s Designated Use UPDATED 4-24-2018 # Notes Brown’s Bay (Lower Lake) 1 End of Orono Lane 2-S 1355/1385 Not open for public use; plat map indicates questionable abutment of shoreline -- Shoreline Drive - “Molly’s Corner” (Outlot A, Dragonfly Hill) 2-S Across from 1410 Shoreline Shore Fishing Hennepin County provides an informal parking area and trashcans at this wide spot along Shoreline Drive; popular fishing spot; winter vehicular access feasible. Fire Boat dockage Smith Bay (Lower Lake) 2 Shoreline Drive at Spates 10-S Adj to 1955 Winter Only Winter vehicular access allowed. 3 North Shore Drive at Shoreline Drive 10-S Tracts S&U, RLS 192; these tracts are on the steep slope adjacent to Shoreline Drive; due to slope and safety issues this access point is not open for public use Crystal Bay -- North Shore Drive 9-S 2605/2655 No longer a public access (“Town Road”) 4 North Shore Drive at Baldur Park Road 8-S 3498/3510 Winter Only 30' wide platted road right-of-way -- North Shore Drive east of Shadywood Road 17-N 3685/3705 33' wide eastward extension of North Shore Drive (Hennepin County jurisdiction) 5 Shadywood Road at Sunset Dr 17-N 1998/2000 15.2' wide platted alley - closely abutting homes on either side 6 Crystal Bay Road (West end) 17-S Adj to 2264 Shadywood 66' wide platted road extending to lakeshore; City also owns 4 adjacent tiny lakeshore parcels to the east for an additional 200' of shoreline, over which a number of inland private parcels claim deeded access rights for “boating and bathing”… status currently under discussion 7 Crystal Bay Road (Relocated extension of Bayview Place in plat of “Wallace’s Addition...”) 17-S 3405/3415 20' relocated alley from Railroad property to shoreline; potential lake access from railway corridor. The only known documentation is Doc. #507616 deed filed Nov. 10, 1908 from Wallace et al to Priebe which states that the 20' strip is “heretofore taken for street purposes” and notes that the platted alley between Lots 18 and 19 was vacated by the District Court. 8 Crystal Bay Road (Platted extension of Hillside Place) 17-S 3339/3345 25' wide platted roadway; contains municipal sewer lines, potential access from neighborhood and Railroad/Trail corridor to lakeshore Maxwell Bay 9 Gibbs Landing - Fox St. 4-S Adj to 3125 Pedestrian year-round, vehicles winter only Tax records show access as Outlot A, owned by owner of 3125, City has easement over Outlot, City maintains access CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 18 Stubbs Bay ID Access Name Plat Section Between Address #’s Designated Use 10 Eastlake Street 5-N 3424/3465 Winter Only 30' platted road gated March 1 - Dec. 1 11 Bayside Rd. at Stubbs Bay Rd. 5-N 3580/3640 Fishing Dock 33' platted road (“Oak Street” in plat of “Bay View Park”) Also used for winter access by snowmobiles off Luce Line 12 Bayside Rd 5-N Across from 3640, 3700, NA Two 60' platted roads and one 65' platted road to the Lake (Park, Spring, and Maple Streets in plat of Bay View Park; and Theresa St. in plat of Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka). These potential access points are not opened for public use. 3750 Bayside 13 Bayside Rd. 5-N West side of 3775 Bayside NA 30' realigned platted road (Realigned “Lake Street” in the plat of Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka) (See street file 3775 Bayside). Not opened for public use. 14 Westlake Street 5-N 372/389 30' platted road right-of-way extending to lakeshore; walking access only. North Arm Bay 15 Park Lane 6-S 607/649 Fishing Dock 60' wide platted road, paved to shoreline - usable for boat launch but there is no parking available 16 Oak Street 6-S Adj to 4119 30' wide platted road, not developed, steep slopes and ravine limit use 17 Baldur Park Road 8-S Across from 1384/1392 NW end of platted developed road as it extends to shoreline 18 Oak Place (Platted road in plat of “Crystal Bay View”) 8-S 3768/3818 40' wide platted undeveloped road extending from North Shore Drive across platted Cherry Ave to shoreline; mostly wetland or under water North Shore Dr 19 Sandy Beach (Extension of Maple Place) 8-S 3898/3908 Swimming Beach 60' wide platted roadway used for City beach Cherry Ave 20 Grant Street 8-S 1310 Spruce/ 50' wide platted road, undeveloped 1330 Cherry Pl 21 Spruce Place 8-S 1250/1260 40' wide (remaining after partial vacation) platted roadway, undeveloped 22 Loma Linda Avenue 8-N 1098/1130 Fishing Dock 40' wide platted road; also useful for vehicular access Forest Lake 23 Forest Lake Landing 7-N 4415/4440 60' wide platted road right-of-way , access not developed, walking use only 24 Elmwood Avenue 7-N South of 1199 20' wide platted road/alley undeveloped right-of-way leading to shoreline 25 “Summit Avenue” (Extension of Elmwood Avenue) 7-S 1067/1101 50' wide platted road undeveloped right-of-way to shoreline 26 “Buff Street” 7-S West side of 1453 Park Dr 50' wide platted road right-of-way to shoreline, not developed West Arm Bay 27 North Shore Drive west end (adjacent to Orono/M’trista border) 7-S “4795" 33' platted right-of-way corridor extension of Co. Rd. 19 plus tax-forfeited Lot 10, Block 6, “Bergquist and Wicklund’s Park...”; undeveloped corridor primarily for drainage purposes due to very steep slopes Shoreline CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 19 ID Access Name Plat Section Between Address #’2 Designated Use 28 North Shore Drive at “Adams Street” Extension 7-S 4731/4745 40' platted road right-of-way extension in plat of “Bergquist and Wicklund’s Park...” undeveloped, very steep, used for drainage 29 Rest Point Lane 7-S 1340/1345 33' platted right-of-way corridor, pavement does not extend to lake 30 Rest Point Road 7-S 1405/1410 16' platted road right-of-way widens to about 40' at shoreline, paved but no boat launching available 31 Orchard Beach Place 7-S West of 1530 50' platted road right-of-way extends to shoreline; tree growth and topography limits vehicular access 32 Highwood Lane Extension 7-S 4156/4167 20' platted alley right-of-way to shoreline; steep slope to shoreline, undeveloped Highwood Rd 33 Highwood Road Alley 7-S 4051/4075 20' platted alley right-of-way to shoreline, not developed 34 Corral Road Extension 17-N 1785/1825 20' platted alley mainly for drainage but also walking access Concordia 35 Fagerness Point Accretions 18-N Across from 1965/1985 Accretions to the 40' originally platted road in the plat of “Fagerness”; title registrations by most abutting owners have resulted in dedicated right-of-way no longer abutting shoreline; it appears that there is no public access remaining Fagerness Pt Rd Spring Park Bay 36 Casco Point Beach 20-S 2871/2879 Swimming Beach 60' wide platted road (“Carman St”) used as a City swimming beach Casco Pt Rd 37 Casco Circle 20-S 3195/3205 60' wide platted road right-of-way to shoreline at the south side of Casco Circle - undeveloped Carmans Bay 38 “Ivy Lane” (Ivy Place) 20-S 3486/3508 60' wide platted road right-of-way extending to shoreline east of Ivy Place - steep, used for drainage 39 “Spring Street” 20-S 2600/2618 40' wide platted road right-of-way from Casco Point Road to shoreline along south side of plat of “Kaster Cove” - undeveloped, walking access only Casco Pt Rd 40 Carman Street 20-S 2490 Carman/ 30' wide platted road right-of-way extending to shoreline, fishing dock 3555 Frederick 41 Lydiard Beach 20-S End of Lydiard Rd Swimming Beach 66' wide platted road right-of-way extending to shoreline, used as a City swimming beach Big Island A N. End of “Lawn Avenue” 23-N 110 33' wide platted roadway adjacent to Lot 46, Morse Island Park B E. end of “Tooisit Avenue” 23-N 110/120 33' wide platted roadway adjacent to Lot 45, Morse Island Park - slope makes use difficult C Unnamed Street 23-N 120/140 90' wide platted r’dway between Lots 38 and 39, Morse Island Park - City has established drivable gravel road for emergency & service vehicle access D “Bay Place” 23-N 210/260 50' +/- wide platted roadway between Lots 21 and 54, Morse Island Park CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 20 ID Access Name Plat Section Between Address #’s Designated Use E “Meadow Lane East Extended” 23-S 280/290 20' wide platted roadway between Lots 59 and 60, Morse Island Park - steep slope makes use difficult F “Meta-Comet Avenue South” 23-S 340 33' wide platted roadway between Lot F Morse Island Park and Lot 3, Morse Island Park 2nd Addition G “Massasolt Avenue West End” 23-S 440/450 33' wide platted roadway between Lot 1, Morse Island Park and Lot 1, Scrivers subdivision of Lot E, Morse Island Park - steep slope H “Meadow Lane Alley” 23-S 450/460 16' platted alley between Lots 5 and 6, Morse Island Park - drivable for emergency and service vehicles I “Pleasant View Street” 22-S 570/600 30' platted roadway between Lot 9, Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka and Lot 3, Island Pointe TRANSIT Orono is categorized as a Transit Market Area IV. Transit Market Area IV has lower concentrations of population and employment and a higher rate of auto ownership. It is primarily composed of Suburban Edge and Emerging Suburban Edge communities. This market can support peak-period express bus services if a sufficient concentration of commuters likely to use transit service is located along a corridor. The low-density development and suburban form of development presents challenges to fixed-route transit. General public dial-a-ride services are appropriate in Market Area IV. The three primary routes serving Orono are Express Route 675 645 and 677, which provide express service to downtown from the Mound, Navarre and Wayzata commercial areas along County Road 15, and Express Route 674 which provides similar express service to western and central Orono, Long Lake and Wayzata. The TPP’s Transit Investment Plan does not show any transitway investments planned for Orono in the Current Revenue Scenario. (See Map 4A-7).To expand the reach of these fixed routes, the City will promote dial a ride services throughout the city. The Transportation Policy Plan discusses the expansion of Transit Advantages, though none are expressly identified within Orono boundaries. Given the limited right of way and the growing congestion of County Road 15 through Navarre, improvements and programs to expand Transit Advantage in the area should be closely considered. FREIGHT Freight transportation in Orono is primarily served by a Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) rail line parallel to US 12. There are no freight facilities within Orono. The BNSF rail line does not cross any roadways within the City. There are no large freight traffic generators within the City. Most truck and rail traffic is passing through Orono on trips to, from, and through the Twin Cities. Heavy truck traffic is for the most part constrained to roads under Hennepin County and State Jurisdiction. (See Map 4A-8) The development of the lake areas in Orono as seasonal recreational in the late 1800s early 1900’s established many of the transportation patterns found throughout the community. In the lake areas, this pattern led to roads that are substandard to today’s standards. Local residential roads are not designed for heavy freight movement. As the City expands its maintenance program, improvements to turning radii, width, and stormwater retention are considered. There are no known locations where truck access is not available. CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 21 All local city roads are constructed to a 7 ton standard, though weight restricted to 4 ton in the spring months to protect the longevity of the road structure. AVIATION Orono is not in an influence area of a regional airport and is therefore not subject to associated land use restrictions. Airspace protection should be included in local codes/ordinances to control height of structures. There are currently no existing or planned aviation facilities within the City of Orono. However, the City is responsible for airspace protection in order to reduce hazards to air travel within the region. Given the distance to the nearest airports, there are no radio beacons or other air navigation aids located in off-airport locations in Orono. Any person or organization who intends to sponsor the construction or alteration of a structure affecting navigable airspace as defined in Federal Regulation Title 14; Part 77 needs to inform the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) of the project. This notification is accomplished through the completion and submittal to FAA of Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. In Orono, this requirement applies to any construction or alteration exceeding 200 feet above ground level. The City’s zoning code allows a maximum structure height of 30 feet; therefore it is unlikely that any structures in the City will require FAA notification. There are no seaplane bases located within the City. There are currently no heliports in Orono nor any known plans to construct one. Orono will support the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District in the control of seaplane operation on Lake Minnetonka. The existing level of seaplane operation is satisfactory to Orono. The City will support the LMCD in their monitoring of seaplane operation and in any reasonable changes in regulations necessary to prevent seaplane conflict with the primary boating use of the lake. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN This section of the Plan provides the goals objectives and strategies that can help city officials implement the Transportation Plan and make wise long-term decisions. Goals and Objectives The following table 4A-10 displays the goals and objectives of the Orono Transportation Plan. The goals listed below represent the City’s overall vision for transportation over the next 20 years. The objectives listed below provide guidance that the City can use to reach the transportation goals. CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 22 Table 4A-10 Goals and Objectives Goals Objective 1. Facilitate efficient movement of people within and through the City 1.1. Regularly assess transportation maintenance needs and include roadway, trail pavement, and other transportation infrastructure maintenance in the Capital Improvement Plan. 1.2 Efficiently preserve and maintain the City’s transportation system in a state of good repair. 1.3. Provide safe and efficient routes for emergency and public safety vehicles. 1.4. Coordinate with appropriate jurisdiction (MnDOT, Hennepin County) to provide adequate capacity to relieve congestion. 1.5. Encourage sound access management. 1.6 Encourage, with other government agencies, the expansion of multi- modal and transit services in the city to support resident and business transportation needs 2. Facilitate efficient movements of goods within and through the City 2.1. Coordinate with appropriate jurisdictions (BNSF, MnDOT, Hennepin county) to ensure the safe and efficient flow of Freight through the city of Orono 3. Provide a transportation system that is integrated with land use and development 3.1. Coordinate transportation system investments with the Orono Land Use Plan. 3.2. Design, construct, and maintain roadways that fit the character of the adjacent land use 3.3. Require all new (private or public) residential streets be designed to City standards. 4. Improve transportation safety for all users and modes of transportation 4.1. Implement safety improvements to address high crash locations 4.2. Proactively address bicycle and pedestrian safety concerns along roadways and at crossings. 4.3. Bring sidewalks, trails, and intersections into compliance with ADA. 4.4. Support traffic calming and design to minimize speed on minor City collectors and local roadways. 5. Develop a safe and convenient multimodal transportation system 5.1. Invest in multi-modal transportation solutions including bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. 5.2. Preserve and acquire adequate right of way for sidewalk and trail construction. 6. Conserve and enhance environmental resources 6.1. Incorporate storm water Best Management Practices into all transportation construction and maintenance projects. 6.2. Incorporate natural feature preservation into road construction project as practical. 6.3 Incorporate Best Management practices for natural resources within the city rights of Way General Transportation Policies 1. Commuter and general arterial traffic must be directed away from Lake Minnetonka. The sensitive environment of Lake Minnetonka, and the property rights of the riparian landowners, are being damaged by continued reliance on this outmoded roadway location. 2. Orono will actively promote use of the Ring Route and Highway 12 to provide viable efficient alternatives to continued over-use of County Road 15. CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 23 3. Existing collector and arterial roadways will be upgraded as necessary in a manner that does not encourage additional commercial traffic or through commuter traffic on any of the City’s primary north-south collector roads. These roads, specifically Orono Orchard Road, Brown Road, Willow Drive and Old Crystal Bay Road, are primarily located in the rural area and serve a dual function both as collectors and as local streets. Discouraging expansion of their use by non- local traffic will help to preserve the rural character of the area while enhancing safety. 4. Orono will support the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District in the control of seaplane operation on Lake Minnetonka. 5. It is the city’s intent to retain lake access (pedestrian, vehicular, boat) for public use. The City will individually evaluate existing lake access corridors and fire lanes as requested, taking into consideration the unique characteristics of each location, such as topography, water depth and quality, lake bottom conditions, the type of vegetation, and any potential for related lake access, drainage, or water quality improvement. 6. As always, both public and private property rights will be considered. To this end, the City will be guided thusly: a. The City will identify and take necessary action to preserve the public’s right to use of any such accesses which exist but which may not have been formally dedicated. b. The City will endeavor to work with property owners adjacent to lake access corridors to ensure that both the rights of the public and the rights of the private landowner are upheld. 7. Orono will consider conversions of private roads to public roads as requested on a case by case basis. The factors considered in evaluating a proposal may include: a. The condition of the street. The condition of the street is consistent with city standards. b. Affected property owners. The desire of the affected property owners. The city does not intend to acquire maintenance responsibility for private roads unless requested by a majority of affected property owners, or c. Safety. If the condition of the road restricts access to the parcels by emergency vehicles, the City may affect the improvements. d. Ownership. Provision of Right of way or an easement Urban Transportation Policies 1. Local streets in the urban area will be owned and maintained by the City. 2. All urban properties should be directly served by the public street system. 3. Urban streets will be constructed to urban design standards. 4. Curb cuts and driveway locations will be limited for traffic safety. 5. On-street parking will be strictly limited. All urban development must provide adequate on- site parking facilities. CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 24 6. The City will pursue additional pedestrian and bike-hike trail facilities. 7. The City will promote improved mass transportation services for urban neighborhoods, including park and rides. Orono encourages improved bus scheduling and improved service, especially at off-peak hours. Rural Transportation Policies 1. Public streets in the rural area will be primarily limited to the existing collector and arterial grid system. 2. The Ring Route concept utilizes as much as possible the existing rural highway system. 3. The City of Orono will encourage all necessary road system improvements required to accommodate and to facilitate through traffic on the Ring Route. 4. Rural residential developments will utilize private road feeders to supplement the existing public road grid. 5. Private rural roadways will be constructed to rural design standards. 6. The City will guarantee reasonable maintenance levels and public access on all private roads. 7. Driveway locations and rural street or private road intersections will be limited for traffic safety. 8. Rural trails are an integral part of the total alternate transportation system. 9. Mass transportation services for rural Orono are not economical, hence the City will promote the use of Park and Ride locations where local service is not feasible. CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 25 Transportation Plans Table 4A-11 Transportation Plan history Policy or Plan Description Adopted Traffic Management Plan Provides a systematic process for the City to address traffic concerns from residents through a consistently applying City Code and other applicable laws and regulations while incorporating a wide variety of traffic management techniques 14 December 2015 Snow and Ice Policy Established the city’s response to snow and ice events that impact the cities roadways. Setting policies for snow and ice management involves balancing the following priorities: public safety, personnel safety, environmental stewardship, cost and Adaptability. Under Review Pavement Management Plan Establishes the standards and priorities for Maintaining the city’s roads over a ten year time period. Further it identifies the annual Operating budget needs for pavement maintenance. 27 October 2014 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan The plan guides the Cities policies and practices with respect to maximizing accessibility and use of city facilities by individuals with disabilities. 13 November 2017 CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4A, Page 26 Appendix 4A-A. TAZ Data TAZ Pop.HH PPH Emp Pop.HH PPH Emp Pop.HH PPH Emp Pop.HH PPH Emp 920 38 12 3.17 6 48 19 2.526 8 60 24 2.500 8 57 24 2.375 8 921 66 24 2.75 215 135 53 2.547 208 307 125 2.456 208 529 221 2.394 201 922 179 58 3.09 120 240 94 2.553 187 315 129 2.442 191 319 133 2.398 190 923 300 118 2.54 247 357 144 2.479 285 381 158 2.411 275 406 169 2.402 249 924 101 28 3.61 14 88 33 2.667 23 89 34 2.618 23 89 34 2.618 21 925 33 14 2.36 3 45 18 2.500 2 52 21 2.476 2 60 25 2.400 2 926 447 156 2.87 190 457 185 2.470 77 465 193 2.409 73 473 197 2.401 66 927 251 93 2.70 9 279 113 2.469 41 300 124 2.419 40 329 137 2.401 38 928 266 98 2.71 16 261 107 2.439 54 280 117 2.393 52 301 128 2.352 49 929 204 77 2.65 0 234 88 2.659 1 276 106 2.604 1 320 124 2.581 1 930 387 123 3.15 11 366 138 2.652 28 400 153 2.614 27 417 162 2.574 26 931 640 224 2.86 51 655 246 2.663 72 698 267 2.614 69 727 282 2.578 66 932 345 124 2.78 11 349 131 2.664 20 346 132 2.621 19 343 133 2.579 18 933 92 34 2.71 2 98 36 2.722 1 100 38 2.632 2 101 39 2.590 2 953 1969 765 2.57 127 2125 825 2.576 101 2177 864 2.520 102 2248 904 2.487 96 954 565 200 2.83 92 611 230 2.657 67 729 278 2.622 70 858 332 2.584 70 955 220 85 2.59 35 226 93 2.430 9 241 101 2.386 18 257 109 2.358 26 956 297 126 2.36 149 315 129 2.442 176 312 133 2.346 197 311 139 2.237 206 957 691 294 2.35 188 766 321 2.386 219 770 335 2.299 217 776 348 2.230 210 958 328 167 1.96 76 431 192 2.245 119 487 220 2.214 185 562 252 2.230 256 971 18 6 3.00 0 13 6 2.167 0 15 6 2.500 0 17 7 2.429 0 7437 2826 408 8099 3201 1698 8800 3558 1779 9500 3899 1801 Appendix A TAZ Data 2010 2020 2030 2040 CMP Part 4B. Sanitary Sewer Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4B, Page 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS CMP PART 4B SANITARY SEWER PLAN Introduction 4B-2 Existing Sanitary Sewer System 4B-3 Table 4B-1 Lift Stations 4B-5 Table 4B-3 Existing ISTS Systems 4B-6 Forecasts 4B-7 Table 4B-4 Sewer Allocation Forecasts 4B-8 Table 4B-5 MCES Projections 4B-8 Table 4B-6 Sanitary Sewer Flow 4B-8 Table 4B-7 Sanitary Sewer Projections 4B-9 Table 4B-8 Interceptors 4B-9 Table 4B-9 Septic Projections 4B-10 Inflow And Infiltration 4B-10 Table 4B-10 Dry/ Wet I&I comparison 4B-11 Table 4B-11 I&I Infiltration Projects 4B-12 Orono Goals and Policies 4B-12 Future Sanitary Sewer System 4B-13 Table 4B-12 Priorities 4B-13 Table 4B-13 Projects 4B-14 Table 4B-14 Maintenance 4B-15 Appendices 4B-A ISTS Ordinances 4B-B Illicit Discharge and Connection Ordinance Division 5, Subdivision V 4B-C MS4 Permit 4B-D Copies of Agreements since 2008 Map 4B-1 MCES System Map 4B-2 MUSA Expansion Map 4B-3 Sanitary Sewer System Map 4B-4 ISTS systems CMP Part 4B. Sanitary Sewer Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4B, Page 2 INTRODUCTION The City of Orono is required to prepare a Community Management Plan that aligns with the Metropolitan Council’s Metropolitan System Plan every ten years per Minnesota Rule 473.858. An important part of the Community Management Plan is the Sanitary Sewer Plan, which describes the existing sanitary sewer system and outlines the timing and sequence of future improvements. The Sanitary Sewer Plan allows the City and Metropolitan Council to build and improve their sanitary sewer collection and treatment systems so that development can occur in the most efficient and cost-effective manner. This document serves as the sanitary sewer component for the City of Orono’s 2040 Community Management Plan. The City of Orono’s Sanitary Sewer Plan was developed to meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Council’s Thrive MSP 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan. The Thrive MSP 2040 Plan was approved in May 2015 and outlines regional goals for the wastewater system, including environmental sustainability, water reuse, and water conservation. Additionally, the Thrive MSP 2040 Plan includes population, household, and employment projections, and projected wastewater flows. As a result of projected population increases and land use changes in Orono, the Metropolitan Council estimates that sanitary sewer flows will increase approximately 20% between 2010 and 2040. This Sanitary Sewer Plan serves as a guiding document for City infrastructure improvements and expansion. It also outlines the locations in which the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) can expect to see increased wastewater flows, allowing the Council to determine if capacity upgrades will be required at regional wastewater treatment plants and interceptors. Background The City of Orono is located in western Hennepin County and is bordered by Medina to the north, Wayzata and Plymouth to the east, and Minnetrista and Independence to the West. The Cities of Long Lake and Minnetonka Beach are completely contained within Orono. The City of Orono is primarily residential and is dominated in the south by Lake Minnetonka. Approximately 34% of the City is covered by lakes and wetlands. Orono is classified by the Metropolitan Council under the Emerging Suburban Edge and Rural Residential community designations. Orono's long range land use plans call for permanent maintenance of the existing low density rural residential areas. There is to be no staged growth plan for conversion of low density residential uses to higher density residential uses, and expansion of the existing urban service area will occur only within a few specifically planned areas. Therefore, the goals, plans and programs for on-site sewage treatment in rural Orono are intended to be permanently self-sufficient. Potential future demands on regional capacity will be primarily from the retrofitting of existing rural residential neighborhoods where sewer is readily available and where residents are willing to pay the costs associated with its installation, and it is within the MUSA. The goals, policies and facilities plans contained in this plan are set in the context of the legislative mandate to plan for regional needs through the year 2040 and beyond. These statistics and programs are primarily applicable to the urban areas of Orono and to the municipal sanitary sewer facilities which serve or are planned to serve these areas. CMP Part 4B. Sanitary Sewer Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4B, Page 3 EXISTING SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS Land Use Historic development patterns have resulted in a city which is partially urban and partially rural. The citizens of Orono have decided that a long range planning objective of the City is the permanent retention of the rural community. This objective is in line with the existing developed density of the area, with the similar plans of other cities abutting the rural area, and with the legislative intent of metropolitan planning such that expensive urban services not be over extended into undeveloped areas. Sewering of the urban area is necessary. The character and historic density of land use in the existing urban area of Orono, coupled with its general proximity to Lake Minnetonka both required and economically justified the installation of sanitary sewer to alleviate existing health and environmental problems. Rural lakeshore areas within the Shore land and within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) have been provided with municipal sewer service upon request. Residences, existing or proposed within the designated Shore land Overlay District and within the MUSA for which municipal sewer service was requested were and shall be provided with municipal sewer. However, this policy will not preclude development of such areas using fully conforming Individual Sewage Treatment Systems. Metropolitan Council Facilities The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) owns, operates and maintains interceptor sewer and facilities in Orono as indicated in map 4B-1. The Orono system is serviced by MCES meters; M431 and M435. Sewage flows from southern Orono are metered at MCES Meter M435. Flows from north central Orono are metered at MCES Meter M431. MCES maintains six lift stations within Orono; L44, L45, L46, L49, L59 and L60. All sewage outflow from Orono is conveyed to and treated at MCES's Blue Lake Treatment Plant on the Minnesota River in Shakopee. Orono's sewer service capacity is limited by the capacity of the intervening interceptors including the Orono-Long Lake Interceptor, and not strictly by the capacity of the Blue Lake Facility. A history of the MUSA expansion can be found on Map 4B-2. Orono Sanitary Sewer System The City of Orono owns, operates and maintains municipal sanitary sewer facilities as indicated on Map 4B-3. Orono’s sanitary sewer system currently consists of approximately 245,131 ft of Sewer Main, 80,530 ft of Force Main, 1292 Manholes and 44 lift stations, of which a majority was built within the last 50 years. The City of Orono’s existing Sanitary Sewer System limits are defined by the boundaries of the MUSA. Because of topography and historic development patterns, the Orono municipal sewer system includes a number of disconnected sections which can be categorized into 5 distinct service areas. In addition the topography of the area has resulted in the City constructing 44 Lift Stations. 1. Southwest Orono System(MCES metershed M435): This system consists of two sub systems; the Lift Station 59 system and the downstream interceptors system. The Lift Station 59 system consists of all lines which are upstream from and ultimately discharge to MCES Lift Station #59 CMP Part 4B. Sanitary Sewer Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4B, Page 4 (LS-59). The system was constructed with eighteen projects from 1964 to 2007. This is the original municipal sewer system and it still serves the majority of urban Orono. These lines were installed to provide pollution abatement and sewer service to the Navarre business area and to the urban residential areas along Lake Minnetonka. The downstream interceptors system consists of all trunk and lateral lines which directly discharge to the Orono-Long Lake Interceptor (MCES 7113 and 7113A) downstream from L.S. 59 but upstream of Meter # 435. These direct discharges are via City-owned and maintained lift stations pumping into the MCES force main at a limited number of locations. Construction occurred during 1980-2014. 2. Highway 12 Area System (MCES metershed M431): This system consists of all lines which are upstream from and ultimately discharge to LS-60. Construction consisted of sixteen Projects from 1967 to 2018. This portion of the municipal system was initially constructed as an extension of the Long Lake municipal system primarily to provide sewer (and water) service to the Orono High School. This system currently serves all of the urban and commercial area in the North West portion of the city along the County Road 6 and 112 corridor. 3. Long Lake Connections. This system consist of all of the lines that connect directly into the Long Lake Municipal Sewer System. The system was constructed in a series of projects from 1970 to 2018. 4. Wayzata System Extensions: Sewer laterals which connect to extensions of the Wayzata sewer system along Orono’s eastern boundary. Construction consisted of six Projects 1970-2009. This portion of the Orono municipal sewer system functions as an extension of the Wayzata system serving existing housing adjacent to the Wayzata border. 5. Plymouth Direct Connection. The City has one property directly connected to the Plymouth municipal system, St. Edwards Church on North Ferndale Road. No further connections to the Plymouth system are anticipated. 6. Lift Stations. The Orono Sanitary Sewer system is serviced by 44 Lift Stations, listed on Table 4B-1: Lift Stations. 7. Agreements with Adjacent Cities. In order to provide municipal sanitary service in the most cost effective manner the City of Orono partners with neighboring cities. Orono residents are served by connection to Plymouth, Long Lake and Wayzata. Orono provides service to residents from Wayzata, Spring Park and Medina. Table 4B-2 below lists the current agreements with other municipalities. Copies of agreements entered into since 2008 are attached as Appendix 4B-D. CMP Part 4B. Sanitary Sewer Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4B, Page 5 Table 4B-1: Lift stations Lift Station Design Flow (GPD) LS-1 Lift 1302 Shoreline Dr Yes 60 31,875 M435 LS-2 Lift 1970 Spates Ave Yes Yes 500 81,175 M435 LS-3 Lift 3400 Eastlake St Yes 125 47,175 M435 LS-4 Lift 160 Stubbs Bay Rd 100 5,950 M435 LS-5 Lift 351 Westlake St Yes 200 68,000 M435 LS-6 Lift 2478 Casco Point Rd Yes Yes 360 134,725 M435 LS-7 Lift 2552 Shadywood Rd Yes 240 74,375 M435 LS-8 Lift 2662 West Lafayette Rd Yes 70 26,350 M431 LS-9 Lift 1580 Bohns Point Rd Yes 100 12,750 M435 LS-10 Lift 115 Orono Orchards Rd 105 11,475 M435 LS-11 Lift 1815 Fagerness Pout Rd Yes 100 24,650 M435 LS-12 Lift 2030 Wayzata Blvd Yes Yes 240 68,850 M435 LS-13 Lift 2919 Casco Point Rd Yes 140 56,950 M435 LS-14 Lift 1580 Orchard Beach Pl Yes Yes 250 133,025 M435 LS-15 Lift 1375 VINE PL Yes 200 68,425 M435 LS-16 Lift 1385 Rest Point Rd Yes 100 8,500 M435 LS-17 Lift 1074 Wildhurst Tr Yes 100 14,025 M435 LS-18 Lift 1330 CHERRY PL Yes Yes 200 86,275 M435 LS-19 Lift 1030 Loma Linda Ave Yes 100 11,900 M435 LS-20 Lift 1101 Elmwood Ave Yes Yes 100 45,050 M435 LS-21 Lift 4265 Forest Lake Dr Yes Yes 100 30,175 M435 LS-22 Lift 2890 Shoreline Dr Yes 100 5,525 M435 LS-23 Lift 3017 North Shore Dr Yes 100 9,350 M435 LS-24 Lift 4015 Dahl Rd 250 1,700 M435 LS-25 Lift 780 North Arm Dr Yes 250 6,375 M435 LS-26 Lift 1207 Tonkawa Rd Yes Yes 400 126,225 M435 LS-27 Lift 870 Partenwood Rd Yes 250 4,675 M435 LS-28 Lift 632 Park Ln Yes Yes 325 92,225 M435 LS-29 Lift 754 Tonkawa Rd Yes 250 105,400 M435 LS-30 Lift 1799 Lakeview Terrace Yes 100 31,875 M431 LS-31 Lift 1579 Long Lake Blvd Yes 130 19,975 M431 GS-1 Grinder 2635 North Shore Dr Yes 45 5,525 M435 GS-2 Grinder 1082 Ferndale Rd W Yes 35 3,400 M435 GS-3 Grinder 978 Ferndale Rd W 15 425 M435 GS-4 Grinder 907 Ferndale Rd W 15 425 M435 GS-5 Grinder 883 Ferndale Rd W 15 850 M435 GS-6 Grinder 1446 Shoreline Dr Yes 35 2,550 M435 GS-7 Grinder 2472 Carmen St 15 1,275 M435 GS-8 Grinder 1023 Old Crystal Bay Rd 20 425 M435 GS-9 Grinder 1222 Bracket’s Point Rd Yes 39 7,225 M435 GS-10 Grinder 2048 Shoreline Dr 57 4,675 M435 GS-11 Grinder 3980 Dahl Rd 15 425 M435 GS-30 Grinder 988 Partenwood Rd 15 1,275 M435 GS-31 Grinder 994 North Arm 15 850 M435 LS #Type Address Street SCADA Generator Pump Capacity Flow (GPM) Met Council Meter CMP Part 4B. Sanitary Sewer Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4B, Page 6 Orono Private Treatment Systems The City of Orono’s rural areas are served by Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (ISTS). Existing ISTS in Orono is shown in Map 4B-4. Orono Code regulating ISTS can be found in Appendix 4B-A. This ordinance was updated in July of 2018 to be consistent with Hennepin County regulations and State law. The provisions specify technical standards, site evaluations, sizing requirements, and minimum setbacks from floodplains and wetlands for individual systems. Every three years the City notifies homeowners to provide maintenance to their septic systems and submit inspection reports to the City. If a complaint is submitted about a septic system, the city is responsible for performing an inspection of the system. City Ordinances (Section 82-224) allows for the establishment of a central system, with the goal of connecting a neighborhood to municipal sewer services within 15 years. The City does not activity encourage private community waste water systems unless long term management, including maintenance and funding, can be addressed. Based on City building records, an inventory of septic services is listed below: Table 4B-3: Existing Individual Sewage Treatment Systems (2018) Residential 1024 Institutional (Churches, Golf courses) 5 Total On-Site systems 1029 Source: City Building Records All public or privately owned Community Wastewater Treatment Systems are included in the residential calculation. FORECASTS Land Use Orono's land use plan calls for development in both the urban and the rural portions of the City. The urban area will see new residential development on the existing vacant lots and undeveloped parcels at densities of 1-25 units per acre. Urban commercial development will be restricted to neighborhood services in the existing Navarre Area and fuller utilization of the industrial and commercial potential near Long Lake. Overall urban density will remain relatively low because of the ecological considerations of proximity to Lake Minnetonka. The rural area will see continued residential development at a slow, steady pace in a manner similar to that of the past three decades. CMP Part 4B. Sanitary Sewer Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4B, Page 7 Population The Metropolitan Council publishes population and sewer usage forecasts for each city in the Metropolitan Area. MCES use these growth and wastewater flow forecasts to plan future interceptor and treatment works to serve communities. The forecast data in the table below is from the Metropolitan Council’s Local Planning Handbook Community Page for Orono and includes both total and sewered population, households, and employment. Table 4B-4: Orono Population and Households 1970 - 2040 (Sewered and Unsewered Forecasts) Population Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 2020 2030 2040 Sewered -- -- -- -- 4,429 -- 5,150 6,170 6,740 Unsewered -- -- -- -- 3,008 -- 2,950 2,630 2,760 Total City 6,787 6,845 7,285 7,538 7,437 7,691 8,100 8,800 9,500 Household Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2016 2020 2030 2040 Sewered -- -- -- -- 1,780 2,253 2,105 2,455 2,785 Unsewered -- -- -- -- 1046 784 1,095 1,105 1,115 Total City 2,146 2,291 2,613 2,766 2,826 3,037 3,200 3,560 3,900 Persons/HH 3.16 2.99 2.79 2.73 2.63 2.53 2.53 2.47 2.44 Employment 500 809 980 951 1562 1579 1700 1780 1800 Source: Metropolitan Council Wastewater Flows All of the existing and anticipated sewage flow from the City of Orono is treated at the Blue Lake WWTP. The treatment plan currently processes 26 Million Gallons Per day and has a planned capacity of 40 million gallons per day by 2040 (Council, 2016). The 1980 CMP indicated an ultimate interceptor design capacity assigned to Orono of 3,025 units based on a flow of 368 GPD per unit (115 gal/person/day x 3.2 persons/household) totaling 1.14 mgd or 416 million gallons per year (MGY). Under current projections which include land use changes proposed in the Land Use Plan of this 2018-2040 CMP, potential Orono flow rates will slightly exceed the annual flows forecasted by Met Council through 2040 but remain below the ultimate design capacity. The paragraphs and tables below depict the MCES and Orono projections. MCES Projections Table 4B-5 below lists projected total average wastewater flow for Orono. CMP Part 4B. Sanitary Sewer Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4B, Page 8 Table 4B-5: MCES Sewered Wastewater Projections 2010 2020 2030 2040 Annual Average Wastewater Flow (MGD) 0.58 0.59 0.65 0.72 Total Flow (average day x 365) 211.7 215.35 237.25 262.8 As a point of reference, Table 4B-6 below depicts the amount of Orono wastewater actually delivered into the MCES system from 2012-2016. Table 4B-6: Sanitary Sewer Flow from Orono 2012-2016 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Annual Average Wastewater Flow (MGD) 0.48 0.57 0.63 0.49 0.54 Total Flow (average day x 365) 177.21 207.73 228.52 177.27 199 Orono Projections Orono’s projects are based on the planned development of the existing Municipal Service Areas. The current and projected connections are shown in the table below broken down by Sewer Service Areas. Note that the projections used in this Plan are greater than the MCES projections since they rely on flow estimates for each parcel of developable land, rather than population estimates. Residential Equivalents Connections (REC) The table uses Residential Equivalents Connections (REC) to convert non-residential connection into their residential equivalents. The project flows are calculated based on 1 REC = 250 Gallons / Day (1 REC = 2.5 residents x 100 gal/resident/day). Table 4B-7 is projections based on proposed land use projections, applied to each metershed. CMP Part 4B. Sanitary Sewer Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4B, Page 9 Table 4B-7: Sanitary Sewer Projections by Interceptor Based on Residential Equivalent Unit (REC) Orono Sewer Service Area 2010 2020 change 2020 2030 Change 2030 2040 Change 2040 M431 458 41 499 140 639 38 677 M435 593 41 634 0 634 66 700 Wayzata 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 Long Lake 372 49 421 140 561 76 637 Plymouth 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 Total 2591 99 2690 203 2893 383 3276 Based on Flow (Million Gallons Per Day) 2010 2020 Change 2020 2030 Change 2030 2040 Change 2040 M431 0.11 0.01 0.12 0.04 0.16 0.01 0.17 M435 0.15 0.01 0.16 0 0.16 0.02 0.18 Wayzata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Long Lake 0.09 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.14 0.02 0.16 Plymouth 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0.65 0.02 0.67 0.05 0.72 0.1 0.82 Projections for MCES Interceptors. The MCES interceptors forecasted flow are listed in the table below. The interceptors are in series: 8352A->7113A->7113 and 8567->7113. Note the flow depicted is only Orono generated flows that are received within Orono and Long Lake. Orono generated flows that go to Wayzata or Plymouth are not included as they ultimately end up at interceptors 7018-2 and 7027-1. Also, note that the total flow listed is only the flow generated in Orono and does not include any flows from neighboring communities that may also discharge into the particular interceptor. Table 4B-8: Interceptors Flow (MGD) MCES Interceptor 2010 2020 2030 2040 8352A and 7113A 0.11 0.12 0.16 0.17 8567 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.52 7113 0.55 0.57 0.61 0.69 Private Systems Rural areas of Orono will continue to be served by individual sewage treatment systems (ISTS). Sanitary sewers and other urban services will not be extended into the rural area to promote new development or expansion of urbanization. The city does not foresee much increased density in the rural area requiring additional ISTS. Within the rural area, nearly all water supplies are provided by individual wells and most sewage treatment is provided by individual sewage treatment systems ("ISTS"). A number of specific neighborhoods within the Rural Area have been CMP Part 4B. Sanitary Sewer Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4B, Page 10 or will be provided with municipal sewers to solve neighborhood problems or to protect the lakes, but no other urban services are planned for these areas. Table 4B-9: Septic (MCES Unsewered) Projections 2010 2020 2030 2040 Population 3008 2950 2630 2760 Households 1046 1095 1105 1115 Employment 0 0 0 0 Institutional Systems 5 5 5 5 Residential Systems 1041 1090 1100 1110 City Of Orono Projections Table 4B-9 also projects the number of Institutional and residential systems for 2010, 2020, 2030, and 2040. INFLOW AND INFILTRATION General Inflow is water, typically stormwater, which enters the sewer system through broken manhole covers, sewer cleanouts, sump pumps, foundation drains, and rain leaders. Infiltration is water, typically groundwater, which leaks into the sewer system through cracks in the sewer mains, laterals, joints, and manholes. Water from inflow and infiltration (I/I) can consume available capacity in the wastewater collection system and increase the flow into treatment facilities. In extreme cases, the added flow can cause bypasses or overflows of raw wastewater. This extra flow also requires a larger capacity in the city’s collection and treatment components, which results in increased capital, operation and maintenance, and replacement costs. As a sewer system ages and deteriorates, I/I can become an increasing burden on a City’s system. Therefore, it is imperative that I/I be reduced whenever it is cost effective to do so. The MCES has established I/I goals for each community discharging wastewater into the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS) based on average day flows and allowable peaking factors. In February 2006, the MCES began an I/I Surcharge Program which requires communities within their service area to eliminate excessive I/I over a period of time. Now, communities that exceed their wastewater flow program year goals, will be required to complete an I/I mitigation assignment that will be required to be implemented in 2018. Nonetheless, flow metering data is available for the meter sheds within Orono, and an analysis of this data as it relates to I/I is presented on the following page. The City’s strategies, programs, investments, and goals for reducing I/I are listed in this section as well Municipal I/I Reduction Much of the City’s sewer infrastructure is over 40 years old, and susceptible to I/I due to their age. In addition much of the city system runs along lake shore and is susceptible to high water periods. CMP Part 4B. Sanitary Sewer Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4B, Page 11 A comparison of the dry weather flow versus average annual flow versus the average daily flow in the peak rain fall week of that year by metershed for 2021-2016 is given in Table 4B-10. Dry weather flow is calculated as average flow during the months of January through February. The peek weather week is the week is the week with the most accumulation of rainfall. The purpose of this comparison is to give a general indication of the extent of I/I in the region. The data does show a significant difference between peek rain week average and dry weather and average annual flows which indicates I/I. Further action taken by the city starting in 2014 to address I&I appear to be reducing the magnitude of the impact particularly for inflow. The City prohibits the connections of foundation drains and roof leaders to the sanitary sewer system, and requires disconnection of the same. These ordinances are attached as Appendix 4B- B. City code prohibits the discharge of storm water to the sanitary sewer system and requiring the disconnection of existing I/I sources (Sec. 14-189. - Prohibited discharges of groundwater/stormwater into the sanitary sewerage system). The city does experience a high amount of home rebuilds, especially along the lake shore which coincides with a large portion of the municipal sewer system. All new construction is inspected for possible cross connection as part of the sewer connection permit process. In addition, the City has routine activities directed at recognizing and correcting I/I. During the City’s annual sewer system maintenance activities, 20% of the system is cleaned and televised to locate leaks or service connections with continuous flows. Appropriate corrective measures are then initiated with the affected property owner. The results of the inspections are used to develop and prioritize the City’s sewer rehabilitation projects. For the past 5 years and programmed in to the future the city allocates ~$250,000 per year for sewer improvement projects to address I&I issues. The City will consider additional education programs about I/ I. Year M435 Average Annual Flow (MGD) M435 Dry Weather Average Flow (MGD Peek Rain Event Week Average Daily Flow (MGD) M431 Average Annual Flow (MGD) M431 Dry Weather Average Flow (MGD Peek Rain Event Week Average Daily Flow (MGD) Average Annual Flow (MGD) Dry Weather Average Flow (MGD Peek Rain Event Week Average Daily Flow (MGD) Estimated Clearwater Flow (I&I) (MGY) 2012 0.4 0.33 0.77 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.48 0.41 0.92 27.57 2013 0.48 0.31 1.06 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.56 0.39 1.18 63.08 2014 0.53 0.37 1.2 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.61 0.45 1.33 60.46 2015 0.4 0.32 0.45 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.48 0.41 0.58 31.49 2016 0.45 0.4 0.67 0.1 0.1 0.11 0.54 0.49 0.78 18.4 Table 4B-10 Dry and Wet week I & I Comparison CMP Part 4B. Sanitary Sewer Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4B, Page 12 Table 4B-11: Recently Completed I & I Reduction Projects Project Description Cost 2013 Sewer Rehabilitation Lining of 4288 Feet of Gravity main; Manhole lining and joint sealing $ 136,786.00 2014 Sewer Rehabilitation Lining of 4000 Feet of Gravity main; 4 Manhole rehabilitations $ 239,167.00 2015 Sewer Rehabilitation Lining of 4,915 Feet of Gravity main; 35 Lateral linings; 11 Manhole rehabilitations $ 246,198.00 2016 Sewer Rehabilitation Lining of 6,091 Feet of Gravity main; 20 Manhole joint sealed $ 215,177.00 2017 Sewer Rehabilitation Lining of 5,026 Feet of Gravity main $ 213,338.00 GOALS AND POLICIES Goals 1. To provide an adequate, safe level of sewage treatment and waste water disposal for all residences and other occupied properties in the City. 2. To protect Lake Minnetonka, other lakes and streams, surface and ground waters from sewage effluent pollution. 3. To achieve the above goals within the financial capabilities of the City and its citizens without becoming an intolerable burden on the landowners or taxpayers. Policies 1. The primary method of sewage treatment and disposal within the Urban Service Area will be municipal sewer. 2. The primary method of sewage treatment and disposal within the Rural Area will be individual on-site systems, because: a. The cost of providing municipal sewer service to the Rural Area is high due to the low density of development and due to the varied topography. b. Development of the Rural Area at densities which would keep the cost of municipal sewer low, would be counterproductive to the City's primary goal of protecting Lake Minnetonka and other Orono lakes. 3. The Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary in Orono will define areas where sewer exists or where it may be extended to serve existing or new development, but will not define the areas where general urban services will be provided, and it will not define the boundary between higher density and low-density development. CMP Part 4B. Sanitary Sewer Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4B, Page 13 4. Orono will provide municipal sewer extensions to lakeshore areas and non-lakeshore areas within the MUSA when it is determined that municipal sewer is preferable to long-term use of on-site sewage treatment systems. 5. The costs of extending municipal sewer to existing neighborhoods will be borne primarily by the property owners being served. 6. The costs of extending municipal sewer to serve new residential and nonresidential development will be borne entirely by the developer. FUTURE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM Orono’s Plan for future sewer facilities includes upgrades to certain existing local sewer facilities, expansions of the system to service properties currently in the MUSA, and retrofitting a small number of existing neighborhoods with municipal sewer service. These system improvements and expansions are not expected to require additional capacity allocation in metropolitan sewer facilities. MUSA Expansion The city proposes a minor expansion of the MUSA within the time period covered by this plan. This addition is shown on Map 4B-2 as area 51. Future demands on the sanity sewer system will come as areas within the existing MUSA develop. While the City has no staged development plan, and currently has not scheduled projects outside the existing MUSA, any future MUSA expansions will be considered within the context of the following guidelines: The city will use the priorities outlined in Table 4B-12 to assess whether or not to request a MUSA expansion from the Metropolitan Council. Table 4B-12: MUSA Expansion Priorities 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 abd 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. CMP Part 4B. Sanitary Sewer Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4B, Page 14 Conditions Expansion of the MUSA on the established prioritized basis noted above will occur only when one of the following conditions is found: 1. When an area of existing homes has failing or non-conforming septic systems and replacement drain field sites are not available for a significant share of the existing homes. 2. When an individual home has a failing or non-conforming septic system, does not have an alternate drain field site, is adjacent to existing sewer lines, and is not part of a neighborhood that could be better served by a neighborhood sewer lateral project. 3. 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 as calculated by the Metropolitan Council. Future Sanitary Sewer Improvements The City’s focus on future sanitary sewer needs will be on a limited number of extensions to service new developments within the existing urban area/ MUSA and maintenance to include I&I mitigation of the existing system. Future Sewer Expansion Projects Table 4B-13 below lists possible future sewer expansion projects. Project #4 listed below may include a new connection to a MCES collector. Table 4B-13: Projects Improvement Projected Year of Completion Triggering Event 1 Orono Preserve Development - Sewer main to serve 39 new homes 2018 Subdivision 2 Shadywood Villas Development - Sewer main to serve 7 single family homes 2018 Subdivision 3 Brackets Point Sewer Main replacement - Replacement of existing gravity main with a forcemain and lift station, away from the lake 2018 Subdivision 4 CSAH 112 Sewer Main Extension - Extension of sewer main west along CSAH 112 from Old Crystal Bay Road to serve future developments planned on the south side of CSAH 112. 2019 CSAH turnback 5 Wildhurst 2019 Subdivision CMP Part 4B. Sanitary Sewer Plan City of Orono Community Management Plan 2020-2040 Part 4B, Page 15 Future Sewer Maintenance Needs Orono is committed to maintaining and improving the existing sanitary sewer system. In addition to the normal routine and reactive maintenance operations the city is committed to the following proactive/ preventive maintenance programs: Table 4B-14: Maintenance Program Description Purpose Annual Budget (2018 $s) Annual sewer cleaning and inspections This project includes the cleaning and inspection (televising) of 1/5 of the City’s sewer mains each year. This project is part of the City preventative maintenance program. The results of the inspection are used to determine future maintenance needs and identify possible sources of I&I. $ 45,895 Annual Lift Stations Inspections All 44 Lift and Grinder stations with in the city are inspected annually. The results of the inspection are used to determine future maintenance needs. $7,000 Sewer Rehabilitation Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation projects will consist of Cured in Place Pipe (CIPP) lining of infiltration susceptible sanitary sewer pipes, manhole reconstruction, and lid replacement. Reduce Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) into the Sanitary sewer systems. The lining process creates and new durable pipe within the older pipe at a much reduced cost from open curing or directionally drilling. $ 265,225 Lift Station Rehabilitations This project will rehabilitate 2 of the City’s 46 Lift Stations. Rehabilitation includes the inspection, and replacement of a lift stations piping, motors, pumps and control as well as repairs wet well. Ensure the reliability of the city’s lift station system. Allows City to provide extensive maintenance to each Lift Station once every 22 years. $ 110,000 Backup Generator Installation This project will provide a backup generators for 2 Lift Stations per year. This project is part of a systematic effort to provide backup power to critical City infrastructure. $ 150,000 Sewer System Monitoring This project will see the provision of electronic monitoring of 4 additional Lift Stations per year. This project will upgrade/replace components of the monitoring system including antennas, cabling, and uninterruptable power supply (UPS). This is a continuation/ expansion of the project begun in 2016. As of 2017 the city has 30/46 lift stations being electronically monitored. The provision of electronic monitoring for all of the city's lift stations will improve response time to issues, reduce backup incidents and provide real time monitoring and reporting for accountability. $ 26,000 Minimum Requirement Checklist City of Orono Page 1 CHECKLIST OF MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR ORONO Requirement Pages Maps/ Tables LAND USE Forecasts and Community Designation Include a table of forecasted population, households, and employment for 2020, 2030, and 2040, consistent with the Council’s forecasts. Remember, Council forecasts must be used consistently throughout your entire comprehensive plan. Your transportation plan needs to allocate forecasts to transportation analysis zones (TAZs). Your water and wastewater plans need to reflect forecasts to plan for urban services. Your land use plan must reflect and be coordinated with your forecasts. Tables 2-2, 3B-4 3B-4 4B-4 3B-1 Include a map acknowledging your regional Community Designation(s) and acknowledge the overall density expectations for your Community Designation(s). Each Community Designation identifies both Council and Community Roles in Thrive’s land use policy section. Plans must be consistent with Community Roles for your Community Designation(s) as well as Community Roles that apply to everyone. Page 3C-3 3C-4 Fig 3C-1, Existing Land Use Provide an Existing Land Use Map with a land use legend. Map 3B-2 and Map 3B-2a Provide an Existing Land Use Table. Calculate total acres and percent of total acres for each land use category. 3B-13 Table 3B-2 Land uses categories on the map and in the table, as well as any text references must all be consistent with one another. Noted Future Land Use The Future Land Use plan must be consistent with the Council’s forecasts of population, households, and employment and identify sufficient land to support your community’s forecasted growth. 3B-13 to 24 Provide a Future Land Use Map and land use legend, including density ranges for all land uses that allow residential development. Map 3B-3a and Map 3B-3b Provide a Future Land Use Table. Calculate total acres and percent of total acres for each land use 3B-14 Table 3B-3 Minimum Requirement Checklist City of Orono Page 2 category for each 10- year planning period (2020, 2030, and 2040). Define each land use category shown on the Future Land Use Map. Land use categories must be used consistently throughout your plan. 3B-14 to 18 Land use categories must include types of allowed uses and the minimum and maximum densities (“the allowable density range”) for all categories that allow residential uses. Allowed uses should include a description of allowable housing types such as single family, detached, duplexes, townhomes, etc. 3B-14 to 18 For each “mixed use” category, define an expected share of individual land uses and identify the permitted density range for residential uses. For example, Mixed Use Downtown might have an expectation of 30% commercial, 40% office, and 30% residential with a density of 10-15 units per acre. 3B-15 Acknowledge Council-approved master plan boundaries of regional parks, park reserves, and special recreation features by guiding the properties with a land use of “Park” (or your equivalent) on your Future Land Use Map. Map 3B-3a For Communities within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA): Identify employment locations and provide a measurement of intensity of planned employment. Employment locations are typically the areas guided for commercial, office, industrial and institutional uses. Acceptable measurements of intensity include Floor Area Ratio (FAR), building footprint or impervious coverage. Ranges for measuring intensity are acceptable. Page 3B-15 Map 3B-3a For Communities with Special Resources: See the Special Resources section within the Land Use Plan Element for requirements for Critical Area Plans, Historic Preservation, and others. N/A N/A Density Calculations Identify where forecasted residential growth will happen on your Future Land Use Map. Show expected new development and re-developed areas. Map 3B-4 Identify what density range is expected for each residential land use in your community. Pages 3B-14 to 16 Map 3B3a and 3B-3b Identify when residential development or redevelopment is anticipated to happen. See the Handbook section on Staged Development and Redevelopment. 3B-21 The average net residential density for your community must be consistent with the density requirements for your community designation. 3B-24 Table 3B-5 Minimum Requirement Checklist City of Orono Page 3 Provide a minimum and maximum value for each residential density range. (Zero is not an acceptable minimum. The maximum value must be a whole number.) 3B-14 to 18 Map 3B-3a Use the lowest allowed residential density from land use ranges in your calculations. For example, a land use that permits a density range of 3-5 units per acre must use 3 units per acre in all density calculations for this land use. This ensures that even at the lowest permitted density, the community will be developing at densities that meet overall density expectations. Table 3B-4 Focus on areas of change. Show us which planned land uses have changed from your previously approved plan and where new land uses (change or development intensity) are planned/expected. Page 3B-21 Provide the net developable acreage for each residential land use. It’s OK to exclude wetlands and natural water bodies, public parks and open space, arterial road rights-of-way, and natural resource lands protected by local plans and ordinances (i.e. steep slopes, wetland buffers, tree preservation) from area calculations. Stormwater ponds, utility easements, local roads, and local rights-of-way cannot be excluded from area calculations. Table 3B-3 for entire city, Table 3B-4 for Planned development areas The information you develop in your land use plan carries over to other elements of your comprehensive plan. The areas and densities in the land use plan must be consistent across elements related to forecasted growth, wastewater, water, housing, and transportation. Comment noted For Communities with an Affordable Housing Allocation: Guide residential land at densities sufficient to create opportunities for affordable housing using one of the following options outlined in the Housing Plan Element. Refer to the Projected Housing Need section. 3C-12 Table 3B-4 Staged Development and Redevelopment Identify potential local infrastructure impacts for each 10-year increment. Pages 3B-21 to 23 Table 3B-4 Demonstrate that the municipality is capable of providing services and facilities that accommodate its planned growth. Page 3B-21 The staging plan or likely development phasing must be consistent with the volume of anticipated sewer flow identified in your community’s Local Sewer Plan. No staging plan The staging plan or likely development phasing must support and be consistent with your community’s share of the Region’s Need for Affordable Housing for 2021 - 2030. Table 3B-4 Minimum Requirement Checklist City of Orono Page 4 For Suburban Edge, Emerging Suburban Edge, Rural Centers, and Communities with Orderly Annexation Agreements (OAAs): Map stages of development in 10-year increments (existing, 2020, 2030, and 2040). No staged development plan Provide a table of staged development in 10-year increments. The table must include future land uses, area in acres, density ranges, and total residential units by each 10-year time increment. Table 3B-6 Natural Resources Describe your community’s goals, intentions, and priorities concerning preservation, conservation, or restoration of natural resources in your community. Chapter 3A Special Resource Protection All plans must include a protection element for historic sites. 3B-26 All plans must include policies for the protection and development of access to direct sunlight for solar energy. Solar access is addressed in depth under the Resilience section. 3A-14 Table 3A-4 All plans must identify whether or not aggregate resources are available within the community. For communities with aggregate resources, additional requirements apply. 3A-9 TRANSPORTATION Transportation Analysis Zones Include a table allocating forecasted population, household, and employment growth by TAZ using the Official TAZ system with 3,030 zones for 2020, 2030 and 2040. Appendix 4A-A Describe how you have allocated demographic growth based on your plan’s assumptions for guided future land use (e.g., density, mix of uses, locations for new development, highway/transit access, redevelopment, etc.). 4A-3 When doing your land use planning, accommodate development densities around transit consistent with density expectations established in Chapter 3 of the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (2040 TPP). Chapter 3B, 4A-3 Describe and map the functional classification of all existing and proposed roads within your community, using the functional classification system described in Appendix D of the TPP and the roadway classification map currently recognized in the region. Maps must reflect the principal arterials adopted as the metropolitan highway system in 4A-4 Map 4A-1 Table 4A-1 Map 4A-1 Minimum Requirement Checklist City of Orono Page 5 the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (2040 TPP). If a community determines that a change to the A-minor arterial system in the community is warranted, a request should be made to the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) for the change, and TAB’s approval secured, prior to reflecting the new classification in the community’s plan. Check the council’s website or contact Elaine Koutsoukos at 651- 602-1717 for more information. Maps should also show the streets classified by the community as major and minor collectors and local streets. Changes to these streets from the function shown on the regional map are at a community’s discretion, and do not need approval from TAB. However, these changes should follow the criteria laid out in Appendix D of the TPP and maintain system continuity. A map or table highlighting any discrepancies between the community’s map and the regional functional classification map previously referenced should be submitted to Council staff so the regional map can be updated. N/A Map 4A-2 Include the following information for the principal and A-minor arterials: Identify the existing and future number of lanes. 4A-5 Table 4A-2 Map current traffic volumes, including heavy commercial volumes, which include both ADT and HCADT. Maps 4A-4, 5 and 8 Map forecasted 2040 traffic volumes. (This should be done using the Council’s regional model, or another method with approval from Council forecasting staff.) Map 4A-5 Identify future rights-of-way that need to be preserved. 4A-10 Identify planned improvements to principal arterials as shown in the Current Revenue scenario of the 2040 TPP. There are none planned in Orono. For other proposed interchange improvements, follow the Highway Interchange Request Criteria and Review Procedure, which can be found in Appendix F of the 2040 TPP. N/A Identify any existing or proposed future MnPASS lanes, dedicated busways and bus-only shoulder lanes as shown in Figure 6-4 of the 2040 TPP. N/A Incorporate access management guidelines of MnDOT, or those of the county in which your community is located, into your comprehensive plan as well as into your subdivision and 4A-11 to 12 Minimum Requirement Checklist City of Orono Page 6 zoning ordinances. Describe recommendations from recent corridor studies regarding roadway improvements, changes in land use, and/or access. 3B-18 (Navarre Area Plan) Transit The region has established Transit Market Areas to guide the types and levels of transit service that are appropriate for efficient and effective services. Transit Market Areas are defined in Appendix G of the 2040 TPP by the demographic and urban design factors that are associated with successful transit service. Identify your community in relationship to your transit market area(s). Describe and map the existing and planned transit infrastructure and services in your community, including those of Metro Transit or other regional transit service providers. Communities should include the identification of the following basic elements of the transit system in their comprehensive plan: Existing transit routes and dial-a-ride services Existing and potential high-frequency transit routes Existing and planned transit stations and transit centers Existing and planned park-and-rides and express bus corridors Existing and planned transit advantages Existing transit support facilities 4A-20 4A-20 4A-20 4A-20 N/A Map 4A-7 Map 4A-7 Map 4A-7 Bicycling and Walking Describe and map the existing and planned on-road and off-road bicycle facilities in your community. 4A-14 Map 4A-6 Analyze and address the need for local bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements to provide connections over major physical barriers (i.e., freeways, railroad corridors, rivers and streams) on the regional (RBTN) and local networks. 4A-14 Map and describe the Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN) within your community: Show all Tier 1 and Tier 2 RBTN corridors and alignments. Show the relationship of the RBTN to the local bicycle network of off-road trails and on-street bikeways including all existing and planned connections. 4A-14 N/A Map 4A-6 Map 4A-6 Minimum Requirement Checklist City of Orono Page 7 Include locations of regional employment clusters and activity center nodes (as shown on the RBTN map) and other local activity centers. For Tier 1 and Tier 2 corridors on the RBTN, describe and map the existing or planned bicycle facility alignments that are within the established corridors; the purpose of these corridors is as a placeholder for cities/counties to designate a planned alignment. If there is a planned alignment that would fulfill the intent of the corridor and that lies within and in line with the corridor’s directional orientation that the community would propose to replace the established corridor, map that alignment and denote by indicating it as “proposed for the RBTN.” N/A Map 4A-6 Discuss pedestrian system needs in a manner that responds to your community designation (as described in Thrive MSP 2040) and addresses the needs of your community. 4A-15 (Connections to Land Use Planning) Aviation Identify policies and ordinances that protect regional airspace from obstructions. Include how your community will notify the FAA of proposed structures. 4A-21 Recognize seaplane use on surface waters as designated and regulated by MnDOT; communities should recognize these areas on plan maps where appropriate and consider issues of land use compatibility. 4A-21 Map any facilities such as radio beacons or other air navigation aids sited in off-airport locations and address how they will be protected from physical encroachment and electronic interference through your local ordinance and notification processes. Your system statement will indicate whether your community hosts one of these facilities. N/A Freight Identify railways, barge facilities and truck or intermodal freight terminals within the community. 4A-20 Identify other important nodes that may generate freight movement, such as industrial parks and large shopping areas. 4A-20 Identify any local roadway issues or problem areas for goods movement, such as weight- restricted roads or bridges, bridges with insufficient height or width clearances, locations with unprotected road crossings of active rail lines, or intersections with inadequate turning radii. 4A-20 Map the road network showing volumes of multi-axle trucks (also known as “heavy commercial average annual daily traffic or HCAADT”) for Principal Arterial and A-Minor Map 4A-8 Minimum Requirement Checklist City of Orono Page 8 functional classifications. WASTEWATER Areas Served by Local Wastewater Treatment Systems A table that details the households and employment forecasts in 10-year increments through 2040, based on the Council’s forecasts and any subsequent negotiated modifications. This should be broken down by areas served by the Metropolitan Disposal System, locally owned and operated wastewater treatment systems, and Community and Subsurface sewage treatment systems. The forecasts used in your wastewater plan must be consistent with the forecasts used throughout your plan, including in land use, transportation, and water supply. Pages 4B-7 to 4B-11 4B-9 Table 4B-4 Tables 4B- 7 and 8 Map the local wastewater service areas in your community through 2040, including a staging plan if applicable, and any proposed changes in governmental boundaries affecting the community, including any areas designated for orderly annexation. Map 4B-1 Describe the implementation plan for preventing and eliminating excessive inflow and infiltration from entering both the municipal and private sewer systems. • Include the strategy for implementing projects, activities, or programs planned to mitigate excessive I/I from entering the municipal and private sewer systems. • Include a list of priorities for I/I mitigation projects based on flow reduction, budget, schedule, or other criteria. • Include a schedule and the related financial mechanisms planned or needed to implement the I/I mitigation strategy. 4B-10 to 4B-12 Appendix 5-A, CIP Describe the requirements and standards in your community for minimizing inflow and infiltration. Include a copy of the local ordinance or resolution that prohibits discharge from sump pumps, foundation drains, and/or rain leaders to the sanitary sewer system. Include a copy of the local ordinance or resolution requiring the disconnection of existing foundation drains, sump pumps, and roof leaders from the sanitary sewer system. 4B-10 to 11 Appendix 4B-B Appendix 4B-B Minimum Requirement Checklist City of Orono Page 9 Copy of any intercommunity service agreements entered into with an adjoining community after December 31, 2008; including a map of areas covered by the agreement. Appendix 4B-D Copies of the associated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or State Disposal System (SDS) permits. MS4 permit provided as Appendix 4B-C An electronic map or maps (GIS shape files or equivalent must also be submitted) that show the following information: Your existing sanitary sewer system identifying lift stations, existing connection points to the metropolitan disposal system, and future connection points. Local sewer service districts by connection point. Intercommunity connections and any proposed changes in government boundaries based on Orderly Annexation Agreements. The location of all private and public wastewater treatment plants in your community. Provided N/A N/A Map 4B-3 Map 4B-1 Current subsurface sewage treatment system ordinance Appendix 4B-A A table or tables that contain the following information: Capacity and design flows for existing trunk sewers and lift stations. Assignment of 2040 growth forecasts by Metropolitan interceptor facility. In the absence of this information the Council will make its own assignments for the purpose of system capacity needs determination. Acknowledged Table 4B-7 Community and Subsurface Treatment Systems A table that details the households and employment forecasts in 10-year increments through 2040, based on the Council’s forecasts and any subsequent negotiated modifications. This should be broken down by areas served by the Metropolitan Disposal System, locally owned and operated wastewater treatment systems, and Community and Subsurface sewage treatment systems. The forecasts used in your wastewater plan must be consistent with the forecasts used throughout your plan, including in land use, transportation, and water supply. Tables 4B- 4, 7 Minimum Requirement Checklist City of Orono Page 10 Describe your community’s management program for SSTS to comply with MPCA regulations (Minn. Rules Chapters 7080-7083). 4B-6, Appendix 4B-A Map the locations of all sub-surface sewage treatment systems. You should also identify the locations of known non-conforming systems or systems with known problems. Map 4B-4 Describe the conditions under which private, community treatment systems (ex. package treatment plants, community drainfields) would be allowed. Examples of such conditions include: □ allowable land uses and residential densities □ installation requirements □ management requirements □ local government responsibilities 4B-7, Appendix 4B-A Current subsurface sewage treatment system ordinance Appendix 4B-A SURFACE WATER Provide an executive summary that includes the highlights of the local water management plan. Page 3A-11 to 3A-13 Describe the water resource management related agreements that have been entered into by your community. This includes joint powers agreements related to water management that the community may be a party to between itself and watershed management organization(s), adjoining communities, or private parties. Appendix 3A-A Include a section on amendment procedures that defines the process by which amendments may be made. The amendment procedure must be consistent with the amendment procedures in the watershed organization(s) plans that affect your community. Appendix 3A-A Physical Environment and Land Use Describe the existing physical environment and existing land use. You may be able to incorporate data by reference if allowed by the appropriate watershed organization(s) plan. You should be aware that not all watershed plans contain the level of detail needed and in those cases, you will be required to provide this information directly in your local water management plan. Chapter 3A Describe the proposed physical environment and future land use. Appendix 3A-A Include a map and/or description of drainage areas that includes path and flow directions of the stormwater runoff in your community. Map 3A-1 shows watersheds Minimum Requirement Checklist City of Orono Page 11 Describe the volumes and rates of flow for those defined drainage areas. Appendix 3A-A Existing and Potential Water Resource-Related Problems Include an assessment of the existing water resource related problems in your community. 3A-2 to 6 Include an assessment of the potential water resource related problems in your community. 3A-2 to 6 Include a list or map of impaired waters within your community as shown on the most current 303d impaired waters list. Tables 3A- 2 and 3A-3 Local Implementation Plan/Program Include prioritized nonstructural, programmatic, and structural solutions to identified problems. Appendix 3A-A Surface Water Management Plan Describe the areas and elevations for stormwater storage adequate to meet performance standards or official controls in watershed organization(s) plan. Appendix 3A-A Surface Water Management Plan Define the water quality protection methods that would be adequate to meet performance standards or official controls. Appendix 3A-A Surface Water Management Plan Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the community from that of the WMO(s) for carrying out implementation components. Appendix 3A-A Surface Water Management Plan Describe the official controls and any changes needed to official controls. Appendix 3A-A Surface Water Management Plan Include a table briefly describing each component of the implementation program that clearly details the schedule, estimated cost, and funding sources for each component, including annual budget totals. Appendix 3A-A Surface Water Management Plan Include a table describing the capital improvement program that sets forth by year, details of each contemplated capital improvement that includes the schedule, estimated cost, and funding source. Appendix 3A-A Surface Water Management Plan WATER SUPPLY Local Water Supply Plan for Municipal Public Water Suppliers If the community has a municipal community public water supply system, complete all information in the DNR & Metropolitan Council water supply plan template. Information must be submitted in the template provided and submitted through the MnDNR Permit and Reporting System (MPARS). Appendix 4C-A Include extended water demand projections for 2020, 2030, 2040 and ultimate build-out that are consistent with population forecasts in the community’s system statement. Tables 4C- 5 and 6 Minimum Requirement Checklist City of Orono Page 12 Water Conservation & Reuse If the community has a municipal community public water supply system, complete all information in the DNR & Metropolitan Council water supply plan template. Information must be submitted in the template provided and submitted through the MnDNR Permit and Reporting System (MPARS). Appendix 4C-A Assessing & Protecting Source Water If the community has a municipal community public water supply system, complete all information in the DNR & Metropolitan Council water supply plan template. Information must be submitted in the template provided and submitted through the MnDNR Permit and Reporting System (MPARS). Appendix 4C-A Sub-Regional Collaboration If the community has a municipal community public water supply system, complete all information in the DNR & Metropolitan Council water supply plan template. Information must be submitted in the template provided and submitted through the MnDNR Permit and Reporting System (MPARS). Appendix 4C-A PARKS AND TRAILS Regional Parks and Trails If no portion of the Regional Parks System falls within your community, state that fact in your comprehensive plan. N/A Describe, map, and label the federal and state recreational lands within your community, as shown on your System Statement. 4E-4 Map 4E-1, Table 4E-2 Acknowledge the Council-approved master plan boundaries of regional parks, park reserves, and special recreation features by guiding the properties with a land use of “Park” (or your community’s equivalent) on your Future Land Use map. Map 4E-1 and 3B-3a Local Parks and Trails Describe and map your existing and proposed local parks, trails, and recreation facilities. 4E-2 through 4E-5 Map 4E-1 Include a capital improvement program for parks and open space facilities as part of your implementation program. Appendix 5A HOUSING Existing Housing Needs Minimum Requirement Checklist City of Orono Page 13 Complete an existing housing assessment, including: A table of existing local conditions, including the following information: 1. Total number of housing units. 2. Number of housing units affordable to households with incomes at or below 30% Area Median Income (AMI), between 31 and 50% AMI, and between 51 and 80% AMI. 3. Number of housing units that are owner occupied. 4. Number of housing units that are rental. 5. Number of single family homes. 6. Number of multi-family homes. 7. Number of publicly subsidized housing units by the following types: senior housing, housing for people with disabilities, and all other publicly subsidized units. Include expiration dates of affordability requirements when applicable. 8. Number of existing households that are experiencing housing cost burden with incomes at or below 30% Area Median Income (AMI), between 31 -50% AMI, and 51 -80% AMI. Page 3C-11 Tables: 3C-2 3C-7 3C-3 3C-3 3C-3 3C-2 3C-2 3C-8 A map of owner-occupied housing units identifying their assessed values. At a minimum, differentiate the values above and below $211,500. 3C-10 Fig 3C-2 A narrative analysis of existing housing needs. At a minimum address the components of the existing housing assessment within the local context of your community. Plans consistent with Council policy will clearly identify existing housing needs and priorities for the community. 3C-11 Projected Housing Need Discuss how the land use plan addresses the future housing need for your forecasted growth. 3C-12 For Those Communities With An Affordable Housing Need Allocation: Acknowledge your community’s allocation of the region’s need for affordable housing at three levels of affordability: <30% AMI, 31-50% AMI, and 51-80% AMI. 3C-11 Table 3C-7 Guide residential land at densities sufficient to create opportunities for affordable housing using one of the following options: Option 1: Guide sufficient land at minimum residential densities of 8 units/acre to support your community’s total allocation of affordable housing need for 2021 – 2030. This option may be best for communities that find it difficult to support densities of 12 units/acre (per Option 2), or prefer simplicity over flexibility in their density minimums. 3C-11 Option 1 chosen Table 3B-4 Minimum Requirement Checklist City of Orono Page 14 Option 2: Guide sufficient land at minimum residential densities of: 12 units/acre to address your community’s allocation of affordable housing need at <50% AMI. This combines your community’s allocation at <30% AMI and 31-50% AMI. 6 units/acre to address your community’s allocation of affordable housing need at 51-80% AMI. Option 2 may be best for communities that feel they can achieve affordable housing needs at 51-80% AMI with less than 8 units/acre. It also allows the affordable housing need to be addressed with less actual land, as is the case if communities choose to use even higher densities than are required. Furthermore, communities using Option 2 may guide land to meet their allocation of affordable housing need at 51- 80% AMI using a minimum density range of 3-6 units/acre if they have demonstrated in the last 10 years the application of programs, ordinances, and/or local fiscal devices that led to the development of housing affordable at 51-80% AMI in their community. Examples include: density bonuses for affordable housing unit inclusion, local funding programs such as TIF, etc. Implementation Plan A description of public programs, fiscal devices, and other specific actions that could be used to meet the existing and projected housing needs identified in the housing element. Include in what circumstances and in what sequence they would be used. 3C-15 to 16 Plans consistent with Council policy will clearly and directly link identified needs to available tools. Needs are identified within the three levels of affordability, and tools should therefore be addressed within the levels of affordability as well. 3C-15 to 16 Plans consistent with Council policy will consider all widely accepted tools to address their housing needs. A list of widely accepted tools is provided, however, this list is not exhaustive. Communities are strongly encouraged to include any additional tools at their disposal when identifying how they will address their housing needs. 3C-15 to 16 RESILIENCE Energy Infrastructure and Resources Minimum Requirement Checklist City of Orono Page 15 Local governments in the seven-county metropolitan area are required by state law to include an element in their Plan for protection and development of access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 3A-15 Solar Resource Protection: Include your community’s Minnesota Solar Suitability Analysis Map. This is available on your Community Page. Figure 3A-2 Solar Resource Protection: Include calculations of your community’s gross solar and rooftop solar resource. This is available on your Community Page. Table 3A-4 Solar Resource Development: Include a policy or policies relating to the development of access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Page 3A-14, 15, 21 Solar Resource Development: Include strategies needed to implement the policy or policies. Pages 3A-14 to 21 ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS Redevelopment Minnesota Statutes § 473.859 Subd. 1 states that local comprehensive plans “shall contain objectives, policies, standards, and programs to guide… redevelopment and preservation for all lands and waters within the jurisdiction of the local governmental unit”. Preservation: Chapter 2 and 3A and 3B. Redevelopment Chapter 3B-20 IMPLEMENTATION Implementation Describe all public programs, fiscal devices, and other actions that your community will use to implement your plan. 5-4 to 5-6 Define a timeline as to when actions will be taken to implement each required element of your comprehensive plan. 5-4 Include a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for transportation, sewers, parks, water supply, and open space facilities. Specify the timing and sequence of major local public investments. Appendix 5A The CIP must align with development staging identified in other parts of your plan and include budgets and expenditure schedules. Comment noted Describe all relevant official controls addressing at least zoning, subdivision, water supply, and private sewer systems. 5-4 Include a schedule for the preparation, adoption, and administration of needed changes to official controls. 5-4 (Zoning Regulations and Zoning Map) Include your local zoning map and zoning category descriptions. Identify what changes are needed to ensure zoning is not in conflict with your new land use plan and consistent with regional system plans and policies. Map 5-1 Review and update official controls within 9 months of adopting your 2040 plan. Official Noted on page 5-4 Minimum Requirement Checklist City of Orono Page 16 controls must not be in conflict with your updated plan. You must provide copies of all revised official controls to us. The Housing Plan Element has implementation requirements as well. Refer to that section to ensure that implementation requirements for the Housing Action Plan are met. Noted