The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-17-2018 Planning Commission PacketPUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING ®ATE 0 COUNUL 0 PLANNNG COMMISSION ® OTHER Assistive Listening Device available upon request. Please oornplete the following information for Cuty records. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER :97 6 ( "C -C- a'e 2. Rpt- �' '�1 �r �✓ TZ�'►� 5 T 1� L' P/C �JZ3z T 3. 4. M Z�SSIVoNI�-f�.�l�,Q �4_ J �.a-... i 1' '� �- i� 18 - D Dn n'7 / Z1 0 - o�Z�S-flocs :7 6.1'Yl L„q ! 8 - 625 <50 7 7.�Oji'h f �n c5 SA / .` m --Y 9. `� �S �1 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. I W 3 w)c.eHje-sr-TA��- I fl�v\_., J 167 s 15. V1(LEGAL FORMS)\(FORMS)TUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC AGENDA City of Orono Planning Commission Meeting for September 17, 2018; 6:30 PM Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Council Representative: Wendy Dankey Audience Members: Please sign in for the public record if you wish to address the Planning Commission. The sign in sheet is in the lobby. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet — located in the lobby near the sign in sheet. Applicants will be asked to move to the lectern to answer questions after staff presents the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting. A quorum of the City Council may be in attendance of a Planning Commission meeting to hear comments made, though no action or deliberation of the Council will occur. New Business 1. Approval of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 20, 2018. 2. LA18-000071 Dan Mulrennan, 2655 Northshore Drive, CUP Grading (Staff: Laura Oakden) 3. LA18-000072 Paul Vogstrum o/b/o of Bill and Sue Dunkley, 2709 Walters Port Lane, Preliminary Plat (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 4. LA18-000075 Blake Swanson, 3017 North Shore Drive, Variance (Staff: Laura Oakden) 5. LA18-000077 John Knoblauch, 1335 Arbor Street, Variances (Staff: Laura Oakden) 6. LA18-000076 Revision LLC, 1725 Bohns Point Rd, Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 7. LA18-000065 Jim Koch o/b/o Chris Morgart, 1003 Wildhurst Trail, Sketch Plan (Staff: Jeremy Barnhart) 8. LA18-000079 Lakewest Development LLC, 3245 Wayzata Blvd West, Sketch Plan (Staff: Jeremy Barnhart 9. LA18-000057 City of Orono, Text Amendment — Accessory Building and Structure Setbacks (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 10. Update on September 10, 2018 City Council meeting. 11. Other issues for discussion. Planning Commission Comments Planning Liaison for October 8, 2018 Meeting: Bruce Lemke ADJOURNMENT Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us — follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notifications MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Bob Erickson, Bruce Lemke, and Jon Ressler. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Dennis Walsh was present. Acting Chair Lemke called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. lei MAIN 111KI IeI &MI 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 16, 2018 Lemke moved, Erickson seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of July 16, 2018, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 2. LA18-000067 KEVAN NITZBERG,1212 BRIAR STREET, VARIANCES, 6:31 P.M. — 6:38 P.M. Kevan Nitzberg, Applicant, was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting a side yard setback, front yard setback, and a 20 -foot front yard setback in order to construct a single -car detached garage forward of the principal building. Currently there is no garage located on the property. The applicant has stated this garage is necessary due to the extreme weather conditions and safety for the livability of his home. The garage will provide additional storage for the property. The new garage will be placed over an existing paved parking pad. The applicant will also be removing excess blacktop from the site bringing the lot into conformance with the hardcover Tier 2 standards. A 5 -foot side yard setback is proposed for the south side of the property where 10 feet is required along with a 20 -foot front yard setback. The garage will be located in front of the principal structure and located approximately 57 feet from the front of the property. Staff finds the request for a detached single -car garage in the proposed location to be reasonable. The City has previously considered lack of garage parking satisfies practical difficulty. Due to access and the substandard size of the lot, the applicant has stated this is the most reasonable location for the structure. Alternatives include placing the garage in the rear yard but that could potentially create additional hardcover for access. There is currently paved blacktop in this location and the applicant will remove any excess blacktop and bring the hardcover into conformance with the City Code. A garage will increase the usability, safety and storage for the home on the property making the site more useable for the property owners. The neighbor to the south at 1224 Briar has submitted an email in support of the request. The applicant has also submitted signatures from other neighboring properties on the road in support of the request. Page 1 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Planning Staff recommends approval of the request if the Planning Commission agrees with the proposed findings. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Kevan Nitzberg, Applicant, stated Staff has done a great job. Nitzberg noted they do not currently have a garage and that previous owners went through the same process for a two -car detached garage but then decided to sell the property. In their view a 20' x 24' structure would be too big and cover up too much of the house so they are instead proposing a single -car garage at 14' x 20'. Thiesse asked if the applicant is happy with the 20 feet deep. Nitzberg stated he is and that they are proposing the 20 feet to accommodate off-street parking for guests. Thiesse stated his only concern is that a 20 -foot deep garage may not be deep enough to accommodate some vehicles. Nitzberg indicated he and his wife both drive compact cars. Lemke asked why a 5 -foot setback is proposed rather than the required 10 feet. Nitzberg stated it is partially aesthetic since the garage would cover up more of the house if it was at ten feet. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:36 p.m. There were no comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:36 p.m. Ressler commented the application appears to be fine. In regards to the 5 -foot setback, if the applicants were proposing a two -car garage, they would need to go over that far to accommodate it. Lemke stated he has a little bit of an issue with the 5 -foot setback and that he does not see a practical difficulty for it. Thiesse noted a 10 -foot setback would place the garage more in front of the house. Lemke moved, Ressler seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 18-000067, Kevan Nitzberg, 1212 Briar Street, granting of a side yard setback and a front yard setback to permit the construction of a one -car detached garage. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 3. LA18-000068 SVEN GUSTAFSON ON BEHALF OF 1350 BALDUR, LLC, PIDS 08-117-23-31-0006 THROUGH 08-117-23-31-0009, BALDUR PARK ROAD, SKETCH PLAN, 6:38 P.M. — 7:09 P.M. Sven Gustafson, Applicant, was present. Page 2 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart noted this is a sketch plan application for a plat on Baldur Park to combine four lots into one lot for the purposes of constructing a new single-family home. This is not a subdivision or the splitting of a lot. There is an existing house at the point. When looking at a plat, the City has to look at a couple of different scenarios. When the property is platted in the proposed manner, it will create a back lot, which is prohibited by City ordinances. Barnhart stated there is not a lot of details available in terms of grading or configuration of roads and that the applicant is looking for guidance from the Planning Commission on the issues outlined in the Staff report. Overall the property is generally flat or very close to the ordinary high water line, so flooding or floodplain issues may come into play on this development. A wetland may be located on the site which will need to be delineated. Both of those items are important in determining minimum lot size and more information will need to be provided. Baldur Park is a platted public road and does not actually touch this property on land. A copy of an easement, if one exists, will need to be provided, or else additional information will need to be submitted showing how the property will access the road. Generally a cul-de-sac would be required at the end of a public road to provide a turnaround for emergency vehicles. The lack of frontage onto Baldur Park Road prevents a cul-de-sac within the Baldur Park Road right-of-way unless additional right-of-way is platted. The proposed plat appears to be consistent with the Orono 2030 Community Management Plan. As a sketch plan, it has been submitted to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and those comments will need to be incorporated into the plan at some point. A Conservation Design plan is not required since this is a proposed plat and not a subdivision. A tree removal plan will be required since there are several large trees on the property, many of which will need to be removed to accommodate construction. The issues identified by Staff include frontage of the property. Issues for discussion: Front lot/back lot. Platting the property as proposed will create an easement back lot. Does the Planning Commission feel a waiver from the prohibition of an easement back lot is warranted? 2. The 75 -foot lake yard variance. Because of the narrow width of the peninsula, any improvement of the subject lot will require 75 -foot lake yard setback variances. Does the Commission support the placement of a lot in the location, requiring variances? An alternative lot location further at the point would prevent the need for a variance. Does the Commission feel that adjustments to the lot area requirements are justified? Staff does not support the proposal as drafted due to the following: a. The proposal creates a nonconforming parcel by virtue of creating an easement back lot. b. Access to the lot is in question and information supporting access rights to the development have not been provided. Page 3 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. C. The lot proposed requires a lake yard setback to improve the property. Staff recommends a lot be created at or nearer the point that does not require a lake setback to develop. Thiesse asked if they would require 30 feet to create an outlot. Barnhart indicated they would need a 30 -foot wide outlot to provide access to the front lotiback lot. The City would also look for some sort of turnaround within the development. This plat is similar to a recent application approved on Ivy Place. In that situation, the developer agreed to provide onsite turnarounds and sprinkler the buildings to help offset the challenges created by the long road ending in a dead end. Thiesse asked what this would do to the development of the next lots down. Barnhart stated the sketch plan does not address that and that they are simply proposing to plat these four lots into one buildable lot. Thiesse asked if it would preclude them from developing those lots. Barnhart stated it would depend on whether the Planning Commission was okay with waiving the access for the proposed lot. The front lotiback lot situation basically allows them to create this lot and then one additional lot that would be accessed via the outlot. Thiesse asked if a cul-de-sac would need to be constructed if the Planning Commission is not agreeable with the front lot/back lot. Barnhart stated that is one of the options. Sven Gustafson, Stonewood, stated this is a unique property since it is located on a peninsula and is narrow. To develop the property in any way would require some variances and that they are here looking for some feedback and direction on how best to proceed with developing it. In regards to the road, currently Baldur Park Road is 12 feet wide and it would not make much sense to have a 24 -foot wide road at the end of the 12 -foot road. Gustafson stated they are looking at an outlot that would serve some lots beyond this property. Gustafson stated they do not know about the wetlands at this point. Once the wetland is delineated, that will likely drive some changes. Gustafson stated obviously the 75 -foot lakeshore setbacks are impossible to meet no matter what they do with the lot lines. Chair Thiesse asked for public comment at 6:49 p.m. Cindy McDonnell, 1420 Baldur Park Road, stated she has a concern about the proposal. Baldur Park Road is brand new since the flood of 2014, and if this lot requires a lot of fill, the trucks hauling in the fill may damage the road and she would like some assurances that repairs will be made to the road if any occur. McDonnell stated if there is going to be future development down at the peninsula, she would like to see a turnaround since this will generate some additional traffic down the road, which needs to be taken into Page 4 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. consideration. Currently the area is somewhat of an eyesore for the whole neighborhood and in her view the neighbors' property values are being impacted by that. There were no further public comments. Barnhart noted an e-mail was received this afternoon regarding the property, which has been provided to the Planning Commission. Thiesse asked about access. Barnhart stated access can likely be resolved by review of the easement. Gustafson stated there is an easement that provides access across the neighboring property, which is Lot 20, and that he can provide additional information on that. Thiesse asked if he is amenable to moving the house down a couple of lots with a road and cul-de-sac for emergency vehicles. Gustafson stated they will take all the feedback they receive tonight and consider it. Erickson commented it would be nice to see a rough plan for the rest of the area to give the Planning Commission a better idea of what is being contemplated. Thiesse stated the applicant is asking for approval for a portion of the property and that it is likely they will use it as a practical difficulty. Erickson agreed that there is a question about what happens after these variances are granted. Gustafson stated a turnaround or a cul-de-sac for this area probably makes sense, but that a cul-de-sac or turnaround for the entire neighborhood at the end of the road is probably not something the property owners are interested in doing. Thiesse indicated he has difficulty creating a substandard lot but that there is no way to make it a conforming lot in all respects. Thiesse noted the City normally does not allow a front lot/back lot. Gustafson asked whether seeing a proposal that shows development of the entire peninsula would be easier for the Planning Commission. Thiesse commented that would be easier for him and that it appears this site needs the most work. Thiesse stated he would rather see the whole thing and that he has the most difficulty with this lot. Ressler suggested the applicant counter this plan with something to improve the situation and that they might not necessarily be helping the situation by keeping the road at 12 feet wide. Ressler stated they should look at balancing some of the difficulties the current residents encounter with the road by perhaps adding a turnaround on the property. Gustafson asked whether a turnaround on Lot 21 to allow better neighborhood and emergency vehicle access and turnaround would be beneficial. Page 5 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse commented that would be something to help the situation. The 75 -foot section from two directions is also an issue. Thiesse stated he is not convinced that this is a buildable lot, which is another big concern. Lemke stated he is in agreement and that the proposal seems way too confirmed. Lemke stated in his view there is a need for an emergency vehicle turnaround and that the lot does not seem buildable. Gustafson asked whether emergency vehicles can make it down to the end of the road currently without a turnaround. Barnhart stated they can make it down to the end of the road. Erickson stated in a true emergency, the fire trucks could also cut across somebody's grass. Lemke stated he would also like to see a complete development plan so he can understand the full impact. Barnhart asked whether the Planning Commission would like to see a conforming access in the back. Thiesse stated that would be his preference. As it relates to the 75 -foot setback, Thiesse noted it is a huge property and that they are proposing to chop off a very narrow piece. Thiesse stated he is struggling with the 75 -foot setback since he is not convinced it is a buildable lot. Gustafson pointed out they are not chopping off one lot but are rather combining multiple properties into a larger lot. Ressler stated since it is not currently developed, it is a different situation, and that there will be more traffic generated and the need for emergency vehicles to travel down the road will increase. Gustafson stated the current access to the peninsula will not be made more difficult since that is what will remain but that there will just be a house there. Thiesse stated in his opinion it is a substandard road and that there is not much they can do to improve that situation, but they can try to improve whatever else they can. Lemke commented rather than have four unbuildable lots, they now have one unbuildable lot. Thiesse asked whether the Planning Commission feels adjustments to the lot area requirements are justified, including access or easements in lot area. Thiesse stated he is looking at an owner that owns a bunch of property and that there is a neighboring city that requires lots be combined if they are all under the same ownership. Barnhart stated this is a lot of record and that Orono has the same requirement. Barnhart noted the applicants are proposing a plat. Thiesse stated overall he is having difficulty with the 75 -foot setbacks, the size of the lot, the access, and the turnaround. Ressler noted wetlands are not included in the lot area calculation. Page 6 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated in his view the issues are addressable and the next step is to take it to the City Council or the applicants can make changes to their proposal and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Gustafson stated they would like to take a look at the larger project and then decide what to do. Thiesse stated in regards to the fill, there typically is an inspection of the road prior to construction and an inspection after construction to determine whether any damage has occurred. Gustafson stated they likely will have to bring in some fill to construct the house, which is typical, but that they will not be filling in the wetland area. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. 4. LA18-000057 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT — ACCESSORY BUILDING AND STRUCTURE SETBACKS, 7:09 P.M. — 7:30 P.M. Curtis noted this is a continuation of the discussion that occurred in June regarding proposed changes for Accessory Building and Accessory Structure setbacks. The changes discussed thus far have been regarding the overall organization of the regulations in the Code and whether or not adjustments to the existing setbacks are needed. Staff has prepared a summary of the existing regulations in a newly organized table format as well as a similar table showing proposed changes to the setbacks for the R-lA, RI -B, LR-lA, and LR -1B districts as a starting point. Any proposed changes in the setbacks are the result of discussions with the Planning Commission at a work session. Private recreational facilities are defined and are listed in the zoning code as allowed accessory uses within each residential district. However, the definition and subsequent district regulations may leave too much up to interpretation. Within the existing regulations tables the setbacks noted with a question mark are done so because it appears the current regulations are ambiguous or silent to those particular setback requirements. The draft proposed regulations tables attempt to clear up these identified ambiguous areas. The Planning Commission should discuss whether all private recreational facilities should be treated equally or regulated at all. The definition of private recreational facilities includes detached structures or equipment, whether stationary or mobile, such as swimming pools, tennis courts and sport courts, hockey rinks, hot tubs, and spas, etc. Curtis stated the public hearing should be reopened tonight. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. There were no comments relating to this application. Curtis recommended the public hearing be continued to next month. Thiesse stated in his view they cannot lump private recreational facilities in with the accessory structures. Page 7 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis indicated that was added to clarify things and it is a relatively recent change. Thiesse stated in his mind a basketball hoop is different than a swimming pool or a tennis court and that he is not sure they can all be lumped together. Curtis asked if the Planning Commission likes the format of the draft ordinance. Thiesse indicated he likes the format. Curtis stated the intent is to include the new tables and replace the little table in the code for each district so there is one concise accessory structure section that is applicable to all districts. Thiesse asked whether Staff feels the average homeowner will be able to understand it. Curtis stated in Staff's view it is laid out in a clearer format and is easier to understand. Barnhart stated in his view the questions people might not understand is what is considered an oversized structure and the interior setback, both of which are easily addressed in the code. Curtis stated Staff took away from the discussion at the work session that the Planning Commission does not necessarily see the need to regulate based on 700 or 1000 square feet for a structure that does not have a massing impact, but that Staff is proposing to separate out a 1000 square foot structure or over a 1000 square foot structures. The draft ordinance also eliminates any special regulation for sport courts, large tennis courts, pools and flat things accessory structures without a roof and put them into a different category. Curtis stated to that end, there are some pieces of the proposed table the Planning Commission may want to discuss. Currently the Code is somewhat silent on front street setback for less than 1000 square foot accessory structures and it may appear someone could have it at right at the front lot line. Staff does not feel it is appropriate to have a pool or other accessory structure there and the Planning Commission may want to discuss that. With the draft ordinance, Staff is trying to look at the impact and what is allowed. Lemke noted under accessory structures/private recreational facilities it says 25 or MCWD buffer. Lemke asked whether someone could have one or the other. Curtis indicated that is the current regulation and that if there is a buffer required by the MCWD of 50 feet, it would need to be 50 feet. Curtis stated they do want to have a setback in place in the event the MCWD does not require a buffer, which is the 25 feet. Lemke asked what would happen if he has a shed that is exactly 1000 square feet. Curtis stated oversized is currently defined as larger than 1000 square feet and that it would be considered an accessory structure if it is less than 1000. Curtis stated a building at 1000 square feet would be considered an accessory structure. Barnhart commented the definition may have to be adjusted slightly to clarify that. Page 8 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse noted the issues raised during the workshop have been incorporated into the ordinance and that he is fine with the ordinance so far. Thiesse stated as it relates to private recreational facilities, hockey rinks typically come with boards and lights, and asked whether they would be included with sports courts. Curtis stated private recreational facilities would include some things the City already has a specific regulation for but then would also include such things that are stationary or mobile, such as a hockey rink or a basketball hoop. Curtis stated there is value in having discussion about some of the mobile things since they could have a massing impact but noted not everything that is listed has the same kind of impact. Thiesse indicated he is in agreement with that and that perhaps they should also look at the intent. Thiesse commented someone could string a batting cage all the way across their property 50 feet from the lake, which could result in the neighbors having to look through that to see the lake. Curtis noted setbacks would apply, but if they are called private recreational facilities, each district would have its own accessory structure setbacks. Thiesse stated he would like the Planning Commission at some point to look at that. Lemke asked whether any consideration should be given to the permanence of the structure and the length of time that it will be there. Barnhart stated variables such as permanence and season -ability can be brought into the equation. Curtis stated she will attempt to have a draft ordinance ready for next month's meeting that would incorporate the general accessory building and accessory structure general regulations but that the issue is complicated due to some of the exceptions and allowances for different types of structures. Thiesse asked whether retaining walls should be included or whether language should be included that says it is regulated somewhere else. Curtis stated retaining walls are included in the non -encroachment sections. Curtis noted the City does not define everything that is considered a structure but generally defines it as something that is constructed or built rather than a boulder. Lemke moved, Erickson seconded, to table Application No. 18-000057, City of Orono, Text Amendment — Accessory Building and Structure Setbacks and to continue the public hearing. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 5. LAI 8-000059 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT — SIGNS, 7:30 P.M. — 7:40 P.M. Barnhart stated this draft ordinance would delete and replace all of the sign regulations within the City Code. The ordinance is intended to remove sign regulations based on what the sign says, which is free speech concern. Another goal with the ordinance is to clarify the regulations. Page 9 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Sign regulations must be content neutral, regulations must apply based on the time, place, or manner of the speech rather than content. The city's current ordinance includes many references to the content of the sign. Barnhart noted the following: 1. The draft ordinance continues to prohibit pole signs. Where free-standing signs are allowed, they must be monument style. 2. The draft retains the four temporary sign permits annually. 3. The new regulations introduce a sign standard table. This table is central to the "content neutral" goals of this ordinance. All signs in the various districts are regulated the same manner. 4. Table 1 on Page 11 includes five districts. District 4 correlates to the B-3 zoning district and attempts to incorporate existing signage; i.e., not creating a nonconforming situation. An attempt to tailor sign regulations in the other commercial districts to prevent non -conforming situations was made. 5. The draft ordinance allows up to 35 percent of changeable copy, either electronic or manual. 6. The draft ordinance does not require a permit to change the face or text of a sign. A permit would be required if the sign is made bigger. Thiesse asked if the City currently has a requirement regarding the changeability. Barnhart indicated the City does not. Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. There were no comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Lemke asked if political signs are addressed. Barnhart indicated political signs are allows and would be covered on Page 10. As written, District 1 allows a certain amount of signage that is allowed in a residential district, such as a home occupation sign or a political sign. Lemke asked whether this addresses setback from property line or right-of-way. Barnhart indicated there is a height limitation and a setback requirement. Thiesse asked if the City has the right to remove any noncompliant signs. Barnhart stated the City does have that right, and if the sign is a hazard, it will be removed immediately. People will also have the ability to get their sign back. Page 10 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Ressler noted at the last meeting there was a comment about advertising signs. Ressler asked whether there is a way to regulate that if the business is not located there. Barnhart stated the City cannot remove it because of what it says, and if the sign meets the size requirements, it would be allowed to stay. Ressler asked if that would be considered a temporary sign. Barnhart stated as long as it meets the size requirements, it can remain. Historically the City has regulated signs based on content, which is no longer allowed. Advertising a business that is not on that property would be allowed to stay since the new sign ordinance does not regulate based on content. Thiesse asked whether the City can prohibit it if it is a sign advertising a business and the person whose property it is on is getting paid to have the sign there. Barnhart stated it would be allowed. Ressler asked if the language can be changed to address those things. Barnhart stated they cannot since they would then be regulating based on content. Thiesse stated in his view that would be regulating based on commercial use. If someone is advertising a business, that is not necessarily content, and the City should be able to outlaw advertising a business in certain areas. Thiesse stated that is not regulating content but regulating what they are doing. Barnhart stated it would still be regulating based on content. Barnhart stated it is a huge departure from what the City has done in the past but that the City Attorney has advised that they cannot regulate based on content, and when you boil it down, it would be a disagreement with the sign based on what it says. Thiesse stated he disagrees with that since the sign is being used for something other than free speech and being used to advertise a business. Erickson moved, Lemke seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 18-000059, City of Orono, Text Amendment — Signs. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 1, Ressler Opposed. Ressler commented he wished they could find a way to prohibit certain signs without violating the intentions of free speech. 8. UPDATE ON AUGUST 13, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart reported the City Council took the following actions at the August 13 meeting: - Approved the Judd Dayton application at 825 Old Crystal Bay Road. - Approved the Jay Mittlestat application for a detached garage. - Approved a variance at 275 Crestview. - Approved an ordinance to adjust the City's septic regulations to meet Hennepin County's regulations. - Reviewed the Matt Johnson application and suggested an 8 -foot fence be permissible. Page 11 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Held a public hearing on the Goose Management Plan. The City is developing a Goose Management Plan in accordance with DNR requirements, which would allow people to hunt geese in problem areas. Approved the Sven Gustafson preliminary plat application at 385 and 387 Orono Orchard Road. Staff provided an update on Your Boat Club. 7. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS None FRO -011J11105IDION1 Lemke moved, Ressler seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 7:45 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: John Thiesse, Chair Page 12 of 12 Date Application Received: August 16, 2018 Date Application Considered as Complete: August 29, 2018 60 -Day Review Period Expires: October 29, 2018 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: September 17, 2018 Subject: LA18-000071, Dan Mulrennan o/b/o James Van Riemsdyk, 2655 North Shore Drive, Conditional Use Permit- land alteration, Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for grading over 500 cubic yards and creating a new engineer grade for the property. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. Background A permit was issued to demolish the existing home. During this activity, it was discovered the existing soil was not suitable to support a home and would need to be replaced. 2,046 cubic yards was cut from the site, and 1,648 yards was used for fill for the property. Additionally, the applicants propose a grading plan that converts the flat lot into a walk -out lot. This transformation, coupled with the grading being done independent of a building triggers a Conditional Use Permit. The owner's architect and builder worked with planning staff to develop plans for the new home at 2655 North Shore Drive. The plans were designed to conform to all of the applicable zoning requirements. The property is approximately 1.9 acres in area and the grading of the site does not appear to result in a home which would be out of character in the neighborhood or create drainage concerns. Section 78-305- Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT LR -1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres) 200' Actual 83,277 s.f. (1.9acre) 247'@ OHWL Applicable Regulations: 78-967 (a) (1): Allow over 500 cubic yard of soil disturbance on the site independent of a building permit. 78-967-(a)(4)2: The applicant will establish a new engineered grade for the property, artificially raising above preexisting topography. LA18-000071 September 17, 2018 Page 2 of 4 Applicable Regulation: Conditional Use Permit (Section 78-916) The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; The intent for the proposed grading is residential in nature, is consistent with the permitted uses for the Property, and is compliant with the zoning code and comprehensive plan 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; The proposed grading is residential in nature which is consistent with the permitted uses for the Property. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; This statement is true. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system. This statement is true. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; This statement is true. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; This criteria relates to whether the proposed grades resulting from the earth movement are appropriate and in character with the surrounding land and neighborhood. The grading of the Property will be in conformance with the neighborhood. Once completed, the grading will have no impact on surrounding lands. The grades, once vegetated and landscaped should not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The proposed grades will help to facilitate stormwater runoff down property lines, and not toward adjacent properties as is the current condition. The proposed grades should not result in a negative impact to neighboring properties. 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The Applicant is proposing to elevate the land to accommodate a walk out which is not out of character for the neighborhood. It is likely adjacent properties will not be impacted. The site grading will be reviewed and monitored closely by the City's engineer to assure that all existing drainage patterns are maintained and adjacent properties are not adversely impacted. LA18-000071 September 17, 2018 Page 3 of 4 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; This standard requires that the proposed grading and improvements must not substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the properties in the area or have an adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses. The result of the proposed grading will not change the intended residential use of the Property so there should be no change in the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties resulting from the export of fill materials. To the degree possible, negative impacts during construction should be limited and mitigated. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; The finished grade will be vegetated and landscaped, it should blend into the Property and the neighboring properties. The project, once completed, should not result in undesirable views requiring mitigation. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; To the degree possible, negative impacts during construction should be limited and mitigated. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; The Applicant shall be required to keep debris off of the public roadways. The noise resulting from the trucks hauling and equipment moving the material in and around the site should be minimized to the extent possible. The grading and construction project will be monitored by the City Engineer and planning staff so as to minimize nuisances during the project. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; This standard requires that the project be designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact. The long term effect of the project should result in minimal environmental impacts. The project will be monitored by the City, to prevent erosion from the site. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; There should be no lighting or glare resulting from the grading project, and LA18-000071 September 17, 2018 Page 4 of 4 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare; The Applicant will be required to keep debris off of the public roadways. The noise resulting from the trucks hauling and equipment moving the material in and around the site should be minimized to the extent possible. The grading project will be monitored by the City Engineer and planning staff so as to minimize nuisances during the project. A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally, a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. 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. Conditional Use Permit Analysis Staff finds the requirements for a land alterations conditional use permit are met. The owner needed to correct existing poor soils on the site. This created the need for excess fill. The applicant is working to create a walkout lot for the property which is cohesive with the neighborhood. A new engineered grade was created as well for the property allowing the proposed home to meet the height requirements per City Code. The applicant was able to use some of the removed soil to fill in various areas to create a new walk out style lot limited the amount of hauling needed for the project. The applicant has received a Minnehaha Creek Watershed Permit for the proposed new home. 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. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning staff recommends approval. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit C. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations and Grading Calcs Exhibit E. Narrative Exhibit F. Property Owners List and Map Letter View Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 08/16/2018 Address: 2655 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA, MN 55391 Parcel Number: 0911723420001 Land Use Number: LA18-000071 Application Submitted By: Agent on behalf of property owner Owner: Name: JAMES F VAN RIEMSDYK Address: 2655 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA, MN 55391 Applicant: Name: Dan Mulrennan Address: 15101 Stone Ridge Trace Wayzata, MN 55391 Contact Information: Associated Contact: Steve Kleineman Associated Contact: Allan Voight Associated Contact: JAMES F VAN RIEMSDYK Associated Contact: Mark Gronberg PC LA18-000071 Exhibit A Project Description: Grading over 500 CY and new engineered grade for a New single family home Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application El Appeal of Admin Decision ❑ Concept Application ❑ Conditional Use Permit 0 Site Plan Application ❑ Subdivision Application ❑ Subdivision Exception ❑ Vacation Application Variance Application Applicant Signature: file:///C/Userslloakden/Downloads/Land%20Use%20Application%20Summary%20(3).htm[9/13/2018 11:18:06 AM] EASTERLY LINE OF TRACT B, REGISTERED LAND .SURVEY NO 1373 AS DESCRIBED EASTERLY LINE OF TRACT B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO 1373 AS MONUMENTED -INE OF TRACT B, 3 AS MONUMENTED S6z>0 , ,/ V RIGHT OF WAY LINES 3 F\ ZLp AS SHOWN ON R L S NO 1467 EXISTING CHAIN-LINK FENCE WESTERLY LINE OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. 1168419 4" PVC EDGER NEW SOD CENTERLINE O SIDE ROAD AS MONUM TED - C A' L 1, � . � � � . IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-III_ REFERENCE =1 I IIIIIII-1111 I I1 I I-IIIIIIIIIIII1 I I1 I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII NORTH NORTHi- 30SITE PLAN 35 VOLLEYBALL COURT (i t Al 1/16" = V-0"Al 1-1/2" = 1'-0" 02017 SKD Architects New Residence for: SHEAT ONDEX Al SITE PLAN Sl FOUNDATION PLAN S2 FOUNDATION NOTES & DETAILS A2 LOWER LEVEL PLAN A3 MAIN LEVEL PLAN A4 UPPER LEVEL PLAN AS EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A6 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A7 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A8 ROOF A9 SECTIONS A10 DERAILS All DETAILS Al2 DERAILS A13 INTERIOR CONCEPT Ll LOWER LEVEL LIGHTING L2 MAIN LEVEL U GHTINcG L3 UPPER LEVEL UGH71NG MAX. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 25.0% ALLOWED 20,819 SQ. FT. HOUSE & PILLARS 7,541 S . FT. GENERATOR PAD 43 S . FT. SCREEN PORCH AND STEPS 7 799S . FT. DRIVEWAY 8,114 S . FT. WALKS & OUTDOOR SHOWER 1,140S . FT. POOL & SPA 858S . FT. POOL TERRACE & STEPS 11476S . FT. PATIO 329S . FT. RETAINING WALLS 190S . FT. TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 20,490 SQ. FT. EXCLUDABLE HARDCOVER RETAINING WALLS 190 SQ. FT. NET PROPOSED HARDCOVER 20,300 SQ. FT. TOTAL LOT AREA 83,277 SQ. FT. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 24.38% HARDCOVER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY GRANBERG & ASSOCIATES, HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET DATED 07/09/2018 EROSION CONTROL GENERAL NOTES: architects 11140 Highway 55, Suite A Plymouth, MN 55441 763.591.6115 1. CONSTRUCT SILT FENCES WITH POSTS SPACED MAXIMUM 4'-0" O.C., DRIVEN MINIMUM 2'-0" INTO GROUND. 2. NOTIFY CITY PRIOR TO LAND DISTURBANCE FOR SILT FENTCE INSPECTION (MIN. 24 HR. NOTICE). 3. TRENCH APPROVED SILT FABRIC MINIMUM 0'-6" INTO GROUND ON UP-SLOPE SIDE OF SUPPORT POSTS. BACK FILL AND COMPACT. 4. MAINTAIN SILT FENCES FOR DURATION OF PROJECT. REMOVE ACCUMULATED DEBRIS AND SEDIMENT DEPOSITS. REMOVE ALL TRACES OF SILT FENCES AT COMPLETION OF EARTH DISTURBING ACTIVITIES. 5. DOUBLE OR WIRE REINFORCE SILT FENCE ON STEEP SLOPES. COORDINATE W/ CITY ENGINEER 6. SURVEY INFORMATION PREPARED BY: GRONBERC & ASSOCIATES, INC. ® CIVIL ENGINNERS, LAND SURVEYORS, LAND PLANNERS 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN 55356 9524734141 SITE KEY PLAN: EXISTING TREE EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED J.940.00 -0 SPOT ELEVATION OR TOP OF WALL OR CAP 940 NEW CONTOUR EXISTING CONTOUR Revision ZL 08/16/18 MISC. CHANGES 2655 North Shore Drive 2655 North Shore Drive e� Orono, Minnesota Comm 1323.00 Date 07/24/18 Drawn R.H., B.D. SITE PLAN Sheet No. Al L 0 0w T N 35-4- CP zo 7 A9 17-6" 00 y�yG 4 y� G 4 1. 2p�y O� O�p ice, HIGH WINDOWSI- ice, =- ------------------------- - --- -- - --------------- --------------------- J J I— - ��. 1' 0" h� 1 , j__tj N I 1N/ TR 'D. 2x SLEEPERS - - �' O �G O yG N N �? 'yU L?� N �? .' A � N p 10 U I I ��, �q � �, cP � \C, oJ 2� J2�nQ N 3%, �?' ��, ,'tr rr A10 1 I .. °� I I ; �• \ WINDOW SILL o'� 9� A10' A11 -_-- ------------- -- --- ----� on P 4000 I _ r I W14_x __ __ I _ 38 I 1x4 BATTEN UNDER DECK I . Q TOP EL 9 3/4 LU Ov �� 1 = 3/4x117/8 LVLS S4e------------ - 9 O M M S �8e 3/4 x1 LV 0 8 2 1 F oo I / 2 I I i T I I �e0OLFR yA 15 22 ° v oC F�8 R� c�� p� I r 39j li 1 v m S / WORKOUT T c F z O OU w ' N A10 1 Ipo V�1L LINE 0 4° A10 4.. I 10 Q tro C; ENTR JIB b 1 k N Q Ips ABOVE '-11 1/ LG. 00 M ILLI I / I6 O O -I G CPT. C.T. x z x FC/� eFq TR --------- ---- --------- ------ -- - t r_� W8x48 W/ ��4 CO Q W8x35 C.T. ao p UD (9 7 LG.) I / 2' C N C7 FU_LL_WIDTH NAILER I� - -_-_ ULL_WIDQH�IAI_LE� - -- -- -- -- << T TOP h'T O O 1 3/4"x1 VL N� p W8x15 q / 1 3/4"x9 /2" 1 VL'S CONT �L o s 0 N cv POOL o d• 'o CUBBI S/ HKS ii w 000 TOP EL. ,6 / J ---- Q -------- --a ---cr I STORAGE BENCH L;qO Q oC 99' 9 3/4"2'S -- - -- I T 1 --- -� -- -- -- U -- I-- 4-----�� -- z > I I 9'71/2,1 OPEN TO 41 1 - CLG. ABOVE �p = s° 8° m BUNK ROOM = m r / cp cq 2' 1' 10" 6-1 6-10" 4'-0" Q nU/CICE 8'-11 1/2" CLG. Q2x4'S FLAT w = o o U CPT. h Q T I I' M co m W M I / POOL = 10 3' 10" z o x = `° N �1OP WOcc RKOUT / 8' 111 LE CLG. _ 1 XI ---------- m cfl 2 1/2" CO. l i I I I I I P w U� a (21'-6" CLG.) I I I I I L C.T. w z p H �� I D.W. 1 I I I L O 72. z RUBBER CPT. CPT. RUBBER m W8 15 ----- ----- � � I z N I 1111 > m 0� TOP EL. R. O 9' 9 1/2" CLG. 2 2 2 O 00 6 U ao U I U I U I BAR 99' 9 3/4" Op I U CPT. r _j _j POOL �1 Q I I I 8' 11 1 /2" CLG � U C.T. CPT. > w C.T. BATH o - I 1 / U I i F_ �n I U U) 2'-6" I O J J J _MICRO. 6-111/2" 1 C r z � I I ---- TRIS LINEN C.T. 2-4- 1 1 z� ;II v1 Z SHOW 2 I M N N N I W 8'HO1/2vCLG. N 1 I I o m C.T. I I I I H 2'6 r — R GAMES I I I ---- OO 10 o V16 �� OU� 9'-9 1/2" CLG. TRASH 0'-4" O = 0 I 10' _ N(7 CPT. I 1 0 = .-SWIMSUIT op LAUNDRY = 3' 6" 6' U I T U u_ N DRYER O H r----- �� U I co �s I .;� z o p a U (STACK 8' 11 1/2" CLG. I- w ao U HANDC.T. -- ------ -U+J m IWASHE C ---� ---- ---- ---- ---------Ci-U ------------------------ --- ---fi- ---- G 1 I- WAS R/ I� N /• I o I �9 I � i� J 1' 8" DRYER 10" 10" R J G1 = W8x58 W/ _ W8x58 W/ S W8x21 W/ G = y�� U O �Q� U �ry -6' 0" SLIDING DOOR ---- Q I \ I T> cv F.D. ---- --- I *= FULL WIDTH N_AILE N _ _ - FULL WIDTH (LER - - - FULL WIDTH NAILER � 3-9 1/2" LVL' - - - - -5 r TOP EL. 98' 8 1/8' ► - � OP EL. 98'-8"118" TOP EL. 98'-8 1/8" DROPPED 2-9 1/2" LVL 2-1 3/4"x9 1/2" LVL'S 8 ao U C? O p H.R. tJ co } F e ° Q F 8' f ,� 17' 4" FLUSH X 7' 0" F28 4C, �QN� 1' 2" cP 14'-10' V-2" d 12'-4" Q w N v 4'-4" a- 1' 7" 10'-3" a- 4'-8" 5' o" I PE T S2 ��' ��=� �� = I �� - Q �� FAMILY GALLERY HALL 1 A Ov sL1MP I I °� o w OU 0O /� ��' 1 18 1 /��r �� 8 O UP �Sl 7Rr 1 1 °° �Pm° f� a s' o" 3° w 1 STAI #� N1 STORAGE _ _ _ ~ U U O 6' 6 1/2" CLG. ' FAMILY GALLERY a 'ti rn 2 14 Lv (FLUSH) UP cu rn 9 1/2" LV 'S z 9'-9 /2" = U O EPDXY U _ - — rn _7 N DISPLAY = - - m SOF IT x J N Z2 = I EXPOSED WOOD U 9 = 8' 11 1/2" z x F TUR�E M Y } 12' 8' _ } 10" � - - - - - TREAD ENDS O U CLG. > 00 00 - _ E EV. N N 1 1 1 1 1 _11 < <N Nf M F.D. 0 X11 - - - - x T1 N N ¢ 2' 5"' U CPT.( 1 EPDXY 1 X11 P10 STORAGE "' MI — — — STA( #1 MI STORAGE Q "' F,p _ 2-4 - - I N o MECHA ICAL P O 1 1 9' 9 1/2" CLG. 4' 8" -U I r z. r r 9; c� - - - - N CPT. TEMP. FLOOR _ _ _ _ _ _ SITTING Q @ FUT. ELEV. CLEAR(R N 2-1 /4"x14" LVL (F USH) a f IL - - - - I 9'-9 1/2" CLG. Nt- CPT. 4" . <` N U I X 3'192" I 2'-0" 28 U U.C. MECHANICAL VENTS A11 U a'- - - - IREF1 BELOW SLAB A11 N O I MECHANICAL P� A, r---- ---- � z STORAGE/ F I II m =C0 TOP EL. 9T 5 3/4" TOP EL 9T 5 3/4" = BOOKS N LOCKER d CHASE ABOVE CLG. i. — -'-� MECHANICAL F.D. m v 8' 11 1/2°CLG. , All - d II VERIFY EXACT SIZE & m eR m r` �0 .' LOCATION OF MECH. BATH I p H 2 1 1 (� LW8x31 i� �_ _� X100 I \ EQUIP._& F_D. .._.. /� (-� C.T. � O A DROP SLAB 1 1/2" +� U ��' - - - 8' 11 1/2" CLG. "' VERIFY SIZE & LOC'N. nCa•_� ��-�1 STORAGE Q �S� T--- Tn� Gi /ob�_in in�� '— DN. NOTES: STRUCTURAL NOTES: 1. 2 - 1 3/4"x9 1/2" LVL'S MIN. HEADER - TYP. NOTE QX : 2. INTERIOR DOORS SHALL BE 8'-0" @ LOWER LEVEL. 14" DEEP TJI JOISTS AT 16" O/C 5-1/4"x5-1/4" PSL TO BM. BRG. DESIGN BY OTHERS FOR THE FOLLOWING LOADS (TYP. U.N.O.): 3. ACOUSTIC INSUL. IN WALLS AROUND ALL BATHS & BEDROOMS. • LIVE LOAD= 40 PSF + (1) 2x FULL WALL HT. • DEAD LOAD= 20 PSF 4. EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE TYPICALLY TO OUTSIDE DESIGN CRITERIA: FACE OF STUD. OTHER DIMENSIONS ARE TO CENTERLINE . MAX. VERT. DEFLECTION (LL)= SPAN/480 OF INTERIOR WALLS OR WINDOWS OR FRAME TO FRAME • MAX. VERT. DEFLECTION (TL)= SPAN/240 OF WINDOWS. SEE DETAILS. JOIST DEPTH AND SPACING NOTED IS FOR PRELIMINARY PRICING 5. INTERIOR DOORS ARE TYPICALLY 3 STUDS FROM PURPOSES ONLY. GC TO VERIFY JOIST DEPTH AND SPACING WITH ADJACENT WALL OR CENTERED ON HALUOPENING. JOIST SUPPLIER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 6. BEAMS ARE FLUSH WITHIN CLG. UNLESS NOTED AS NOTE &. DROPPED. NUMBER OF MEMBERS TO BE VERIFIED (2 MIN.) 7/8" DEEP TJI JOISTS AT 16" O/C POINT LOAD FOR BRG. ABOVE DESIGN BY OTHERS FOR THE FOLLOWING LOADS (TYP. U.N.O.): 7. SEE STRUCTURAL NOTES FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION. • LIVE LOAD= 40 PSF SOLID BLOCKING FOR • DEAD LOAD= 20 PSF 8. PROVIDE INFLOOR HEAT THRUOUGHOUT LOWER LEVEL. DESIGN CRITERIA: (DO NOT PROVIDE IN WINE ROOM FLOOR) • MAX. VERT. DEFLECTION (LL)= SPAN/480 BASE: 9"x9"x3/4" BASE PLATE • MAX. VERT. DEFLECTION (TL)= SPAN/240 JOIST DEPTH AND SPACING NOTED IS FOR PRELIMINARY PRICING SEE SECT. 35/S2 PURPOSES ONLY. GC TO VERIFY JOIST DEPTH AND SPACING WITH 11 7/8" TJI'S IN THIS AREA. JOIST SUPPLIER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. DRAWING KEY: 2x6 2 x 6 WALL Cl: 5-1/4"x5-1/4" PSL TO BM. BRG. + (1) 2x FULL WALL HT. BRG. BEARING WALL C2: HSS 4x4x1/4 E>CLOSET BY CLOSET SUPPLIER BASE: 10"x10"x3/4" BASE PLATE SEE SECT. 35/S2 CAP: SEE SECT. 38/S2 C3: HSS 8 X POINT LOAD FOR BRG. ABOVE ELEV SEE LEV 17/A6 & 20/S2 ■ SOLID BLOCKING FOR C4: HSS 3x3x1/4 BEARING ABOVE BASE: 9"x9"x3/4" BASE PLATE SEE SECT. 35/S2 11 7/8" TJI'S IN THIS AREA. CAP: SEE SECT. 38/S2 SET FLUSH BOTTOM. REINF. CONC. PIER. DESIGN BY OTHERS FOR P1 SEE SECT. 29/S2. DEAD LOAD= 35 PSF (SEE TYPICAL FLOOR JOIST REINF. CONC. PIER. NOTE FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION) P2 SEE SECT. 24/S2. REFERENCE NORTH 1 o LOWER LEVEL 1/4" = V-0" 3,145 S.F. Finished 1,833 S.F. Workout Facility 808 S.F. Mechanical/ Storage 7 A9 02017 SKD Architects New Residence for: _U 22 A9 N M arc tects 11140 Highway 55, Suite A Plymouth, MN 55441 763.591.6115 Revision Comm 1323.00 ZL 07/26/18 BIDSET CHANGES Date 07/24/18 Drawn R.H., B.D. 2655 Norah Shore Drive - - ^% >� LOWER LEVEL 2655 North Shore Drive sheet No. Orono, Minnesota A2 5. INTERIOR DOORS ARE TYPICALLY 3 STUDS FROM ADJACENT WALL OR CENTERED ON HALL/OPENING. 6. BEAMS ARE FLUSH WITHIN CLG. UNLESS NOTED AS DROPPED. NUMBER OF MEMBERS TO BE VERIFIED (2 MIN.) 7. SEE STRUCTURAL NOTES FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION E 0 0 N Q PURPOSES ONLY. GC TO VERIFY JOIST DEPTH AND SPACING WITH JOIST SUPPLIER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. NOTE OY 11 7/8" DEEP TJI JOISTS AT 16" O/C DESIGN BY OTHERS FOR THE FOLLOWING LOADS (TYP. U.N.O.): • LIVE LOAD= 40 PSF • DEAD LOAD= 20 PSF DESIGN CRITERIA: • MAX. VERT. DEFLECTION (LL)= SPAN/480 • MAX. VERT. DEFLECTION (TL)= SPAN/240 JOIST DEPTH AND SPACING NOTED IS FOR PRELIMINARY PRICING PURPOSES ONLY. GC TO VERIFY JOIST DEPTH AND SPACING WITH JOIST SUPPLIER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CAP A: TYP. AT 3 -LVL BRG. AT TERRACE ROOF: 'CCQ66SDS2.5" COL. CAP U.N.O. ("ECCQ66SDS2.5" AT END CONDITIONS) BLOCK SOLID AT COLUMNS SPLICE BEAMS AT COLUMN/ CAP CENTERLINES AS REQ'D. CAP B: "CC046SDS2.5" COL. CAP TOP AND 'DTT2Z" HOLDOWN BOTT. W/ 1/2" 0 A.B. (+ HOOK) EMBEDDED 12" INTO CONC. FDN. WALL • MAX. VERT. DEFLECTION (SL)= SPAN/360 OR 1.25" (WHICHEVER IS MORE STRINGENT) • MAX. VERT. DEFLECTION (TL)= SPAN/240 OR 1.75" (WHICHEVER IS MORE STRINGENT) SEE SECTIONS FOR END CONDITIONS AND TRUSS CONFIGURATIONS. GC TO VERIFY THAT TRUSS FRAMING LAYOUT SHOWN IS FEASIBLE WITH TRUSS SUPPLIER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. PLAN NOTES: 1. PROVIDE "H2.5A" ANCHORS BY "SIMPSON" OR APPROVED EQUAL AT EA. TRUSS BRG. LOCATION ("HTS20" TWIST STRAPS AT GIRDER TRUSS LOCATIONS). 2. ALL BEAM AND TRUSS CONNECTIONS TO GIRDER TRUSSES ARE TO BE DESIGNED BY THE TRUSS SUPLIER. STEEL BEAM -STEEL BEAM CONNECTIONS ARE TO BE DESIGNED BY THE STEEL SUPPLIER FOR LOADS SHOWN THUS "R= " ON PLAN (SERVICE LOADS). WOOD BM. -WOOD BM. AND WOOD BM. -STEEL BM. CONNECTIONS ARE TO BE DESIGNED BY THE WOOD SUPPLIER FOR LOADS SHOWN THUS "R= " ON PLAN (SERVICE LOADS). ROOF TRUSS -BEAM CONNECTIONS TO BE DESIGNED BY THE TRUSS SUPPLIER. GC TO COORDINATE CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS AT STEEL BEAMS WITH STEEL SUPPLIER (WOOD BLOCKING AT FLANGES, NAILER CONFIG., ETC.). ■ SOLID BLOCKING FOR BEARING ABOVE 11 7/8" TJI'S IN THIS AREA. SET FLUSH BOTTOM. DESIGN BY OTHERS FOR DEAD LOAD= 35 PSF (SEE TYPICAL FLOOR JOIST NOTE FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION) Cl: 5-1/4"x5-1/4" PSL TO BM. BRG. + (1) 2x FULL WALL HT. C2: HSS 4x4x1/4 BASE: 10'x10"x3/4" BASE PLATE SEE SECT. 35/S2 CAP: SEE SECT. 38/S2 C3: HSS 5x5x3/8 SEE ELEV 17/A6 & 20/S2 C4: HSS 3x3x1/4 BASE: 9"x9"x3/4" BASE PLATE SEE SECT. 35/S2 CAP: SEE SECT. 38/S2 02017 SKD Architects New Residence for: REFERENCI NORTH 4 Revision Comm 1323.00 ZL 07/26/18 BIDSET CHANGES Date 07/24/18 ZL ??/??/?? MISC. CHANGES Drawn R.H., B.D. 2655 North Shore Drive A. >� MAIN LEVEL 2655 North Shore Drive A Sheet No. Orono,Minnesota A3 0 N Q F-1 F-1 LJ LJ 4. WOOD BM. -WOOD BM. AND WOOD BM. -STEEL BM. CONNECTIONS ARE TO BE DESIGNED BY THE WOOD SUPPLIER FOR LOADS SHOWN THUS "R= " ON PLAN (SERVICE LOADS). 5. ROOF TRUSS -BEAM CONNECTIONS TO BE DESIGNED BY THE TRUSS SUPPLIER. GC TO COORDINATE CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS AT STEEL BEAMS WITH STEEL SUPPLIER (WOOD BLOCKING AT FLANGES, NAILER CONFIG., ETC.). REFERENCE NORTH �w ( UPPER LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" 2,953 S.F. Finished 02017 SKD Architects New Residence for: Revision ZL 07/26/18 BIDSET CHANGES 2655 North Shore Drive �� 2655 North Shore Drive Orono, Minnesota arc ects 11140 Highway 55, Suite A Plymouth, MN 55441 763.591.6115 Comm 1323.00 Date 07/24/18 Drawn R.H., B.D. UPPER LEVEL Sheet No. A4 DESIGN BY OTHERS FOR THE FOLLOWING LOADS (TYP. U.N.O.):gRG. BEARING WALL 3. ACOUSTIC INSUL. IN WALLS AROUND ALL BATHS & BEDROOMS. ® TOP CHORD - 4. EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS ARE TYPICALLY TO OUTSIDE SNOW LOAD= 35 PSF CLOSET BY CLOSET SUPPLIER FACE OF STUD. OTHER DIMENSIONS ARE TO CENTERLINE DEAD LOAD= 12 PSF • BOTT. CHORD - OF INTERIOR WALLS OR WINDOWS OR FRAME TO FRAME DEAD LOAD= 8 PSF OF WINDOWS. SEE DETAILS. DESIGN CRITERIA: X POINT LOAD FOR BRG. ABOVE 5. INTERIOR DOORS ARE TYPICALLY 3 STUDS FROM • MAX. VERT. DEFLECTION (SL)= SPAN/360 OR 1.25" (WHICHEVER ■ SOLID BLOCKING FOR ADJACENT WALL OR CENTERED ON HALL/OPENING. IS MORE STRINGENT) BEARING ABOVE • MAX. VERT. DEFLECTION (TL)= SPAN/240 OR 1.75" (WHICHEVER 6. BEAMS ARE FLUSH WITHIN CLG. UNLESS NOTED AS IS MORE STRINGENT) DROPPED. NUMBER OF MEMBERS TO BE VERIFIED (2 MIN.) SEE SECTIONS FOR END CONDITIONS AND TRUSS CONFIGURATIONS. 7. SEE STRUCTURAL NOTES FOR BALANCE OF INFORMATION. GC TO VERIFY THAT TRUSS FRAMING LAYOUT SHOWN IS FEASIBLE WITH TRUSS SUPPLIER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 8. PROVIDE INFLOOR HEAT AT C.T. FLOORS @ MASTER. PLAN NOTES: 1. PROVIDE "H2.5A" ANCHORS BY "SIMPSON" OR APPROVED EQUAL AT EA. TRUSS BRG. LOCATION ("HTS20" TWIST STRAPS AT GIRDER TRUSS LOCATIONS). 2. ALL BEAM AND TRUSS CONNECTIONS TO GIRDER TRUSSES ARE TO BE DESIGNED BY THE TRUSS SUPLIER. 3. STEEL BEAM -STEEL BEAM CONNECTIONS ARE TO BE DESIGNED BY THE STEEL SUPPLIER FOR LOADS SHOWN THUS "R= " ON PLAN (SERVICE LOADS). 4. WOOD BM. -WOOD BM. AND WOOD BM. -STEEL BM. CONNECTIONS ARE TO BE DESIGNED BY THE WOOD SUPPLIER FOR LOADS SHOWN THUS "R= " ON PLAN (SERVICE LOADS). 5. ROOF TRUSS -BEAM CONNECTIONS TO BE DESIGNED BY THE TRUSS SUPPLIER. GC TO COORDINATE CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS AT STEEL BEAMS WITH STEEL SUPPLIER (WOOD BLOCKING AT FLANGES, NAILER CONFIG., ETC.). REFERENCE NORTH �w ( UPPER LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" 2,953 S.F. Finished 02017 SKD Architects New Residence for: Revision ZL 07/26/18 BIDSET CHANGES 2655 North Shore Drive �� 2655 North Shore Drive Orono, Minnesota arc ects 11140 Highway 55, Suite A Plymouth, MN 55441 763.591.6115 Comm 1323.00 Date 07/24/18 Drawn R.H., B.D. UPPER LEVEL Sheet No. A4 SHINGLES UPPER LES EL. 111'-3 7. FASCIA TRI BUILTOUT I FRIEZE BD. HOUSE BR, T.O. CAP EL.. -t106 -1-- 4" L.±105'-1"4" STONE C _MAIN LEVE_ EL. 100'-0" � J � LOWER LEVEL E -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- -- - -- -- -- -- -- -- - L. I � SIDE (WEST) ELEVATION 1/411 = 1'-0° EL. 88'-113/4" Y LOWER LEVEL WINDOWS NUMBER SIZE COMMENTS 101 1 60" x 55 1/8" 102 1 - 40" x 55 1/8" 103 1 - 40" x 55 1/8" 104 1 40" x 55 1/8" 105 1 36" x 31 1/8" 106 1 36" x 31 1/8" 107 1 36" x 31 1/8" 108 1 48" x 39 1/8" 109 1 - 48" x 39 1/8" 110 1 - 48" x 39 1/8" 111 1 48" x 39 1/8" 112 1 36" x 71 1/8" 113 1 36" x 71 1/8" 114 1 36" x 71 1/8" 115 2 - 32" x 63 1/8" 116 1 119" x 95 1/2" INSWING FRENCH 117 1 48" x 83 1/8" 118 1 96" x 83 1/8" 119 1 48" x 83 1/8" 120 1 36" x 83 1/8" 121 1 143" x 95 1/2" INSWING FRENCH 122 1 28" x 71 1/8" 123 2 - 36" x 71 1/8" 124 1 28" x 71 1/8" 125 1 - 32" x 71 1/8" 126 1 - 40" x 15 1/8" 127 1 - 40" x 15 1/8" 128 1 - 40" x 15 1/8" 129 1 - 37 7/16" x 95 1/2" INSUL. METAL DOOR EL. 88'-113/4" Y 5 j 8 SE BRACKET SAP 03'-2 3/8" AGE 17'-6' arc itects 11140 Highway 55, Suite A Plymouth, MN 55441 763.591.6115 UPPER LEVEL WINDOWS MAIN LEVEL WINDOWS NUMBER SIZE COMMENTS 201 1 28" x 23 1/8" 302 202 1 28" x 23 1/8" 303 203 1 28" x 23 1/8" 304 204 1 24" x 53 1/8" 305 205 1 42" x 83 1/8" 306 206 2 - 40" x 83 1/8" 307 207 1 24" x 83 1/8" 308 208 1 26" x 96 7/8" SIDELITE, NOTE 8 209 1 40" x 96 7/8" ENTRY DOOR, NOTE 8 210 1 26" x 96 7/8" SIDELITE, NOTE 8 211 1 - 96" x ARCHTOP 9" SPRINGLINE, NOTE 8 212 2 - 36" x 83 1/8" 313 213 1 - 143" x 95 1/2" INSWING FRENCH 214 1 26" x 83 1/8" 315 215 1 20" x 55 1/8" 316 216 1 40" x 17 1/8" 317 2184 1 ;,40" x 1/8;-,.,- 1 - 16" x 96 7T8" S DELITE, NOTE 8 218b 1 8" x 6 7/8" MUD ENTRY, NOTE 8 1 - 36" x 48" ELLIPTICAL, NOTE 10 320A 220 1 40" x 23 1/8" 320B 221 1 40" x 23 1/8" 320C 222 1 40" x 23 1/8" 321 2 - 36" x ARCHTOP 56" SPRINGLINE 322 223b 1 - 37 7/16" x 95 1/2" WOOD DOOR, NOTE 11 2 -3 324 225 1 40" x 31 1/8" 226 1 40" x 31 1/8" 227 1 40" x 31 1/8" 228 1 204" x 95 1/2" BI -FOLD DOOR 229 1 28" x 67 1/8" 230 1 60" x 67 1/8" 231 1 28" x 67 1/8" 232 1 32" x 67 1/8" 233 1 119" x 95 1/2" SLIDING FRENCH 234 1 36" x 95 1/8" 235 1 52" x 95 1/8" 236 1 88" x 95 1/8" 237 1 52" x 95 1/8" 238 1 - 52" x ARCHTOP 49 3/16" SPRINGLINE 239 1 88" x ARCHTOP 74 1/8" SPRINGLINE 240 1 52" x ARCHTOP 49 3/16" SPRINGLINE 241 1 - 36" x 95 1/8" 242 1 - 119" x 95 1/2" SLIDING FRENCH 243 2 - 36" x 71 1/8" 244 1 44" x 23 1/8" 245 1 44" x 23 1/8" 246 1 30" x 47 1/8" 247 1 60" x 63 1/8" 5 j 8 SE BRACKET SAP 03'-2 3/8" AGE 17'-6' arc itects 11140 Highway 55, Suite A Plymouth, MN 55441 763.591.6115 UPPER LEVEL WINDOWS NUMBER SIZE COMMENTS 301 2 - 36" x 53 1/8" 302 1 48" x 39 1/8" 303 1 24" x 39 1/8" 304 1 24" x 23 1/8" 305 2 - 44" x ARCHTOP 53 1/8" SPRINGLINE 306 1 - 24" x 23 1/8" 307 1 - 36" x 31 1/8" 308 2 - 36" x 59 1/8" 309 1 40" x 23 1/8" 310 1 40" x 23 1/8" 311 1 48" x 31 1/8" 312 1 48" x 31 1/8" 313 1 48" x 31 1/8" 314 1 48" x 31 1/8" 315 1 32" x 27 1/8" 316 2 - 36" x 53 1/8" 317 2 - 36" x 59 1/8" 318 2 - 36" x 59 1/8" 319 1 - 36" x 48" ELLIPTICAL, NOTE 10 320A 1 - 28" x 83 1/8" 320B 1 48" x 83 1/8" 320C 1 28" x 83 1/8" 321 2 - 36" x ARCHTOP 56" SPRINGLINE 322 1 - 20" x 53 1/8" 323 1 36" x 23 1/8" 324 1 36" x 23 1/8" WINDOW NOTES: 1. UNIT SIZES ARE BASED ON STANDARD MARVIN SIZES & COLOR EXCEPT FOR ENTRY DOOR. VARIATIONS FROM THESE SIZES TO BE REVIEWED BY ARCHITECT & CONTRACTOR TO FIT DESIGN INTENT. (NO EXT. JAMBS) 2. DOUBLE GLAZED GLASS W/ LOW -E AND ARGON GAS. TEMPERED GLASS PER CODE. 3. FIXED UNITS WITHIN GROUPING TO MATCH PROFILE OF VENT UNITS. 4. SLIDING & SWINGING DOORS TO BE SET ON: 1/2" BEVELED BD. & 1/4" SHIM 5. GRID MUNTINS TO BE 3/4" & 1 1/8" WIDE SDL. 6. WINDOWS GROUPED UNDER ONE NUMBER TO BE FACTORY MULLED. GROUPS UNDER MULTIPLE NUMBERS TO BE SHIPPED SEPARATE. 7. VERIFY INTENT OF WINDOW TAPING INSTRUCTIONS W/ WINDOW MFGR. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS. 8. MAHOGANY ENTRY UNIT. BY OTHERS. SEE 1/A7 9. FIELD APPLY INTERIOR EXTENSION JAMBS. WINDOW GROUPS TO HAVE EXT. JAMBS AROUND PERIMETER. MULL TIGHT W/O EXTENSIONS WITHIN GROUP. (SEE DETAILS) 10. SPANDREL GLASS TO BE VIRACON GRAY #V908 OR AP RO D EQUAL BY ARCHITECT. Q11. RAM BY AR . M OG NY OR Y OTHERS. Revision Comm 1323.00 IL 07/26/18 BIDSET CHANGES Date 07/24/18 zL 08/16/18 MISC. CHANGES Drawn R. H., B. D. 2655 North Shore Drive 2655 North Shore Drive Orono, Minnesota ELEVATIONS Sheet No. A5 SIDE (EAST) ELEVATION 1/411 = V-0" NEI LOWER LEVEL WINDOWS NUMBER SIZE COMMENTS 101 1 60" x 55 1/8" 102 1 40" x 55 1/8" 103 1 40" x 55 1/8" 104 1 40" x 55 1/8" 105 1 36" x 31 1/8" 106 1 36" x 31 1/8" 107 1 36" x 31 1/8" 108 1 48" x 39 1/8" 109 1 48" x 39 1/8" 110 1 48" x 39 1/8" 111 1 48" x 39 1/8" 112 1 36" x 71 1/8" 113 1 36" x 71 1/8" 114 1 36" x 71 1/8" 115 2 - 32" x 63 1/8" 116 1 119" x 95 1/2" INSWING FRENCH 117 1 48" x 83 1/8" 118 1 96" x 83 1/8" 119 1 48" x 83 1/8" 120 1 36" x 83 1/8" 121 1 143" x 95 1/2" INSWING FRENCH 122 1 28" x 71 1/8" 123 2 - 36" x 71 1/8" 124 1 28" x 71 1/8" 125 1 32" x 71 1/8" 126 1 40" x 15 1/8" 127 1 40" x 15 1/8" 128 1 40" x 15 1/8" 129 1 - 37 7/16" x 95 1/2" INSUL. METAL DOOR NEI E_ NUMBER SIZE M mi 201 LEwE 123 p 1 28" x 23 1/8" 303 COcc w O 1 28" x 23 1/8" 304 204 1 24" x 53 1/8" 305 205 arc ects 11140 Highway 55, Suite A Plymouth, MN 55441 763.591.6115 UPPER LEVEL WINDOWS MAIN LEVEL WINDOWS NUMBER SIZE COMMENTS 201 LEwE 123 p 1 28" x 23 1/8" 303 COcc w O arc ects 11140 Highway 55, Suite A Plymouth, MN 55441 763.591.6115 UPPER LEVEL WINDOWS MAIN LEVEL WINDOWS NUMBER SIZE COMMENTS 201 1 28" x 23 1/8" 302 202 1 28" x 23 1/8" 303 203 1 28" x 23 1/8" 304 204 1 24" x 53 1/8" 305 205 1 42" x 83 1/8" 306 206 2 - 40" x 83 1/8" 307 207 1 24" x 83 1/8" 308 208 1 26" x 96 7/8" SIDELITE, NOTE 8 209 1 40" x 96 7/8" ENTRY DOOR, NOTE 8 210 1 26" x 96 7/8" SIDELITE, NOTE 8 211 1 - 96" x ARCHTOP 9" SPRINGLINE, NOTE 8 212 2 - 36" x 83 1/8" 313 213 1 - 143" x 95 1/2" INSWING FRENCH 214 1 26" x 83 1/8" 315 215 1 20" x 55 1/8" 316 216 1 40" x 17 1/8" 317 218a 1 - 16" x 96 778" S DELITE, NOTE 8 218b 1 8" x 96 7/8" MUD ENTRY, NOTE 8 2 -3 5 320A 220 1 - 40" x 23 1/8" 320B 221 1 - 40" x 23 1/8" 320C 222 1 - 40" x 23 1/8" 321 2 - 36" x ARCHTOP 56" SPRINGLINE 322 223b 1 - 37 7/16" x 95 1/2" WOOD DOOR, NOTE 11 2 -3 324 225 1 - 40" x 31 1/8" 226 1 - 40" x 31 1/8" 227 1 - 40" x 31 1/8" 228 1 - 204" x 95 1/2" BI -FOLD DOOR 229 1 - 28" x 67 1/8" 230 1 - 60" x 67 1/8" 231 1 - 28" x 67 1/8" 232 1 - 32" x 67 1/8" 233 1 - 119" x 95 1/2" SLIDING FRENCH 234 1 - 36" x 95 1/8" 235 1 - 52" x 95 1/8" 236 1 - 88" x 95 1/8" 237 1 - 52" x 95 1/8" 238 1 - 52" x ARCHTOP 49 3/16" SPRINGLINE 239 1 - 88" x ARCHTOP 74 1/8" SPRINGLINE 240 1 - 52" x ARCHTOP 49 3/16" SPRINGLINE 241 1 - 36" x 95 1/8" 242 1 - 119" x 95 1/2" SLIDING FRENCH 243 2 - 36" x 71 1/8" 244 1 - 44" x 23 1/8" 245 1 - 44" x 23 1/8" 246 1 - 30" x 47 1/8" 247 1 - 60" x 63 1/8" arc ects 11140 Highway 55, Suite A Plymouth, MN 55441 763.591.6115 UPPER LEVEL WINDOWS NUMBER SIZE COMMENTS 301 2 - 36" x 53 1/8" 302 1 48" x 39 1/8" 303 1 24" x 39 1/8" 304 1 24" x 23 1/8" 305 2 - 44" x ARCHTOP 53 1/8" SPRINGLINE 306 1 - 24" x 23 1/8" 307 1 - 36" x 31 1/8" 308 2 - 36" x 59 1/8" 309 1 40" x 23 1/8" 310 1 40" x 23 1/8" 311 1 48" x 31 1/8" 312 1 48" x 31 1/8" 313 1 - 48" x 31 1/8" 314 1 48" x 31 1/8" 315 1 32" x 27 1/8" 316 2 - 36" x 53 1/8" 317 2 - 36" x 59 1/8" 318 2 - 36" x 59 1/8" 319 1 - 36" x 48" ELLIPTICAL, NOTE 10 320A 1 - 28" x 83 1/8" 320B 1 48" x 83 1/8" 320C 1 28" x 83 1/8" 321 2 - 36" x ARCHTOP 56" SPRINGLINE 322 1 - 20" x 53 1/8" 323 1 36" x 23 1/8" 324 1 36" x WINDOW NOTES: 1. UNIT SIZES ARE BASED ON STANDARD MARVIN SIZES & COLOR EXCEPT FOR ENTRY DOOR. VARIATIONS FROM THESE SIZES TO BE REVIEWED BY ARCHITECT & CONTRACTOR TO FIT DESIGN INTENT. (NO EXT. JAMBS) 2. DOUBLE GLAZED GLASS W/ LOW -E AND ARGON GAS. TEMPERED GLASS PER CODE. 3. FIXED UNITS WITHIN GROUPING TO MATCH PROFILE OF VENT UNITS. 4. SLIDING & SWINGING DOORS TO BE SET ON: 1/2" BEVELED BD. & 1/4" SHIM 5. GRID MUNTINS TO BE 3/4" & 1 1/8" WIDE SDL. 6. WINDOWS GROUPED UNDER ONE NUMBER TO BE FACTORY MULLED. GROUPS UNDER MULTIPLE NUMBERS TO BE SHIPPED SEPARATE. 7. VERIFY INTENT OF WINDOW TAPING INSTRUCTIONS W/ WINDOW MFGR. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS. 8. MAHOGANY ENTRY UNIT. BY OTHERS. SEE 1/A7 9. FIELD APPLY INTERIOR EXTENSION JAMBS. WINDOW GROUPS TO HAVE EXT. JAMBS AROUND PERIMETER. MULL TIGHT W/O EXTENSIONS WITHIN GROUP. (SEE DETAILS) 10. SPANDREL GLASS TO BE VIRACON GRAY #V908 OR AP RO)LQD E UAL BY ARCHITECT. 11. RAM BY AR . M OG NY OR Y OTHERS. Revision /1.\ 07/26/18 BIDSET CHANGES zL 08/16/18 MISC. CHANGES Comm 1323.00 Date 07/24/18 Drawn R.H., B.D. 2655 A. North Shore Drive t� ELEVATIONS 2655 North Shore Drive NJ NJ Sheet No. Orono, Minnesota �7 *MAIN LEVEL EL. 1001-011 —r FNTRY DOC)R X rIDFI ICHTS I L = 1 -v 4MAIN LEVEL OL �a ;,.EL. 100'-0" INTERIOR TRIMS cGG nmAi nMA1Ann1rrc FNI ARCM FNTRY nnOR g1DFI ICHTS METAL FLSHG. 6 ENLARGED WDW. PLAN A7 1/2 " = 1'-0" FNI ARCM PI ANTFR FI FVATInN _ _MAIN LEVEL MAIN LEVEL EL. 100'-0" EL. 100'-0" PARTIAL @ EATING �9� PARTIAL @ GREATROOM 1/4 = V-0" (-5� PARTIAL @ DINING 1/411 = V-0" 1/4 = 1'-0" PARTIAL @ MUD ROOM 1/4N = 1'-0" MA EL. TYP. SILL TRIMS PREFINISHED METAL FLSHG. TRT'D. 2x16 10" RI 111 ncm 1T k PI ANTFR ul• n i 11Y rvini "J%AMIN i i "IM 1 1/2"x 4" TRIM 3/4"x TRIM z 22n 12f — 72„ HOUSE BRACKET 1-1 /2" = 1'-0" III u lIAIN EVEL �a EL. 100'-0" 1'-4" 2" 3'-2" 4'-8" ENTRY DOOR & SIDELIGHTS LOWER LEVEL WINDOWS NUMBER SIZE COMMENTS 101 f 102 \ D 1 40" x 55 1/8" 2 1 40" x 55 1/8" 'S 1 36" x 31 1/8" 00 Z 1 36" x 31 1/8" o. 1 1/2"x 4" TRIM 3/4"x TRIM z 22n 12f — 72„ HOUSE BRACKET 1-1 /2" = 1'-0" III u lIAIN EVEL �a EL. 100'-0" 1'-4" 2" 3'-2" 4'-8" ENTRY DOOR & SIDELIGHTS PARTIAL @ COVERED TERRACE 1/4 11 = 1'-0" r2O PARTIAL @ STAIR #1 1/4N = 1'-0" ZS PARTIAL @ DINING 1 /4" = 1'-0" 22.. 1121- PORCH 2 PORCH BRACKET 1-1 /2" = 1'-0" LEVEL �M �M TRIM HEAD SCREW 2x WOOD LEDGER cTm 9.. 31PLANTER BRACKET (SECTION) 1-1 /2" = 1'-0" 32 PLANTER BRACKET (SIDE) A7 1-1 /2" = 1'-0" 33 SDL CONCEPT A7� NO SCALE LOWER LEVEL WINDOWS NUMBER SIZE COMMENTS 101 f 102 \ 103 1 40" x 55 1/8" 104 1 40" x 55 1/8" 105 1 36" x 31 1/8" 106 1 36" x 31 1/8" 107 1 36" x 31 1/8" 108 1 48" x 39 1/8" 109 1 48" x 39 1/8" 110 1 48" x 39 1/8" 111 1 48" x 39 1/8" \ \ 1 36" x 71 1/8" f f 1 36" x 71 1/8" 114 1 36" x 71 1/8" 115 2 - 32" x 63 1/8" 116 1 - 119" x 95 1/2" INSWING FRENCH 117 1 48" x 83 1/8" 118 1 96" x 83 1/8" 119 1 - 48" x 83 1/8" PARTIAL @ COVERED TERRACE 1/4 11 = 1'-0" r2O PARTIAL @ STAIR #1 1/4N = 1'-0" ZS PARTIAL @ DINING 1 /4" = 1'-0" 22.. 1121- PORCH 2 PORCH BRACKET 1-1 /2" = 1'-0" LEVEL �M �M TRIM HEAD SCREW 2x WOOD LEDGER cTm 9.. 31PLANTER BRACKET (SECTION) 1-1 /2" = 1'-0" 32 PLANTER BRACKET (SIDE) A7 1-1 /2" = 1'-0" 33 SDL CONCEPT A7� NO SCALE A LOWER LEVEL WINDOWS NUMBER SIZE COMMENTS 101 1 60" x 55 1/8" 102 1 40" x 55 1/8" 103 1 40" x 55 1/8" 104 1 40" x 55 1/8" 105 1 36" x 31 1/8" 106 1 36" x 31 1/8" 107 1 36" x 31 1/8" 108 1 48" x 39 1/8" 109 1 48" x 39 1/8" 110 1 48" x 39 1/8" 111 1 48" x 39 1/8" 112 1 36" x 71 1/8" 113 1 36" x 71 1/8" 114 1 36" x 71 1/8" 115 2 - 32" x 63 1/8" 116 1 - 119" x 95 1/2" INSWING FRENCH 117 1 48" x 83 1/8" 118 1 96" x 83 1/8" 119 1 - 48" x 83 1/8" 120 1 - 36" x 83 1/8" 121 1 - 143" x 95 1/2" INSWING FRENCH 122 1 - 28" x 71 1/8" 123 2 - 36" x 71 1/8" 124 1 - 28" x 71 1/8" 125 1 - 32" x 71 1/8" 126 1 - 40" x 15 1/8" 127 1 - 40" x 15 1/8" 128 1 - 40" x 15 1/8" 129 1 - 37 7/16" x 95 1/2" INSUL. METAL DOOR A '=N Cv arcrtects 11140 Highway 55, Suite A Plymouth, MN 55441 763.591.6115 1 c v PLANTER BRACKET (FRONT) 1-1 /2" = 1'-0" c� W NUMBER C1 LU EQ. EQ. 1 28" x 231/8" 302 202 1 - 28" x 23 1/8" '=N Cv arcrtects 11140 Highway 55, Suite A Plymouth, MN 55441 763.591.6115 1 c v PLANTER BRACKET (FRONT) 1-1 /2" = 1'-0" 02017 SKD Architects 00 N cn Z F— ¢ z = Cn W J UPPER LEVEL WINDOWS MAIN LEVEL WINDOWS NUMBER SIZE COMMENTS 201 1 28" x 231/8" 302 202 1 - 28" x 23 1/8" 303 203 1 - 28" x 23 1/8" 304 204 1 - 24" x 53 1/8" 305 205 1 42" x 83 1/8" 306 206 2 40" x 83 1/8" 307 207 1 - 24" x 83 1/8" 308 208 1 - 26" x 96 7/8" SIDELITE, NOTE 8 209 1 1 - 40" x 96 7/8" ENTRY DOOR, NOTE 8 210 1 - 26" x 96 7/8" SIDELITE, NOTE 8 211 1 - 96" x ARCHTOP 9" SPRINGLINE, NOTE 8 212 2 - 36" x 83 1/8" 313 213 1 - 143" x 95 1/2" INSWING FRENCH 214 1 - 26" x 83 1/8" 315 215 1 1 - 20" x 55 1/8" 316 216 1 - 40" x 17 1/8" 317 218a 17- 16" x 96 778" S DELITE, NOTE 8 218b 2 1 8" x 96 7/8" -3 5 MUD ENTRY, NOTE 8 220 1 - 40" x 23 1/8" 320A 221 1 - 40" x 23 1/8" 320B 222 1 - 40" x 23 1/8" 320C 1 - 28" x 83 1/8" 321 223b 1 - 37 7/16" x 95 1/2" WOOD DOOR, NOTE 11 2 -3 323 225 1 - 40" x 31 1/8" 324 226 1 1 - 40" x 31 1/8" 227 1 - 40" x 31 1/8" 228 1 - 204" x 95 1/2" BI -FOLD DOOR 229 1 - 28" x 67 1/8" 230 1 - 60" x 67 1/8" 231 1 - 28" x 67 1/8" 232 1 - 32" x 67 1/8" 233 1 - 119" x 95 1/2" SLIDING FRENCH 234 1 - 36" x 95 1/8" 235 1 - 52" x 95 1/8" 236 1 - 88" x 95 1/8" 237 1 - 52" x 95 1/8" 238 1 - 52" x ARCHTOP 49 3/16" SPRINGLINE 239 1 - 88" x ARCHTOP 74 1/8" SPRINGLINE 240 1 - 52" x ARCHTOP 49 3/16" SPRINGLINE 241 1 - 36" x 95 1/8" 242 1 - 119" x 95 1/2" SLIDING FRENCH 243 2 - 36" x 71 1/8" 244 1 - 44" x 23 1/8" 245 1 44" x 23 1/8" 246 1 30" x 47 1/8" 247 1 - 60" x 63 1/8" 02017 SKD Architects 00 N cn Z F— ¢ z = Cn W J UPPER LEVEL WINDOWS NUMBER SIZE COMMENTS 301 2 - 36" x 53 1/8" 302 1 - 48" x 39 1/8" 303 1 - 24" x 39 1/8" 304 1 - 24" x 23 1/8" 305 2 - 44" x ARCHTOP 53 1/8" SPRINGLINE 306 1 - 24" x 23 1/8" 307 1 - 36" x 31 1/8" 308 2 - 36" x 59 1/8" 309 1 - 40" x 23 1/8" 310 1 - 40" x 23 1/8" 311 1 - 48" x 31 1/8" 312 1 - 48" x 31 1/8" 313 1 - 48" x 31 1/8" 314 1 - 48" x 31 1/8" 315 1 - 32" x 27 1/8" 316 2 - 36" x 53 1/8" 317 2 - 36" x 59 1/8" 318 2 - 36" x 59 1/8" 319 1 - 36" x 48" ELLIPTICAL, NOTE 10 320A 1 - 28" x 83 1/8" 320B 1 - 48" x 83 1/8" 320C 1 - 28" x 83 1/8" 321 2 - 36" x ARCHTOP 56" SPRINGLINE 322 1 - 20" x 53 1/8" 323 1 - 36" x 23 1/8" 324 1 - 36" x 23 1/8" WINDOW NOTES: 1. UNIT SIZES ARE BASED ON STANDARD MARVIN SIZES & COLOR EXCEPT FOR ENTRY DOOR. VARIATIONS FROM THESE SIZES TO BE REVIEWED BY ARCHITECT & CONTRACTOR TO FIT DESIGN INTENT. (NO EXT. JAMBS) 2. DOUBLE GLAZED GLASS W/ LOW -E AND ARGON GAS. TEMPERED GLASS PER CODE. 3. FIXED UNITS WITHIN GROUPING TO MATCH PROFILE OF VENT UNITS. 4. SLIDING & SWINGING DOORS TO BE SET ON: 1/2" BEVELED BD. & 1/4" SHIM 5. GRID MUNTINS TO BE 3/4" & 1 1/8" WIDE SDL. 6. WINDOWS GROUPED UNDER ONE NUMBER TO BE FACTORY MULLED. GROUPS UNDER MULTIPLE NUMBERS TO BE SHIPPED SEPARATE. 7. VERIFY INTENT OF WINDOW TAPING INSTRUCTIONS W/ WINDOW MFGR. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS. 8. MAHOGANY ENTRY UNIT. BY OTHERS. SEE 1/A7 9. FIELD APPLY INTERIOR EXTENSION JAMBS. WINDOW GROUPS TO HAVE EXT. JAMBS AROUND PERIMETER. MULL TIGHT W/O EXTENSIONS WITHIN GROUP. (SEE DETAILS) 10. SPANDREL GLASS TO BE VIRACON GRAY #V908 OR AP ROV D EQUAL BY ARCHITECT. 11. RAM BY AR M OG NY OR Y OTHERS. New Residence for. Revision Comm 1323.00 1�. 07/26/18 BIDSET CHANGES Date 07/24/18 2�. 08/16/18 MISC. CHANGES Drawn R. H., B. D. 2655 North Shore Drive >� ELEVATIONS 2655 North Shore Drive Sheet No. Nd Orono Minnesota A7 City of Orono �oNo Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: 2 6575 /yoRTH_rNvAF ditt f!c (A TI Cscf7om vo FS) SHO S'EPrepared by: � rf' 1A Date: 7 _ 9 _/ GR D,vd E2 ,� .41so c t ; , i c 8 Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) ier Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tierr) Step 2:CPROPOSED HARDCOVER In the following table, identify alf items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Survey(Square Total Feet (Example) (Garage) (24'x 30 720 S.F. A 0cc,9C -7 5 S.F. B fRAToAt A44 S.F. C S CA 6FAv I&A C& it J7f,P S.F. R IV E ! ! S.F. E t:Uozergceg i-WC&C."CA YO S.F. F A0014 4 SPA R5 e S.F. G o0otpL rfAk♦ C V, I IY76 S.F. H &-rlo 329 S.F. I R r t:S t S.F. S.F. K S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. O S.F. P S.F. Q S.F. R S.F. S S.F. T S.F. u S.F. V S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. 1 Total Proposed Hardcover 7M Y90 S.F. Excludable Hardcover See City Code Sec 78-1684): Er O S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2 Total Excludable Hardcover a S.F. 3 Net Proposed Hardcover Subtract line 2 from line 1 2 0,30o - S.F. (4) Total Lot Area Ex c c pro j A -IG AVpR- a t E A! VF if t GAT — F- A Y 83 2 77 S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)+(4)] 2 Y. 38 % Subdivision Application - January 2016 This is an information pecket regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein, however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. Page 19 Project file data Name: Size: Modified: i ime zone: Reference number: Description: Comment 1: Comment 2: Comment 3: Coordinate System C:\Users\user\Documents\Business Center - HCE\2655 N Name: Shore Dr.vice Datum: 2 MB Zone: 7/3/2018 8:27:19 AM (UTC: -5) Geoid: Central Standard Time Vertical datum: Calibrated site: Mass Earthwork Analysis Default WGS 1984 Default Volumes for Entire Site (yd3) Area of Interest Available Bank Cut Compacted Fill Required Excess/Deficit Entire Site 2,046.4 1,648.4 397.9 The mass earthwork analysis for the entire site, considering bank volumes only, indicates a requirement for offsite waste of excess material. Excess volume: 397.9 yd' 2655 North Shore Drive Narrative for the CUP The homeowner is planning to build a new residence on their existing property at 2655 North Shore Drive, on the north side of Crystal Bay on Lake Minnetonka. The property is just under 2 acres at 83,277sf, and is zoned Lakeshore Residential LR -1 A. A Demolition Permit was obtained to remove the existing home, detached garage and small cabin like structure. The site will be regraded to accommodate the new structure and blend better with adjacent properties. Also, it was determined that the current soil was not suitable for the proposed home. Additional excavation, new engineered fill, and additional grading will be required. More than 500 cubic yards of dirt will be moved, imported and exported from the property, triggering the need for a conditional use permit. Also, with this regrading, the proposed grade along the front entry will establish the new high elevation that the building height is measured from, elevation 941.9. Generally, the property now appears to be relatively flat, but does slope from the middle of the lot to the east and south. The mass earthwork analysis for the entire site is 2,046cy of cut, 1,648cy compacted fill, and 397.9cy of excess fill to be removed from the site. A unique feature of this lakeshore property is that there is a small inlet on the neighbor's property just beyond the east property line. It requires a 75' setback from the lake and along much of the east property line. Grade currently varies from elevation 930 near the water to about 939.2 at its highest point, which is on the western middle part of the property where the existing home was. The existing home built in the 1920's had been added onto a number of times over the years. The owner purchased the home in April of 2013. The existing home had a history of moisture intrusion and mold. The existing basement was not really usable, and the floor elevation was below the current minimum floor elevation allowed on the lake today. The existing plan was cut up with a lot of rooms. The new proposed structure will be a 2 -story home, New England shingle style with stone, and with a full-sized lower level walkout. The lower level floor elevation set at the minimum allowable elevation above the lake high water line determines the main level floor and garage elevations. Building up grade to about +4' along the north front face of the home will make the home feel naturally set into the site. There is little movement of soil needed at the western, southern lake and east sides. The entry drive will also be moved to the eastern side of the property to allow for more privacy from North Shore Drive and safer access. The new driveway will also need to be raised coming off the street. Hennepin Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 9/13/2018 Buffer Size: 500 feet 0 120 240 480 ft Map Comments: I I I I I I I I I This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us 38 09-117-23 13 0007 THOMASJABOOD 1200 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 13 0009 KENT H & JUDITH B HODDER 2640 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 14 0007 SPOTTED DOG LLC 1907 E WAYZATA BLVD #300 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 24 0001 THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT 3000 XENIUM LA N PLYMOUTH MN 55441 38 09-117-23 410004 JEFFREY LINN ANDRADE 2565 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 42 0001 JAMES VAN RIEMSDYK 2655 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 42 0002 JOHN D & SANDRA K JEROME 2605 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 42 0003 AMIR A & ASHLEY K MEHBOD 2625 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 42 0004 JAMES A & SHARON S WALKER 2685 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 42 0005 JAMES M WHISLER SANDRA S WHISLER 2683 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 42 0007 JAMES A & SHARON S WALKER 2685 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 Date Application Received: 08/20/18 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/07/18 120 -Day Review Period Expires: 01/05/19 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 17 September 2018 Subject: #LA18-000072, Paul Vogstrom o/b/o William & Sue Dunkley, 2709 Walters Port Ln — Preliminary Plat — Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for a proposed subdivision to create one new lot for a single family home. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. Summary In June and July, the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed a sketch plan (File No. LA18- 000055) the owners are now requesting preliminary plat approval. The owners are proposing to create a new lakeshore lot between their Walters Port Lane home (2709 Walters Port Ln) and the neighboring property to the east (the Hueler property) at 2715 Pence. The preliminary plat drawing is attached as Exhibit B which shows Lot 1 where the Dunkleys' home is located, a 1.47 acre lot east of the Dunkley home (Lot 2), and Outlot A on the north side of the property. Proposed Lot 2 meets the 1 acre size requirement and the 140 foot width at the lake (OHWL) and at the 75 -foot setback line. Based on the configuration, there is an approximate 90 -foot buildable envelope at the average lakeshore setback line. No variances are requested. Conformity with 2010 - 2030 Orono Community Management Plan The proposal involves creation of two lots with over 1.0 acres in dry buildable area each within the area guided for Low -Medium Density (2-3 units per acre). The project has a prescribed density of 0.43 units per acre based on the gross area; 0.45 units per acre upon removal of the wetland acreage. The proposal is less dense than the prescribed maximum density contemplated within the comprehensive plan. LR -113 Zoning District Standards: Conformity with LR -113 Zoning District Standards Side Yard Lot Lot Front Side Rear Adjacent Area Width Yard Yard Yard to Street (acre) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) 1 140 35 10 20 30 Conformity with LR -113 Zoning District Standards FILE # LA18-000072 17 September 2018 Page 2 of 3 The property is currently zoned LR -113 One Family Lakeshore Residential (1.0 acre). The development meets the dimensional requirements of the LR -113 district, with the 20 -foot wide "frontage" connection to Walters Port Lane. Lot 1 is proposed to solely use Walters Port Lane for access; Lot 2, while it does have street frontage on to Walters Port Lane, will access via the existing Pence Lane driveway shared with the Huelers. Lot 2 provides for a generally flat house pad to support a reasonable home, without encroaching into the side yard setbacks, the lake yard, or the average lake shore setback. A delineated wetland near the center of property impacts buildable area and limits flexibility for development. The lots will be served by City sewer and water. The delineated wetland does require a buffer, as required by the Watershed District. Grading Over the past year and during the construction of the addition to the Dunkleys' home there has been unpermitted movement of dirt and grading. This grading has impacted the 'existing grade' necessary to apply height regulations to the new home. The applicant is attempting to capture the topographic changes to the property with the proposed plat. There is an area between the wetland and the driveway where approximately 300 cubic yards of fill was placed. This filling was not part of the permits for the demolition of the home on 2710 Pence Lane, nor was it included in the home addition permits. They are also showing an approximate 200 cubic yard stockpile on Lot 1. This material is also proposed to be utilized along the west side of the driveway. A number of trees have been removed from the property outside of the 75 -foot zone. Drainage & Utility Easements The City requires standard perimeter drainage and utility easements around all property boundaries in the Plat and drainage easements over the wetland areas. Outlot A should also include the perimeter drainage and utility easements. The final plat drawing should include the drainage and utility easements. The preliminary plat should reflect the limits of the existing driveway easement, for clarity in the future. Park Dedication The Parks, Open Space and Trail Plan element of the Orono Comprehensive Plan does not specify the need for a neighborhood park at this location. As there is no defined need for park land, it would appear that dedication of actual land for park purposes is not required. Absent the need for park land dedication, a Park Dedication Fee in lieu of land would be appropriate per City Ordinance. 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 lots, the Park Fee would be based on only the new 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 contact MCWD and provide confirmation regarding the permits or approvals they will require for this subdivision. The City's engineer is reviewing the proposed plat drawing and comments will be prepared for the City Council agenda. FILE # LA18-000072 17 September 2018 Page 3 of 3 The development is subject to the 2018 Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee of $5,250 per acre. For the 1.0 -acre zoning districts, any lot exceeding 1.0 gross acres, including wetland, shall be charged a maximum trunk fee equal to the trunk fee for a 1.0 acre parcel. Therefore $5,250 x 2.0 [2 lots x 1.0 = 2.0 total acres] _ $10,500.00. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application & Narrative Exhibit B. Proposed Plat Exhibit C. Staff Annotated Plat Drawing Exhibit D. Proposed Hardcover Lot 1 Exhibit E. Landscape & Conservation Design Plans Exhibit F. Wetland Delineation Exhibit G. MCWD — NOD 04/2017 Exhibit H. PC and Council minutes RE: Sketch Plan LA18-000055 Exhibit I. Map Exhibit J. Property Owner List Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 08/20/2018 Address: 2709 WALTERS PORT LA EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Parcel Number: 2111723230059 Land Use Number: LA18-000072 Application Submitted By: Agent on behalf of property owner Owner: Name: WILLIAM M & SUSAN K DUNKLEY Address: 3405 ANNAPOLIS LA N #100 PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 Applicant: Name: Paul Vogstrom Address: 10231 Beebe Lake Road Hanover, mn 55341 Contact Information: Associated Contact: Mark Hauri Associated Contact: Paul Vogstrom Associated Contact: Mark Gronberg Associated Contact: Project Description: Subdivision - Preliminary Plat Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application <� k Applicant Signature: Date: 8-22-18 To whom it may concern, We would like to subdivide 2709 Walters Port. The new lot created on subject property meets all requirements for a new lot. New lot will access from Pence Lane and exiting driveway easement for Huelers will remain in the same location. Sincerely, Paul T. Vogstrom Paul Thomas Design Build Filename: walters port letter LOT split Directory: D:\HP big\Dunkley Template: C:\Users\ Galina\AppData\ Roaming\ Microsoft\ Templates\ Bus iness letter (Sales Stripes design).dotx Title: Subject: Author: Galina Mikhaylova Keywords: To whom it may concern, Comments: Creation Date: 8/30/20181:33:00 PM Change Number: 2 Last Saved On: 8/30/20181:33:00 PM Last Saved By: Paul Vogstrom Total Editing Time: 3 Minutes Last Printed On: 8/30/20181:38:00 PM As of Last Complete Printing Number of Pages:1 Number of Words: 62 (approx.) Number of Characters: 358 (approx.) OD I N N PENCE LANE ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR WILTIAM D U N K L E Y IN CARMAN BAY HEIGHTS & WALTERS-PORT HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 0 30 60 X61 SCALE IN FEET R=10.00 A=90°00' 00" L=15.71 n D z z M r z M LAKE LAGOON -- 890271 OWNER : ...... 16.00 William & Susan Dunkley 9-5-18 FILL AND STOCKPILE AREAS SHOWN I 2709 Walters Port Lane EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Orono, MN 55331 Lot 1, Block 1 CARMAN BAY HEIGHTS ZONING = LR -1 B Lot 4, Block 3, WALTERS—PORT Total area = 4.57± Ac. p : denotes Judicial landmark found Dry area = 4.361 Ac. • : denotes iron marker found 1 690 EXISTING (908.3) : denotes exitsing spot elevaiton, mean sea level datum / ''• F HOUSE ---917---: Denotes existing countour, mean sea level datum NOTE: Trees are shown from a survey by others. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of several existing buildings, retaining walls, drives, spot elevations, topography, and visible "hardcover, and the proposed location of a proposed dividing line thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. R=10.00 A=90°00' 00" L=15.71 n D z z M r z M LAKE LAGOON -- 890271 17 E ...... 16.00 DATE 7-16-18 8-17-18 HOUSE, HARDCOVER & TOPOGRAPHY 9-5-18 FILL AND STOCKPILE AREAS SHOWN I NOTE: ADJOINING HOUSE LOCATION TAKEN FROM NO 18-221 1 A SURVEY BY CARDARELLE DATED 3-18-18. METAL�- SEAWALL / / '' 1 690 EXISTING -834 - / ''• F HOUSE S 89059' 22" E 175.54 N 5a -503 kg 8 — ' ,o — —�—I (956.2), � 110 �9y8.21 \ I PILLAR I /\ 10 I V PILLAR / UTILITYAGE EASEMENTS: I 1 h i 24" ASH/ 1 1�. .2ASH_ a,� 1 co o --� - ---� -- .L� 9 I N + O I +I OUTLO A I PROPOSED LOT AREA 1 z I 0.80 ± AC. I Iv O /0 CTI I 18" MAPLE ry `4lIK�� i4 MAPLE \ 1 MI •18"�vO�EN \ 16' LEEN I—_— 1 �� N179 — 1 14" LINDEN 16" LEEN 12" MAPLE •� --9— /� I I 120: I 34; AK VA 1 20 I \ PROPOSED 24" MAPLE \ \ — � — — — — ,ZV; 20"M�APLE ai \ \ 24" MAPLE P� �\ \ \ 30" MAPLE _ 26" MAPLE \ I \ I 10 MAPLE \ \ ■: N bD F � *APLf "� \ I 'I I O 2j\,. \ -- \ \ 1 I \ '039 __Cn oI' I ' I II \\\ I I I ;'WETLAND AS DELINEATED 1— —4-4 Lj BY ANDERSON ENGINEERING z ON 4-10-17 (MANAGE 3) g' • : ' ....... 0.21 + AC.W N �.. .•80.0 r C11 I EASEMENT oo h �9°27/ ( o 0A�NAGE '• w / 6 I: m la �N 6902 M S �5g6.6� / 110 /'�'y�'///// z 300 C.Y. OF FILL WERE LACED IN THIS P - - --�CONTOURS REFL CRTE CURRENT z// 1/ CONDITIONS AFTER FILL. — — — 22""M APLE// 10 — — 20" MAPLE #2707 I/ �_ -9 / ZQ• °35, 4311 E :RET• WALLS L / ,:". * (J 83 - --r -' 139.68 Sty -•s ;. N .'------'/`'._-•-•' / 1 1 10" MAPLE ! 1.9 '' ; • �! \ — — — 12' APLE `- /� / 16" MAPLE v / � I 'WALI "o: Iv q N .< PAVER i:- • DRIVEWAY \ X48 — — �. �'— _ _ • _ — — GARAGE ~... • (D) \ 15" MAPLE -,`16" MAPLE_20" MAPLE FLOOR) M FLOOR) (946.9) (L RET. �— ,� iNXLC- _ I ' WADI _ — „ 200 C.Y STOCKPILE a WALK \ / — — — / A-FtFI OURS NOT 20" MAPLE v 9� o \ (o) \ k. SHOWN // / 12" MAPLE / ;� 14 MAPLE DECK S OROER \ _.._, — — y�v PROPOSED rye• y`,`)� `° _ ►.,/, / �II 1////II / / /i�t4/A� .. 0 PATIO DRIVEWAY L 0 1 POWER a (F) BOX 26AE 0 (K) 9a30" E 6� / LEDGGARAE � A (949'2) .1 PROPOSED L AREA /LOT 2 x WALKOUT94 2.30 + AC. PROPOSED LOT AREA .M THRESHOLD= o.e 13.7 /147± AC(940.8) 949.4) 12MAPLEO9 144" OAK N EXISTING _M" OK II 1P / I I I � 12" 6 x2O" 9ir� / LOCUST 0.1; 9 HOUSE �� // �\ I 26„ OAK _ DRAINAGE • ... \ ?, • W I I I — / — � UTILITY Y EASEMENTS ' If- \� ��\ � CO.8 #2709 �� sY �/ -----� ------ —j —� STEPS 1 /� \ 7.9 (A) / / - '•i �, / \ �••� sO (9a>>) ,� '/ / / ; �:•' 1 /s Rs �� 1 / \ \ s °s /'Y�� _ •�'°� ". '•Ii / N 88054' 17" W 146.30 ........... 12" OAK 1 (•/ CIO/ \ \ 0 ':• s.c� �°� / \ \ \ `�`� // ,��/// PROPOSED 122" ! E •.- OTT DRIVEWAY /22" OAKS ,, // ''�••.. (Jf �9 (947.8) 1 // ( /% / : •�• C) 929.4 CONTOUR PROPOSED / 0) LINE (O.H.W.) I \ / \ \�\ HOUSE \ I I I \ 118" MAPLE '0 a� PROPO D LOT LIN \\\ AVERAGE BUILDING\\/ 5 ,r� I 75, SETBACK LINE 6T P & ' �`� / / SETBACK LINE ((f)N, \ >�\ dI / \� 1 . � � � / � -- \ \ � O EXISTING HOUSE \ I #2715 (IQ / \ \ \ / v \ I O + / \ \ \ \ I CTI MINNETONKA 1 \ 14" OAK I \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ I / \\ < \ • .\\��\\ \�� \ I ........................... -- 140.00 .............. \ \ \ I C A R M A N' S BAY \\ \ \ ` � `" 20 I IN NOTE: ADJOINING HOUSE LOCATION TAKEN FROM \\\ \\ \ 14" p SURVEY >, \ \ 20' oAK � I Io O A SURVEY BY CARDARELLE DATED 3-18-18. >�; w -946A \\ I (W w t4 \�\ C_4 + 18221PREPLAT.scj rn v DATE REMARKS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report Was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. PROJECT G R O N B E R G & ASSOCIATES INC. CIVIL ENGINNERS, LAND SURVEYORS, LAND PLANNERS 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN 55356 952-473-4141 7-18-18 REVISED DRIVE DATE 7-16-18 8-17-18 HOUSE, HARDCOVER & TOPOGRAPHY 9-5-18 FILL AND STOCKPILE AREAS SHOWN SCALE 1 "=30' NO 18-221 Mark S. Gronberg Minnesot License Number 12755 OD I N N PENCE LANE ADDITION PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR WILTIAM D U N K L E Y IN CARMAN BAY HEIGHTS & WALTERS-PORT HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 0 30 60 X61 SCALE IN FEET R=10.00 A=90°00' 00" L=15.71 n D z z M r z M LAKE LAGOON -- 890271 OWNER : ...... 16.00 William & Susan Dunkley 9-5-18 FILL AND STOCKPILE AREAS SHOWN I 2709 Walters Port Lane EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Orono, MN 55331 Lot 1, Block 1 CARMAN BAY HEIGHTS ZONING = LR -1 B Lot 4, Block 3, WALTERS—PORT Total area = 4.57± Ac. p : denotes Judicial landmark found Dry area = 4.361 Ac. • : denotes iron marker found 1 690 EXISTING (908.3) : denotes exitsing spot elevaiton, mean sea level datum / ''• F HOUSE ---917---: Denotes existing countour, mean sea level datum NOTE: Trees are shown from a survey by others. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of several existing buildings, retaining walls, drives, spot elevations, topography, and visible "hardcover, and the proposed location of a proposed dividing line thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. R=10.00 A=90°00' 00" L=15.71 n D z z M r z M LAKE LAGOON -- 890271 17 E ...... 16.00 DATE 7-16-18 8-17-18 HOUSE, HARDCOVER & TOPOGRAPHY 9-5-18 FILL AND STOCKPILE AREAS SHOWN I NOTE: ADJOINING HOUSE LOCATION TAKEN FROM NO 18-221 1 A SURVEY BY CARDARELLE DATED 3-18-18. METAL�- SEAWALL / / '' 1 690 EXISTING -834 - / ''• F HOUSE S 89059' 22" E 175.54 N 5a -503 kg 8 — ' ,o — —�—I (956.2), � 110 �9y8.21 \ I PILLAR I /\ 10 I V PILLAR / UTILITYAGE EASEMENTS: I 1 h i 24" ASH/ 1 1�. .2ASH_ a,� 1 co o --� - ---� -- .L� 9 I N + O I +I OUTLO A I PROPOSED LOT AREA 1 z I 0.80 ± AC. I Iv O /0 CTI I 18" MAPLE ry `4lIK�� i4 MAPLE \ 1 MI •18"�vO�EN \ 16' LEEN I—_— 1 �� N179 — 1 14" LINDEN 16" LEEN 12" MAPLE •� --9— /� I I 120: I 34; AK VA 1 20 I \ PROPOSED 24" MAPLE \ \ — � — — — — ,ZV; 20"M�APLE ai \ \ 24" MAPLE P� �\ \ \ 30" MAPLE _ 26" MAPLE \ I \ I 10 MAPLE \ \ ■: N bD F � *APLf "� \ I 'I I O 2j\,. \ -- \ \ 1 I \ '039 __Cn oI' I ' I II \\\ I I I ;'WETLAND AS DELINEATED 1— —4-4 Lj BY ANDERSON ENGINEERING z ON 4-10-17 (MANAGE 3) g' • : ' ....... 0.21 + AC.W N �.. .•80.0 r C11 I EASEMENT oo h �9°27/ ( o 0A�NAGE '• w / 6 I: m la �N 6902 M S �5g6.6� / 110 /'�'y�'///// z 300 C.Y. OF FILL WERE LACED IN THIS P - - --�CONTOURS REFL CRTE CURRENT z// 1/ CONDITIONS AFTER FILL. — — — 22""M APLE// 10 — — 20" MAPLE #2707 I/ �_ -9 / ZQ• °35, 4311 E :RET• WALLS L / ,:". * (J 83 - --r -' 139.68 Sty -•s ;. N .'------'/`'._-•-•' / 1 1 10" MAPLE ! 1.9 '' ; • �! \ — — — 12' APLE `- /� / 16" MAPLE v / � I 'WALI "o: Iv q N .< PAVER i:- • DRIVEWAY \ X48 — — �. �'— _ _ • _ — — GARAGE ~... • (D) \ 15" MAPLE -,`16" MAPLE_20" MAPLE FLOOR) M FLOOR) (946.9) (L RET. �— ,� iNXLC- _ I ' WADI _ — „ 200 C.Y STOCKPILE a WALK \ / — — — / A-FtFI OURS NOT 20" MAPLE v 9� o \ (o) \ k. SHOWN // / 12" MAPLE / ;� 14 MAPLE DECK S OROER \ _.._, — — y�v PROPOSED rye• y`,`)� `° _ ►.,/, / �II 1////II / / /i�t4/A� .. 0 PATIO DRIVEWAY L 0 1 POWER a (F) BOX 26AE 0 (K) 9a30" E 6� / LEDGGARAE � A (949'2) .1 PROPOSED L AREA /LOT 2 x WALKOUT94 2.30 + AC. PROPOSED LOT AREA .M THRESHOLD= o.e 13.7 /147± AC(940.8) 949.4) 12MAPLEO9 144" OAK N EXISTING _M" OK II 1P / I I I � 12" 6 x2O" 9ir� / LOCUST 0.1; 9 HOUSE �� // �\ I 26„ OAK _ DRAINAGE • ... \ ?, • W I I I — / — � UTILITY Y EASEMENTS ' If- \� ��\ � CO.8 #2709 �� sY �/ -----� ------ —j —� STEPS 1 /� \ 7.9 (A) / / - '•i �, / \ �••� sO (9a>>) ,� '/ / / ; �:•' 1 /s Rs �� 1 / \ \ s °s /'Y�� _ •�'°� ". '•Ii / N 88054' 17" W 146.30 ........... 12" OAK 1 (•/ CIO/ \ \ 0 ':• s.c� �°� / \ \ \ `�`� // ,��/// PROPOSED 122" ! E •.- OTT DRIVEWAY /22" OAKS ,, // ''�••.. (Jf �9 (947.8) 1 // ( /% / : •�• C) 929.4 CONTOUR PROPOSED / 0) LINE (O.H.W.) I \ / \ \�\ HOUSE \ I I I \ 118" MAPLE '0 a� PROPO D LOT LIN \\\ AVERAGE BUILDING\\/ 5 ,r� I 75, SETBACK LINE 6T P & ' �`� / / SETBACK LINE ((f)N, \ >�\ dI / \� 1 . � � � / � -- \ \ � O EXISTING HOUSE \ I #2715 (IQ / \ \ \ / v \ I O + / \ \ \ \ I CTI MINNETONKA 1 \ 14" OAK I \ ' \ \ \ \ \ \ I / \\ < \ • .\\��\\ \�� \ I ........................... -- 140.00 .............. \ \ \ I C A R M A N' S BAY \\ \ \ ` � `" 20 I IN NOTE: ADJOINING HOUSE LOCATION TAKEN FROM \\\ \\ \ 14" p SURVEY >, \ \ 20' oAK � I Io O A SURVEY BY CARDARELLE DATED 3-18-18. >�; w -946A \\ I (W w t4 \�\ C_4 + 18221PREPLAT.scj rn v DATE REMARKS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report Was prepared by me, or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. PROJECT G R O N B E R G & ASSOCIATES INC. CIVIL ENGINNERS, LAND SURVEYORS, LAND PLANNERS 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN 55356 952-473-4141 7-18-18 REVISED DRIVE DATE 7-16-18 8-17-18 HOUSE, HARDCOVER & TOPOGRAPHY 9-5-18 FILL AND STOCKPILE AREAS SHOWN SCALE 1 "=30' NO 18-221 Mark S. Gronberg Minnesot License Number 12755 City of Orono �oNo Hardcover Calculation Worksheet L am' /, '6'/orK /, 0 FAC F G.r dvE- /f 0.01 r/G,Li Property Address: Z 70 9 wAt,TFw r Pae T Z,4 A.-, E (®/4L 0' fu F D414 KC F �r, sf e two Prepared by: Date: GRON�B ERG t AJ'J'0c sA7't; SI�✓c. 8-/7-,� Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) (TEDTier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 2: PROPOSED HARDCOVER In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Survey(Square Total Feet (Example) (Garage) 24' x 30' 720 S.F. A Ott.-rC /D S.F. B 77a o P 95 S.F. C I WA L S.F. D 3/ RZ S.F. E 7 S.F. F 3 6'0 S.F. G TrOOP e'A*14A.40 2 R S.F. H /s /32 S.F. I /.v rr 2 Y5 S.F. led, S.F. K / o 795 S.F. L /. S.F. M v S o S.F. N jeotyrA ,S eX 9 S.F. O ! S.F. P S.F. Q S.F. R S.F. S S.F. T S.F. u S.F. v S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. 1 Total Proposed Hardcover 4' 01Y S.F. Excludable Hardcover See City Code Sec 78-1684): F 777 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2 Total Excludable Hardcover 777 S.F. 3 Net Proposed Hardcover Subtract line 2 from line M13 S.F. 4 Total Lot Area S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage 1(3)+(4)] 18.Z0% Subdivision Application - January 2016 This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein; however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevell. page 19 REMOVE MAPLE CLUMP SHOREJNE RESTORATION: REMOVE ALL EXISTING BUCHTHORN AND UNDERSTORY VEGETATION. SEE( WITH NO -MON FESCUE GRASS. SCALE: P' = 30' MH3 DESIGN GROUP JTS AND ANTINGS AREAS STING VORY TREE SKYLINE MH3 DESIGN GROUP MH3 Design Group 11435 47th Avenue N Plymouth, MN 55442 Office: (763) 400-3944 Direct: (651) 503-6585 Mark@MH3DesignGroup.com MH3DesignGroup.com landscape industry certified AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS IC houzz NATIONAL ><< LANDSCAPE oF r PLANE7 //\\ PROFESSIONALS W J Z 0 LU J J m Z W Q LU Q V) 0 Z Q O U cry LU N V o M � a- � V) Lr) W LU °CzJ J z ao� 3: z o C) ry- r fV 1 d" AUG. 2112018 Do not copy or allow these plans to be copied without an authorization signature from a MH3 Design Group LLC., representative. These plans, drawings, overall forms, composition of spaces, elements of design, and/or general concepts contain confidential, proprietary and trade secret information that are exclusive copyrighted property of MH3 Design Group LLC., protected by the United States Copyright Law and all rights are reserved. Any unauthorized use, reproduction, installation, and/or installation of concepts presented within this plan are strictly prohibited without the authorization signature of MH3 Design Group LLC., representative. Companies or person(s) found to be in violation of this copyright will be subject to legal proceedings to recover all damages and compensations. Authorization Signature: 02018 MH3 Design Group, LLC. DATE AUG. 21, 2018 ---------------------- CLIENT DUNKLEY ---------------------- SHEET# REMOVE MAPLE CLUMP EUNE RESTORATION: )VE ALL EXISTING BUCNTNORN UNDERSTORY VEGETATION. SEE NO -MON FESCUE GRASS. SCALE: P' = 30' MH3 DESIGN GROUP JTS AND ANTNGS AREAS 15TING IVORY TREE 3KYLNE MH3 DESIGN GROUP MH3 Design Group 11435 47th Avenue N Plymouth, MN 55442 Office: (763) 400-3944 Direct: (651) 503-6585 Mark@MH3DesignGroup.com MH3DesignGroup.com landscape industry certified AMERICAN SOCIETY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS IC houzz NATIONAL ><< LANDSCAPE oF r PLANE7 //\\ PROFESSIONALS W J Z 0 LU J J m AES z LU C) Z O Q V) z O U O U cry LU a F - , o M a- Lr) In � w °CzJ J � z LU ao� 3: z o C) ry- r fV 1 d" d' AUG. 2112018 Do not copy or allow these plans to be copied without an authorization signature from a MH3 Design Group LLC., representative. These plans, drawings, overall forms, composition of spaces, elements of design, and/or general concepts contain confidential, proprietary and trade secret information that are exclusive copyrighted property of MH3 Design Group LLC., protected by the United States Copyright Law and all rights are reserved. Any unauthorized use, reproduction, installation, and/or installation of concepts presented within this plan are strictly prohibited without the authorization signature of MH3 Design Group LLC., representative. Companies or person(s) found to be in violation of this copyright will be subject to legal proceedings to recover all damages and compensations. Authorization Signature: 02018 MH3 Design Group, LLC. DATE AUG. 21, 2018 ---------------------- CLIENT DUNKLEY ---------------------- SHEET# M, -1 Wetland Investigation Report .. � . �� ,,ffw- fit,' .•a1�, . � Maple Crest Landscape 2710 Pence Lane & 2709 Walters Port Lane Orono, MN AE Comm. # 14653 April 10, 2017 Anderson Engineerin"c Minnesota, LLC 13605 1St Avenue North Plymouth, MN 55441 763-412-4000 Main 763-412-4090 Fax A Service -Disabled Veteran -Owned Small Business MAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ContactInformation.......................................................................................................2 ExecutiveSummary....................................................................................................... 3 Background..................................................................................................................... 4 Methodology................................................................................................................... 4 ResourceReview............................................................................................................5 FieldReview....................................................................................................................6 Conclusion...................................................................................................................... 7 List of Appendices Appendix A Figures Appendix B Routine On-site Determination Method Datasheets Appendix C Site Photographs Appendix D Antecedent Precipitation Record Appendix E Credentials WETLAND ASSESSMENT 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE & 2710 PENCE LANE ORONO, MN APRIL 2017 MAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE Contact Information Prepared For: Landowner: Agent: William & Susan Dunkley 2709 Walters Port Lane Orono, MN 55331 Maple Crest Landscape 2425 Highway 55 Medina, MN 55340 Phone: (763) 478-2752 Email: greg@maplecrestlandscape.com Prepared By: Ben Hodapp Environmental Services Manager Tina Justen Environmental Associate Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC 13605 1st Avenue North Suite 100 Plymouth, MN 55441 Phone: (763) 412-4000 Fax: (763) 412-4090 Website: www.ae-mn.com WETLAND ASSESSMENT 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE & 2710 PENCE LANE ORONO, MN APRIL 2017 CONTACT INFORMATION MAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE Executive Summary EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC was retained to provide professional wetland services to identify those areas meeting wetland criteria utilizing the 1987 United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1; January 1987) and all supplemental guidance documents within the residential properties located at 2709 Walters Port Lane & 2710 Pence Lane in the City of Orono, Minnesota. Geographically, the area is located in Section 21, Township 117 North, Range 23 West. One Type 1, PF01A, seasonally flooded basin was identified and delineated within the project area. Wetland 1 is located entirely within the project area and is approximately 0.21 acres in size. WETLAND ASSESSMENT 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE & 2710 PENCE LANE ORONO, MN APRIL 2017 MAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE BACKGROUND & METHODOLOGY Background As requested by Maple Crest Landscape, Anderson Engineering of MN, LLC completed a wetland investigation at the specified project area located at 2709 Walters Port Lane & 2710 Pence Lane, in the City of Orono, Minnesota. Geographically, the sites are located in Section 21, Township 117 North, Range 23 West. The wetland delineation was completed in accordance with the 1987 United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the published regional supplement to the Army Corps Wetland Delineation Manual, Midwest Region. The purpose of this study was to investigate the project area, identify areas meeting the technical criteria for wetlands, delineate the jurisdictional extent of the wetland, and classify the wetland habitat. Fieldwork for this site investigation was completed by Environmental Associate Tina Justen and GIS Specialist Joe Aden on April 5, 2017. The weather was partly cloudy with a temperature of 50 degrees Fahrenheit. Methodolo United States Geologic Service 7.5" Topographic Quadrangle maps, United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory maps, United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey and available aerial photographs were consulted to initially locate potential wetland habitats. Routine On-site Determination Method was used during this investigation. In this method, the following procedures were used: 1) The vegetative community was sampled in all present strata to determine whether it met hydrophytic vegetation criteria based on the indicators identified in the Midwest Regional Supplement. 2) Soil pits were dug using a Dutch auger to depths of at least 24". Soil profile was noted, in addition to any hydric soil characteristics. 3) Signs of wetland hydrology were noted and compared to field criteria such as depth to shallow water table and depth of soil saturation found in the soil pits. Data from sample points were recorded on Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Wetland Determination Data Forms (Appendix 8). At least one sample point transect crosses the delineated wetland edge. This transect consist of an upland sample point and a wetland sample point. Other sample points may be located in areas which have one or more of the wetland vegetation, soils, or hydrologic characteristics present; where questionable conditions exist; or to verify the absence of wetland criteria. Photographs are also taken at each sample point, and of the wetland and upland buffer (Appendix C). Sample points were marked in the field with orange flags. The identified wetland boundary was marked with sequentially numbered pink flags. All sample points and the delineated wetland boundary were located utilizing a Trimble Geo XH sub -meter GPS unit. WETLAND ASSESSMENT 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE & 2710 PENCE LANE ORONO, MN APRIL 2017 MAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE Resource Review The following resources were reviewed to supplement the wetland field delineation: National Wetlands Inventory: RESOURCE REVIEW The National Wetlands Inventory (Appendix A. Figure 2) identifies one PF01A wetland within the project area. USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey: Soil Survey data for Hennepin County, MN were obtained and reviewed prior to the delineation. Table 1 provides a list of the mapped soils within the investigation area. Figure 3 in Appendix A contains a map of the soil units with percent hydric components. Table 1 - Summary of Mapped Soil Units within the Project Area Map Unit Map Unit Name Hydric Soil Hydric Drainage % of Project Symbol Rating (%) Soil Classification Area L37B Angus loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 5 No Well Drained 48.3% L22D2 Lester loam, 10 to 16 percent slopes, 0 No Well Drained 39.1% moderately eroded L16A Muskego, Blue Earth, and Houghton soils, 100 Yes Very Poorly Drained 11.6% ponded, 0 to 1 percent slopes W Water 0 NA NA 1.0% Hydric soils are defined in the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States: Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, version 7.0, 2010 (NRCS, 2010), The 1987 Manual, and The Regional Supplement (USACE, August 2010). Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Public Water Inventory: The MN DNR PWI for Hennepin County, MN (Appendix A. Figure 4) identifies Lake Minnetonka, adjacent to the southwest boundary of the parcel. Antecedent Precipitation Data: An analysis of the University of Minnesota Climatology Working Group's 30 day rolling precipitation data for the previous three months (Appendix D) indicate that precipitation totals for previous weeks were below the normal monthly range for this project area, but trending towards normal. Hydrologic conditions were suitable for completing an accurate wetland determination and boundary delineation. WETLAND ASSESSMENT 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE & 2710 PENCE LANE ORONO, MN APRIL 2017 MAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE Field Review FIELD REVIEW Wetland 1: Wetland 1 is a Type 1, PF01A, seasonally flooded basin. There is no discernable outlet; this basin appears to be hydrologically isolated. Overall, the wetland vegetation is dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and American elm (Ulmus americana). The underlying soils are mapped as Muskego, Blue Earth and Houghton soils (1-16A). The investigated soil profile met the redox dark surface (F6) hydric soil indicator. Hydrology indicators observed include saturation (A3), geomorphic position (D2), and the FAC -Neutral Test (D5). The upland buffer surrounding the wetland is a manicured lawn primarily vegetated with wood violet (Viola sororia), staghorn sumac (Rhus typhina), burr oak (Quercus macrocarpa), and sugar maple (Acer saccharum). The transition between the upland and the wetland varies between gentle slopes and steep slopes. The project area is located adjacent to Lake Minnetonka. The shoreline associated with the project area is bound by riprap and steel sheet piling. WETLAND ASSESSMENT 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE & 2710 PENCE LANE ORONO, MN APRIL 2017 MAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE Conclusion CONCLUSION One wetland was identified and delineated in accordance with the 1987 United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual within the project area located at 2709 Walters Port Lane & 2710 Pence Lane, Orono, Minnesota. The wetland in the project area may be regulated by several agencies at the local, State, and/or federal level. Activities which may potentially impact those wetlands identified within this report should be discussed in advance with the appropriate regulating agency in regards to potential permit requirements. The Local Government Unit (LGU) responsible for implementing the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act at this project location is the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District inventory classifies Wetland 1 as a Manage 3 wetland. The MCWD and the City of Orono have wetland buffer and shoreline setback requirements. Please coordinate directly with the regulatory agencies regarding the requirements for this specific wetland and project. This wetland investigation meets the standards and criteria described in the 1987 United States Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual all applicable subsequent guidance for an on-site determination and the results reflect the conditions present at the time of the delineation. 1 certify that I performed the field analysis and wrote the report for this wetland determination. Tina Justen Environmental Associate Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC 04/10/2017 Date 1 certify that I performed the field analysis and/or reviewed work completed by above staff. 9 t6 Benjamin J Hodapp, PWS Environmental Services Manager MN Certified Wetland Delineator #1016 Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC WETLAND ASSESSMENT 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE & 2710 PENCE LANE ORONO, MN APRIL 2017 04/10/2017 Date BENJAMIN J. HODAPP _ oo�e3z APPENDIX A Figures A- s�- 7ri � c I L/ af a fj t t o B a. • } r` _ �� * $`tea _ � � n. " �• •~`« � _ -}h , � � ~� l �pf moi, �� `� c+ Project Location hp X C .i ; C " 'oint �]C� MINNEiONKA Hennepin County City of Orono SOURCE: MN DNR, USDA, ESRI, TIGER, Bing, Hennepin Co., Anderson Engineering I ANDERSON Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC 13605 1st Avenue North PlymoutSuite10h0 , MN 55441 ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE • LAND SURVEYING 763-412-4000 (o) 763-412-4090 (f) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE www.ae-mn.com 1 in = 0.25 miles E) 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles 2710 Pence Lane & 2709 Walters Port Lane Orono, Hennepin County, MN nrn. ne..► —1— LOCATION -FIGURE 1 MAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE WETLAND DELINEATION AE Comm.# 14653 Date: 3/31/2017 By: JLA Hennepin County City of Orono I ANDERSON Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC 13605 1st Avenue North Suite 100 Plymouth, MN 55441 ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE • LAND SURVEYING 763-412-4000 (o) 763-412-4090 (f) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE www.ae-mn.com 1 in = 200 feet 2710 Pence Lane & 2709 Walters Port Lane Orono, Hennepin County, MN Din AA W-1 . ._. ..._._.I- NWI - FIGURE 2 MAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE WETLAND DELINEATION AE Comm.# 14653 Date: 3/31/2017 By: JLA Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name L16A Muskego, Blue Earth, and Houghton soils, ponded, Oto 1 percent slopes L22D2 Lester loam, 10to 16 percent slopes, moderately eroded L37B Angus loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes W Water Hennepin County City of Orono I Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC ANDERSON 13605 1st Avenue North ,. ENGINEERING SPlymouthuite100 , MN 55441 ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE • LAND SURVEYING 763-412-4000 (o) 763-412-4090 (f) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE www.ae-mn.com 1 in = 200 feet 2710 Pence Lane & 2709 Walters Port Lane Orono, Hennepin County, MN O/A. SOILS - FIGURE 3 MAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE WETLAND DELINEATION AE Comm.# 14653 Date: 313112017 By: JLA Hennepin County City of Orono I Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC ANDERSON 13605 1st Avenue North ,. ENGINEERING PlymoutSuite10h0 , MN 55441 ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE • LAND SURVEYING 763-412-4000 (o) 763-412-4090 (f) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE www.ae-mn.com 1 in = 200 feet 2710 Pence Lane & 2709 Walters Port Lane Orono, Hennepin County, MN O/A. PWI - FIGURE 4 MAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE WETLAND DELINEATION AE Comm.# 14653 Date: 3/31/2017 By: JLA Lake Minnetonka Legend Project Extent Hennepin Co. Parcels Wetland Field Delineated F:71 4/5/2017 O Sample Point LOCATION 0 40 h "Ilk Ir 1. 41 E 00 Wetland 1 1 Type 1 } PF01A ` Seasonally J� - Flooded " Basin `b&* '�- . 0.21 Ac. + 1 F' 1 L■ }. Jl Tt Iw � xpr i , Hennepin County City of Orono SOURCE: MN DNR, USDA, ESRI, TIGER, Bing, Hennepin Co., Anderson Engineering 1 in = 200 feet e 0 100 200 400 Feet 2710 Pence Lane & 2709 Walters Port Lane Orono, Hennepin County, MN O/n. AA..I#.'-I- ware orminnesora Hennepin uounry, iwnr — •••—•-•1•— I � ANDERSON Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC Suite 11 stAvenue North Suite Plymouth, MN 55441 DELINEATION - FIGURE 5 MAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE WETLAND DELINEATION ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE • LAND SURVEYING 763-412-4000 (o) 763-412-4090 (f) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE www.ae-mn.com AE Comm.# 14653 Date: 3/31/2017 By: JLA APPENDIX 6 Routine On-site Determination Method Datasheets WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region Project/Site: 2710 Pence Lane City/County: Orono/Hennepin Sampling Date: 04/05/2017 Applicant/Owner: Maple Crest Landscape State: MN Sampling Point: A Investigator(s): Tina Justen Section, Township, Range: S. 21, Twp. 117N, R. 23W Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): toeslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-3 Lat: 44°55'40.90"N Long: 93°36'11.14"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: L16A-Muskego NWI classification: PF01A Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes X No Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet ) Remarks: Area located in a depession. All criteria were met. Area is a wetland. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Version 2.0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet ) % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Ulmus americana 10 Yes FACW Number of Dominant Species That 2. Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant Species 4. Across All Strata: 2 (B) 5 Percent of Dominant Species That 10 =Total Cover Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 feet ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 4. FACW species 100 x 2 = 200 5. FAC species 0 x 3 = 0 =Total Cover FACU species 0 x 4 = 0 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 feet ) UPL species 0 x 5 = 0 1. Phalaris arundinacea 90 Yes FACW Column Totals 100 (A) 200 (B) 2. Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.00 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 5. _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. X 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 7. X 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0' 8. 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting g. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 90 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet ) be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic 1 2. Vegetation =Total Cover Present? Yes X No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR 2/1 100 Loamy/Clayey 6-32 10YR 2/1 98 10YR 3/4 2 C M Loamy/Clayey Distinct redox concentrations 32-38 10YR 2/1 50 5GY 5/1 10 D M Loamy/Clayey 10YR 5/4 40 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: _ Histosol (Al) —Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) ? Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) —Sandy Redox (S5) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) —Black Histic (A3) —Stripped Matrix (S6) —Red Parent Material (F21) —Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) —Dark Surface (S7) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) —Stratified Layers (A5) —Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) —Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ Dark Surface (Al2) _ X Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _Thick _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water -Stained Leaves (139) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) X Saturation (A3) _True Aquatic Plants (B14) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2) —Water Marks (61) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _Sediment Deposits (132) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) —Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) X Geomorphic Position (D2) _Iron Deposits (135) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) X FAC -Neutral Test (D5) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) _Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 18 Saturation Present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 4 Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Midwest Region Project/Site: 2710 Pence Lane City/County: Orono/Hennepin Sampling Date: 04/05/2017 Applicant/Owner: Maple Crest Landscape State: MN Sampling Point: B Investigator(s): Tina Justen Section, Township, Range: S. 21, Twp. 117N, R. 23W Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): toeslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-3 Lat: 44°55'40.90"N Long: 93°36'11.14"W Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: L16A-Muskego NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes X No Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet ) Remarks: None of the criteria were met. Area is not a wetland. VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants. US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Version 2.0 Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet ) % Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet: 1. Quercus macrocarpa 30 Yes FAC Number of Dominant Species That 2. Acer saccharum 20 Yes FACU Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A) 3. Total Number of Dominant Species 4. Across All Strata: 4 (B) 5 Percent of Dominant Species That 50 =Total Cover Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50.0% (A/B) Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 feet ) Prevalence Index worksheet: 1. Rhus typhina 20 Yes UPL 2. Total % Cover of: Multiply by: 3. OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 4. FACW species 0 x 2 = 0 5. FAC species 60 x 3 = 180 20 =Total Cover FACU species 20 x 4 = 80 Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 feet ) UPL species 20 x 5 = 100 1. Viola sororia 30 Yes FAC Column Totals 100 (A) 360 (B) 2. Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.60 3. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4. 5. _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation 6. 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 7. _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 153.01 8. _ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting g. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) 10. _Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain) 30 =Total Cover 'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30 feet ) be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Hydrophytic 1 2. Vegetation =Total Cover Present? Yes No X Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region — Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2 Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR 3/2 100 Loamy/Clayey 18-24 10YR 4/1 100 Loamy/Clayey 24-30 10YR 4/2 100 Loamy/Clayey 'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: _ Histosol (Al) —Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) —Coast Prairie Redox (A16) _ Histic Epipedon (A2) —Sandy Redox (S5) _ Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) —Black Histic (A3) —Stripped Matrix (S6) —Red Parent Material (F21) —Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) —Dark Surface (S7) —Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) —Stratified Layers (A5) —Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) —Other (Explain in Remarks) 2 cm Muck (A10) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) _ _Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _ _ Redox Dark Surface (F6) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and _ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Redox Depressions (F8) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) —Surface Water (Al) —Water -Stained Leaves (139) —Surface Soil Cracks (136) _ High Water Table (A2) _Aquatic Fauna (1313) _ Drainage Patterns (B10) _Saturation (A3) _True Aquatic Plants (B14) _Dry -Season Water Table (C2) —Water Marks (61) _ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8) _Sediment Deposits (132) _Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) _Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) _ Drift Deposits (133) —Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) —Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) _Algal Mat or Crust (134) —Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) —Geomorphic Position (D2) —Iron Deposits (65) _Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5) _ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (67) _Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X (includes capillary fringe) Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 APPENDIX C Site Photographs MAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE Wetland 1, Viewing Southwest Wetland 1, Sample Point A Lake Minnetonka Shoreline, Viewing Southeast WETLAND ASSESSMENT 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE & 2710 PENCE LANE ORONO, MN APRIL 2017 APPENDIX C: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Wetland 1, Sample Point B Lake Minnetonka Shoreline, Viewing North APPENDIX D 30 Day Rolling Total Precipitation Record MAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE APPENDIX D: PRECIPITATION RECORD 30 Day Rolling Total Precipitation Analysis 2710 Pence Lane & 2709 Walters Port Lane, Orono, MN - April 5, 2017 3.5 - — y 3 — u � 2.5 Daily Precipitation 02 ♦ Site Visit +� ca .Q- 30 Day Rolling Total* u 1.5 v a Normal Monthly Range 1 0.57I 0 . . . i l 1- 12/31/2016 1/30/2017 3/1/2017 3/31/2017 4/30/2017 Source: http://climate.umn.edu/ WETLAND ASSESSMENT 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE & 2710 PENCE LANE ORONO, MN APRIL 2017 APPENDIX E Credentials Imo, ANDERSON =ENGINEERING Summary of Experience: Benjamin Hodapp, a Project Manager and Water Resource Scientist, brings a broad background of knowledge and experience in the environmental field to the BENJAMIN J. HODAPP, PWS Anderson Engineering team. Benjamin has a unique combination of environmental Environmental Services Manager training and field skills in addition to working experience at various levels of government (USADA NRCS, USDA FSA, University of MN Extension, Watonwan County Soil and Water Conservation District and Watonwan County Environmental Education: Services). MS Water Resources Management Benjamin's project experience includes environmental review document University of Wisconsin -Madison preparation, Environmental Compliance Audits and program development, natural BS Biology; Ecology resource inventory, watershed assessments, biologic assessments, BMP Minnesota State University- Mankato implementation, Threatened and Endangered Species analysis, wetland determinations, delineations, mitigation design and monitoring, regulatory permit applications, wetland functions and values assessments, flood plain analysis, Specialized Training: ordinary high water determinations and aerial photo interpretation. Environmental Awareness Bootcamp EPA Alliance Representative Projects: Wetland Delineation & Management Training . South Shore Lake Bemidji Remediation & Restoration — City of Bemidji - Richard Chinn Environmental Training, Inc. Bemidji, MN: Watershed Academy Web Certificate Lead Natural Resource Scientist involved in the concept planning, design, United States Environmental Protection Agency construction and monitoring of the City's south shoreline of Lake Bemidji. Project tasks included field investigation, existing vegetative condition mapping and report, wetland avoidance measures, native planting plans, stakeholder meetings, permit applications, post -construction monitoring and concept Professional Associations: Society of Wetland Scientists development of public outreach educational kiosks. MN Wetland Professionals Association . Olympic Hills Golf Course Renovation & Stormwater BMPs — Olympic Hills MN WPA President 2010 Golf Club- Eden Prairie, MN: Wetland permitting lead for temporary and Wisconsin Wetlands Association Minnesota Native Plant Society permanent impacts associated with sediment cleanout, vegetative Ecological Society of America management, shoreline stabilization, cart path rehabilitation/realignment and pedestrian bridge construction. Project tasks included field investigation, resource mapping, coordinating regulatory meetings, preparing permit Total Experience: applications, developing mitigation and monitoring plans and coordinating 17 years purchase of wetland bank credits. • Harriet Island to South St. Paul Regional Trail — City of St Paul, City of Years with Current Firm: South St. Paul and Dakota County — St Paul, MN: Project manager for 2004 to Present wetland delineation, mapping and assessment efforts in support of multi- disciplinary consultant team responsible for preliminary engineering and final design of trail improvements, realignment and new alignments. Project tasks Publications & Presentations: included project management oversight and coordination, supervising field staff The Future of Rowan Creek Watershed: in completion of both off-site and on-site wetland determinations, boundary Connecting Land Use and Management with Water delineations, GPS mapping and functional assessments. Oversaw preparation Quality. 2003. Water resources Management of and responsible for quality assurance and quality control of all deliverable Workshop 2002 Gaylord Nelson Institute for products including wetland summary reports and GIS shapefiles. Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison. . Southwest Light Rail Transit- Metropolitan Council — Minneapolis, MN: The Tumultuous World of Drainage Districts: An Project manager for wetland delineation and water resource permitting in Analysis of Existing Management Arrangements, support of multi -disciplinary consultant team for preparation of Final with Recommendations. Working Paper Series Environmental Impact Statement for proposed 16 mile light rail alignment. 2002-1. Water Resources Institutions and Policies, Project tasks included completion of wetland delineations, regulatory agency Department of Urban and Regional Planning, coordination, negotiations and preparation of all federal, state and local permit University of Wisconsin, Madison. applications and mitigation plans. South Shore Lake Bemidji Remediation & Restoration, Society of American Military Engineers meeting June 22, 2016, St Paul, MN. ANDERSON ENGINEERING KRISTINA A. JUSTEN Environmental Associate Education: BS Biology (2010) University of Wisconsin - River Falls Specialized Training: Certified in Stream Electrofishing WI DNR, April 2010 Professional Associations: MN Wetland Professionals Association Summary of Experience: Kristina Justen, an Environmental Associate, brings a range of knowledge and experience in the environmental field to the Anderson Engineering team. Prior to her employment with Anderson Engineering of MN, LLC, Kristina worked as a technician for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The skills Kristina has developed through her educational background and experience as a technician make her proficient in assessing and addressing a range of environmental issues, and clearly communicating solutions to clients and various regulatory agencies. Kristina's project experience includes natural resource inventory, watershed assessments, biologic assessments, Threatened and Endangered Species analysis, NEPA project management and environmental review document preparation, wetland determinations, delineations, mitigation design and monitoring, regulatory permit applications, wetland functions and values assessments, flood plain analysis, ordinary high water determinations, Environmental Compliance Audit activities, wetland macroinvertebrate sampling, Floristic Quality Assessments, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) investigation, and aerial photo interpretation. Kristina has experience with Global Positioning Systems (GPS), remote sensing, and Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Total Experience: Representative Projects: 6 years • Southwest Light Rail Transit- Metropolitan Council — Minneapolis, MN: Services for wetland delineation and permitting efforts in support of multi - Years with Current Firm: disciplinary consultant team for preparation of Final Environmental Impact 2010 to Present Statement for proposed 16 mile light rail alignment. Project tasks included completion of a wetland field investigations, boundary delineations, functional assessments, GPS mapping and preparation of federal, state and local wetland permits. Wetland Delineation/Assessment — Fort McCoy Alderwood Dam Removal — Fort McCoy, Wl: Services included a wetland determination and delineation of wetland associated with a proposed dam removal project at the Fort McCoy U.S. Army installation. Project tasks included completion of a wetland delineation following the 1987 USACE Wetland Manual and the Midwest Regional Supplement and preparation of the wetland delineation report to document findings and help assess potential wetland impacts for Section 401/404 permitting. NEPA Documentation/Wetland Permitting — Omaha National Cemetery — Omaha, NE: Services included preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and supplemental permit coordination with the Omaha District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for proposed wetland impacts. Wetland permitting activities included completion of a wetland boundary delineation in compliance with the 1987 USACE Wetland Manual and Midwest Regional Supplement, and preparation of a USACE permit application package that included a design for an on-site compensatory wetland mitigation area. Wetland Delineation, Permitting, and Compliance Activities — Various Locations: Services include completing the following general tasks in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations: performing routine wetland determination and delineations to identify regulated aquatic resources; preparing wetland permit applications that outline impact sequencing and replacement/mitigation requirements; providing technical assistance to clients to develop and implement corrective actions to address compliance violations. Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision Local Government Unit (LGU) Address Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 15320 Minnetonka Blvd Minnetonka, MN 55345 1. PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Name Project Name Date of Application Application Number William & Susan Dunkley 2710 Pence Lane & 2709 Walters 4/27/2017 W17-09 Port Lane ® Attach site locator map ® Attach approved boundaries Type of Decision: ® Wetland Boundary or Type ❑ No -Loss ❑ Exemption ❑ Sequencing ❑ Replacement Plan ❑ Banking Plan Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendation (if any): ❑ Approve ❑ Approve with conditions ❑ Deny Summary (or attach): 2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DECISION Date of Decision: 6/6/2017 ® Approved ❑ Approved with conditions (include below) ❑ Denied LGU Findings and Conclusions (attach additional sheets as necessary): William & Susan Dunkley applied for a wetland boundary & type confirmation for the wetlands located at the 2710 Pence Lane & 2709 Walters Port Lane (PID= 2111723230051) in the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Legal description: Sections 21, Township 117N, Range 23W. The boundary & type approval was requested April 27th, 2017. A wetland delineation was conducted by Anderson Engineering on April 10th, 2017. A complete delineation report and WCA application were submitted to MCWD on April 27", 2017. One wetland was delineated within the project area. Wetland 1 was identified as a Type 1, seasonally flooded basin. MCWD and Anderson Engineering reviewed the boundaries in the field on May 23`d, 2017. MCWD approves the wetland boundaries and types as documented in the delineation report submitted on April 27th, 2017 and delineated in the field on April 10th, 2017. This decision is valid for five years. A future project located on this property may require a permit from the MCWD. BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 1 of 3 For Replacement Plans using credits from the State Wetland Bank: Bank Account # Bank Service Area County Credits Approved for Name Title Rachel Workin Withdrawal (sq. ft. or nearest Signatu a Date Phone Number and E-mail .01 acre) Replacement Plan Approval Conditions. In addition to any conditions specified by the LGU, the approval of a Wetland Replacement Plan is conditional upon the following: ❑ Financial Assurance: For project -specific replacement that is not in -advance, a financial assurance specified by the LGU must be submitted to the LGU in accordance with MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9 (List amount and type in LGU Findings). ❑ Deed Recording: For project -specific replacement, evidence must be provided to the LGU that the BWSR "Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants" and "Consent to Replacement Wetland" forms have been filed with the county recorder's office in which the replacement wetland is located. ❑ Credit Withdrawal: For replacement consisting of wetland bank credits, confirmation that BWSR has withdrawn the credits from the state wetland bank as specified in the approved replacement plan. Wetlands may not be impacted until all applicable conditions have been met! LGU Authorized Signature: Signing and mailing of this completed form to the appropriate recipients in accordance with 8420.0255, Subp. 5 provides notice that a decision was made by the LGU under the Wetland Conservation Act as specified above. If additional details on the decision exist, they have been provided to the landowner and are available from the LGU upon request. Name Title Rachel Workin Permitting Technician Signatu a Date Phone Number and E-mail 6/6/2017 (952) 641-4518 rworkin@minnehahacreek.org THIS DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO THE MINNESOTA WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT. Additional approvals or permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Check with all appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. Applicants proceed at their own risk if work authorized by this decision is started before the time period for appeal (30 days) has expired. If this decision is reversed or revised under appeal, the applicant may be responsible for restoring or replacing all wetland impacts. This decision is valid for three years from the date of decision unless a longer period is advised by the TEP and specified in this notice of decision. 3. APPEAL OF THIS DECISION Pursuant to MN Rule 8420.0905, any appeal of this decision can only be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal, including applicable fee, within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice to the following as indicated: Check one: ® Appeal of an LGU staff decision. Send ❑ Appeal of LGU governing body decision. petition and $0 fee (if applicable) to: Send petition and $500 filing fee to: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Executive Director 15320 Minnetonka Blvd Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Minnetonka, MN 55345 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 2 of 3 4. LIST OF ADDRESSEES ® SWCD TEP member: Stacey Lijewski — stacey.lijewski@hennepin.us ® BWSR TEP member: Ben Meyer — ben.meyer@state.mn.us ❑ LGU TEP member (if different than LGU Contact): ® DNR TEP Becky Horton- becky.horton@state.mn.us ® DNR Regional Office (if different than DNR TEP member): ❑ WD or WMO (if applicable): ® Applicant (notice only) and Landowner (if different): William & Susan Dunkley ® Members of the public who requested notice (notice only): bhodapp@ae-mn.com; kjusten@ae- mn.com; greg@maplecrestlandscape.com; cmattson@ci.orono.mn.us; mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us ® Corps of Engineers Project Manager (notice only): Ryan Malterud - Ryan.M.Malterud@usace.army.mil ❑ BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator (wetland bank plan applications only) 5. MAILING INFORMATION ➢For a list of BWSR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/workareas/WCA areas.pdf ➢For a list of DNR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/DNR TEP_contacts.pdf ➢Department of Natural Resources Regional Offices: NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Reg. Env. Assess. Reg. Env. Assess. Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources Div. Ecol. Resources Ecol. Div. Ecol. Resources 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd. 1201 E. Hwy. 2 Div. Ecol. Resources 261 Hwy. 15 South NE Grand Rapids, MN 1200 Warner Road New Ulm, MN 56073 Bemidji, MN 56601 55744 St. Paul, MN 55106 For a map of DNR Administrative Regions, see: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/dnr_regions.pdf ➢For a list of Corps of Project Managers: www.p vp.usace.army.mil/re ug latory/default.asp?pageid=687 or send to: US Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District, ATTN: OP -R 180 Fifth St. East, Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 55101-1678 ➢For Wetland Bank Plan applications, also send a copy of the application to: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Wetland Bank Coordinator 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 6. ATTACHMENTS In addition to the site locator map, list any other attachments: BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 3 of 3 A- s�- 7ri � c I L/ af a fj t t o B a. • } r` _ �� * $`tea _ � � n. " �• •~`« � _ -}h , � � ~� l �pf moi, �� `� c+ Project Location hp X C .i ; C " 'oint �]C� MINNEiONKA Hennepin County City of Orono SOURCE: MN DNR, USDA, ESRI, TIGER, Bing, Hennepin Co., Anderson Engineering I ANDERSON Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC 13605 1st Avenue North PlymoutSuite10h0 , MN 55441 ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE • LAND SURVEYING 763-412-4000 (o) 763-412-4090 (f) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE www.ae-mn.com 1 in = 0.25 miles E) 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 Miles 2710 Pence Lane & 2709 Walters Port Lane Orono, Hennepin County, MN nrn. ne..► —1— LOCATION -FIGURE 1 MAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE WETLAND DELINEATION AE Comm.# 14653 Date: 3/31/2017 By: JLA Lake Minnetonka Legend Project Extent Hennepin Co. Parcels Wetland Field Delineated F:71 4/5/2017 O Sample Point LOCATION 0 F 40 h "Ilk Ir 1. 41 E 00 Wetland 1 1 Type 1 } PF01A ` Seasonally J� - Flooded " Basin `b&* '�- . 0.21 Ac. + 1 F' 1 L■ }. Jl Tt Iw � xpr i , Hennepin County City of Orono SOURCE: MN DNR, USDA, ESRI, TIGER, Bing, Hennepin Co., Anderson Engineering 1 in = 200 feet e 0 100 200 400 Feet 2710 Pence Lane & 2709 Walters Port Lane Orono, Hennepin County, MN O/n. AA..I#.'-I- ware orminnesora Hennepin uounry, iwnr — •••—•-•1•— I � ANDERSON Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC Suite 11 stAvenue North Suite Plymouth, MN 55441 DELINEATION - FIGURE 5 MAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE WETLAND DELINEATION ENGINEERING ENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE • LAND SURVEYING 763-412-4000 (o) 763-412-4090 (f) ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE www.ae-mn.com AE Comm.# 14653 Date: 3/31/2017 By: JLA MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. LA18-0000.55 PAUL VOGSTROM, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN, 6:49 P.M. — 8:07 P.M. Paul Vogstrom, Applicant, was present. Curtis noted the applicant submitted some slightly updated plans this afternoon and the location of the driveway gate coming off of Walters Point has been revised. Curtis stated in 2017 the Dunkleys requested a lot line rearrangement after purchasing the adjacent property and demolishing the home on that lot. The goal of their former application was to move the common property line between the two properties to enlarge their residence lot in order to construct an addition while leaving a lot to build a new home between their home and the property at 2715 Pence Lane. The lot line rearrangement application required a number of variances, and after receiving unsupportive feedback from both the Planning Commission and the City Council, the applicants withdrew that request. The property owners then combined the two properties into one PID so they could proceed with the permitting for the addition to the existing home. The lot combination was completed and the property currently addressed 2709 Walters Port Lane now has a total of 4.3 dry acres and approximately 515 feet in width measured in a straight line at the OHWL. It is zoned LR -1B, which has a one -acre minimum lot area. The addition to the home required average lakeshore setback, 75 -foot setback and hardcover variances. which were granted. The variances were granted in November of 2017 and the addition is under construction currently. Today the property owners are requesting feedback on a very similar proposal. Because the property as it exists today results from the recent combination of 2709 Walters Port Land and 2710 Pence Lane, a subdivision, rather than a lot line rearrangement, is necessary. A subdivision must conform to the standards of the City Code. The Commission should discuss the appropriate level of flexibility for a subdivision. The Commission and Council should be very cautious when considering a subdivision that does not meet the standards of the City Code. Waivers and variances at the creation of a lot almost always require further variances and waivers when the property is actually used. The issues identified during the initial proposal remain unresolved. The applicant is now proposing to create a new lakeshore lot between their Walters Port home and the Hueler property at 2715 Pence. Their plans show a one -acre lot east of the Dunkley home, wrapping around the Hueler lot. The plan suggests the proposed new lot is 1.0 acres and meets the 140 -foot width at the lake and at the 75 -foot setback. These dimensions will be verified during the formal review phase. Based on the configuration, the proposed Lot 2 is narrow in the middle where a conforming house would be located. The house shown on the sketch requires an average lakeshore setback variance to create a building envelope. Curtis noted the blue line depicts the average lakeshore setback for this lot. Curtis stated she is not sure at this point based on the plans before her whether it would be possible to locate a house on the property conforming to the average lakeshore setback and at the present time a significant amount of the project would take place in front of the average lakeshore setback. In addition, the roadway or driveway entering the property may require additional variances for Lot 2 since it does not meet the standards of a private roadway. If it is to be an outlot, which is one of the requirements to create a third lot, it would require a cul-de-sac. The applicants are proposing a disconnect from their current driveway at Walters Port and a gated connection at the L or the corner on the south end of Walters Port in an effort to accommodate some sort of turnaround although not meeting the code minimums. Curtis indicated she has identified a number of issues in the staff report that the Planning Commission should discuss. The goal of tonight's review is to provide the property owners and developer with an overview of the pertinent City ordinances, how they affect the proposed plat, and then discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. The above issues for discussion reveal a number of issues with the proposed plat and should provide direction to the applicant regarding the plat. As a sketch plan review, any comments or suggestions to the applicant are non-binding but should be extremely helpful. Thiesse asked if the applicants could terminate one of the driveways and not make it looped driveway. Curtis stated the Walters Port home is currently served off of Pence Lane driveway as is the Hueler residence. The applicants also still have a connection to Walters Port but that lot no longer exists. Thiesse asked if they are proposing to have that lot brought back. Curtis indicated they are. Thiesse asked whether the City would allow the driveway to serve two lots by one of the driveways and one house served by another driveway if the applicants were to terminate the loop to Walters Port where that driveway hits the main road. Curtis pointed out there will be three houses served off of Pence. Thiesse asked if that would be more compliant. Curtis stated if they would not connect their existing home to Pence Lane, that would help from a driveway/road standpoint but that is not the applicants' goal. Curtis stated her understanding is that they are trying to accommodate some type of access and turnaround for emergency vehicles but it appears to be too much in a place that does not really allow that to happen. Curtis displayed an aerial photograph of the area and pointed out the location of the demolished house and the Hueler home. Curtis noted the existing house currently accesses onto Walters Port with no connection onto Pence Lane. McCutcheon asked if they could feasibly put a house on the proposed lot. Curtis indicated they could place a smaller house on the lot. If the house is located behind the blue line, it is unclear whether the width would be of a sufficient size to be adequate. Thiesse asked if the original house met the 75 -foot setback. Curtis stated to her knowledge it did not. Paul Vogstrom noted the green line is the old house. Erickson asked if there are still three gates being proposed. Curtis stated to her understanding there are three gates, but the applicant will need to address that. Curtis stated in one of the renderings there appears to be a gate and that she is not sure if that was the end of a driveway or an outlot. Thiesse asked how the City feels about a house being moved and whether it has any grandfathered lakeshore setback. Curtis stated the lots have been combined. Paul Vogstrom, Applicant, stated they only have two gates proposed and that the one in the middle was possibly going to be an outlot but they instead are going to move the driveway just a little bit east of the Y. Vogstrom stated they are actually proposing to have Lot 2 access off of Walters Port and then Lot 1 would still access from Pence Lane. Currently it is accessing from Walters Port. Walters Port would then end near the kidney shaped berm. Curtis asked if he is proposing that Lot 1 access via Pence and that Lot 2 cross the private driveway of Lot 1 to have their access off of Walters Port. Vogstrom indicated that is correct. Vogstrom stated when they looked at developing the property a year ago with an improved road, nobody in the neighborhood was in favor of that and that it just seemed to be less impactful by doing what they are proposing, which is similar to another plan they had submitted. Vogstrom commented they are attempting to make this all work with what they are dealing with, and that one of the issues is the turnaround in and out of Walters Port. Vogstrom indicated during a neighborhood meeting last week there was a medical situation and that it was hard for the ambulance to come and go, which is the reason why the gate has been moved a little further south to allow for a vehicle turnaround in that area. Vogstrom stated they are trying to improve an existing problem on Walters Port. Vogstrom stated adding a cul-de-sac is feasible but that the neighbors are not in favor of it. Vogstrom stated the last time he presented on this, they had discussed an idea where they could make the existing driveway wider and also have a turnaround. Vogstrom indicated he met with the fire chief regarding that proposal and he was on board with that. Vogstrom stated he is trying to understand the reasoning for the new and improved road but that they are trying to accommodate it but that they require some variances in order to go on Walters Port and also go around from Pence. As far as the average setback, Vogstrom noted there was an existing home on the lot that was combined, which was removed, and that the lots were combined in order for the Dunkleys to get their addition going on their existing house. Vogstrom stated the lot combination lot triggered something else and that prior to the removal of the home, they had the right to build in that footprint. Vogstrom stated they are now proposing to move it back 17 feet so it is out of the line of sight, and since that lot has a point at the shoreline, it does not make sense to not grant the variance. Thiesse commented it would have been easier if they had not combined the lots. Thiesse asked if the intent is for Pence to be the driveway of choice for the property. Vogstrom stated it would be for Lot 1 and that they would also like to have Lots 1, 2, and 3 access off of that driveway, but that they are willing to sacrifice the access for Lot 2 so the need for an extra variance is not triggered. Vogstrom indicated they are willing to work with Staff to resolve the issues. Thiesse asked how wide Pence is. Vogstrom indicated it is 11 to 12 feet wide and that they are proposing to widen it to 16 to 18 feet. Thiesse asked how wide Walters Port is. Eric Vogstrom stated it is 16 feet. Thiesse asked if both roads are driveways. Curtis indicated Pence is a driveway and Walters Port Road is a private road. Vogstrom stated having a 50 -foot right-of-way impacts the wetland and that they have studied the impacts of that. Vogstrom noted a lot of the water flows from around the whole development and surrounding properties into a pipe and then directly into the wetland. Vogstrom stated they are proposing to work with the Watershed District so they can take the pipe going to the northern part of the land and filter it into the land and eventually into the wetland. Thiesse noted Staff has identified 11 items the Planning Commission should discuss. Curtis requested the Commission also discuss the driveway crossing over onto Walters Port. Thiesse noted this is not a public hearing but that he would allow public comments on the sketch plan. Greg Hueler, 2715 Pence Lane, stated since this project started, he has had between 20 to 30 neighbors call him to ask him what is going on. Hueler stated during this process they have seen a number of surveys showing this to be a point, which is not the case, and that it is a straight line down from his property to the Dunkleys' property. Some of the neighbors have been asking what the consequences are of tearing out big trees near the shoreline and what the consequences are of moving tons of dirt and getting a stop and desist order. Hueler stated there are a whole lot of things that are problematic for him with the project. Hueler noted the developer talked about the existing home that was torn down. Hueler noted since the home is no longer there, it is a moot problem. Hueler stated the original plan was shut down but that the Dunkleys are now back asking for a subdivision, which most of the citizens think is going to be more restrictive. Hueler stated the applicants are now proposing to put a house in half of his sightline and that he is wondering why the City would allow that. There is 83 feet between the proposed house and his property line, and if the house is located in the spot where Ms. Curtis is suggesting, the Dunkleys could maybe put a garage in there but not the type of house that the neighbors would like. Hueler recommended the Commissioners come look at the property. Hueler stated in his view more people would have been here if they had known about the meeting but that a lot of people are watching what is happening here and that there likely will be more feedback. Hueler indicated the last phone call he had with Sue Dunkley was where she said she would sue them, which she did the next day, and that she said they will get another lot categorically. Hueler questioned whether there are people in authority that have given her that kind of feedback. Hueler stated he has a concern with that and that it has been a frustrating process. There were no further public comments regarding the sketch plan. Thiesse noted the first discussion point listed in Staff s report is that the Commission and Council should discuss the appropriate level of flexibility for a subdivision. Thiesse asked if they require one acre. Curtis stated that is necessary for a lot with frontage on a road. Thiesse asked if they meet that. Curtis stated it is unclear at this point and that it sounds like the applicants are proposing the access as an outlot that stops and that this would be their frontage on a substandard road. Eric Vogstrom stated the new lot would be one acre and that currently the site is five acres. Erickson noted at the time of the original proposal the minutes reflect that there were considerable differences of opinion between the neighbor and the applicant regarding the legal description and other elements of the proposal and that he is just wondering if those differences have been addressed. Hueler stated the topic of the lawsuit is the Dunkleys want to overthrow the easements that have been in place for decades but that the current easement is still in place. Thiesse asked if he has an easement, Hueler stated they have two easements. One easement is to use the 600 feet of roadway from the gate to their home and the second easement is from Kelly Avenue to the gate. That easement has an undivided interest for three homes to share that little strip of road. Hueler stated in his view what is being proposed with the new lot crossing the driveway is that everyone is going to use that driveway, which they say is going to Walters Port, but that most vehicles will use it to get to Pence Lane Vogstrom stated what is in dispute is the access easement before the gate, which was really the big opposition when they formally brought the plan before the Planning Commission the first time. Vogstrom noted they presented a sketch plan before that meeting and that the sketch plan received full support from Staff and Mr. Hueler. Vogstrom indicated they have been working on a driveway that will have less impact for the neighbors and that they basically have been just trying to accommodate what the neighbors would like to see happen. Thiesse stated when he drove through the property the last time, there were a lot of trees removed. Vogstrom stated there have been trees removed and that the landscape designer can address that. Vogstrom noted the previous application had a number of different variances and that he did not have the time to go through them one by one. Vogstrom indicated he is trying to get an idea of what to do from here, and that if a 50 -foot cul-de-sac is needed, that is what they will do, but that they are trying to make it better for everyone and have a turnaround for Walters Port. Vogstrom stated he would love to have everyone walk the lot and have a neighborhood meeting about the best way to use this property. Curtis noted the trees beyond the 75 -foot setback are not protected, and with a subdivision, the applicant is required to do a Conservation Design. It was originally presented as a sketch plan for a lot line rearrangement. Thiesse asked in order for the driveway to be compliant whether it would need to have a 50 -foot wide right-of-way with a full cul-de-sac at the end of it. Curtis stated that is correct and that it would be a private road. Thiesse stated it appears the cul-de-sac is there to allow emergency vehicles to come in, turn around, and then go back out. Curtis stated that was discussed previously and to her knowledge the Fire Chief is open to discussing that as well as the City Council. Curtis stated the plan is not clear and it is not a concise and well understood access at this time. Curtis noted the second lot accessing via Walters Port will be addressed Walters Port but that it will be in the middle of two Pence Lane properties. Curtis stated the cul-de-sac could vary somewhat but that she candidly does not think this plan resolves the access issues. Thiesse commented he does not think so either and that the applicants are looking for direction. Thiesse stated in his view a 16 -foot road is not wide enough for either road but that a cul-de-sac might not be necessary because the intent is there with the two roads. Thiesse stated at the end of the day they could make the addresses all Pence Lane since they are going to use either road. Erickson stated he tends to agree with John Thiesse and that an additional road can be substituted for a cul-de-sac. Erickson stated what concerns him in this case is the use of gates that could nullify the other road. Erickson asked what would happen if there is an emergency. Vogstrom noted there would be a lock box on the gates. Curtis stated UPS and other vehicles would not have access to that lock box. Vogstrom stated currently the gate automatically opens when someone drives up to it. Erickson commented that would work as long as there is no power outage. Eric Vogstrom stated the gate could be hooked to a generator. Vogstrom indicated they have met with the fire chief and that he is definitely for it. Vogstrom stated they did not want to put the big cul-de-sac in because they do not believe the Huelers would like that. Vogstrom indicated they did meet with all the neighbors last week and went over the plans and that a lot of the neighbors are supportive. Thiesse asked if a 24 -foot wide road would work for them. Eric Vogstrom indicated it would. Thiesse stated he can live without a cul-de-sac but that he would like to see the gates go away. Thiesse asked if Walters Port could be increased to 24 feet wide. Curtis indicated that is unknown at this time. Thiesse stated that will need to be addressed at some point. Mark Hauri, MH Design Group, stated he is working on the landscaping portion of the project. As it relates to the 24 -foot wide road, the plan would be to actually move the road off the property line. Currently the road is located a couple of feet off the property line and that they would like to move it so they can do some screening with evergreens. Hauri noted up at the top of the property there are some evergreens and they would like to continue that, but if they have to widen the road to 24 feet, they would lose that screening. Hauri stated they are also attempting to solve the issue of water on that side of the road. Currently there are three properties that drain into a pipe that goes directly to the wetland and that they would like to capture that water so there is not water running immediately into the wetland. Vogstrom pointed out to the north and south of the pond they would have a wider width, such as 24 feet, so people would be able to pass. Thiesse stated in his opinion the current road is not wide enough. Libby asked if this property is served by the Orono School District and whether busses come and pick up children. Eric Vogstrom indicated it is the Mound Westonka School District. Libby stated in addition to emergency vehicles, the road should also be able to accommodate larger vehicles such as school busses. Libby stated the Planning Commission needs to make sure the road is adequate going into the future. Libby asked whether the utilities would be retained in their present location. Curtis stated the existing utilities in the easements would not change and that the applicants are proposing to add a hydrant or move a hydrant. Eric Vogstrom indicated they did meet with the fire chief and that they assumed if the fire chief was okay with the plan, the City would be as well. Curtis asked whether he has seen the current plan. Vogstrom indicated the fire chief has not seen this exact plan. Vogstrom asked if they got his okay on it whether that would satisfy the City's requirement. Thiesse noted the City Council has the final decision. Erickson stated in addition to the fire department, they also have the police and ambulance crew. Hauri stated the Dunkleys are more than happy to accommodate the fire chief and emergency vehicles. Thiesse asked where gate two is located. Curtis indicated it is on Lot 1, which is the Dunkley property. Eric Vogstrom stated to his knowledge both gates are on the Dunkley property. Curtis pointed out the location of the two gates. Ressler commented it seems like adding gates kind of eliminates the purpose of making the road a loop regardless if the gate is motion sensored. Ressler asked if the gates are that important. Vogstrom noted there are two gates and not three and that he can speak with the Dunkleys about them. There is a gate currently on Pence, which opens automatically. Vogstrom stated they did talk about adding a third gate with a strobe light that would open automatically so people did not have to get out of their cars. Vogstrom stated they would like to have the gate because they do not want someone who is not familiar with the area driving all around. Thiesse commented there are a lot of gates in the City of Orono and that could be part of the applicants' flexibility. Vogstrom indicated they are open to suggestions. Libby stated a gate usually has fencing associated with it and a desire for privacy. Libby asked if the gates are in conjunction with fencing. Vogstrom indicated there are little stone columns holding the gate. Libby asked if the gate is more to delineate the driveway rather than for security or safety. Vogstrom stated it was probably more aesthetic and that the gate opens automatically if someone drives up to it. Libby asked if he sees any kind of safety issues with the crossing of the two driveways. Vogstrom stated right now that area is wide open and that they will keep visibility in mind when landscaping. Vogstrom stated the Walters Port driveway will be for emergency access and that all three properties will access off of Pence, with a turnaround for trucks and other vehicles. Thiesse stated in his view gated roads are not an acceptable alternative to a cul-de-sac, and that if they are going to continue to propose gates, they should be prepared to defend them before the City Council. Ressler commented anything they can do to simplify it would be helpful and that maybe they should consider placing the gates on each individual property. Erickson stated he was visiting relatives over the weekend and that they have a gate hooked up to a generator. Erickson stated the power went out and the generator did nothing. Erickson stated fortunately the power company got the power going again in four hours, but that if someone was having a heart attack, that would be a long four hours. Erickson indicated it turned out the battery was old and needed to be replaced. Erickson stated if something like that happens in an emergency situation, that could have big consequences. Erickson questioned whether the City would assume any liability if they approve the gate. Thiesse asked if they are proposing any outlots for the roads. Vogstrom stated they are open to that but that they would rather not. Curtis asked if the driveway is an outlot. Vogstrom indicated it is not at this point and that they are not proposing an outlot. Vogstrom stated his thought was that they could go on Walters Port and not have to create an outlot for the new road. Curtis noted that road does not have road frontage and as a result they would be creating a back lot and a second back lot with no frontage. Curtis noted that back lot needs to be 150 percent of the area. Vogstrom stated that would happen if they have the third driveway. Curtis noted they need to have frontage on the road or it is considered a back lot. Curtis stated a big piece of this is that lot does not have road frontage at all. Eric Vogstrom indicated they would be open to doing an outlot. Thiesse asked if they can have two back lots. Curtis stated the City typically only allows one back lot. Thiesse noted Item No. 7 relates to the need for a conforming building envelope, which this lot does not appear to have, and that a newly created lot is required to have a conforming building envelope. Item No. 7 states: An average lakeshore setback variance would be necessary for Lot 2 as configured. The alignment of the shoreline for proposed Lot 2 is not a peninsula but rather a curved shoreline, which is very common along the lake. The creation of the new lot in this configuration would be a self-created practical difficulty which would not be supportable. Thiesse noted in order to expedite the project, the Dunkleys combined the lots and that subsequently changed the situation. Thiesse stated the applicants cannot create their own practical difficulty, which was done in this case. Vogstrom stated that is something that he will have to address with the Dunkleys. Thiesse stated as it relates to the average lakeshore setback, if the neighboring properties are against it, that holds a lot of water with him. Vogstrtom stated he does not see anyone's view being blocked. Hueler requested the Planning Commissioners walk the property. Vogstrom pointed out the location of the old home and noted their proposal would be back here. Vogstrom stated the new house is not going to block his view. Thiesse noted that neighbor currently has a view across that shed because somebody combined the lot, which needs to be taken into consideration. Vogstrom stated the lakeshore clearly has a point. Libby stated in his view the shoreline meanders but that he would not consider it to be a point. Eric Vogstrom stated the shoreline is irregular. Thiesse commented the average lakeshore setback is a stickler. Ressler commented it is difficult to grant a variance to that when the neighbors are supportive of it and it is even more difficult when the neighbors are opposed to it. Ressler commented the Planning Commission has to look at it now without the house being there. Thiesse stated the situation with the average lakeshore setback now was created by the owner because they combined the two pieces of property. Vogstrom stated in their view there is a point and that should be taken into consideration. Vogstrom stated by attempting to accommodate the neighbors, new issues have been created. Thiesse stated in his view the situation was created because the two lots were combined. Erickson stated if variances are granted now before a house is built and then later somebody builds a house on the lot, it could lead to more variances down the road. Curtis noted a new lot should have a conforming building envelope. Thiesse suggested the developer do more work on creating a conforming building envelope. Curtis stated this is essentially a subdivision to create this lot and that she is not sure what the precedent is for granting an average lakeshore variance for the house at the same a new lot is being created. Curtis stated she does not believe that is typically done. Vogstrom indicated they could some do modifications but that it was his understanding it could not go beyond what was previously there. Curtis asked if they would be requesting the average lakeshore setback for what is proposed on the plan. Vogstrom indicated he would be. Vogstrom stated he would like to meet with everybody on site so they can understand what everyone's sightlines are. Ressler stated they are looking at the fundamentals of the setback and it is an encroachment on the setback, which is something that has to be taken into consideration. Ressler suggested the developer try to be more conforming and think of ways he can soften the encroachment. Curtis suggested they stake the house on the site so the Commissioners and neighbors can view it. Curtis noted the Planning Commission cannot meet on site with the developer as a group. Libby requested he do a clear survey with the setback markers on there. Barnhart suggested he contact Staff when the work is done so they can take pictures and notify the Planning Commissioners. Thiesse asked if Mr. Hueler's view was blocked by the previous house. Hueler indicated it was a one-story house but that the porch did extend past the 75 -foot setback. Hueler noted the previous house and foundation is gone, which has improved their view, and that they would like to keep it. Eric Vogstrom noted the trees block part of his view. Ressler commented it would be great if they could soften it a bit and show some flexibility. Thiesse stated Item No. 8 reads that Staff will need to confirm whether or not Lot 2 meets the width requirement at the OHWL and at the 75 -foot setback. Thiesse noted Staff will need to have that information. Item No. 9 states that it is unclear from the plans whether or not Lot 1 wraps around Lot 2 to encompass the Huelers' driveway or if a portion of the lot is to be sold/transferred to the Huelers. Vogstrom stated they will create a more accurate plan. Thiesse noted Item No. 10 stated that the current plan appears to remove the driveway connection from 2709 Walters Port to Walters Port. The property address will need to be changed if there is no connection to Walters Port Lane for this property. It is unclear from the current plan what is to happen with the underlying land of the existing connection of Walters Port Lane to the property. Curtis stated technically they have a connection to Walters Port. Thiesse stated more clarification on that would be helpful. Thiesse stated he does not think they can have two roads come together and three driveways coming together and claim that is meeting the intent of what the City requires. Item No. 11 requires that the emergency response people involved. Thiesse stated getting it on the plans is one thing and getting it approved is completely different and that it is a process. Thiesse stated just because the police chief and fire chief indicate they like it does not mean it will be approved. Thiesse asked whether there are any other issues the Planning Commission should discuss. Curtis stated the Planning Commission has provided feedback on the issues Staff has raised but that they could address the second back lot more if they would like. Curtis noted the applicants have heard similar direction before on the second back lot. Thiesse commented the City does give flexibility from time to time typically on minor items but not major items. Curtis stated the City is interested in a solution that eliminates the pressure on Walters Port and create something that would be functional and supportive to the properties on Pence. Curtis stated she is not sure if two side-by-side roadways is necessarily the best option. Thiesse stated he would like to emphasize that they are proposing a subdivision with a house that is no longer there. Thiesse requested the developer work hard at making something that fits the requirements of the code closer now that the property has been combined. Hauri stated one item they would like to propose is to show the impact of what the code says will work but the problems that that would cause. Hauri stated in theory they can widen the road and create a big asphalt turnaround, which would result in more hardcover coming to this driveway and the other driveway, but the visual impact and the hardcover impact that this big turnaround would really incur on the whole project and scope should be taken into consideration. Hauri stated they would like to minimize the asphalt and make the turnaround work, especially with the wetland and Lake Minnetonka. Hauri stated in his view this plan would be far better from a landscape point of view and how it can be buffered from the wetland. Hauri stated their proposal fits better with the character of the lot and everybody involved and would result in a lot less hardcover. Curtis stated Staff has been and would be supportive of an alternative that would meet the intent. Hueler asked if the cul-de-sac would still allow for a I -acre lot. Thiesse stated that would be the question. Hueler asked if that solves the view setback problem. Curtis indicated it does not. Hueler asked if the view setback problem was partially caused by the house being removed and building the addition they did. Thiesse stated it was. Erickson commented that periodically you see cul-de-sacs where the middle of it is landscaped, which is an option. Libby stated it can essentially be a turnaround that feeds in and out, which is kind of a middle ground that the Planning Commission is looking for. Ressler suggested the developer look at ways to make the plan come together more agreeable for everybody. Vogstrom stated people have had a change of heart, which has made it difficult. Ressler stated at the end of the day, the City of Orono wants to see demonstration that he is trying to make it more agreeable. Vogstrom stated when they presented the sketch plan, everybody loved it. Curtis stated she does not think that is accurate. Vogstrom stated everyone agreed it would work. Thiesse noted there was a house there at the time, which is no longer the case, and that the situation has changed. Vogstrom stated they have spent countless hours in meetings trying to make everyone happy. Erickson asked if there would be a risk from the standpoint of the City in creating a second back lot. Curtis stated in her view there would be. Curtis stated the City has a rule for back lot situations where there is not enough width to create two frontage lots that are conforming but where the area is exceeded. Curtis stated there are some standards to be met due to the sensitivity and unique character of a back lot because someone's front lot is someone else's back yard and there is a shared driveway. The City will allow for that to happen once in a development but not on multiple lots. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 25, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 13. LA18-42 — TEXT AMENDMENT: CHAPTERS 78 AND 82 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION DISTANCE AND SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS ORDINANCE NO. 210, THIRD SERIES — Continued Printup commented the ordinance fits in with what the City Council has talked about with communication with the residents and that he is in favor of the ordinance, especially when something controversial is going on in the area. Printup stated it is another tool the City can say that they are trying to let people know what is going on. Crosby indicated he concurs with Council Member Printup but that the Council and Planning Commission will need to weigh the comments. Dankey noted the ordinance would also result in more cost to the applicants. Barnhart stated the fee has been adjusted so the City absorbs those costs and that it would be nominal. Mayor Walsh asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this item. There were no public comments regarding this application. Printup moved, Seals seconded, to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 210, Third Series, an Ordinance Amending Title IV Land Use Pertaining to Public Hearing Notification Distances, and to approve the summary ordinance, SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 211, Third Series. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 14. LA18-55 PAUL VOGSTROM OB/O WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN Paul Vogstrom, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the owners are requesting input on a sketch plan proposing to create a new lakeshore lot between their Walters Port home and the Hueler property at 2715 Pence. Because the property as it exists today results from the recent combination of 2709 Walters Port Land and the recently acquired 2710 Pence Lane property, a subdivision rather than a lot line rearrangement is necessary. This application was discussed last week at the Planning Commission meeting. As proposed, there are a number of unresolved issues, some of which result in nonconformities and the need for variances. The following is a summary of the issues: A. The existing private driveway is conforming as it serves only two homes. The addition of a third lot/home served triggers the Code requirement for a 24 -foot wide, private road within a platted 50 -foot outlot, with a 100 -foot cul-de-sac. The applicant is showing a private driveway with two gates and an emergency access connection to Walters Port Lane for police, fire, and ambulance access. This driveway does not meet Code standards to add a third lot. B. Without creation of a platted outlot for a private road, proposed Lot 2 will be a second back lot, where the Code allows for a maximum of one lot to be a back lot. In addition, Lot 2 as shown Page 3 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 25, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA18-55 PAUL VOGSTROM OB/O WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN — Continued does not meet back lot standards in regards to meeting 150 percent of the district area and setback requirements. The lot is shown as 1.0 acre and 140 feet wide. C. Lot 2 shows a building envelope which encroaches significantly into the average lakeshore setback. The "grandfather" status of the previous Haberman home is no longer relevant as the properties have been combined into one. A newly created lot must demonstrate a conforming building envelope. The Planning Commission reviewed this sketch plan at their June meeting and comments were received. The Commission provided feedback to the applicant and the applicant has provided a plan that responds to some of the direction given. This plan has not been fully reviewed by Staff and additional comments were received this weekend and earlier today and should be entered into the record. Copies of those comments have been provided to the City Council. Many of Staff's comments are consistent with the applicant's previous sketch plan application reviewed by the Council in August of 2017. Feedback by the fire chief and police chief should be incorporated into their preliminary plat application. The following written comments were received: Elizabeth Reese -Marton: "Hi, Sue. I'd like to address my two concerns: water and turnaround area for WP. (1) In the past the Nelson -Crosby property was the lowest point on the lawn by the lagoon. Nelson regraded and one of the three next owners also raised it and now my property by the lagoon and my lawn is the low point. I'm not happy about it, as a severe rain can flood parts of it. I know your landscaper is trying to protect further flooding for the Crosbys and that is a big concern, but I also don't want more water shifted to my yard. Please talk to your landscaper and get assurances that any runoff will not be in the Reese -Marton yard. I'm sure it can be worked out. (2) I'm also concerned that the turnaround area for trucks on Walters Port is not adequate. As you know, I'm disappointed that you're leaving Walters Port. It's always been my thought that Walters Port and Pence should become one, but guess it's too late now. I'm happy for you and Bill as you have worked together with us on your plans and dreams, but it also means a lot of changes for all of us. I hope it all turns out well for the two of you and for us (your neighbors). Good luck!" Patricia A. Morris, 2697 Kelly Avenue: "Melanie, please pass this to the Council. I am having a very hard time understanding why variances were granted in the first place to build an addition onto a home that was already out of character for this neighborhood. Where was the hardship for this? Now they want to split off a non -conforming lot to build another 7,000 square foot home that will require numerous variances? Any encroach the sightlines of the neighboring property? Again, what hardship does this present? They were told that this would be a problem when they combined their property with the Page 4 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 25, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA18-55 PAUL VOGSTROM OB/O WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN — Continued Haberman property but that did not seem to deter them. It has always been my understanding that any new build had to conform to City Code. I do remember a few years back when one of my clients requested eight additional feet so they would not have to look at an illegal fireplace on the neighbor's property. They were told in no uncertain terms that the answer was no and Orono will never grant a variance to build anything in the 0-75. Dunkleys' property is already too close to the lake and so is the addition. So this must mean that now anyone can get a variance to do whatever they want in Orono? Dunkleys' property is directly in my sightline and I certainly do not want another structure when their home is already too large for this neighborhood." Bill and Sandra J. Keegan, 2707 Walters Port Lane: "Dear Melanie Curtis. We are in favor of most of the pond/wetland improvements that were proposed at the neighborhood meeting this past June 13th. There wasn't very much discussion on the Lot 2 split other than right now access would be on Walters Port Lane with hopefully switching that to Pence in the future. Our concerns have to do with drainage into our property. Since the rebuilt 10 years ago of the Dunkley property, we have had washout from their driveway into our property on the south side and also down our driveway. Our concern is that extending Walters Port Lane to access proposed Lot 2 would cause further runoff down Walters Port Lane as it is a hill and there will be increased hardcover. On the proposal there is a berm where there are presently pavers on the road. The landscaper indicated this might help divert the water away from our property but pavers would need to be removed. Sue Dunkley indicated she did not want to remove any pavers. We are also getting runoff behind our garage and don't think the berm would solve this issue. We would like to see this remedied as soon as possible. This project has changed the character of the neighborhood. It is much closer to us than we thought it would be and does surround our home. We understand that this is the Dunkleys dream so we have tried to be good neighbors. Unfortunately we are unable to come to the Council meeting tonight. Any questions, please call. Thanks for your time." Janice Berg: "Melanie, as someone who has served on the Planning Commission for many years, I find the above -referenced application very troubling. The request for variances and exceptions regarding building site, average lakeshore setback, creation of back lots and driveway access require the City to make many exceptions to City Code. I see no hardship as the owner created this situation when they combined the two lots into one to build a large addition on their existing home. 2. Tearing down a home, City looks to make the new lot conforming to Code. Three homes on a private driveway has been discouraged. 4. Creation of back lots has always been done not to create nonconforming properties. Page 5 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 25, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA18-55 PAUL VOGSTROM OB/O WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN — Continued 5. This property should not be considered a point but the natural shoreline of the lake. With this request I think the City needs to consider the setting of precedents that ultimately could cause more requests for this type of application, requesting more exceptions to our City Code. I respectfully submit my thoughts on this application. Thanks." Curtis stated the City Council should discuss the issues outlined in Staff report and provide direction to the applicant. Paul Vogstrom, Applicant, stated they received some great feedback last week at the Planning Commission and that they are looking for feedback on the average setback, emergency access, and a new outlot on Pence. Vogstrom indicated they are open to turning the private drive into an outlot and that currently they are proposing that Walters Port go straight through. Vogstrom indicated he did talk to Melanie Curtis briefly today about having Walters Port be the outlot to service Lot 2, which the City Council may want to comment on, or another option would be to have the outlot off Pence and eliminate the back lot variance. Vogstrom stated they will be working with the surveyor and engineer over the next few weeks to resolve some of those issues. Vogstrom stated since the lot has been combined, it is somewhat irrelevant where the old home used to be, and that they have pushed the proposed house back so the view from the Hueler's is not obstructed. Vogstrom indicated he did provide some pictures today to Staff. Curtis displayed aerial photographs of the area. Vogstrom indicated the first photograph shows the house before it was removed. Vogstrom stated it does not make sense to have a home sitting in front of everyone else but that is kind of how this lot is shaped. Vogstrom noted the second photograph shows the heavily wooded area and the new Lot 2. Vogstrom stated the green line depicts where the old home was and that they are proposing the new home for Lot 2 to be 17 feet back from there its closest point. The new home then goes back further as it angles off to the west. Vogstrom noted the view from one window in the Hueler's home would be obstructed by the new home. Crosby asked if the home will be within the 75 -foot setback. Vogstrom indicated it will meet the 75 -foot setback but that the average lakeshore setback will cut through the house. Greg and Kelly Hueler, Pence Lane. Kelly Hueler, 2715 Pence Lane, stated they are the neighbors directly impacted by the proposal and that they have been in front of the Council and Planning Commission previously as this process has unfolded. Hueler stated it is their understanding that the City Code that is in place is to be equitably administered to all neighbors and all citizens of Orono. Hueler indicated they took five years in researching where they Page 6 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 25, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA18-55 PAUL VOGSTROM OB/O WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN — Continued wanted to live on the lake and that they specifically chose Orono because they felt comfortable in the City's planning process and their protections of the lakeshore. Hueler stated when they lived on Kelly Avenue, they had to adhere very carefully to the average lakeshore setback and that they accepted that. Hueler stated at this point their concerns are that when the property was combined, the Dunkleys were provided a significant number of variances to build the house. Hueler stated the Dunkleys knew if they combined those two parcels, they would have to request a subdivision and that they are simply asking that this situation be treated the same way as other residents have been treated. Greg Hueler stated they have been negatively impacted by this in a host of ways and that the last phone call he had with Mr. Vogstrom was that the majority of the trucks would be using Walters Port. Hueler stated to his understanding there has not been a single truck that has gone up Walters Port and that at times their driveway has been impassable due to mud. Hueler stated there have been a number of times where trucks have blocked their driveway entrance and that it got so bad last week that his son had to call the police. The police indicated they would make sure it does not happen again. Hueler commented these are the things that are immediately impacting them personally. Hueler stated they are most concerned if this gets approved about what it will do for others who want to do the same thing. Hueler stated they are also concerned about the shoreline and questioned why some people are allowed to not follow the rules and build a house in someone's sightline. Hueler noted it was the Dunkleys' choice not to leave the existing house. Kelly Hueler stated the Dunkleys knew that requirement before the house was removed and that the Dunkleys are very experienced in real estate as part of their business. Hueler stated one of their main concerns is that many of the neighbors did not know about the meeting tonight and that they emailed a number of neighbors over the weekend. Hueler commented she understands that many of the neighbors on Walters Port are very supportive of this because they have been promised substantial improvements but that they are here to say that this is not just going to happen to them because there are many houses being built right now around the lake that could request the same thing. Hueler noted those homes, however, did not get variances to go inside those sightlines. Hueler stated if this request is approved, it would set a precedent, which means anyone can request it. Hueler stated they are asking the City Council to give serious consideration to what this means if this proposal is allowed to proceed and go forward. Greg Hueler pointed out that this is a sketch plan and not a formal survey. Hueler stated the proposed lot looks like it has a point, which is absolutely not the case, and that it is a meandering shoreline. Hueler stated the other thing that was brought up is the way the Dunkleys added their addition basically forces the new home to be out by the shoreline, which is the decision they made and is not a hardship. Dankey noted the proposed home is back further, which should help their sightline. Kelly Hueler stated it is a two-story home and it would not help their sightlines. Page 7 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 25, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA18-55 PAUL VOGSTROM OB/O WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN — Continued Curtis indicated the City measures the average lakeshore setback as a straight line from the closest point of the adjacent homes. Walsh stated the City Council has discussed many times whether someone's sightline is straight across the lake or whether it goes off to the side. In some developments homes have to be built in a certain order or they would not be able to be built on due to the average lakeshore setback. Kelly Hueler stated they would agree the shoreline meanders but that it is not a point. Crosby stated he has never considered a side view a sightline. Seals noted on Highwood the City Council made the applicant construct his deck in a triangle and in this instance half of the proposed home is within the sightline. Seals stated she understands what both sides are saying but that a good portion of the home is in the sightline. Crosby stated he considers the sightline to be someone's vision to the lake. Curtis noted it is the regulatory sightline that is being discussed. Crosby stated the proposed home is located further back than what was existing. Seals stated the old structure is no longer relevant since it was removed. Crosby stated in reality it is not irrelevant because when the property was purchased, the home was there. Printup stated if the City needs to change the code, they can change the code, but that is not being discussed tonight. Walsh stated someone can argue whether it is a practical difficulty because they are on a rounded point. Seals questioned whether it is really a practical difficulty if someone creates their own practical difficulty. Greg Hueler stated if the home had not been removed, it would not matter. Kelly Hueler stated the Dunkleys could have easily conformed with not just the sightlines but with the private drive. Hueler stated there are a whole host of nonconforming issues with this proposal. Walsh noted one issue is the average lakeshore setback and another is whether there is a practical difficulty because it is a rounded point. Greg Hueler stated he would request the City Council come stand on their dock and look at the shoreline. Hueler indicated it is a slightly curved shoreline and is not the way it is being described by the applicant. Page 8 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 25, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA18-55 PAUL VOGSTROM OB/O WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN — Continued Kelly Hueler stated the other issue is the easement and that the reality is that the City Code says a private drive serves two homes. Walsh commented there are some complicated issues that will need to be worked through. Walsh stated he is not sure whether a cul-de-sac is the answer either. Printup stated he would like to see a rendering of what conforming would be for this lot so they can see what they have to work with. Seals agreed that that would help clarify the situation. Seals stated it is likely something can be built there but that it probably is not this. Seals stated if someone creates the issues, then it is not a practical difficulty. Kelly Hueler stated they do not get everything they want either and that they will continue to make their position clear as this goes through the process. Hueler stated it is her understanding that Council Member Crosby recused himself on the last application with the Dunkleys. Crosby stated he is not sure yet whether he will be recusing himself on this application. Crosby stated he did do business with the Dunkleys and the economic interest was extremely minimal. Vogstrom stated he does have a plan depicting the cul-de-sac. Vogstrom noted they also had a sketch plan review earlier depicting the placement of the new home on Lot 2 where they received positive feedback. Vogstrom stated they did not know the ramifications of combining the lot because otherwise they would not be sitting here trying to get the average line of sight figured out since it was always their intent to build a home on the lot. Vogstrom indicated they are looking to create an outlot so the lot is conforming and not a back lot. In addition, they would like to construct a 24 -foot wide road rather than a cul-de-sac. Vogstrom stated the Huelers and the other neighbors did not want the huge driveway and pavement. Vogstrom stated they are considering access off of Walters Port Walsh asked if the Huelers would access off the cul-de-sac, Lot 2 would access off the cul-de-sac, and the Dunkleys off of Walters Port. Vogstrom indicated the Dunkleys could access off of Walters Port or Pence and that the Huelers' lot right now is nonconforming but that it could be made a conforming lot as well. Curtis stated in order to make the Huelers' lot conforming, they would need to extend the cul-de-sac or have the Huelers connect to the new road because they are currently a back lot. Curtis noted they would not need to do that if they connected the Dunkleys' home to Walters Port. Vogstrom stated that is another option they are looking at. Page 9 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 25, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA18-55 PAUL VOGSTROM OB/O WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN — Continued Crosby asked if it would be conforming if they connected to Pence. Curtis stated she would have to see a plan. Vogstrom stated they can probably meet that because they have four acres to work with. Walsh stated the line of sight also has to be taken into consideration. Vogstrom stated it does not make sense to have a home in front of two homes and that there has to be a happy medium. Vogstrom noted they do not have final house plans and that they are here for feedback from the City Council. Greg Hueler asked if this is granted and they were given a subdivision, whether they would then go through a separate process to get a building permit and variances. Walsh stated variances start with the Planning Commission and that this is a sketch plan so the City Council will not be granting anything right now. Barnhart stated ultimately the applicants would come back with a subdivision application, which may require some variances, and if they wanted to build a home that encroaches into the average lakeshore setback, that would probably be a separate application where they would have to justify the practical difficulties. Kelly Hueler stated there has consistently been work done outside of the permits and a number of times the City has had to issue stop work permits. Hueler stated their experience has been that while it might be on paper, that is not what happens on a daily basis. Hueler stated while the lot the Dunkleys purchased is only supposed to use Walters Port, it is not practical or reasonable to think that those three homes will not end up using Pence Lane. Hueler stated one of the Dunkleys' goals has been to have a private driveway into their residence, and that if the City Council is going to grant those variances, they have to think about everyday reality. Walsh noted the City can attach conditions to the variances but that they cannot say they are not of good character so they cannot give them the variance. Walsh stated the City Council can address concerns with reasonable conditions. Kelly Hueler commented this is about fact and that frequently there has been work done outside of the permits. Hueler stated they live there and are experiencing it on a day-to-day basis and that she brought it to the Council's attention so they can consider it. Crosby asked how far their driveway goes down Pence Lane. Kelly Hueler indicated to the property line and that the rest is easement. Crosby asked how owns the rest of Pence Lane. Page 10 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 25, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA18-55 PAUL VOGSTROM OB/O WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN — Continued Kelly Hueler indicated Mr. and Mrs. Dunkley do and that they have a one-third undivided interest. Eric Vogstrom, Casco Point Road, stated the Dunkleys have lived there since 1984 and the Habermans eventually sold their property to the Dunkleys due to the required upkeep. Vogstrom stated the lot was somewhat junky with some concrete, other debris, and downed trees. The Dunkleys' main objective was to obtain some more land. When the Huelers found out the Dunkleys purchased the Haberman property, they had a conversation in which the Huelers said they wanted more privacy. The Dunkleys worked with the Huelers for a little while and offered to sell them some property for the sale price that they paid for it, which was not acceptable to the Huelers. Vogstrom noted the Huelers have to cross over 600 feet of Dunkleys' property, which does not provide much privacy for the Dunkleys. Vogstrom noted the Dunkleys did not know once they combined the lots that they would have to meet those requirements, and while ignorance is no excuse, the Huelers are saying a lot of things that are definitely inaccurate. Vogstrom stated the Dunkleys only received one variance to build in the 0-75 foot zone and that they did not cause the difficulty with the new lot because their whole new addition is within the 0-75. Curtis pointed out the Dunkleys average setback is based on the two adjacent homes. Eric Vogstrom stated the Dunkleys did not receive multiple variances for their new addition and that they basically got rid of the hot tub and built over it. Vogstrom stated the Dunkleys are at 65 percent hardcover and that their entire house is within the 0-75. Vogstrom stated the only way to attach the addition was to build within the setback. The Dunkleys now have four and half acres and they are not trying to cram something into a small area. Vogstrom indicated they are willing to listen to the City Council and that the previous sketch plan went well until the undivided issue in the easement came up. Vogstrom stated the attorneys will work that out. In addition, the Dunkleys have met with all the neighbors and that they have gone out of their way to make them happy. When the Dunkleys did their remodel in 2008, the Dunkleys paid over $150,000 to fix the sea wall, which benefited the neighbors. Vogstrom commented it is the same thing with the whole swampy area and the trees and that all the Dunkleys want to do is clean it up and improve it. Vogstrom stated it was too much upkeep for the previous property owner, which is why they sold it. Vogstrom encouraged the City Council to go out to the property and look at it. Vogstrom noted they are not blocking the line of sight and that they did not create the issue with the land. Crosby asked how much further back the new house would go. Eric Vogstrom indicated the closest part would be 17 feet and that the area in the front is a potential pool. Vogstrom stated the proposed home is way beyond the 75 -foot setback and that given the big weeping willow tree and other trees in that area, the Huelers have no views over that. Vogstrom noted they can trim up some of those trees to improve the Huelers' view and that they are willing to work with them. Vogstrom stated it is his belief the one window that will have its view obscured is in a master closet. Page 11 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 25, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LAI 8-55 PAUL VOGSTROM OB/O WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN — Continued Larry Getlin, Ridge Road, stated he has lived on the lake for many years and that part of living on the lake is to help ensure they keep the pristine property around it. Getlin stated what he does not like are people speaking on behalf of other people, and that what Eric Vogstrom said about the Habermans is not correct. Getlin stated if the Council wants factual information, they should ask the people themselves. Getlin commented the problem he sees as a resident is that this process will continue to be repeated and that the Council should not operate by seeing how many variances they give. Getlin stated he is not convinced that there was a plan before the applicant cut the trees down. Getlin stated he was also in attendance when the Council decided on County Road 19 that they were not going to grant a bunch of variances. Getlin stated he does not understand how they can operate a system that says someone can build by variance rather than rule. Getlin stated he would like the Council to pay attention to the fact that there is an appropriate way to do things and that they can adjust their plans if they are seeking more than one or two variances. Getlin stated when a plan is built on variances, that is not good planning, and that he would ask the Council not to make this a variance project when it does not need to be. Greg Hueler stated there were a lot of misrepresentations and falsehoods made by Eric Vogstrom. Hueler asked whether the Dunkleys or Paul or Eric Vogstrom were not informed of the difficulties they would have if they combined the lots Curtis indicated she talked about that with the owner at one point and the developer at multiple points. Kelly Hueler stated she agrees with Larry and that people should be able to speak for themselves. Hueler stated they have attempted to cooperate with the neighbors and that they absolutely wanted to find a resolution. Hueler stated what is being built is an intergenerational family compound and will be a major change in the area. Hueler stated when they purchased their property, they knew they had an easement that gave them access to their property and that they tried to find a solution. Hueler indicated they would like a buffer from what is going to change and that they tried repeatedly to get something in writing but it has been a moving target because the scope of the project has changed. Hueler stated when they came home last year after Labor Day weekend, they came home to an entirely cleared lakeshore and not just buckthorn as was represented at the Planning Commission meeting. Hueler stated there were a number of old hard growth trees that were pulled up over the Labor Day weekend when the City was closed and no one could shut the work done. In addition, the lakeshore was also graded. Hueler stated after that happened, that was when they said enough. Hueler noted she did not want to talk about that tonight but it has been represented in a way that is not accurate. Hueler commented they want to be neighbors to everybody else that lives on the beautiful lake that they share. Steve Bakke, 2765 Pheasant Lake Road, stated he has to take exception to the comments made by Eric Vogstrom. Bakker stated for him to disparage the Habermans and make claims about their wherewithal or interest in maintaining what he characterized as a dump on a swamp is patently false. Bakke stated that area was maintained by the Habermans and the Plumes before them. Bakke stated that area looks like a dump now because it is full of concrete and trees from the work the Dunkleys did. In addition, the trucks Page 12 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 25, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA18-55 PAUL VOGSTROM O/B/O WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN — Continued going up and down Pence have beat up the road so much that it is practically unusable. Bakke stated the Habermans were friends of his and it angers him considerably to have someone disparage them who has not looked at that area that was characterized as a swamp and a dump for the last 40 years. Seals commented she can appreciate what he is saying and that it is duly noted about speaking for other people's motivations. Eric Vogstrom stated he apologizes. Seals stated if the Dunkleys or Habermans had something to say, they would be here. Crosby noted he is familiar with the area because he lives across the street and that he also knew the Habermans. Crosby commented the Habermans did have a tough time taking care of it because a lot of trees would fall in the water and so forth. Crosby stated he has lived there since 2005 and that it is not a clean area and is full of mosquitos. Crosby stated to say anything else is a complete falsehood. Crosby stated that is not intended to pull away from the Habermans because they did as much as they could to take care of the area. Crosby indicated he did not look at what Eric Vogstrom was saying as a knock against the Habermans. Seals stated the Habermans are not here to defend themselves. Eric Vogstrom indicated he also is friends with the Habermans and that they are wonderful people and dear friends with the Dunkleys. Vogstrom stated Sue Dunkley wanted him to inform the Council that the reason the Habermans sold their property was due to the upkeep and that he apologizes if anyone thought he was trying to say anything bad about them. Getlin commented he also is friends with the Habermans and that they need to ask them what their motivation was for selling. Walsh noted that is not relevant to what the City Council needs to discuss tonight and that perhaps everyone can leave the Habermans out of it. Mark Howery, Landscape Architect, commented they were kind of misrepresented this evening by someone saying the whole shoreline was cleared over Labor Day weekend. Howery stated what wound up happening was one diseased basswood and one diseased ash was removed in addition to some buckthorn. The contractor who did the work went into the 75 -foot zone and cleared a path. Howery indicated he then proceeded to work with Staff on regrading the area, which was seeded and revegetated. Howery noted it was a 50 -foot wide path and that the other trees that were taken down were outside the 0-75 foot zone. Kelly Hueler stated she was talking about the new addition. Howery stated that is the area he was talking about and that the contractor did not obtain a permit first but that he worked with Staff immediately to get it rectified. Page 13 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 25, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA18-55 PAUL VOGSTROM OB/O WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN — Continued Howery commented he wants to make the lot look beautiful and that he wants to work with the City and the Watershed District to restore the wetland, which will be paid for by the Dunkleys. Howery noted currently there is rainwater runoff from three different houses that spills right into the wetland, which does not help the wetland. Over time, years of junk, debris, and leaves have built up, and two weeks ago he fished out eight bags of trash that just happened to show up. Howery stated they also want to have more water holding capacity so if there is an issue with the weather, it will not overflow Walters Port and flood the homes on the other side. Howery indicated they are trying to be good stewards of the land. Howery noted they would like to move the road slightly so a nice line of trees can be planted. Howery indicated he is working on a plan that literally has about 100 different trees, both evergreens and deciduous. Howery stated they are all good plants for the native birds and will help enhance the wetland. Howery stated the Dunkleys are very forward thinking in making this area beautiful and by restoring and saving the wetland. Walsh stated he would like to refocus the conversation back to what the City Council needs to consider regarding how to make sure it is a conforming lot, the width of the road and whether there should be a cul-de-sac, and then the sightline or not the sightlines. Walsh stated whether they are making the water beautiful or cutting down trees is not what the City Council is talking about tonight. Sheila Vakean, Pence Lane, stated Pence Lane was a beautiful arching road with all kinds of trees and privacy but that the trees have been cut down. Vakean noted the woods are not that close to the shoreline so it probably was not necessary to have a variance but that in her view between 50 to 75 trees were cut down. Vakean stated the trees were not all diseased because they were stacked in piles that were hauled away. Vakean commented at times they are not getting the whole truth in what they are hearing. Vakean stated there have been times on the weekends when they do work that probably has not been approved and that she has not seen a single truck on Walters Port. Vakean stated she is sure that is the way it will be in the future as well. Vakean stated while it will probably look beautiful when it is finished, she has questions about the way it seems to be skirting every rule possible and that it looks like deals are being made behind people's backs, which they do not want to have happening in Orono. Andrew McDermott, 2702 Walters Port Lane, stated he read the report from the Planning Commission and there seems to be a push for a 24 -foot wide road. McDermott requested the City Council reconsider that. Currently the road is 15 feet wide, which has been that way since 1960s, and the road has functioned just fine, even when there used to be seven homes on Walters Port. Currently there are only five. McDermott stated he understands they will need to widen Pence at some point and that eventually the subdivision will be figured out. McDermott noted the two lots consist of four acres and that the second lot is zoned one acre. McDermott noted the Dunkleys could have proposed four homes for that area since it is zoned one acre. McDermott requested the City Council keep the road as narrow as possible. Walsh stated the width of the road has been one of the issues, and according to City Code, if the road is to be conforming, it needs to be 24 feet wide with a cul-de-sac at the end. Page 14 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 25, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA18-55 PAUL VOGSTROM OB/O WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN — Continued Curtis noted it could also be connected as a through street with Walters Port. Curtis indicated she has discussed with the applicant and the city engineer the different configurations and that there could be flexibility in the width as long as they can accommodate an adequate turnaround for emergency and delivery vehicles. Staff acknowledges that a cul-de-sac is not the solution but what the applicants have been presenting is not the solution either. Walsh stated they need to make sure it is a conforming lot and that it sounds like the loop is a better scenario with some flexibility on the width. Walsh stated they will need to figure out the sightlines. Crosby stated in his view the road does not need to be 24 feet wide. Walsh noted the wider road would also impact the wetlands. Walsh stated as it relates to the sightline, Pence Lane starts dipping to the right, which causes those homes to lose their sightline. Walsh stated the question is how much of that is a practical difficulty. Crosby stated due to the curve, the City should give some flexibility. Crosby stated in his view a side view is not a protected sightline because on almost every lakeshore lot, you can look out a side window and there is a house there. Crosby stated if the proposed house was protruding significantly in front of the Hueler house, he would be concerned. Printup stated in the past the Council has said it is okay if the pool is ahead in some areas. Curtis stated a pool at grade level can encroach in the average lakeshore setback. Crosby noted the new house is further back than the old house. Seals stated the old house is irrelevant and that the applicants created the issue even though the City warned them. Seals stated they would be basically opening Pandora's Box. Crosby commented there has to be a compromise. Dankey stated with four and a half acres, they should be able to subdivide something, and that a number of other homes in the area are on half an acre. Seals stated they combined the two lots, which created the issue. Dankey commented it seems punitive to people on large lots and that there is plenty of room for a lot. Curtis stated they could possibly have a building envelope behind the average lakeshore setback. Seals stated that is where the house needs to go. Dankey noted there would be no view of the lake, which would be a practical difficulty. Page 15 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 25, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA18-55 PAUL VOGSTROM OB/O WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN — Continued Crosby stated what is setting the sightline is the curve of the land and that the wise thing to do would be to view both properties to see what is going to be blocked. Crosby stated the sightline is so far back is due to the curvature of the land. Seals stated if you create new lot lines, which then creates problems with the other lot down the road, that doesn't mean you should give them a bunch of variances. Dankey stated in her view the applicants have been adjusting the plans to try to make it work. Crosby stated you can choose to forget the old house but the fact is that it was there. Crosby stated when someone purchases a property, they assume the house on the adjoining lot will be there. Crosby stated they purchased the property knowing the house was there. Seals commented someone can say the same for the applicants combining the lot. Printup noted they are looking at a clean slate. Crosby stated there has to be some give in the sightline due to the curvature of the land. Seals stated a give is not half a house. Walsh stated maybe the Council needs to go out there. Printup stated in his view the builder is creative enough that he can come up with different options. Seals stated the plan before the Council is not the final plan. Walsh stated in his view the loop is best for the road and that they will need to figure out emergency vehicle access. Printup commented the rules require a wide road, which nobody wants to see. Walsh stated the City can give some flexibility on the road but that the lot will need to be a conforming lot. Walsh indicated they can also give some flexibility on the sightlines, but that there should be no other variances. Crosby asked if he wants to see the house pulled back further. Dankey commented it is not practical to move the house back given the curve. Walsh suggested the City Council visit the two properties and look at the sightlines from different distances on the properties. Page 16 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 25, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. 14. LA18-55 PAUL VOGSTROM OB/O WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN — Continued Eric Vogstrom stated the most important thing is to know where the sightline is. Vogstrom asked whether it is a practical difficulty that the lot curves. Walsh stated in his view there is some practical difficulty if the land curves but that they will need to physically see what is out there. Curtis asked if the City Council would like to see another sketch plan rather than a preliminary plat. Walsh stated it should be another sketch plan rather than spending money on a preliminary plat at this stage. (Recess taken from 8:31 p.m. to 8:38 p.m.) 15. YOUR BOAT CLUB —1444 SHORELINE DRIVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — VARIANCE REVIEW Barnhart noted at the last meeting in May the Council directed Staff to review the conditions that are still in effect or imposed on the Your Boat Club and report back those findings. The City Attorney has reviewed the four resolutions. The resolutions approved a variance to the site plan, a variance in 1989, a conditional use permit in 2011, and a site plan in 2014. The resolutions also outlined a number of conditions and a parking agreement. On June 20, Staff inspected the property based on those items. Those findings have been summarized for the City Council. At this point Staff is looking for direction from the City Council. Staff's recommendation is to send a letter to the property owner regarding a couple of areas that need attention. Barnhart stated in general the site is consistent with the 1989 plan. Notable deviations include the following: - Of the 27 trees shown on the 1989 plan, eight were not observed. - The 5 -foot buffer between the owners' residential and commercial properties was not observed east of the houses. There is no low evergreen screen present as noted by the landscaping plan. - Four parking stalls are being used for boat display. Based on Resolution 6037, 81 stalls were observed, four for residential, and four are used for display. 73 stalls are provided, 70 were required. - Rock collection area four needs to be cleaned out. - There was no bituminous curbing observed at the driveways. Staff will send a letter to the property owner calling attention to the following: - The removal of the boats from the street side display area. - Planting of low evergreens in this area - Repair of the fence between the commercial and residential area - Addition of evergreen buffer between the commercial and residential area - Clean rock collection area number four. Page 17 of 21 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 8/20/2018 NW4 `q. L:1 ,Cwm on Bq/ _ a SCco P41 lit Buffer Size: 500 feet Map Comments: location map F 0 245 490 980 ft This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us 38 20-117-23 14 0004 38 21-117-23 23 0012 38 21-117-23 23 0026 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 2655 LYDIARD AVE 2695 PHEASANT RD 2755 KELLY AVE ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 38 20-117-23 14 0007 38 21-117-23 23 0013 38 21-117-23 23 0027 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 2697 KELLY AVE 2705 PHEASANT RD 2749 KELLY AVE ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 38 20-117-23 14 0008 38 21-117-23 23 0014 38 21-117-23 23 0028 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 2695 KELLY AVE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2745 KELLY AVE ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55331 38 20-117-23 14 0009 38 21-117-23 23 0017 38 21-117-23 23 0029 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 3225 CARMAN RD 2700 PHEASANT RD 2701 PENCE LA ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 38 20-117-23 14 0010 38 21-117-23 23 0019 38 21-117-23 23 0031 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 3245 CARMAN RD 2690 PHEASANT RD 2660 LYDIARD AVE ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 38 20-117-23 14 0011 38 21-117-23 23 0020 38 21-117-23 23 0032 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 3265 CARMAN RD 2680 PHEASANT RD 2684 LYDIARD AVE ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 38 20-117-23 14 0012 38 21-117-23 23 0021 38 21-117-23 23 0033 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 3275 CARMAN RD 2670 PHEASANT RD 2700 KELLY AVE ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0005 38 21-117-23 23 0022 38 21-117-23 23 0034 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 2655 PHEASANT RD 2660 PHEASANT RD 2710 KELLY AVE ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0010 38 21-117-23 23 0024 38 21-117-23 23 0039 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 2675 PHEASANT RD 2725 PHEASANT RD 2702 WALTERS PORT LA ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0011 38 21-117-23 23 0025 38 21-117-23 23 0040 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 2685 PHEASANT RD 2765 PHEASANT RD 2701 KELLY AVE ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0041 38 21-117-23 23 0055 RESIDENT RESIDENT 2699 KELLY AVE 2720 KELLY AVE ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0042 38 21-117-23 23 0056 RESIDENT RESIDENT 2703 WALTERS PORT LA 2673 PHEASANT RD ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0043 38 21-117-23 23 0057 RESIDENT RESIDENT 2705 WALTERS PORT LA 2730 PHEASANT RD ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0044 38 21-117-23 23 0058 RESIDENT RESIDENT 2707 WALTERS PORT LA 2760 PHEASANT RD ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0046 38 21-117-23 23 0059 RESIDENT RESIDENT 2710 PENCE LA 2709 WALTERS PORT LA ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0047 38 21-117-23 32 0001 RESIDENT RESIDENT 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2791 PHEASANT RD ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0048 38 21-117-23 32 0002 RESIDENT RESIDENT 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2795 PHEASANT RD ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0049 38 21-117-23 32 0003 RESIDENT RESIDENT 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2799 PHEASANT RD ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0052 38 21-117-23 32 0004 RESIDENT RESIDENT 2720 PHEASANT RD 2800 PHEASANT RD ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 38 21-117-23 23 0054 38 21-117-23 32 0005 RESIDENT RESIDENT 2615 SHADYWOOD RD 2789 PHEASANT RD ORONO MN 55331 ORONO MN 55331 38 21-117-23 32 0007 RESIDENT 2715 PENCE LA ORONO MN 55331 Date Application Received: 8.22.2018 Date Application Considered as Complete: 9.4.18 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 11.4.2018 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: September 17, 2018 Subject: LA18-000075, Blake Swanson o/b/o James Blue, 3017 North Shore Drive, Variance, Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variance to allow a 54 inch tall fence the average lakeshore setback and the rear yard where a 42 inch tall fence is permitted and to expand an existing nonconforming fence to 54 inches in the 75 foot lakeyard setback where no fence is permitted. Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission should discuss if each proposed request is in harmony with the intent of the ordinance and any unique characteristics to the property. Staff recommends denial with the submitted practical difficulties. Background The applicant is requesting to construct a 54 inch foot tall (4.5 foot) black wrought iron fence along the west property line. LA18-000071 September 17, 2018 Page 2 of 5 The applicant proposes a 54 inch tall fence along North Shore Drive and along the west property line, ending approximately 12 feet from the rip rap at the shoreline. The is an existing fence roughly 42 inches in height which runs along the west property line from the street to 12 feet from the rip rap at the shoreline. Fences in the yellow highlighted in the graphic above may be 72 inches high. Fences in the green areas are permitted to be 42 inches in height (an increase of 12 inches over code allowances. Fences in the purple areas are not permitted, as they are located in the lake yard. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-305- Setbacks: DISTRICT LR -1A Required Proposed Lakeshore 75' 1 12' Average Lakeshore The fence is proposed to be 54 inches where 42 inches is permitted. Applicable Regulations: Nonencroachments (78-1405 b. Lakeshore lots. 1. Fences within the reauired street (rear) vard or side street vard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed 42 inches above existing ground level. Exception: A fence not exceeding six feet in height may be located along the street lot line of a lake frontage lot which abuts a major thoroughfare. A major thoroughfare for purposes of this section means any county road or state highway. If such fence involves fill or berming, the total combined height of both fence and fill shall not exceed six feet above the height of the crown of the major thoroughfare. 2. Fences within the required side yard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed six feet in height, and shall not exceed 42 inches in height for any portion located lakeward of a line drawn between the most lakeward prosection of the fence owner's principal residence structure and the most lakeward proiection of the principal residence structure on the adjacent property abutting the side yard in which the fence is located. 3. Fences shall not be constructed within the defined lakeshore yard of a lakeshore lot, i.e., shall not be located within 75 feet of the shoreline for general development lakes, 100 feet for recreational lakes, or 150 feet for natural environment lakes. 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 LA18-000071 September 17, 2018 Page 3 of 5 also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. 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. A fence structure in the lake yards, and in the average lake setbacks does not appear to serve 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 Planning Commission should discuss any unique characteristics to the property for the proposed project. and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. A fence should not alter the character of the area. The commission should discuss if an expansion of a fence in the lake yard will 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 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 applicant has stated that the fence requirements and height limitations become out of the ordinary as it would require a small part of the fence to vary in height. The applicant feels to maintain a common and more pleasant aesthetic the variance as request should be granted. The commission should discuss if this meets the criteria. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The commission should discussion any unique conditions to the property. LA18-000071 September 17, 2018 Page 4 of 5 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 use of the property is gained by the single family home on the property. Fences of various heights are permissible is many areas of the yard. The Commission should determine if this standard justifies additional fence height and fence structures in the lake yard. 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 granting this variances will improve the safety, comfort and local character as a uniform fence height will better deter intruders, keep the property more secure, and create a more pleasing aesthetic to the area. The code offers options for fencing that assist with safety and security. The applicant is proposing fencing that exceeds this minimal need at the expense of adjacent properties. 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, the granting of the variance is necessary to alleviate potential safety issues that would otherwise exist if the height of a section of the fencing is shortened. The landowners have young children, and the perceived ease of exit presented by a shortened fence increases the risk of injury or other harmful situations. Likewise, the shortened fence also poses very similar issues to the landowner's dog, capable of jumping the lower fence height. Variances are granted to the property, not the property owner, and the age of children is not justification for a fence height. The Commission and Council in 2016 considered a fence height Variance on Heritage Lane, this fence variance was not supported and eventually widthdrawn by the applicant. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has 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 there is little practical difficulties to support the request. Staff does not find any unique conditions to the property compared to other lakeshore properties. Further, permitting fence structures in the Lake Yard introduces a dangerous precedent. The only fence variance approved in the lake yard is based on that applicant's proximity to a marina business. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. The applicant submitted a plan with the neighbor's signature in support of the variance request. Issues for Consideration The Planning Commission should discussion the intent of the fence setbacks to determine if the proposed project is in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance. Are there circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner? LA18-000071 September 17, 2018 Page 5 of 5 3. Are there any special conditions applying to the structure or land in question? Are they peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining properties? 4. Are the conditions unique to this property compared to other lakeshore lots? 5. Will allowing an expansion of an existing fence from 42 inches to 54 inches in the lake yard alter the character of the area? 6. Does the request to alleviate demonstrable difficulty? Planning Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission should discuss the proposed request and review the called out variance practical difficulties statements. The commission can also discuss the existing fence regulations and how they pertain to lakeshore lots. Staff recommends denial of the variance requests with the submitted practical difficulties. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey and Setback Exhibit Exhibit D. Fence Product Information Exhibit E. Pictures Exhibit F. Neighbors Acknowledgement Exhibit G. Property Owners List and Map Letter View Application Date: Address: Parcel Number: Land Use Number: Application Submitted By: Owner: Land Use Application Summary 08/22/2018 3017 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA, MN 55391 0911723320002 LA18-000075 Agent on behalf of property owner Name: JAMES BLUE Address: 9610 SKY LA EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 Applicant: Name: Blake Swanson Address: 1360 Hamel Road Medina, Mn 55340 Contact Information: Project Description: Land Use Application Type: Applicant Signature: Associated Contact: Curt Swanson Associated Contact: Blake Swanson Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Fence Height Variance Request Amendmend Application ❑ Appeal of Admin Decision ❑ Concept Application ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Application ❑ Subdivision Application ❑ Subdivision Exception ❑ Vacation Application Variance Application ❑ file:///C/Userslloakden/Downloads/Land%20Use%20Application%20Summary%20(4).htm[9/13/2018 2:14:49 PM] PC LA18-000075 Exhibit A Letter View PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA18-000075 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: N/A 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The circumstances are unique to the property and would be in place regardless of the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: If granted, the variance will enhance the character of the locality as the height of the fence to be installed around the property will be uniform. If the variance is not granted, the fence heights will not be uniform, creating an obvious and irregular aesthetic easily visible by the public and the owner. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: N/A S. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1167.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: The current requirements create a practical difficulty to best secure the property. A shortened fencing section creates both an elevated security exposure by intruders, as well as a perceived ease of access for exit by children and jumping capable pets, both of which reside on the property. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: N/A 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: N/A 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: Because this property is situated along County Road 51, up to a 6 foot fence height is permitted along the part of the property bordering the road. The western and southern setback fence height limitations then become out of the ordinary as it would require a very small part of the fence to be at a shortened height. To maintain a common and more pleasant aesthetic, the variance as requested should be granted so that a continuous and uniform fence height is present. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. file:///C1Userslloakden/Downloads/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(3).htm[9/13/2018 2:14:47 PM] Letter View Response: Conditions will vary depending on the specific characteristics of the other properties in the area. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: It is necessary to grant the application in order to preserve and enable enjoyment of the property rights of the applicant. By allowing the short sections of fencing in question to be uniform in height with the rest of the proposed fence, the property owners will be able to maintain peace of mind for the security of their property, occupants/guests, pets, as well as the easily noticeable aesthetic character of their property. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Response: The granting of the proposed variance in no way would impair the health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the zoning code. By granting the proposed variance, in fact, safety, comfort, and local character will be enhanced, as a fence uniform in height will better deter intruders, keep property guests and occupants more secure, and will maintain a consistent and more pleasing aesthetic to the area. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: The granting of the variance is necessary to alleviate potential safety issues that would otherwise exist if the height of a section of the fencing is shorterened. The landowners have young children, and the perceived ease of exit presented by a shortened fence increases the risk of injury or other harmful situations. Likewise, the shortened fence also poses very similiar issues to the landowner's dog, capable of jumping the lower fence height. file:///C[Users/loakden/Downloads/Practical%20Difficulties%2ODocumentation%2OForm%20(3).htm[9/13/2018 2:14:47 PM] Nr 11 IV_ • h° t i'e�.. `�� '} -�1 ��fj� r�_ * `��L r - �'�h� � � � � . � r -,�' 'N �.y. F L � � - ��,1'',r �pie` r41. !� '�L 4} � � � . LL + Y.rF, u , e At r +, r y it 1k , Ly ._.til + �,`- •� - §h a _ a r ! ` F-� ,.�'r Ed erg e t °+ -'' - "'. $ s - `� 'di I'd low.?6 .� 09. Alp F F §'•'ir r k M G. ti f P1%� ` �. 4 IFqF 44. � ' i, e 4 ��' � , ,� � ■+jam rr ��, -: JO L 31 40 Rk +pit r - 4 ++ i 1 j+rli' 1R i'�r r p Af " ' ' 1 qr do 4. VA 0 PL y 4 ,~ tri! Y IL Sir IF q y +_. 7.' •" - a I ` ; Y r'' -`* - M - a 'r� ! `'• ' . , '} U '_L 1 a `. . +;41 1 7mv Pk �'� Al a° it. Af do �wa!#;di. IF '•., *rt`Y 1 5y,I 4j `AO " k i �•' a§ 4 1§tea "# r R wr J �,1 ! r ` S jj v- "� r .? ' •.1 r. 4 .A. t , ,,� '+ . - F* •�" {''� kr ` of i ,fir ' ,� F.. +. "4 �' - 1• h p j , ��IF$' �r+ .r � T'd' ° 1"' } fi I'� - � 1 4 �. r�- �yu�� '� � �M" '��:y. ` �� •°. �F = •- � 9 �>} . ,4 _ �*,�'tra 7! ,11 IN # ti 1 or JE LOA lip 4 F �' •9 . � • .,�,k, � �.' -" - r `� "' � - � . , y,,Y + — ' ,may r . , °• .,, - ;le VrqjjjF rIg 901 L or VP Sk + sib .IF4kJ#Y+ /JO � B e r 01 *7 r °a '° �15 •� •. ,r � :- , t" ,._:' a ,+'�2�' �'. _ .. � - _ I i' r.�' �,�PI �'E:'-'_ _. r, .. nuje f`•„ _ �'- "a '��+ '' r . IRP �rp0 a ' ° a a - .. w,R f Ir r 7 it .'A ��, *.7! * T 3 ' +•I `� � � �� r x ��.. ��:ti ir. 41 r •i. �• s £ - _ �" ,j'. I gN `' , F '� } #Y r� p: I� { , ,a#!'! ',.,: .. •rte ,�� -" _ �' r'm a ■ IF f l.,. M ; 1'_, ``�,,�"v.'•iR"ra e e - _ , r r , _ r 11� �� .� c• ; �°y , � a } �;l :,� : .�: : - ,I � ,� r F � YY- k� : R � 1•- 'is �l +'!f. _ ,� d - - •.',jj z _ e s eJI At IFOF .: _ :.° p j ■6r w , r AL *IF "I wr F1� a !p' xd£I �+ r a j : rr , 1y Owl y er Y, 5. S ,�.'.:lye f + -ter} r+ �... r !Fffl .R a ll- 10i'� J •ye7 rRt. �V '1,A � .; 1 t i IR 1.i r i ,69 i+ j -„n- %' ..• .' y4: di i'difF1+ j , �' - - 1� {c�,ri +ti# rem f rllr { T} y54. 1 p k � _ +` �� A+•.. r + r tl.�•-`. �. �.,, °-� '� 'may " •a' - - � .r=6- .,rr«s -�ML° 7 f • Al .'r �, j -1 -a' -� h _ _ y ,p..• ,L '• ' ! * , # T 111 �+ i �,' !,y L �i "• ry _ 'r' i.p'° 1. '�Ar - 4 s • y-`'.�i'.� 4 _ 'T ” �• - e _ RL v` m Tom- ,k Ge .... } 1��yy '• � G� - ` 1, .- `mss' ^-'' '.s•� .. # ii - -„ ,a ` " Yd y r - s . _-„_yam.>—�r•..�F',�''_ Ir , a ' 4. + .• R 'k. 'o ..f 4 "I.d 1 _ _ e' 'wd. , - - §, '}.�.. 1'§-+ `' i♦L _ , r �K h�e•..`~-'�_. �. �,..�` •' +.v,' .' 'f "'�{• 1� .!§:.:.rJ _,��..,€r. f '` �o '4.r ' a`' 4 's"lS�••:. :iR + ' . ; Ipw. ,. - a r Xr`�i�IL,'w , .. .,yP •Y y. . - ; °.�- �” _ _ r , L �. ' ' , „ A .• - "'+`' • y., , _ . -,. 'fir Al zrr r t ; r PON '�• - ,� � � .- _. 1.. .. ,,:#� .: _ fa. �a, -: - ..fit°° �,� - - r ! �;l., ,� + .�i, � :.Af, �$ � '< # ,moi ..+,^ � , �• �� , j h y: ,1 . 1 a� �y b `� •. a ._. _ .. _ . -. _ w a :vF .�.. a - Is 7 Y - { - JJ'�iM' _1' e 9 : - y _ '� - - a „ - - «r.•. . _ -L ,. _ a i - �` the • _ . , � i Y �.� ��'R �• ,, "' ,' ' L rte, , ■ rte -'- y,ItL .. ! f - . *y a Y a .- F � �. •r°, �� . ,` ' x; -,r • •" _ __'' _ +"a . � Mfr-, '- .M ' ''i!"'f''w t,F �. ? �, -, •� � � X. , . _. _ - _. s � _. - - � • 2,. "may J +� _ a —``• _ r r�+ �Ar_,Il.,fr•* 'M" �.�, . . , }. -- -� ��"- `° ,D ,r' �' i �•.. 3w � s} _ --., `' '+ § = t' _ 'at4 tA ik _ � i. {+r:- - I fr ti=.�w - ��y '' 4 a ?Y.. .. , " �'.e'` Jl �k,, t'� :f. 4 "4r:.•wd _ r �• ... -ea s__ il g°.�-, � �''. `7�, - -. '°..- „`Y� .. - •�` d ,.- _• ..#,,_ � . 1' . . ':: - - - - �' -r • # r s AP _, r .. �f ,* d -�'..„1' ;1�, - �' r �i ,” Y ,F - IR_ k t Ii• {' . y6+y� d' 'TT e a. ei v _ . ;± _ � _+ y "Ir, ms- ',''�. �_ srr< ��'. " �Jk,� v r' ` r 4 7 _ F 7.. b w.. - ' rr° rt, _� •,�, ;{ r` R I - r$ es.an _ v e a 006 �jj vw , 10 ' i r '1 - RFs _ _ -:,:. ,,•�- : meq°-• 'Li AI _ A'- - .. 4tj'1fi. 1 or If' 4V , j Lu ,� .y �Ilr J J # - } ..y r, B Y G• n I iT FF �, - - y'4 - y •- q,rYi 0.1 .. 9 n ��1°�•'ro - f � L ,. -• _ ',� *'* • ser rq . i ( Maz 42' height ] wilhln rear/street I �\ 1 ` 'i 6' max between rear/street setback and average fence setback line (or 75' whichever Is more restriclivel 666 IVO CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR SWANSON HOMES OF LOTS 5-10, CORONADO BEACH LAKE MINNETONKA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA I acknowledge that Mr. Blue at 3017 N. Shore Or Is requesting a variance from the City of Orono as It relates to the 42" fence height restriction on the western comer of his property that is currently in place. The portion of the property that borders County Road 51 Is allowed up to 6' feet in height, and Mr. Blue Is Interested In having a variance granted that will allow for the new fence to be uniform In height throughout the proposed installation areas outlined In yellow on this diagram. Nancy Edwards, Owndr, 308EN61ff,8hdr PROPCMD CLEVATp :(—Hy) 1) Gmagv 2) udn Ibor LEGAL OESCWPTION Or PRELIsEs : (PER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE W. 1026851) Lou 5 Ibough 10 IU41;11, Coronad, 8.004 Lek, .Iin,wloNo. Nate: Accordkq to cwnty p., ih, s,ay belwaen Lot, 5 w 10 d bale... and 1p has bean vaealad. Xee,var, Iha aceto hoe t been added to N, above ear Oficou of Tllla. A pracaadmj .ube.auenl may tie needed t, sed Ina .ocolad aroy m me Wt; ionT o : demi.. Iron marks vet • : d—t.. bon marks I—d CHU): pawl:: A.11N .pal .Mmlien, moan tta level datum ® : denote, ProPo.,d spot elvvolian. mean sea I—t dolum --gO--: dawl.e uislMg cant— r .. ..on ... I...I do,— daw1.. p,apmea cu„twr d.e. m,a. sea Ie.d datum Ihb w y Inland. to snow Iha boundarfas al the ab... d..arT,d properly, f the beatlen ofour edsling bugd gs. two DraDosee to by ree,urctl• Dol oryoalof lopogrgJiy. 1 1-611 hardcover", end Ina proposed location ,IM1er Ipov,men�uae andr=l'reo. II doss nal Durparl to .hoe ony RUN DATE: 08/22/2018 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) 38 09-117-23 24 0001 38 09-117-23 32 0019 THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT L V REARDON & J M REARDON 2865 NORTH SHORE DR 3080 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT LAURENCE & JANET REARDON 3000 XENIUM LA N 3080 NORTH SHORE DR PLYMOUTH MN 55441 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 32 0001 38 09-117-23 32 0020 NANCY KUHL EDWARDS RALPH SMITH ET AL 3065 NORTH SHORE DR 3070 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 NANCY KUHL EDWARDS RALPH E SMITH 3065 NORTH SHORE DR 1175 ELLIS ST WAYZATA MN 55391 APT C114 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94109 38 09-117-23 32 0002 JAMES BLUE 3017 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 JAMES BLUE 9610 SKY LA EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 38 09-117-23 32 0003 JR&KCSWENSON 3020 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 JACK R SWENSON 3020 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 32 0004 KATHRYN D KALLAS 3048 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 KATHRYN D KALLAS 3048 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 38 09-117-23 32 0006 DANIEL J MCGLYNN REVOC TRUST 3090 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 DANIEL J MCGLYNN 3090 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 32 0014 MICHAEL R SIME 3095 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 MICHAEL R SIME 3095 NORTHSHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 32 0015 PAUL ALLEN OLSON 3085 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 PAUL A OLSON 3085 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 32 0016 T H FRAHM & M K FRAHM 3105 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 THOMAS H & MICHELE K FRAHM 3105 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 32 0017 M W SMITH & V M SMITH 3060 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 MICHAEL W SMITH VANESSA M SMITH 3060 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 PAGE: 1 Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases. Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property information available. The viewer should understand, however, that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties, either express or implied, or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 9/13/2018 Buffer Size: 500 feet 0 120 240 480 ft Map Comments: I I I I I I I I I This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us Date Application Received: August 23, 2018 Date Application Considered Complete: September 4, 2018 Date Application Expires 60 -day Rule: November 8, 2018 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner LLO Date: September 17, 2018 Subject: LA18-000077 (LA18-000033 and 18-4000), John Knoblauch o/b/o Colin Keller, 1335 Arbor Street, Variance, Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variances side street setback and interior side setback Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. Background This site was the subject of an earlier variance application (LA18-000033) The application originally requested multiple setback variances and a structural coverage variance. The Planning Commission on January 16, 2018 recommended denial of the request due to the structural coverage variance. The City Council on February 12, 2018 tabled the application and asked the applicants to redesign the home to meeting the structural coverage standards and bring the application back through the public hearing process. On April 16, 2018 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the new proposed plans which met the structural coverage. The commission recommended approval. The City Council reviewed the application on May 14, 2018 and approved variances for lot area, lot width, front yard, side street and interior side yard setbacks (Resolution 6864,). The original applicant sold his interest in the project, and a new buyer has applied for a building permit and is proposing two new encroachments: 1. Expand the house footprint over the approved window well on the interior side of the home; expanding the structure and volume within this setback 2. Creating a new bump out within the side street yard setback outside of the approved house footprint; expanding the structure and volume within this setback These alterations of the building plans are significant enough to warrant additional public review. The new home will eliminate the approved window wells and will bring the home 9.5 feet from Prospect Street when 8.5 feet is approved. The applicant is also showing the chimney bump out at 6.5 feet on the interior side yard. This was not shown on the approved survey but was included as part of the approved house plans. LA18-000077 September 17, 2018 Page 2 of 5 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-420 - Setbacks: DISTRICT RR -1B Required Approved on 5.14.18 Proposed Front (Arbor St) 50' 40' 40' Rear (Briar St)_ 50' 53' 55' Street (Prospect Ave) 30' 8.5' 9.5' Side 10' 7.5'(6.5' at Chimney) 7.5' (6.5' at Chimney) Section 420- Lot Area/Width- DISTRICT RR -1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres) 200' Actual 9,100 s. (0.2 acre) 52' Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 9100 s. (0.2 acre) Allowed: 2,000 s.f. Proposed: 1,988 s.f. (House and Entry) (21.8%) *On lots of less than 10,000 square feet in area, the total combined footprints of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 2,000 square feet. Section 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Approved Proposed Overlay District Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover Tier 3,185 s.f. 3,119s.f. 3,086s.f. Tier 3 9,100 s.f. (35 %) (34.27%) (33.91%) Applicable Regulations: Setback Variances (Section 78-4201 They are requesting a 7.5 interior side yard setback with a 6.5 foot setback for the chimney bump out, where a 10' feet is required. (6.5 was approved in May, 2018) They are requesting a 9.5 side (Prospect Ave.) street setback where 30' is required. (8.5 was approved in May, 2018) 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 LA18-000077 September 17, 2018 Page 3 of 5 variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to construct a new single family home on a residential lot which is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The variances 7.5' interior side and 9.5 street side request is reasonable considering the configuration and buildable area of the property. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a permit for a new single family residence in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The applicant is proposing use of the property in a reasonable manner with the construction on a single family home. There is limited space to construct a conforming structure on the site. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The plight of the property owner is due to the existing substandard lot size and shape, and its uniqueness being a lot abutting 3 streets. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The character of the neighborhood is not likely to be significantly altered from replacement of the residence which is consistent in character and size with the surrounding homes. d. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a single family home is an allowed use in the RR -1113 District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The size of the lot with in the RR -1B zoning district and abuting 3 streets is unique for the requested lot width, lot area and setback variances. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The size of the lot and its locations as it pertains to the existing zoning district is peculiar to the property. LA18-000077 September 17, 2018 Page 4 of 5 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Staff finds this statement to be true to allow for construction of a single family home on this parcel. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting of the requested variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and would be in keeping with the intent of the zoning code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The application has stated the narrow corner lot has setback challenges for construction of a single family home. The property is unique in size location between three streets. 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 The property is served by City sewer. Engineer Comments Depending on roof line, roof overhang or small areas for drainage water may be able to be mitigated with a gutter system. The applicant must ensure the roof and surface runoff are not directed toward the neighboring property. 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 there are practical difficulties inherent to the lot area, lot width and proposed setbacks. Due to the size of the lot located within the 2 acre RR -113 zoning district. The lot is also unique in that has street which is abutting 3 sides of the lot. Public Comments Public comments made at the January 16, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting were in favor of the proposed project. A major concern that came up from the neighborhood was the proposed height of the building and for it to remain a one story home as to not overshadow the street to have the home maintain the character of the neighborhood. This was a discussion by the council as well. The new redesigned home is a one story home with no windows above the first floor. No public comments have been received to date. Issues for Consideration Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? LA18-000077 September 17, 2018 Page 5 of 5 Planning Commission options for consideration If the Planning Commission has discussed and has sufficient findings for the requests, staff would recommend approval of the request variances. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Approved Resolution 6864 from LA18-000033 (18-4000) Exhibit F. Site Pictures Exhibit G. Setback Exhibit Exhibit H. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit 1. Property Owners List and Map Exhibit J. Project Narrative Letter View Application Date: Address: Parcel Number: Land Use Number: Application Submitted By: Owner: Land Use Application Summary 08/23/2018 1335 ARBOR ST WAYZATA, MN 55391 1011723310051 LA18-000077 Agent on behalf of property owner Name: BARBARA J GARCIA Address: P O BOX 114 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 Applicant: Name: john Knoblauch Address: 1450 Knob Hill lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Contact Information: Associated Contact: Colin & Vanessa Keller Associated Contact: Jeff Martineau Associated Contact: Mark Gronberg Associated Contact: Project Description: Amendment to City of Orono variance #6864 Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application El Appeal of Admin Decision ❑ Concept Application ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Application ❑ Subdivision Application ❑ Subdivision Exception ❑ Vacation Application Variance Application ❑ Applicant Signature: file:///C/Userslloakden/Downloads/Land%20Use%20Application%20Summary%20(2).htm[9/13/2018 10:07:58 AM] Exhibit A LA18-000077 PC Letter View PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA18-000077 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: N/A 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The property is only 52 feet wide and fronts and sides on 3 streets 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The request is similar to what currently exists on the property 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: N/A S. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1163.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: N/A 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: N/A 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: N/A 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: All property in this area experience some setback issues due to lot sizes 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: N/A 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: This proposed home is not large 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, file:///C1Userslloakden/Downloads/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(2).htm[9/13/2018 10:08:30 AM] Letter View morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Response: This proposed home is an asset to the neighbors and is a single level to minimize impact to the neighbors 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: Correct file:///C1Userslloakden/Downloads/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(2).htm[9/13/2018 10:08:30 AM] r OO(954.6)CV /W (956-4) I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR COLIN KELLER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, MARKVI LLE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PROSPECT AVE. 0) (954.5) EDGE OF BLACKTOP p (995/5.11)- - �7-(39�'a3CJ O : f` In . CO 955.5 20.16 14.00 _ — o M / ENTRY 11.83 C PROPOSED SILT FENCE 0 20 40 80 SCALE IN FEET Q (955.5) (955.8) p� ----- ----- F - (956.2) VOf 9.67 �j goo _ i 8.17 N I� / PROPOSED �o/ - HOUSE adz (F) o (LL 4 R #1335 - ----- TOP OF FOUNDATION (A) 12.00 0 o REFERENCE POINT 15.50 6.67 _ _ 56.3.3 /LO LJ EGRESS WELL S 89020'30" E 175.00 EXISTING O O CV W O BLACKTOP r DRIVEWAY O (E) O \40.00 (956.3) PROPOSED ROCK CONST. ENTRANCE (956.6) ``lL V/ O m Q (956.6) (956.6) POOL HOUSE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: / O O PROPOSED GRADES (VERIFY) O Denotes iron marker set U / o TOP OF FOUNDATION= 960.8 MAIN FLOOR = 962.5 (956.6) : Denotes existing spot elevation BASEMENT = 952.8 LOOK OUT = 956.0 956.5: Denotes proposed spot elevation —BRq —: Denotes proposed contour cl�/ O I z (955.5) hardcover thereon. It does not purport to show any other encroachments /m or improvements. (956-4) I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR COLIN KELLER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, MARKVI LLE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PROSPECT AVE. 0) (954.5) EDGE OF BLACKTOP p (995/5.11)- - �7-(39�'a3CJ O : f` In . CO 955.5 20.16 14.00 _ — o M / ENTRY 11.83 C PROPOSED SILT FENCE 0 20 40 80 SCALE IN FEET Q (955.5) (955.8) p� ----- ----- F - (956.2) VOf 9.67 �j goo _ i 8.17 N I� / PROPOSED �o/ - HOUSE adz (F) o (LL 4 R #1335 - ----- TOP OF FOUNDATION (A) 12.00 0 o REFERENCE POINT 15.50 6.67 _ _ 56.3.3 /LO LJ EGRESS WELL S 89020'30" E 175.00 EXISTING O O CV W O BLACKTOP r DRIVEWAY O (E) O \40.00 (956.3) PROPOSED ROCK CONST. ENTRANCE (956.6) ``lL V/ O m Q (956.6) (956.6) POOL HOUSE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: #1355 Lot 1, Block 2, MARKVILLE • Denotes iron marker found PROPOSED GRADES (VERIFY) O Denotes iron marker set GARAGE = 960.5, 960.1 — -956— : Denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum TOP OF FOUNDATION= 960.8 MAIN FLOOR = 962.5 (956.6) : Denotes existing spot elevation BASEMENT = 952.8 LOOK OUT = 956.0 956.5: Denotes proposed spot elevation —BRq —: Denotes proposed contour This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property and the location of an existing house, driveway, shed and existing hardcover thereon. It does not purport to show any other encroachments or improvements. UU) W�� ZZN Uj Q 'J X O1 O'J a '0 � LL >p (n � J M p W V �z0 Ogo M WZ0� m z 3 ri; ZIA z Z ILI 21% 111 r�ES note � =yc0 O t -- OD 0 00 Doc No A10565236 Certified, filed and/or recorded on Jun 20, 2018 12:05 PM Office of the County Recorder Hennepin County, Minnesota Martin McCormick, County Recorder Mark Chapin, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 49 Pkg ID 1702250E Document Recording Fee $46.00 Document Total This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. $46.00 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6864 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-420 and 78-305 FILE NO. LAI 8-000033 (18-4000) WHEREAS, on December 13, 2018, Barbara Garcia ("Applicant'), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 1335 Arbor Street and legally described as: Lot 1, Block 2, MARKVILLE Hennepin County, MN (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 to allow front, side and side street setbacks; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305 to allow lot area and lot width; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2018, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the City Council held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on April 16, 2018, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances; and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2018, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested 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 #LA18-000033 (18-4000). 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 TIM CITY COUNCIL 6864 NO. 2. The Property is located in the RR -113 Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 0.2 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 52 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 3 and hardcover is limited to 35 % according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. Front Yard b. Side Yard c. Street Side Yard d. Lot Area e. Lot Width 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: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance ...." The applicant is proposing to construct a new single family home on a residential lot which is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The lot width and lot area variances are consistent with the general intent of the Ordinance. The variances for a 40' front, 7.5' interior side and 8.5 street side request is reasonable considering the configuration and buildable area of the property. 2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The variances resulting in a permit for a new single family residence in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. "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 applicant is proposing use of the property in a reasonable manner with the construction on a single family home. There is limited space to construct a conforming structure on the site. 2 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6864 b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The plight of the property owner is due to the existing substandard lot size and shape, and its uniqueness being a lot abutting 3 streets. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " The character of the neighborhood is not likely to be significantly altered from replacement of the residence which is consistent in character and size with the surrounding homes. 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties." Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. "Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78." This condition is not applicable. 6. "The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." This condition is not applicable, as the use for a single family home is an allowed use in the RR -16 District. 7. "The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." This condition is not applicable. 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." The size of the lot with in the RR -113 zoning district and abutting 3 streets is unique for the requested lot width, lot area and setback variances. 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located." The size of the lot and its locations as it pertains to the existing zoning district is peculiar to the property. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." Staff finds this statement to be true to allow for construction of a single family home on this parcel. 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter." Granting of the CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6864 requested variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and would be in keeping with the intent of the zoning code. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." The application has stated the narrow corner lot has setback challenges for construction of a single family home. The property is unique in size location between three streets. 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 78-420 and 78-305 to allow front yard, side yard street side yard, lot area and lot width, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the survey dated April 26, 2018 and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits 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 (May 14, 2019). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 14 day of May, 2018. ATTEST: nna Carlson, City C erk 4 lid • •-• • ` 1 •!,W Dennis Walsh, Mayor CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR COLIN KELLER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, MARKVILLE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA �i w � O � o Z l/ FENCELIKE io !� I F I I 0 20 40 80 SCALE IN FEET PROSPECT AVE. Resolution Exhibit A I -A18-000033 (18-4000) —_S89°2 W' E -I -MIX ---- — • 35.0.— W N c)WALK .. {D) _ E .. � - - tu 0 22.0PATIO PROP tHOUSE `� / (B) BLACKTOP C DR (E) C m2e.5 W"NT (r - ..- .....................-.i 40 00 a y S 89°20'30" E 175.00 IOUSEG POOLI H I #1355 I LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: I RECEIVED Lot 1, Bbck 2, MARKVILLE I s : Demotes iron marker roans APR 2 6 2018 O De"°ft° Iran marker W CITY OF C?ONO -- 9 � Demotes e)dstbp conlow lets, mean sea level damn This a rvay shows the bomlerm of the above deealbW properly and me location of an erieUrg hams. ameTwey, saes and axistlnp hardoover thereon. h any Wier arraoechmenb or mVrovements I ri LON0. O-0, atu . m6r- %484 -fAACA4E ttav--tt .... . A54 rf V-4 -kwp,M,( 4biCI6 �4AV---.F7 NT FLOOR 7 AQP. 0 -WAPPAL - I if Wferok'I --Um- .-Jae, -27A alo 04125/2011 1295 OP I110 RROSPE 5 TAW! IN1EAt - V PRQ PE6 r.• Ar AYE ,a 1 0 P•ROSPEE AYE " oma (954.0) (954.6) N / w CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR Vito Zz� O COLIN KELLER 1:5M, O � r OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, MARKVI LLE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Om0 NUio lcr�/ O Q Z (955.5) �m W WO M 2 J Z3 u CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR Vito Zz� �a=C4 COLIN KELLER 1:5M, Wcz 4 = OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, MARKVI LLE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Om0 NUio BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY W � N G 062r" 4 ga W WO M 2 J Z3 u —____—___--______------__—_.___—_--------- Z W Z 0 z Zo a PROSPECT AVE. .ice (954.5) ------ PROPOSED SILT FENCE Fa I OF BLACKTOP (955.1) O to•(O CD: of 20.16 F 14000 6 �J � i c) 7 % � / � EI 11.83 i (955.5) _...... WALK (D) 22.00 PROPOSED LU o/HOUSE (F) #1335 LL A . TOP OF FOUNDATION (A) LS, 12.00 0 REFERENCE POINT �+ / 6.67 �:._.. . LJEGRESS WELL ti: F (B) S 89°20'30" ES 89°20'30" E 175.000 (956.4) 1 l i POOL PROPOSED GRADES (VERIFY) GARAGE = 960 .5, 960.1 TOP OF FOUNDATION= 960.8 0 20 40 80 MAIN FLOOR = 962.5 BASEMENT = 952.8 LOOK OUT = 956.0 SCALE IN FEET EXISTING (955.8) — — — — (956.2) LO� W .: CDPO $ BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY r O N W (E) O OF BLACKTOP (955.1) O to•(O CD: of 20.16 F 14000 6 �J � i c) 7 % � / � EI 11.83 i (955.5) _...... WALK (D) 22.00 PROPOSED LU o/HOUSE (F) #1335 LL A . TOP OF FOUNDATION (A) LS, 12.00 0 REFERENCE POINT �+ / 6.67 �:._.. . LJEGRESS WELL ti: F (B) S 89°20'30" ES 89°20'30" E 175.000 (956.4) 1 l i POOL PROPOSED GRADES (VERIFY) GARAGE = 960 .5, 960.1 TOP OF FOUNDATION= 960.8 0 20 40 80 MAIN FLOOR = 962.5 BASEMENT = 952.8 LOOK OUT = 956.0 SCALE IN FEET EXISTING (955.8) — — — — (956.2) 40.00 HOUSE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: #1355 Lot 1 Block 2 MARKVILLE (956.3) PROPOSED ROCK CONST. ENTRANCE (956.6) VJ W M Q (956.6) (956.6) 0 Denotes iron marker found 0 Denotes iron marker set - —.r,56---: Denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum (956.6) : Denotes existing spot elevation e-%.5 : Denotes proposed spot elevation ---F--: Denotes proposed contour This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property and the location of an existing house, driveway, shed and existing hardcover thereon. It does not purport to show any other encroachments or improvements, co 0 co LO� W .: CDPO $ BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY r O N W (E) O 40.00 HOUSE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: #1355 Lot 1 Block 2 MARKVILLE (956.3) PROPOSED ROCK CONST. ENTRANCE (956.6) VJ W M Q (956.6) (956.6) 0 Denotes iron marker found 0 Denotes iron marker set - —.r,56---: Denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum (956.6) : Denotes existing spot elevation e-%.5 : Denotes proposed spot elevation ---F--: Denotes proposed contour This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property and the location of an existing house, driveway, shed and existing hardcover thereon. It does not purport to show any other encroachments or improvements, co 0 co (954.0) (954.6) n-. /W (956-4) CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR COLIN KELLER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, MARKVI LLE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PROSPECT AVE. (954.5) EDGE OF BLACKTOP (955.1) (955.5) (955.8) -- --- (956.2) • Denotes iron marker found o In O GARAGE = 960.5, 960.1 — -956— : Denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum TOP OF FOUNDATION= 960.8 MAIN FLOOR = 962.5 (956.3) BASEMENT = 952.8 LOOK OUT = 956.0 sss.s : Denotes proposed spot elevation U) o This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property and the location of an existing house, driveway, shed and existing O At/ T Z (955.5) /m PROPOSED ROCK CONST. (956-4) CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR COLIN KELLER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, MARKVI LLE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PROSPECT AVE. (954.5) EDGE OF BLACKTOP (955.1) (955.5) (955.8) -- --- (956.2) 0 20 40 80 SCALE IN FEET • Denotes iron marker found o In �p GARAGE = 960.5, 960.1 — -956— : Denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum TOP OF FOUNDATION= 960.8 MAIN FLOOR = 962.5 (956.3) BASEMENT = 952.8 LOOK OUT = 956.0 sss.s : Denotes proposed spot elevation Q) :0) This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property and the location of an existing house, driveway, shed and existing . 955 5 9553 20.16 14.00 — 9 — - .� PROPOSED ROCK CONST. o O ENTRANCE WALF�- (D) - - CV ENTRY - - - - - - (956.6) 11.83 / C 6.33 - - W 9.67 0 22.00 �..------- PROPOSED\ 8.17 N PROPOSED SILT FENCE Io.,UO� z (F) 0 HOUSE N #1335 o N BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY _o r (a j 0 O 4 L (A) ( ) m 12.00 REEF RENCE POINT 00 T _. o 15.50 --6.67� 56.33 O / .� LJ EGRESS WELL ..................•--• \ � •-.--••••- 40.00 Q FENCELINE F (B) -�^\ (956.6) S 89020'30" E 175.00 / I (956.6) I EXISTING POOL HOUSE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: #1355 Lot 1 Block 2 MARKVILLE 0 20 40 80 SCALE IN FEET UU) ZZN Uj Q 'J X O1 O'J a '0 � LL :n > (n � J M p W V Ogo M WZO� m o 3 ai Zw z Z W 5 W a '^U� ^g g�N u�R E 3 $ a� = E -3,21 any mem' not o 11 t -- OD 0 00 • Denotes iron marker found PROPOSED GRADES (VERIFY) O Denotes iron marker set GARAGE = 960.5, 960.1 — -956— : Denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum TOP OF FOUNDATION= 960.8 MAIN FLOOR = 962.5 (956.6) : Denotes existing spot elevation BASEMENT = 952.8 LOOK OUT = 956.0 sss.s : Denotes proposed spot elevation —BRq—: Denotes proposed contour This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property and the location of an existing house, driveway, shed and existing hardcover thereon. It does not purport to show any other encroachments or improvements. UU) ZZN Uj Q 'J X O1 O'J a '0 � LL :n > (n � J M p W V Ogo M WZO� m o 3 ai Zw z Z W 5 W a '^U� ^g g�N u�R E 3 $ a� = E -3,21 any mem' not o 11 t -- OD 0 00 00 00 11 11A*'opoo33 rVWLy May 7016 18-087 4 C) CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR COLIN KELLER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, MARKVILLE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA EDGE OF BLAS XTOP PROSPECT AVE. r1%jV%3Q #1355 LEGAL DESCRIPT90N OF PREM15ES: 3-21-18:REVtSED PROPOSED HOUSE Lot 1, Block 2. MARKVILLE Denotes iron marker found SCALE 1" = 20' 0 Denotes iron marker set DATE -956- --� Denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum — 12-6-17 This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property and the location of an existing house, driveway, shed and existing JOB NO• hardcover thereon. It does not purport to show any other encroachments 101 R—r)P.-7 or improvements. r*--. 00 00 r- �p * /W '� o U) 0 1 r' Z CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR COLIN KELLER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, MARKVILLE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA EDGE OF BLAS XTOP PROSPECT AVE. r1%jV%3Q #1355 LEGAL DESCRIPT90N OF PREM15ES: 3-21-18:REVtSED PROPOSED HOUSE Lot 1, Block 2. MARKVILLE Denotes iron marker found SCALE 1" = 20' 0 Denotes iron marker set DATE -956- --� Denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum — 12-6-17 This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property and the location of an existing house, driveway, shed and existing JOB NO• hardcover thereon. It does not purport to show any other encroachments 101 R—r)P.-7 or improvements. r*--. 00 00 r- 44 IV F(6Yli"o C?O eav SideOrd W ��'fYCCi' stile yard o CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR BARBARA GARCIA OF LOT 1 BLOCK 2, MARKVILLE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PROSPECT AVE. EDGE OF RLACKMP GRONBERG &ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, SITE PLANNERS 445 N. WILLOW DRIVE LONG I.AKE, MN. 55356 952-473-4141 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Numgr 12755 SCALE 201 DATE 12-6-17 ,SOB NO. 17-437 Ir 1 *2uu LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Lot Is Block 21 MARKVILLE 0 Denotes Iron marker found 0 Denotes iron marker set -956-- --4 Denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property and the location of an existing house, driveway, shed and existing hardcover thereon. It does not purport to show any other encroachments or improvements. City of Orono �oNo Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: 1335 /A90A TTR EFT ( KFccFR) SHONE Prepared by: Date: G R a,vd F,c G t Asrac�� SFr .�„vc. Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 2: ROPOSED HARDCOVER In the following table, identify al I ems of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total Feet -Survey(Square Gar a 24' x 30 720 S.F. -(Example) A S.F. B S.F. C 219 S.F. C 3 S.F. E ao Ce 7 S.F. F CPA/C. /.tT-i .- r RF t 6 ig S.F. G S.F. H S.F. I S.F. S.F. K S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. O S.F. P S.F. Q S.F. R S.F. S S.F. T S.F. u S.F. V S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. 1 Total Proposed Hardcover O S.F. Excludable Hardcover See City Code Sec 78-1664): S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 2 Total Excludable Hardcover O S.F. 3 Net Proposed Hardcover ISubtract line 2 from line 1 3086 S.F. 4 Total Lot Area 7/00 S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [ (3) +(4)] ,3,� , i % Subdivision Application - January 2016 This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein; however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. page 19 RUN DATE: 09/04/2018 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PACE: 1 38 10-117-23 11 0002 38 10-117-23 310019 38 10-117-23 310035 HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RRAUTH D & K I3ECKER TWELVE OAKS PROPERTIES LLC 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2180 PROSPECT AVE 1295 ARBOR ST ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55323 ORONO MN 55391 HENNEPIN COUNTY DONALD & KATHERINE J BECKER TWELVE OAKS PROPERTIES LL.0 REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY 2180 PROSPECT AVE CHRISTOPHER R PERRY 701 4TH AVE S SUITE 400 WAYZATA MN 55391 1125 HUNTER DR MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 23 0004 38 10-117-23 310024 38 10-117-23 310036 C DAHL & D L HOPP ET AL TOWN OF ORONO M & J BLUE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 1275 BROWN RD S 2160 CRYSTAL AVE ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55323 CHRISTOPHER DAHL CITY OF ORONO MARCUS 3 & JUDY A BLUE DEBORAH L HOPP PO BOX 66 2160 CRYSTAL AVE 1300 FRENCH CREEK DR CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 310003 38 10-117-23 310025 38 10-117-23 310037 L G GODFREY ET AL TRUSTEES TOWN OF ORONO JASON MIAOS 2060 NORTH SHORE DR 1275 BROWN RD S 1290 BRIAR ST ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 LYLE G GODFREY CITY OF ORONO JASON JYMOS NORMA I GODFREY PO BOX 66 1290 BRIAR ST 2060 NORTH SHORE DR CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 310004 38 10-117-23 310026 38 10-117-23 31 0039 CAROL A LA QUEY VIL OF ORONO JOHN C RANGE 2080 NORTH SHORE DR 1285 BROWN RD S 1270 BRIAR ST ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 CAROL A LA QUEY CITY OF ORONO JOHN C RANGE 2080 NORTH SHORE DR PO BOX 66 PO BOX 105 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 10-117-23 310005 38 10-117-23 31 0027 38 10-117-23310039 ROBERT C LARSON VIL OF ORONO L PEARSON-CASIiIN & S CASHIN t390 RAILROAD AVE 1285 BROWN RD S 1250 BRIAR ST ORONO MN 55323 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ROBERT C LARSON CITY OF ORONO LAURIE A PEARSON-CASHIN 1390 RAILROAD AVE PO BOX 66 SEAN P CASHIN WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 1250 BRIAR ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 310006 38 LO-117-23 31 0028 38 10-117-23 310042 STEFAN GARCON & PEGGY GARCON DEAN T LUNDBLAD ET AL LINDA LAVERNE PRINTUP 1380 RAILROAD AVE 1290 ARBOR ST 1261 BRIAR. ST ORONO MN 55323 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55323 STEFAN GARCON DEAN T LUNDBLAD LINDA L PRINTUP PEGGY GARCON SHERRI STRELOW-LUNDBLAD PO BOX 104 1350 RAILROAD AVE 1290 ARBOR ST 1261 BRJAR ST WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 10-117-23 31 0007 38 10-117-23 310029 38 10-117-23 31 0043 S R TWELVES & S A TWELVES TIMOTHY RANSON PAUL ALLONBY 1360 RAILROAD AVE 1270 ARBOR ST 1291 BRIAR ST ORONO MN 55323 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 STEVEN R TWELVES TIMOTHY HANSON PAUL ALLONBY SALLY A TWELVES 1270 ARBOR ST 1291 BRIAR ST 1360 RAILROAD AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 310016 38 10-117-23 310032 38 10-117-23 310044 KYLA R HUDSON TRUST F& B PETERSON I A GERBER & P C REITAN 2150 PROSPECT AVE 1261 ARBOR ST 1295 BRIAR ST ORONO MN 55323 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 KYLA & CASEY HUDSON F P PETERSON JOEL A GERBER 2150 PROSPECT AVE P O BOX 164 P.O. BOX 74 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 10-117-23 310017 38 10-117-23 310033 38 10-117.23 31 0048 M MADDIE & M MADDIE STEVEN G RICHARDSON ET AL CRAIG B SARNER 2160 PROSPECT AVE 1271 ARBOR ST 1375 BROWN RD S ORONO MN 55323 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 MICHAEL & MELISSA MADDIE STEVEN & SARAH RICHARDSON CRAIG B SARNER 2160 PROSPECT AVE 1271 ARBOR ST 1375 BROWN RD S CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 310018 38 10-117-23310034 38 10-117-23 310049 JANE WHITE C J ALBRECHT & J L ALBRECHT CRAIG S BLEEKER/AMY B BUTLER 2170 PROSPECT AVE 1285 ARBOR ST 1380 ARBOR ST ORONO MN 55323 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 JANE &c TIM WHITE C J & J L ALBRECHT CRAIG S BLEEKER/AMY B BUTLER 1682D CO RD 122 i2R5 ARBOR ST 1380 ARBOR ST MAYER MN 55360 WAYZATA hLV 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 RUN DATE: 09!1412018 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) 38 10-117-23 310050 33 10-117-23 310099 P F & L KALEY MSSP ORONO LLC 1395 BROWN RD S 2180 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 PHILIP KALEY MSSP ORONO LLC 1395 BROWN RD S AT IN RAJIV GARG WAYZATAMN 55391 955 VILLAGE. CENTER DR #382 WAYZATA MN 55391 ST PAUL MN 55127 38 10-117-23 310051 38 10-117-23 310101 C L KELLER & V A KELLER CITY OF ORONO 1335 ARBOR ST 1335 BROWN RD S ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 COLIN L KELLER CITY OF ORONO VANESSA A KELLER BOX 66 1335 ARBOR ST CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 310052 38 10-117-23 310102 R F CRAIG & S F CRAIG R I ROTH & T QUASI 1.355 ARBOR ST 1251 BRIAR ST ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ROBERT F CRAIG ROBERTA JEAN ROTH SAMANTHA F CRAIG P O BOX 159 1355 ARBOR ST CRYSTAL 13AY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 NORTH PALM BEACH FL 33410 38 10-117-23310053 38 10-117-23 310103 I ZITZLOFF & B ZITZLOFF EMILY K FISCHER 13380 BRIAR ST 2140 PROSPECT AVE ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55323 JEFFREY ZITZLOFF EMILY K FISCHER BRENDA ZITZLOFF 2140 PROSPECT AVE 1380 BRIAR ST WAYZATA MN 55391 W AYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 31 0054 38 10-117-23 310104 DAVID ALAN SUTHERLAND TERRY D & CHRISTINE M MORSE 1365 ARBOR ST 2080 SPATES AVE ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 DAVID ALAN SUTHERLAND TERRY D & CHRISTINE M MORSE 1365 ARBOR ST 2080 SPATES AVE PO BOX 161 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 10-117-23 310055 38 10-117-23 310106 SHOTCRETE SERVICES LLC REGINA ENGEBRITSON 1395 ARBOR ST 1250 ARBOR ST ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 SHOTCRETESERVICES LLC REGINA ENGEBRITSON 1385 ARBOR ST 1250 ARBOR ST WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 310056 38 10-117-23320005 LESLIE KENNEDY S CLINTON JR & M C CLINTON 2140 NORTH SHORE DR 2235 FRENCH CREEK CIR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 LESLIE KENNEDY STANFORD CLINTON JR 2385 SANFORD AVE SW MARY CHRISTINE CLINTON #343 89 749 HARBUR POINT DR GRANDVILLE MI 49418 NORTH PALM BEACH FL 33410 38 10-117-23310057 38 10-117-23 320019 KAREN BARTELT ART CENTER OF MINNESOTA 13335 BRIAR ST 2240 NORTH S14ORE DR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 KAREN BARTELT MiNNETONKA CTR FOR THE ARTS 1335 BRIAR ST 2240 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 310059 38 10-117-23 33 0006 AARON IT PRIM ITUP GREGG WIDENISE E STEINHAFEL 2195 PROSPECT AVE 2.285 NORTH SHORE. DR ORONO MN 55323 ORONO MN 55391 AARON N PRINITIP GREGG WIDEMSE F STEINHAFEL 2195 PROSPECT AVE 2265 NORTH SHORE DR P O BOX 104 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 N 10-117-23 310097 VII_IAGE OF ORONO 38 ADDRESS UNASSICTNED ORONO MN 00000 VILLAGEOF ORONO P O BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 PACE:2 Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases. Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current properly information available- The viewer should understand, however, that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties, either express or implied, or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness oftbe information contained herein. 38 10-117-23 11 0002 38 10-117-23 31 0019 38 10-117-23 310035 HENNEPIN COUNTY DONALD & KATHERINE J BECKER TWELVE OAKS PROPERTIES LLC REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY 2180 PROSPECT AVE CHRISTOPHER R PERRY 701 4TH AVE S SUITE 400 WAYZATA MN 55391 1125 HUNTER DR NfNNEAPOLIS MN 55415 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 23 0004 38 10-117-23 31 0024 38 10417-23 310036 CHRISTOPHER DAHL CITY OF ORONO MARCUS J & JUDY A BLUE DEBORAH L HOPP PO BOX 66 2160 CRYSTAL AVE 1300 FRENCH CREEK DR CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 10-117-23 31 0003 38 10-117-23 310025 38 10-117-23 310037 LYLE G GODFREY CITY OF ORONO JASON RMOS NORMA J GODFREY PO BOX 66 1290 BRIAR ST 2060 NORTH SHORE DR CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 310004 38 10-117-23 310026 38 10-117-23 31 0038 CAROL A LA iQUEY CITY OF ORONO JOHN C RANGE 2080 NORTH SHORE DR PO BOX 66 P O BOX 105 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL, BAY MN 55323 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 10-117-23 310005 38 10-117-23 310027 38 10-117-23 310039 ROBERT C LARSON CITY OF ORONO LAURIE A PEARSON-CASHIN 1390 RAILROAD AVE PO BOX 66 SEAN P CASHIN WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 1250 BRIAR ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 31 0006 38 10-117-23 31 0028 38 10-117-23 31 0042 STEFAN GARCON DEAN T LUNDBLAD LINDA L PRINTUP PEGGY GARCON SHERRI STRELOW-LUNDBLAD PO BOX 104 1380 RAILROAD AVE 1290 ARBOR ST 1261 BRIAR ST WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 10-117-23 310007 38 10-117-23310029 38 10-117-23 310043 STEVEN R TWELVES TIMOTHY HANSON PAUL ALLONBY SALLY A TWELVES 1270 ARBOR ST 1291 BRIAR ST 1360 RAILROAD AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 31 0016 38 10-117-23 310032 38 10-117-23 310044 KYLA & CASEY HUDSON F P PETERSON JOEL A GERBER 2150 PROSPECT AVE P O BOX 164 P.O. BOX 74 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 10-117-23 310017 38 10-117-23 310033 38 10-117-23 310048 MICHAEL & MELISSA MADDIE STEVEN & SARAH RICHARDSON CRAIG B SARNER 2160 PROSPECT AVE 1271 ARBOR ST 1375 BROWN RD S CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 1VAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 310019 38 10-117-23 310034 38 10-117-23 310049 JANE & TIM WHITE C J & J L ALBRECHT CRAIG S BLEEKERIAMY B BUTLER 16820 CORD 122 1285 ARBOR ST 1380 ARBOR ST MAYER MN 55360 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 310050 38 10-117-23 310099 PHILIP KALEY MSSP ORONO LLC 1395 BROWN RD S ATTN RAJIV GARG WAYZATA MN 55391 855 VILLAGE CENTER DR #382 WAYZATA MN 55391 ST PAUL MN 55127 38 10-117-23 310051 38 10-117-23 310101 COLIN L KELLER CITY OF ORONO VANESSA A KELLER BOX 66 1335 ARBOR ST CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 NORTH PALM BEACH FL 33410 38 10-117.-23 31 0052 38 10-117-23 310107 ROBERT F CRAIG ROBERTA JEAN ROTH SAMANTHA F CRAIG P O BOX 159 1355 ARBOR ST CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 NORTH PALM BEACH FL 33410 38 10-117-23 310053 38 10-117-23 310103 JEFFREY ZITZLOFF EMILY K FISCHER BRENDA ZITZLOFF 2140 PROSPECT AVE 138013RTAR ST WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 NORTH PALM BEACH FL 33410 38 10-117-23 310054 38 10-117-23 310104 DAVID ALAN SUTHERLAND TERRY & CHRISTINE M MORSE 1365 ARBOR ST 2080 SPATES AVE PO BOX 161 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 NORTH PALM BEACH FL 33410 38 10-117-23 31 0055 38 10-117-23 310106 SHOTCRETE SERVICES LLC REGINA ENGEBRITSON 1385 ARBOR ST 1250 ARBOR ST WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 31 0056 38 10-117-23 32 0005 LESLIE KENNEDY STANFORD CLINTON JR 7,885 SANFORD AVE SW MARY CHRISTINE CLTNTON #34389 749 HARI3UR POINT DR GRANDVILLE MI 49418 NORTH PALM BEACH FL 33410 38 10-117-23 31 0057 38 10-117-23 32 0019 KAREN IIARTELT MINNETONKA CTR FOR THE ARTS 1335 BRIAR ST 2240 NORTH SHORE DRIVE WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 310059 38 10-117-23 33 0006 AARON H PRTNTUP GREGG W/DENTSE E STEINHAFEL 2195 PROSPECT AVE 2265 NORTH SHORE DR P O BOX 104 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 10-117-23 310097 VILLAGE OF ORONO POBOX66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 Hennepin county Locate & Notify Map Date: 9/4/2011 , L k !ter. 21 t; U 1$D 121401 ..._�.�_.....�.�......- ----.....--.^--.- 221`5 Buffer Size: 500 feet Map Comments: 1335 Arbor Street 133(1 D84€ (41, 24Ct} 1449 0 60 120 240 ft I t I I I I I I This data () is furnished 'AS IS° with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering orsurveying purposes, Hennepin County shafl not be Rable for any damage, injury or loan reoufling from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 1 gis.into@hennepin.us From: John Knoblauch To: Laura Oakden Cc: Jeremy Barnhart; Anne Hentaes Subject: Re: 1335 Arbor St- Variance Application Process/submittal Date: Friday, August 24, 2018 7:39:55 AM Good morning Laura! We appreciate your efforts and want to thank you in helping my wife, myself, and the landowners, Colin and Vanessa Keller, amend these two footprint dimension changes so they can meet the level of variance approval needed by your planning staff, in regards to sistering the original approved variance .... so we can hopefully down the road, proceed with the building permit application.. Just want to clarify with city staff and for our clients, That the Kellers are hoping to be placed on the Sept. 17th planning commission agenda to have the commission review these two dimensional alterations to the building footprint that you have discovered, (These two lines are different then the lines of the building footprint that was approved in the original variance.) Wanted to take this opportunity to bring to the entire city staffs attention, (which I think is critical here on this piece of property) that all hardcover limits in the approved original variance have been met or reduced with the footprint I submitted... Also would like to mention here that I personally have made a huge effort since I was hired in early July 2018 (well after the initial variance approval) to use my 32 years of single family home construction expertise to come up with a better, more realistic house plan/footprint that will better serve the land use, existing contours, the neighbor to the south, the homeowners, and especially the city, as this revised footprint has implemented 3 important improvements....... 1) The new footprint has deleted 3 over sized window wells which would have been detrimental to both the neighbor and my clients, by making storm water management more difficult and possibly saved city staffs time in working on a difficult long term solution down the road.. 2) The new footprint has eliminated the need for a retaining wall next to Prospect Ave, which the original house plan would have created, which in turn would have been a challenge for your staff and and public works department.... 3) The new footprint has gained 12" of extra lot space along Prospect Ave. which is also better for the city of Orono. Hopefully staff can take solace that these two minor footprint alterations, along with a better fitting footprint on this unique property, and the elimination of the 32' of window wells, is a big win for everyone, including the city of Orono Thanks for your time and look forward to working with you on your city staff approval process! On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 4:09 PM Laura Oakden <loakden a ci.orono.mn.us> wrote: Hello John, I have attached a pre -application letter which includes a reference number (18-000071) you will need to submit for the variance application. I also included a How-to Sheet for you to follow with the link to our online application. You will need to create a log in. You are proposing a new footprint rather than what is currently approved by the City Council and this application will have a new Land Use number for this application. The deadline for applications is today. You must submit and pay the application fee by 5pm so we can consider your application for a public hearing on September 17, 2018 Planning Commission and City Council review on October 8, 2018. The next application deadline is September 19, 2018. This will have a public hearing with the planning commission on October 15,2018 and City Council review on November 13, 2018. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you Laura Oakden Planner City of Orono Direct 952.249.4602 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 www.ci.orono.mn.us Summer Office Hours: Monday -Thursday: 7:30 am to 5:00 pm Fridays: 7:30 am to 11:30 am All Permitting is done through our new online portal LINK! John Knoblauch Knoblauch Builders LLC President Cell: 612-490-4540 60 -Day Review Period: Not Applicable —Sketch Plan To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: September 17, 2018 Subject: #LA18-000065, Jim Koch o/b/o Christopher Morgart; 1003 Wildhurst Trail, Sketch Plan Application Summary: The applicant is requesting comments related to the review of a sketch plan for a proposed eight lot single family subdivision at the north end of Wildhurst Trail. Staff Recommendation: While no formal action is required, this memo will serve as a foundation for discussion of issues to be addressed when a formal preliminary plat application is submitted. Background The subject property consists of 4 parcels and unimproved right of way. The project proposes to combine all parcels into one, to be subdivided with the vacated right of way. The first policy question for the Planning Commission and the Council is to determine the appetite to vacate the right of way necessary to support the development. PID Comp Plan Zone Area 711723210002 Rural Residential RR -1B 10.09 711723210007 Low -Medium Density Residential LR -1B 1.66 711723210016 Low -Medium Density Residential LR -1B 1.26 711723210006 Low -Medium Density Residential LR -1B 0.41 The total project area, including rights of way, is 14.8 acres. Right of Way Vacation. The right of way forming the north portion of planned Lot 5, and the eastern portion of lots 5, 6, and 7 may connect to Lake Minnetonka. The DNR will be included in the formal review process. Generally, the City avoids vacating right of ways that serve as lake access. Further review is necessary, but perhaps a portion of the right of way should be retained to provide that access, and remaining sections vacated. FILE # LA18-000065 September 17, 2018 Page 2 of 4 The parcel has been the subject of sketch plans and preliminary plats in the past: File Number Date Lots Notes 867 Jul -78 11 Lots range in size from 40,000 to 72,555 sf 2240 Jun -97 10 10 of 17 lots on subject property. Lots ranged in size between 45,000 and 66,300 sf. 3 conforming 1.0 acre lots, 7 non- conforming lots 2293 Sep -97 11 11 of 14 lots on subject property. 3 conforming lots, 8 non -conforming. Submitted as Preliminary Plat, Comp plan Amendment, Rezoning, Street Vacation LA18-000018 Mar -18 11 Withdrawn by applicant. 4 conforming lots, 7 non -conforming lots These previous proposals included a desire to be served by the Municipal sanitary sewer service, requiring comprehensive plan amendments at that time. Proposal The applicants plan is attached as Exhibit B. The development proposes to extend Wildhurst Trail to the north boundary of the parcel, to terminate in a cul de sac. Wildhurst Trail is a public road. On the east side of the extended Wildhurst, 4 lots are proposed (numbered as lots 5-8). These lots are in the Metropolitan Urban Services area (MUSA) and would be served by municipal sanitary sewer services. Each lot is greater than the 1.0 acre required. Lots 5, 6, and 7 appear to include a 929.4 elevation, which would mean that these lots would be lake lots, and subject to the lot width measurement at the lake, and at 75 feet landward of the lake. If Lake lots, it does not appear that the lot width requirement (100 feet) can be met. The Commission should comment on their appetite for flexibility on the lot width issue here. Lot 8 appears to be encumbered by a wetland, a delineation will clarify the encroachment. West of the extended road, 4 lots are proposed (numbered 1-4). These lots exceed the 2 acre lot acre minimum gross lot size, but some of these lots have slopes greater than 18%, these areas cannot be included in the lot area calculation. Lots 1-4 are 157.42 to 156.75 feet wide, measured at the street, the width requirement is 200 feet. These lots are not located within the MUSA and would be served by on-site septic systems. The slopes on proposed lots 3 and 4 may limit options for locations. The 4 lots should be considered conceptual, of importance in developing the final plan is the analysis of the parcels to confirm that each lot can support two septic sites for 5 bedroom homes. The Commission should also comment on their appetite for flexibility from the lot width requirement for these lots. The proposal does not suggest the need for a comprehensive plan amendment, or a rezoning. No house plans, or sale price of the lots, has been indicated. Environmental Impact The developer is advised that this subdivision is subject to the City's Conservation Design Ordinance. The project will be reviewed in terms of the Rural Oasis goals and policies which FILE # LA18-000065 September 17, 2018 Page 3 of 4 have been approved by the City Council. Conservation design regulations are attached as Exhibit E. The western 10 acres of the site is heavily wooded. There appears to be wetlands on the property, based on data provided by Hennepin County (Exhibit D). The effect of the development on these ecosystems will need to be carefully considered. Analysis The Planning Commission should comment on the lot width issues identified above. The Conservation Design Plan will provide further insight on the impact of the development onto the ecosystems, and the developers plan to minimize and mitigate these impacts. Wildhurst is a 3,000 foot long residential road terminating in a cul de sac. There are no proposed extensions of this road to connect to other collectors, nor is that connection immediately likely, due to wetlands to the north. The extension of the cul de sac to the north property line does provide an opportunity for a connection, should that be a desire in the future. No analysis of a stormwater management plan has been completed. The land use (single family residential) and density are generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Adjusting the plan to meet existing zoning requirements may result in the loss of 1 or 2 lots. Engineering Comments The city engineer has provided some preliminary comments on the proposal: The developer will be responsible to extend the sanitary sewer main to service lots 5, 6, and 7. It is advised that the stormwater management plan be developed early in the process as the topography may influence layout. City water is not available, each lot will need a private well. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission support vacation of right of way to support development on the property. 2. Does the Planning Commission support a flexibility of lot width at the lake? 3. Does the Planning Commission support a flexibility of lot width for non -lake lots? 4. Does the Planning Commission have other comments or issues with the plan that the developer should be aware of? Planning Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission should provide non-binding feedback to the developer as they further develop their plans. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Proposed Plans with contours Exhibit C. Proposed Plans without contour, showing Right of Way Vacation Exhibit D. Wetland Map (Hennepin County) FILE # LA18-000065 September 17, 2018 Page 4 of 4 Exhibit E. Conservation Design regulations Application Date: Address: Parcel Number: Land Use Number: Application Submitted By: Owner: Land Use Application Summary 06/21/2018 1003 WILDHURST TR MOUND, MN 55364 0711723210016 LA 18-000065 Agent on behalf of property owner Name: CHRISTOPHER D MORGART Address: 1003 WILDHURST TR MOUND, MN 55364 Applicant: Name: Jim Koch Address: 641 E Lake Street Suite 223 Wayzata, MN 55391 Contact Information: Project Description: Land Use Application Type: Applicant Signature: Associated Contact: Jim Koch Associated Contact: Jon Farcia Associated Contact: Tracy Larson Associated Contact: Gregg Klohn Subdivision Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application � Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application Mh LEGAL DESCRIPTION CONCEPT PLAN The Southwest Quarter of the North of the Northwest Quarter of Section 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Mil And The West 1/2 of Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, Block 3, The West 1/2 of Lots 1 and 2 and to 16 inclusive, Block 4 and That pi West 1/2 Lots 3 to 8 inclusive, exc of the Southerly 220 feet of said L Northeasterly of the fallowing descri Commencing at a point in the cent South line of Lot 8; thence to a p< West line of Lot 3, said point meos North from the South line of Block All in MOUNT HOME PARK ( IN FEET) \ \ I men - so n I 4 6 hurst Trail, Orono, MN 55364 Client Mr. dM KOCH GREEN MAVERICKS, LLC Design by JF Original date 8-20-18 wsm�:i r Drawn by JK Revisions 641 E LAKE Si, 8223 WAYZATA. MN 55391 Phone: 612-701-4583 Jonaum L Fazi ..8-20-18..-.R,. 16464 LAKE AND LAND SURVEYING, INC. Survey book No. Page title SURVEYING/CML ENGINEERING Concept Plan 1200 CENTRE POINTE, SUITE 275 ST PAUL MN. 55120 S.A.P.number Sheet number of PHONE (66211 51 776- 2018.217 S LEGAL DESCRIPTION The Sou thwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minnesota. And The West 1/2 of Lots 1 and 2 and All of Lots 9 to 16 inclusive, Block 4 and That part of the West 1/2 Lots 3 to 8 inclusive, except that part of the Southerly 220 feet of said Lots I ying Northeasterly of the following described line. Commencing at a point in the center of the South line of Lot 8; thence to a point on the West line of Lot 3, said point measured 220 feet North from the South line of Block 4. All in MOUNT HOME PARK CONCEPT PLAN NO.1 | ��" ^�"� | | � | | F-- ---"--- --] F-- --- --- --� | F-- ---' --- --1 F_ " ` � ��]` | | " | �-- , Aibc � i�i OC� /� ? J — ---' —�— --1 � ^ | | | � | | _-- —__ ---- --� _-- LQ1318 }� | --- ~-- --� ---- ^=^ ~"~=�= ,,|"""41 ACRES ____ _1 1_ == . � ./ . �-- --- ---' --f �-- --- | 'AREA: 98.487 SQ. n, ��'^so | � ` unxpnIC SCALE '="=` .i..h'50= * | \ \ ` \ ' \ | � 641 E LAKE ST' #223 phonc 612-701-4583 LOT 51 1 ..8-20-18 16464 LAKE AND LAND SURVEY7,VG. INC S-sy bm� N. Poge title SURVEYING/CIVIL ENGINEERING Comept Plon 120D CENTRE POINTE, SUITE 275 ST PAUL MN. 55120 PHONE (651) 776-6211 1 �.A.Pnurnbsr 2018.217 Sheet nurnber Of 1 ft. -'OR AII 47.aSO SO. 1.01 ACRES AREA. 43,605 SO. FT 1.00 ACRES LOT 8 SITE ADDRESS: 1003 Wildhurst Trail, Orano, MN 55364 * \ \ \ ` \ ' \ | � Client Mr. JM KON GREEN MAVERICKS, LLC Design by JF Oiginol dote 8-20-18 Drawn by - Revisions 641 E LAKE ST' #223 phonc 612-701-4583 ..8-20-18 16464 LAKE AND LAND SURVEY7,VG. INC S-sy bm� N. Poge title SURVEYING/CIVIL ENGINEERING Comept Plon 120D CENTRE POINTE, SUITE 275 ST PAUL MN. 55120 PHONE (651) 776-6211 1 �.A.Pnurnbsr 2018.217 Sheet nurnber Of 1 Hennepin Hennepin County Natural Resources Map qw-'` W, re -4 —.M&qff PID: 0711723210002 Address: 1003 WILDHURST TR, ORONO Owner Name: CHRISTOPHER D MORGART Acres: 10.09 r 71, Date: 9/10/2018 Comments: 1 inch = 200 feet This data (i) is fumished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (ie) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injuryor loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT ©HENNEPIN COUNTY 2018 Legend Wetlands Potential Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - HCWI Probable Wetland - NWI ARTICLE XII. - CONSERVATION DESIGN DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY Sec. 78-1631. - Purpose and intent. The City of Orono as a result of the Rural Oasis Study conducted in 2005 finds that there is an intrinsic link between the natural systems and the valued scenic character that exist throughout the community. The requirements of this conservation design ordinance are meant to preserve and enhance this eco IogicaVaesthetic character by requiring: (1) protection and enhancement of drainageways and water quality; (2) protection and enhancement of ecological communities; (3) reinforcement and establishment of ecological connections throughout the city; (4) augmentation and preservation of viewsheds including corridor enclosure and buffering; (5) preservation and improvement of views; and (6) preservation or reinterpretation of local landmarks. (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010) Sec. 78-1632. - Applicability. The Conservation Design Master Planning requirements of this article apply to all proposed residential subdivisions or multi -unit residential developments greater than five acres in total area or guided for urban density (greater than one unit per two acres). (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010) Sec. 78-1633. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Conservation design means a two -phased approach to design and development that maintains or improves ecological assets, provides infrastructure that works with the land, and incorporates people's instinctive desire to experience nature. Some conservation design strategies include: identifying and avoiding sensitive natural features, planning roads along contours, allowing lots to border natural open space, integrating ecological stormwater management, using smaller lots, and educating developer and buyers about the ecological values of the landscape. The first phase entails an inventory and analysis of the potential development site's natural features, existing land uses, and wetland delineation. The second phase entails analyzing the design implications of the findings from the initial phase, alternative stormwater design, and a conceptual design for road and lot layouts. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) means the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) displays data on natural/semi-natural and cultural cover types at the highest level of classification. The next four levels of classification each reveal further specifications such as plant types, soil hydrology, hardcover and plant species. Using MLCCS data is the first step in producing a natural resource inventory of a development site. Orono Natural Resource Inventory means an element of the Orono Community Management Plan that displays the ecological connections within and beyond the City of Orono. Corridor enclosure means the nature, appearance and relative degrees of screening provided by roadside vegetation. Corridor enclosure types include: Open enclosure: Long views beyond the right-of-way, no real sense of corridor enclosure. Edged enclosure: Solid wall of vegetation along roadside, views focused along corridor. Tunneled enclosure: Vegetation begins to completely enclose roadway, above and sides, creating a "small scale" roadway experience. Varied enclosure: Enclosure changes rapidly along corridor, short stretches of open, edged, and tunneled corridor. View analysis means the process of determining whether a view is positive or negative. Positive views: Views of natural areas, water bodies, established parks, wetlands, rural and historic land uses. Negative views: Views of structures, particularly multi -family residential, institutional, and commercial and industrial uses. Views of power lines, telephone poles and other utility infrastructure. Landmark preservation and enhancement means preserving and maintaining distinct cultural features, landmarks and unique points of local character, both natural and man-made, to maintain a familiar sense of place in the community. Ecological Management Categories: Level 1: Ecological "off-limits" areas, including wetlands and required buffers, historic drainage. Level 2: Ecological opportunities, including existing degraded drainageways and existing degraded ecosystem remnants. Leve13: Ecological possibilities: Areas suitable for stormwater treatment. Note: These Ecological Management Categories are not intended to directly correlate with MLCCS M -34X Natural Community Quality Modifiers. Significant tree stand means a grouping or cluster of coniferous and/or deciduous trees with contiguous crown cover, occupying 500 or more square feet of property, which are comprised of deciduous trees six inches or larger in diameter (d.b.h.) or coniferous trees 12 feet or more in height. Additionally, those forest or woodland remnants identified as high, moderate or good quality in the Orono Natural Resources Inventory shall be considered as significant tree stands. (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010; Ord. No. 94 3rd series, § 9, 9-24-2012) DIVISION 2. - BASIC APPLICATION AND PLAN REQUIREMENTS Sec. 78-1634. - Application requirements and procedures. The developer shall follow the steps outlined below as part of the development review process: (1) Review and respond to the Goals and Policies for Environmental Protection and Natural Resource Management as established in the Orono Community Management Plan and the recommendations contained within the Orono Natural Resources Inventory. The intent is to establish the property's ecological connections both within Orono and as part of the regional ecological system. (2) If the property exists adjacent to a documented corridor in the Rural Oasis Study, review and respond to the existing aesthetic and ecological analysis. (3) If the property is not adjacent to a documented corridor in the Rural Oasis Study, developer shall have a qu, prepare a similar analysis and submit it to the city for review. This analysis shall include the documentation corridor enclosure, and landmarks through a plan analysis and photographs. Developer shall be charged a established in the city fee schedule to cover the expenses of the city in hiring a consultant to review the eco analysis submitted by the developer. (4) Additionally, submit a natural resources inventory of the site, including all of the following elements: a. Review of the MLCCS data pertinent to the site. b. Tree survey, including all significant individual trees greater than six feet diameter, and stands of trees, identifying tree species and size. c. Wetland inventory, including delineation reports. d. Topographic survey indicating existing drainage patterns. e. Analysis of the site based on the findings and recommendations of the Orono Natural Resources Inventory with regards to: • Conceptual greenways and open space corridors; • Existence of rare plant communities; • Potential need for proactive management and protection. (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010) Sec. 78-1635. - Basic Conservation Design Master Plan requirements and evaluation criteria. The developer shall prepare a Conservation Design Master Plan for development of the property, consisting of written and visual documentation including maps in an acceptable electronic format, addressing the following topics: (1) Consideration of the existing drainage system; (2) Establishment of a stormwater management system, using multi -cell treatment principles, and defining proposed methods of stormwater phosphorus reduction; (3) Removal of invasive species and diseased trees; (4) Protection of significant tree stands and woodlands that support scenic and/or ecological goals, including mitigation of any such stands to be impacted by development activities; (5) Protection of existing wetlands, including augmentation of buffers, mitigation of impacts, and enhancement of degraded systems; (6) Justification and mitigation of any negative impact to ecological communities. "Negative impact" includes any modification to a lower level of ecological community quality, as described by the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (M -34X Modifiers); (7) Maintenance of ecological connections through site design, as shown on the Orono Natural Resource Inventory; (8) Maintenance and protection of existing positive views, and mitigation of any existing or proposed negative views using appropriate measures such as site layout, screening, building design and coloration, etc.; and (9) Preservation or reinterpretation of existing landmarks. The planning commission and city council shall evaluate the Conservation Design Master Plan to determine whether the proposed development: Preserves existing drainage patterns and enhances stormwater collection and conveyance by applying an e( (1) multi -cell stormwater management system that improves ecosystems by reducing reliance on manmade ini reducing downstream runoff of contaminants, and enhancing ecological connections; (2) Includes a program for the removal of invasive species and diseased trees; protects significant tree stands and woodlands that support scenic and/or ecological goals; and includes mitigation of any such stands that will be impacted by development activities; (3) Protects existing wetlands by implementing new buffers or augmenting existing buffers; mitigates identified wetland impacts; and enhances degraded wetland systems; (4) Results in no negative impact to ecological communities of Ecological Management Categories 1 and 2; results in no negative modification of any ecological communities as described by the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System; and establishes, maintains and improves native ecological communities including natural and semi -natural areas to provide wildlife habitat and support natural ecological functions (i.e. drainage, filtering, buffering, etc.); (5) Establishes or maintains ecological connections through site design, as shown on the Orono Natural Resource Inventory that will enhance stormwater collection and conveyance, promote ecological and wildlife corridors, and provide recreational opportunities for residents; (6) Preserves and where appropriate augments or improves roadway corridor enclosure to promote community aesthetics associated with the city's rural character; preserves open rural views and other aesthetic elements of the landscape; and mitigates the negative visual impacts of development; (7) Preserves, maintains, or reinterprets existing landmarks and unique points of local character, and preserves distinct cultural features that will maintain a familiar sense of place in the community. (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010) DIVISION 3. - DENSITY BONUS STANDARDS Sec. 78-1636. - Density bonuses for urban density development. For residential development in Orono's defined urban area (zoning districts allowing densities in excess of one unit per two acres, and including properties identified in the Orono Community Management Plan for conversion to urban density) within the ranges of the guided density a density bonus may be allowed if the city council finds that the performance bonus requirements of this division have been met. The city council shall determine the extent of density bonus awarded for such properties. Example: Properties guided in the Community Management Plan for a density range of two—four units per acre have a base density of two units per acre; while the high end of the density range is not guaranteed, the city council at its discretion may allow development at a final density of up to four units per acre through the performance bonus process. (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010) Sec. 78-1637. - Performance bonus requirements. Within the urban density area, developers have the opportunity to increase the base density by going above and beyond the Basic Conservation Design Master Plan requirement. By implementing a combination of development enhancements that not only preserve but improve the natural characteristics of the property or preserve and enhance existing landmarks, the developer shall become eligible for a density bonus. The extent of such density bonus shall be determined by the city council. Development enhancements include but are not necessarily limited to the following: (1) Reforestation beyond existing woodland limits; (2) Water quality improvements; (3) Improvements in ecological grade of existing communities; (4) Upgrading of edge buffering to maximum, or tunneled, character; and (5) Major preservation or enhancement of existing landmarks. (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010) DIVISION 4. - LONG-TERM PRESERVATION Sec. 78-1638. - Preservation requirements. The developer shall establish and implement measures that will ensure the preservation and maintenance of those elements of the development that are determined to require long-term or permanent protection from development or misuse. Such measures may include but are not limited to: conservation easements; deed restrictions; private covenants; transfer of ownership to agencies such as the Minnesota Land Trust or the Nature Conservancy, or to the city via dedication, etc. (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010) Sec. 78-1639. - Buyer education. The developer shall establish covenants documenting the elements of the development to be protected and how they are to be protected, and shall establish a defined program for education of the initial purchasers of lots within the development as to the limitations that affect future use of the property. (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010) DIVISION 5. - RESOURCES Sec. 78-1640. - Resources. The primary references for facilitating the conservation design process include the following: • Orono Rural Oasis Study (DSU, 2005). • 2008-2030 City of Orono Community Management Plan, Chapter 3A—Environmental Protection Plan (City of Orono, 2009). • Orono Natural Resources Inventory (Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services/Bonestroo Natural Resources Group, 2006). • Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS). (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010) Secs. 78-1641-78-1669. - Reserved. 60 -Day Review Period: Not Applicable — Sketch Plan To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: September 17, 2018 Subject: #LA18-000079, Lakewest, LLC; 3245 Wayzata Blvd W, Sketch Plan Application Summary: The applicant is requesting comments related to the review of a sketch plan for a proposed apartment building on vacant, former landfilled property on the west side of Orono Staff Recommendation: While no formal action is required, this memo will serve as a foundation for the discussion of issues to be addressed when the formal preliminary plat application is submitted. Background In March 2016, the property owner applied for Preliminary Plat, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Zone Change for a 29 acre parcel that included 13.6 acres of wetland, 5.2 acres of developable land, and 10.2 acres of buried construction materials. This application was processed as Case 16-3822 and is known as Eisinger Meadows. The property owner received conditional approval of the Comprehensive Plan (Resolution 6637) and conditional approval of the General Concept Plan and the preliminary plat (Resolution 6655) in July of 2016. These approval conditions included Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, approval of the Final Master Plan, and the Final Plat. 2016 Application materials contemplated future development of an apartment site to the south of the townhome development, however, those approvals did not include any specific plan and were not included in the calculations for density for the Comprehensive Plan, were not included in the preliminary plat, and were not included in any detail for the General Concept Plan. Since this project would require a plat, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and the RPUD zoning, a sketch plan is requested. Proposal The apartment project is planned for the 10.2 acre parcel to the south of phase one, and lies generally between two wetlands to the east and west, north of Highway 12. The applicants have provided a narrative describing their project, attached as Exhibit D. The applicant proposes a 4 story structure for 192 apartments/ senior living. The building will be U shaped, with the opening to the north. The height of the building has not been calculated, but 4 stories typically exceed 30 feet in defined height. The narrative suggests a brick and cement board sided building, generally similar to the attached elevation (shown as Exhibit C). FILE # LA18-000079 September 17, 2018 Page 2 of 3 Access to the site will be from the north and Wayzata Blvd. A new street is proposed to serve both Eisinger Meadows and the proposed Eisinger Flats. The preliminary plat for Eisinger Meadows contemplated a new North-South public street. This street should terminate in a cul de sac meeting subdivision standards. Hennepin Council will be consulted to determine is intersection improvements are necessary at Wayzta Blvd West. A surface parking lot for 92 cars is proposed to the north of the building. City Code requires 2 spaces per apartment unit. Assuming 192 units, 384 spaces will be required. The site plan does suggest underground parking, though the number of stalls has not been illustrated. As a proposed RPUD, the hard cover limitation would be 50%. Care will be exercised in the evaluation of the stormwater management plans, not yet developed. The project is located within the MUSA and will be served by municipal water and sanitary services, to be extended by the developer. Costs to serve the apartment building will need to be developed, as the original feasibility study did not contemplate an apartment building on the 10 acres landfill site. RPUD Analysis. As a sketch plan, many details are yet to be developed, though it appears that the site meets location and size requirements to be eligible for a RPUD. In general, the building appears to be situated on the lot meeting required setbacks. Multifamily developments RPUD District Minimum Standard Proposed Flexibility Required? Lot Standards Minimum site area 5 acres 10 acres No Sewer Availability Yes Yes No Floor Area Ratio 1.0 Not determined Minimum front building setback (to internal streets): 35 feet Not determined Minimum rear or side setback to Highway 12 50 feet Approximately 75' No Minimum side yard setback: 35 Feet Approximately 250'+ No Wetland building setback: 25 feet 35'+ No Building height: Maximum of 30 feet Undetermined Private Recreational Area 10% (42,688 sq ft) 36,000 + trails To be verified Signage Master Plan Not Developed Landscaping Master Plan Not Developed FILE # LA18-000079 September 17, 2018 Page 3 of 3 The Private recreation area has not been developed, though it is anticipated to include the two areas shown on the plan, and a network of trails. Fire Department. The Fire Chief typically requires access all around the building, and fire truck access within 150 feet of all points of the building. As the site plan is further developed, the fire chief will provide comment. Comprehensive Plan Analysis. The proposed 2040 Land Use Plan includes the subject parcel, but guides it as Urban Medium Density, or 3-10 units per acre. The proposed density of 19.8 units per acre exceeds this guidance, and is slightly higher than the 2030 Land Use Planned density of 10- 15 units per acre. If the Planning Commission and Council support the increased density, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan will be updated to reflect these goals, prior to submittal to the Metropolitan Council. Raising the density to 20 units per acre will be consistent with other apartment/ senior living projects in the city, and will add to our numerical buffer necessary when we desire to serve lower density areas with sanitary sewer. Landfill Concerns. As noted, the parcel includes some quantities of landfilled debris. How this impacts the buildability of the site will be reviewed as the formal plans are developed. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is assisting the developer and the city to better understand the implications of past practices on site. Conservation design. This project will trigger the City's conservation design review. The Conservation design completed for the original project did include the subject site. Issues for Consideration Does the Planning Commission support the use of the property for an high density residential use at densities greater than 15 units per acre? Does the Planning Commission support a building higher than 30 feet in this location? Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission should provide feedback on the 3 questions posed above, and any other issues they can identify. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Site Plan Exhibit C. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit D. Narrative Exhibit E. Conservation Design Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 08/24/2018 Address: 3245 WAYZATA BLVD W LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Parcel Number: 3211823140001 Land Use Number: LA18-000079 Application Submitted By: Property Owner Owner: Name: LAKEWEST LLC Address: 14525 HIGHWAY 7 #265 MINNEONKA, MN 55345 Applicant: Name: Perry Ryan Address: 14525 Highway 7, Suite 265 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Contact Information: Project Description: Land Use Application Type: Applicant Signature: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Eisinger Flats Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application Y��' I ,,- C-) 2018 RYAN ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT DATA DATA ZONING: EXISTING ZONING: RPUD (Previous Approval) PROPOSED ZONING: RPUD MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS (VILLAS FRONT SETBACK: 25 FEET FROM LOT LINE REAR/SIDE SETBACK: 5 FEET WETLAND BUFFER: 10 FEET FROM WETLAND BUFFER ROW SETBACK: 40' FROM WAYZATA BLVD (CR 112) RECREATIONAL AREA: 10% NET DEVELOPABLE (FLATS) SINGLE FAMILY VILLAS DATA: GROSS SITE AREA: 30.5 ac ± EXISTING ROW (Wayzata Blvd): 1.6 ac ± OUTLOT B: 0.4 ac ± OUTLOT C: 23.1 ac ± 1 WAY7ATAR1\/Il —-- NET DEVELOPABLE: 5.4 ac ± SINGLE FAMILY VILLAS: 27 villas BLOCK 1 BLOCK 2 LOT AREA (SF) LOT AREA (SF) 1 7,074 ± 1 7,324 ± \ 2 6,419 ± 2 6,520 ± 3 6,419 ± 3 8,010 ± 4 6,419 ± 4 6,691 ± 5 6,419 ± 5 6,691 ± 6 6,419 ± 6 8,056 ± 7 6,419 ± 7 6,690 ± 8 6,419 ± 8 8,056 ± 9 6,419 ± 9 6,690 ± 10 6,419 ± 10 8,056 ± 11 7,729 ± 11 6,772 ± 12 10,407 ± 12 10,857 ± \ 13 9,198 ± 14 9,794 ± 15 11,942± PROPOSED SF LOTS: 27 villas SF NET DENSITY: 5.00 un/ac (27 units/5.4ac) MULTIPLE FAMILY FLATS DATA: REMAINING AREA (Outlot C): 23.1 ac ± EXIST. WETLANDS (To Remain): 13.3 ac ± NET DEVELOPABLE: 9.8 ac ± RECREATIONAL AREA (10%)- 0.98 ac ± PROPOSED MF: 192 flats PROVIDED REC. AREA: 1.01 ac ± MF NET DENSITY: 19.59 un/ac (192 flats/9.8 ac) GROSS OVERALL DENSITY: 7.18 un/ac (219 units/30.5 ac) NET OVERALL DENSITY: 14.41 un/ac (219 units/15.2 ac) PROPERTY ADDRESS 3245 WAYZATA BLVD WEST, ORONO, MN 55356 1,330,920 SF, 30.55 AC ± ► • 0' 100' 200' 300' R yan 7 Engineering LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 19655 Waterford PI Excelsior, MN 55331 (952) 221-3700 www.ryanengineers.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly registered Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Signature MN 22071 Registration No. Date EISINGER FLATS Orono, MN for LAKEWEST, LLC Project No. Digital Drawing Name Drawn By SYE Checked By PMR Date 09.13.18 Revisions Issued For: Schematic Design Design Development Preliminary Review Final Review Bidding Construction Date: CONCEPT PLAN Page P-1 CONCEPT CvV-0 *I*ow* u D ENVIRONMENTAL DENSITY (18.29% 2.29% 5.15% 1.30% 1.79% --1.03% 3.39% 81.71% 3.34% Wayzata Blvd. Road ■ Single Family Homes ■ Driveways 28' Wide Private Drive 32' Wide MF Drive Multi -Family Parking Multi -Family Building Pervious SINGLE FAMILY CONCEPT DATA Existing Zoning (previous approval): RPUD Gross Site Area: 30.5 ac Wayzata Blvd ROW: 1.6 ac Outlot B (MFAccess): 0.4 ac Outlot C: 23.1 ac Net Developable Area: 5.4 ac Proposed Single Fam Lots: 27 lots 49'widex 130'deep typical: 18 lots 59' wide x 130' deep (3 -car) typical: 9 lots Proposed Single Family Setbacks: Proposed Lot Size: 6,370 sf (min.) Front Setback: 25' Side Setbacks: 5' / 5' (10' To tal) SF Net Density: 5.00 un/ac 27 homes /5.4 ac MULTI -FAMILY CONCEPT DATA Remaining Site Area (outlotc): 23.1 ac Existing Wetlands (to remain): 13.3 ac Net Developable Area: 9.8 ac Recreational Area (10%): 0.98 ac Proposed Multi -Family: 192 flats Recreational Area (Provided): 1.01 ac MF Net Density: 19.59 un/ac 192 flats/ 9.8 ac Overall Gross Density: 7.18 un/ac 219 units /30.5 ac Overall Net Densitv: 14.41 un/ac 219 units 115.2 ac Aerial photography from State of Minnesota i LAKE W�EST 9-13-2018 DEVELOPMENT, LLC • ar �r OUTLOT �� #� �► ,+�r� `7►i '_ �� ■r� ► raid �r�+i .■ ll '� i► qI �► `4i� ■ eening - UTLOT C ' • • f • ' Wetland Limits , s id Buffer' ng) v ISINGER MEADOWS ORONO, MN 1 0' 60' 120' 180' I V V "mow EXHBIT A — CONCEPT ELEVATION EISINGER FLATS a 101mr, lugIII ■■ ` ■ - ■■ m Concept Review — Narrative EISINGER FLATS 3245 Wayzata Blvd W, Orono, MN 55356 PID:3211823140002,3211823140001 August 22, 2018 Overview Lakewest, LLC requests Concept Review approvals in order to develop the property at the west side of Wayzata Blvd W, just north of the Highway 12 bypass in Orono, MN. This proposed concept plan is part of the overall parcel which received Preliminary Plat Approval by Resolution 6655 on July 25, 2016. oc� Curt Fretham, Manager Lakewest, LLC Office: 952-930-3000 Lakewest, LLC 1 14525 Highway 7, Suite 265, Minnetonka, MN 553451 Phone 952-930-3000 Concept Review — Narrative — EISINGER FLATS A. Contact Information Owner of Record Lakewest, LLC 14525 Highway 7, Suite 265 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Applicant Curt Fretham, Manager Lakewest, LLC, 14525 Highway 7, Suite 265 Minnetonka, MN 55345, Phone 952-930-3000 B. Site Data Address 3245 Wayzata Blvd W Orono, MN 55356 Zoning RPU D Parcel Size 30.5 +/- acres Wayzata Blvd ROW = 1.6 +/- acres Block 1 & 2 = 5.8 +/- acres Outlot B = 0.4 +/- acres Outlot C = 23.1 +/- acres See Concept Plan for Area Calculations PID 3211823140002,3211823140001 Description See Preliminary Plat, Eisinger Meadows Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. C. Description of the Project - Overall The north phase of Eisinger Meadows received preliminary Plat approval on July 25, 2016 by Resolution 6655. This proposal is for concept review for the south phase which we have named Eisinger Flats. Eisinger Meadows Preliminary Plat, subdivided the northerly portion of the 30.5 acre parcel into 27 Villa Homes on approximately 4.9 acres of the parcel with the balance of the property shown as outlots. The concept plan for the balance of the upland property is for an Apartment / Sr. Living building, outdoor recreational areas, trails, and parking. Page 2 of 4 Concept Review — Narrative — EISINGER FLATS D. Description of Eisinger Flats — Apartment / Sr. Living Building We are proposing to develop the south phase of the overall project into "Eisinger Flats" which will be an Apartment / Sr. Living Building. The building, as proposed, would be situated on the site to blend into the existing topography of the property while being respectful of the wetland buffers as set forth in the approvals of Eisinger Meadows. The building would be a combination of brick and cement board panels and siding with a shallow roofline, generally as depicted in the concept elevation shown on Exhibit A. We are proposing private outdoor recreational areas which would exceed 10% of the platted upland property as well as a perimeter trail with passive seating areas to enjoy the natural amenities of the site, including the wetlands on both the west and east. The placement of the building will provide a buffer not only for the recreational areas, but also to the 27 villa units of Eisinger Meadows. Care will be taken with final placement and preservation of existing natural screening to provide the City of Orono with an aesthetically pleasing entrance to the City. Architecturally, we are proposing a lower roofline to minimize the building massing. Alternatively, we would also consider a flat roof on the project. With this roof type proposed, along with the setback and buffering, the proposed four story structure will give the appearance closer to a three story structure. Due to the topography as well as being environmentally sensitive, we are proposing the four story structure which will minimize the footprint and also maximize the buffer to the wetlands. As proposed, the building would consist of 192 units. As shown on the site plan, there are considerable wetlands and wetland buffers on the property. These wetlands consist of approximately 13.3 acres, leaving a balance of "upland" acres for the Eisinger Flats building of approximately 9.8 acres for a net density of 19.59 units / acre. As shown in the approved Eisinger Meadows resolution, the north phase consists of 27 villa units on approximately 4.9 acres for a net density on the north phase of 5.5 units / acre. With this proposal, the total number of units proposed is 219 units (27 villas, 192 flats) with an overall gross density is 7.18 per acre. The net density (net of wetlands and outlots) at approximately 14.04 units per acre. Per the conclusions in the above mentioned resolution for the Eisinger Meadows project, the property was originally guided for High Density Residential. As discussed with staff, we would request to re -guide this property for High Density Residential. See below for additional discussion on background and density. E. Excerpts from Resolution 6655 Based on the previous approval and site characteristics, we believe this proposed development will provide the City of Orono with not only a tremendous addition to the City, but meet Metropolitan Council goals by guiding carefully selected parcels at densities to meet the City's required overall sewered development density of at least 3 units per acre. The following are found within the Resolution 6655 which support this south phase proposal: Rationale for density increase: Within the FINDINGS, paragraph A.4 — "The rationale for the density increase at this site was primarily the location sandwiched between two high -traffic roadways, the potential availability of municipal utility services; and the remote location from single family residential development". Page 3 of 4 Concept Review — Narrative — EISINGER FLATS Metropolitan Council Goals: Within FINDINGS, Paragraph A.5 — "In part the density increase was established to meet Metropolitan Council goals by guiding carefully -selected parcels at densities that would potentially allow for more affordable housing options. Met Council guidelines require an overall new sewered development density of at least 3 units per acre. In order to meet these goals, certain parcels with the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) were guided for densities significantly higher than 3 units/acre — to allow those shoreland areas in the MUSA historically zoned and planned for low density, to develop at the 1 -acre and 2 -acre lot sizes desired by the City." Project Meeting RPUD requirements: Within FINDINGS, Paragraph B11, a through g: a) Incorporates flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize new techniques of building design, construction and land development; b) Provides lifecycle housing with the potential to meet affordable and moderate cost housing needs; c) Incorporates energy conservation through the clustering of buildings and land uses; d) Preserves desirable site characteristics and open space and protects sensitive environmental features, including sensitive wetland areas, while avoiding the portions of the property which are encumbered by a close landfill; e) Provides design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; f) Results in a sensitive development in the transitional area located between low density single family uses to the north and south, taking into account the location between two arterial highway corridors as well as the agriculturally used property to the east guided for future medium —high density residential use; and g) Yields development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan guiding for higher density than the typical urban and rural residential development in Orono. F. Construction Debris Landfill / MPCA Resolutions A portion of the site is part of a historic landfill of generally demolition materials as discussed during the original north phase approval. We are working closely with our consultant, Wenck Associates, Inc. and the MPCA to coordinate efforts on required cleanup for the project. The next step is to finalize a Response Action Plan (RAP) which will detail the procedures to remove any demolition or landfill debris found during site preparation. It is our intent to proceed with this RAP during the preliminary plan stage upon review and comment of the concept review. Page 4 of 4 Jacobson EnvironmE!ntal, PLLC Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S., W.D.C., P.W.S., A.F.S. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 5543171 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com wvvw.jacob,sonenvironment:al.c:orn April 30, 2016 Kayla Mack Development Assistant Lakewest Development 14525 Highway 7, Suite 26:1 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Dear Kayla The property located at 3245 Wayzata Boulevard West in Hennepin County, Minnesota in T1 18N, R23W, Section 32 is shown in the attached Figure 7 detailed conservation I_slan map, and in the Figure 8 Bluff buffer plan map which outlines a buffer area from the 986 contour to the tree fringe with a black line around the 986 contour. When we did the field walk on April 1, 2016 we reviewed the site for invasive and noxious weed species. We found the invasive Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathairtica) on the site in tlhe 'wooded area on the south and east in Area B in a moderate amount consisting mostly of shrubs f',om 3 t .`,i feet in height. This was in a woodland fringe of the property and we do irecommend buckthorn control since other species are common in the area. Also, we found the invasive Reed Canarygrass (Phalaris arun6nacea) on the site in both wetlands. We do not recommend control of the Reed Canarygrass since it is very common in wetlands across the metro area, as this would require a special permit as well. There were no other species on the site which are known to be invasive or noxious 'geed species on the bluff area. We do not recommend vegetative alteration of the fringe box elder tree area (other than buckthorn control in Area B) on the west, south, and east adjacent to the; wetlands because the topography is relatively steep and vegetation its established. We only recommend removing any demolition debris and dead trees fronn this area. The files of the report are as follows 1. Site Conservation Plan 2. Conservation Plan Checklist 3. Site Location Map -Grading Plan -Soils Map 4. Aerial with Landscaping -Wetland Delineation Map 5. Overall Area Plan -Detail Conservation Plan -Bluff Buffer Plan-Mesic Prairiie Seed Mix 6. Buckthorn Control 7. MDA Noxoius Weed List 8. Site Photos Wetland Del ineation-M itigation-Permitti ng -Mon itori ng -Ban king -Fu nictional Analysis Phase I Environmental Assessrnents-EAW's-Hydric: Soil Del ineation-ReferraIs Pond & Lake Weed Removal -Tree Surveys -Management Plans .Jacobson Environmental, PLLC Environmental Consultants 'Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S., IM.D.C., P.W.S., A.F.S. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN ,55430 (612) 802-661.9 Cell Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com wrvw.jacobsonenvironmenital.a;om We did find ground ivy and stinging nettle in small amounts in Area A and B, which areall[ box elder trees except for 1 cottonwood and about 8 american elm on the southeast. We do not think these plants in Areas A and B warrant control, except for buckthorn. The Area C and the Bluff Buffer Area (a 20 to 40 foot wide area) should have the top 6 inches of turf removed, and then have the mesic prairie southwest seed rnix planted. Since the fringe trees are virtually all box elder, we did not think a tree survey was necessary in this case. Thank you for the opportunity to serve you. Please contact me at 612-802-66191 if I can answer any questions on this site. Sincerely, �%�AV—, .0*e Wayne E. Jacobson, P.S.S., W.D.C., P.W.S., A.F.S. Senior Scientist cc: Mike Gaffron, City of Orono Robert Bean, Bolton & Menk Wetland Delineation -Mitigation -Permitting -Monitoring -Banking -Functional Analysis Phase I Environmental Assessrnents-EAW's-Hydric; Soil Delineation --Referrals Pond & Lake Weed Removal -Tree Surveys -Management Plans •' Consulting Engineers & Surveyors 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 „ Chaska, MN 55318-1972 Phone 952 448-8838 • �I:axc152 448-8805 — wwmbolton-menk com Apri l 1 1, 2016 City of Orono Attn: Mike Gaff -on 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: Preliminary Plat Application 16-3822 Eisinger Meadow~ Engineering Review #1 Dear Mike: As requested, we have complctccl an engineering review o1 the documents submitted for the abcwc referenced project. We offer the following observations, commcivs, and reconuriendations for sour consideration: 1.0 GENERAL: I . I Stormwater rnanarcrnent for the 1 -proposed site meets City requirement,. Proposed peak runohf' rates will be restricted to less than existing peak runoff rues. However, if the proposed Liesii�1.11 i�, significantly reVnsed during the Final Plat approval process, a Final Stcrmwatcr Manat ement Plan should he submitted with the Final Construction Plans. Also, additional detail will be required with the Final Plans to ensure .system is constructed as clesiigned. 1.2 Storm sewer calculations Should be submitted for rcvicvA/ to verity adcga.ate Sizing. 1.3 The Conservation Design MasterPlan (CDMP) should be :revised to include more coirnplele recommendations and direction to address the following topics: a. Invasive Species — The CDMP should be revised to include .a complete Vegetation Management Plan. The plan should include it list of all invasive plant species encountered (ii.e. buckthorn. ;'jarlic mustard, reed canary grass, creeping charlie, canada thistle, etc. i and recommended procedures and schedule for eradication of listed species. b. Protection c11' Significant Tree Stands — The CDMP should be revised to include discussions on the location, quality, and value of existing significant tree stands, ri;commend tions fox au,ea:; to be preserved, and justification and mitigation of impacts of any such stands to be impacted by development activities. The Vegetation Management Plan should depict proposed Tree Preservation areas and trees designated for removal to allow for review of potential conservation casements. c. Protection off_Wetlan�ls= The Vegetation Manac.cincnt Plan should include procedures. schedule, and seed mixes for protecting and establishing buffers aroi.md wetlands. 1.4 Due to the size of proposed disturbance, a Topsoil _Malla�'emein[ Plan should be included With thc Final Plans to ensure adequate topsoil placement. "f he plan should proliide direction for topsoil stripping, stockpile location(s), soil de -compaction prior to re -spread, certification of topsoil for re - spread meeting spccil'ications, and placement of'topsoil. This information could be included ,.n1 the Final Grading Plan. 1.5 The applicant will be required to obtain Minnehaha Creek 'Naterslied District (MCWD) ,approval~ and permitting for their Erosion Control. Wetland Protection, and Watcrbody Crossings <uu.l Structures Rules. A copy of any approvals or permits rr_quiirecl Should he submitted prior to Final Preliminary Plat Application 16-3K22 i Eisinger Meadows i Page 2 Plat approval. Since proposed in1pervio1us surface will aCi:ount for lcs;,. than 2011( of the pro'lect area, stormwater management should not he requited by TOCWD. 1.6 The applicant vvill he required to obtain Hennepin County approval and permitting for acces;;cs and work in right--of-way on Wayzata Boulevard WSAH I I2). Develohmcnt parameters listed n the City's Comprehensive Plan call for a single connection, but two ccrrmections ;arc proposed. ;i copy of any approvals or permits required should be subMitted prior to Final Plat approval. 1.7 The applicant will be required to Obtain a Sanitary Sewer Extension permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and it Water Main Extension permit front the Minnesota D,°partmcnt of Health. Applications should be coordinated with [lie City, and a copy ol' any approvals or permits required should be submitted prior to any land disturbing, activiLv. 1.8 The applicant will be required to obtain a General Consn-uction Permit (NPDES) to dischau-�,e stormwater associated with construction activity since more thLjll 1 acr:, will be disturbed. A copy of the permit should be suhmitted prior to any land diStUrbing activity. I.9 The applicant will be required to ;,uhmit a Maintenance A�,,rccment for ,-tl1 stormwater ir(ana2ei1)Cnt st-uctures and facilities. The agreement should define nrtintcnance responsibilities fallowing completion oi,project. Specify types and frequencies of inspection and rilaititenance a,.:tivities. acid designate who will conduct inspection and rilaintenance a,tivrties. 1.10 Record drawings must be submittL'd upon campletion of tite project. If the proposed petmanCnt pond is to be used its a temporary sediment basin during construction, ,-u:,-budt survey Shot; oil] the pond must be obtained after construction sediment is removed and side slopes re -dressed. Also. due to the size of the proposed disturbed area, a Survey should be provided for the sit.: after rough Orading is complete to ensure correct hold-downs prior to topsoil placeulaent and pavement construction, and a survey should be provided fOr the topsoil stockpile to ensure adequate qu;Amtity For re --spread. 2.0 PRELIMINARY PLAT: 2.1 A Flowage and Conservation easement v. ill be required over the wetlands. 2.2 Drainage and Utility Casements Should he provided to .td((ILKIWly COVcl- all ditchin.(".:40,111 sewer, and ponds to the high water level. 2_.3 Drainage and Utility Easements should be revised to acconnmodatc changes to storm sevvcr necessary to provide subsurface di aintile service connections. 2.4 Uutlot B will require a road and rnilities casement over its entire arca. The casement should be oenerale 1 using the St'undard city forst and recorded as part o1 the Final Plat process. 3.0 SITE PLAN: 3.1 Stop signs and stop bars Should be provided at intersections with Wayzata Boulevard (CSAR 1 I 3? The proposed layout should be reviewed by the Fire Chief to ensure a&(.lUate space f�.n turning around of fire department vehicles. A temporau-y C1,11 -die -sac may be necessary. 4.0 GRADING PLAN: 4.1 The normal water levc,l (nwl) and 100 year high water Ie Vell (11V 1) should- be indicated on the plan Cor the pond/filt�-atiori basin. 4.2 Arrows and slopes should be provided on the Final Plans to Casale adequate grade is provided. minimum 2% and maximum 3:1 slope is recommended for green arclas 4.3 Emergency overflow routes should be clearly labeled to adequate surl'acc overflol,v° Lite provided. 4.4 An emergency overflow should be provided for the pond/liltration basila at the 100 year high water level. The overflow should he armored with turl reinforcement mat or riprap. Preliminary PlatNpnlication 16-3822 �• �� Eisinger Meadows V Page 3 5.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN: 5.1 General SWPPP Notcs should he revised to indicate. a'runimum 6 -topsoil used fOr rc-spread. 5.2 Notes should he revised to indicate perimeter erosion control measures and protection 11211('ino v ill he installed by Contr�ictur and inspected by City prior to any demol�itior or land disturbance_ Contractor must prm ide 24 hour notice �hrior to inspection. 5.3 I1'the proposed pertianent stol"noxater hasin will be used as it tempcnrar,, sediment basin durin, construction, additional seyuencing notes anal linework should be included as necessary to provide clear direction for installation schedule of periancler sediment control devises, temporary sediment basin, rough grading and temporary d�4chin,:, temporary seeding. utility and street construction, site stabilization 611cludim-1 topsoil i spread, erosmil control blanket, riprap and permanent ve-letati on), removal of perimeter measwR'S, c10fls RICti011 sediment rernoviil, outlet control structure installation, and permanent st ahilization of the ponds. 5.4 Double siltfenc must be provided adjacent to wetland; where grading i; proposed withl�,n 50' 01 the wetland. 6.0 SANITARY SEWER AND WATF,R MAIN PLAN 6.1 Sanitary sewer and watcrmain review, comments will be provided separately as plan do~,cl,;)pmcnt Progresses. 7.0 STORM SEWER PLAN 7.1 Subsurface drainr.le service connection; should he provided for all lots 1101, directly abultirg a pond or wetland. Storm sewer layout and Drainage and Ulility Easements may need to be aciJusted accordingly. 7.2 CBMH-1 should be constructed with it 4' sump to prOwide preU-eatrlie] It I)rlmr to the pond/filtrati:On basin. 7.3 Clcanouts 1'01- the Filtration basin undcrdram should be provided. Clea110U[S should be located a1)OVC the high water Icvcl to limit potential fur hypassing f1kration system. 8.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN K. I Since common bul'kthorn is identified in the Conservation Desk'n Master Plan (CDIVIP} for 1eni0v, 1, the Final Landscape Plan should indicate areal, of buckthorn reni0val and incorporate re vulval �(uidelines outlined in the CDMP. 8.2 Various proposed tree (.;cations will need 10 be adjusted L) ren -love conf-licl with utilities. Please let me know if` you have any yuesti011s 0r need additional infor illation. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC. Robert E. Bean, Jr., P.E. Water Resources Engineer April 3, 2016 Kayla Mack Development Assistant Lakewest Development 14525 Highway 7, Suite 265 Minnetonka, MN 55345 RE: Site Conservation Plan Dear Kayla, The property located at 2,245 Wayzata Boulevard) West in Hennepin County, Minnesota in T118N, R23W, Section 32 is shown in the attached Figure 7, Site Detail Conservation Plan. Figure 6 shows a preliminary area conservation plan which shows a green corridor across the south side of tthe area. We performed an ecological investigation of the site on April 1, 2016 where we responded to requested conservation design checklist items by the City of Orono. 1. Provide written response to the Goals and Policies 'for Environmental Protection and Natural Resource Management. The intent is to establish the property's ecological connecJons berth within Orono and as part of the regional ecological system. The summary of items addressed is in the attached Conservation Design Checklist. 2. A. The property has two basic views of the property as follows: a. From the northern hill west and south toward the forested fringe and the large cattail marsh beyond before Highway 1.2. b. From the planned developed area looking east toward anoth=er large cattail marsh and the apple orchard beyond. B. Corridor enclosure a. Along the west and south of the property there is an edged enclosure which shields the property with a solid wall of box elder forest before the cattail marsh. b. Along the east of the property there is an edged enclosure which shields the property with a solid wall of box elder and aimerican elm forest before the cattail marsh. C. Landmarks -There are no established landmarks on the property. 3. Natural Resource Inventory a. Review and Document the MLCCS data pertinent to the site. i. On the Level 1 and Level 3 MLCCS Inventory the site was classified as planted or cultivated vegetat on. ii. There are no Natural Areas documented on the site by the MLCCS Inventory. b. Site Analysis i. Conceptual greenways and open space corridors 1. West, South and Southeast: Tree `:stand Area on west and south of PIC) #3211823140002 Area A Species Composition Trees Box Elder 90% F'eachleaf Willow 2% Black Willow 1% Shrubs Tartarian Honeysuckle 40% Herbs Ground Ivy 50% Motherwort 10% Smooth Brome 10% Stinging Nettle 101% Red Raspberry 5% Common Burdock 5% Hairy Crabgrass 39'0 Reed Canarygrass 2% Area B Species Composition Trees Box Elder 85% American Elm 5% Black Willow 1% Cottonwood 1% Shrubs Tartarian Honeysuckle 10% Common Buckthorn 60% Herbs Ground Ivy 50% Motherwort 10% Smooth Brome 10% Stinging Nettle 10% Red Raspberry 59/c Common Burdock 5% Hairy Crabgrass 3% Reed Canarygrass 2% Area C Species Composition Shrubs Common Buckthorn 2% Northern Prickly Ash 5% Herbs Kentucky Bluegrass 10% Smooth Brome 60% Stinging Nettle 5% Common Burdock 1% Hairy Crabgrass 5`,/o Reed Canarygrass 15% Upland Grassed Area Species Composition to North of Conservation Green Corridor Smooth Brome 50% Stinging Nettle 59,c, Kentucky Bluegrass 20% Little Bluestem 4510 Hairy Crabgrass 2111% Reed Canarygrass 3% Giant Foxtail 5% Common Ragweed 3% Velvelaeaf 1% Switchgrass 5% ii. Existence of rare plant communities which there are none iii. Potential Need for Proactive Management and Protection 1. Remove Common Buckthorn shrubs in Area B and Northern Prickly Ash stands in Area C 2. Remove herbaceous vegetation by turf removal in Area C and plant with native Mesic Prairie Southwest seed rnix attached 4. Conservation Design Master Plan a. Stormwater Master Plan — suspended until future site plans submitted. b. Invasive Species Removal and Management Plan i. Common Buckthorn — Rhamnus cathartic:a removal from Area B — See ,Appendix B. ii. Reed Canarygrass— Phalaris arundinacea allowed to remain in areas because they are a minor part of the areas outsider of the protected wetlands. c. Tree mitigation and diseased tree plan -- diseased or damaged trees will be cut down and removed from the site, trees native to the bii woods area will be replanted as replacements such as: Basswood —Tilia americana Red Maple —Acer rubrum Hackberry — Celtis occidertalis Black Cherry -- Prunus serotina d. Tree protection pian —The Area A and Area B trees will be protected on the site. If trees are lost from these areas, trees from item c. above will be planted as replacements. e. Woodland protection and mitigation plan --The Common Buckthorn will be removed) and maintained per Appendix B methods. f. Negative Impacts to ecological communities — no negative impacts are planned. g. Maintenance of Ecological Connections — Ecological connections would be present along the west,, south, and southeast areas of the site through Areas A, B, and C and wetlands. h. Views — Positive views will be maintained by future development by Orono conservation design principles. i. Landmarks — no landmarks exist on the current property. 5. N/A 6. N/A 7. Long Term Preservation —The future property owners will maintain Areas A, B, and C, and the wetlands. 8. The future property owner will agree to the items specified in this document by covenant agreement with the City of Orono. Thank you for the opportunity to serve you on this site. Sincerely, Wayne E. Jacobson, P.S.S., W.D.C., P.W.S., A.F.S. Senior Scientist Jacobson Environmental, PLLC. APPENDIX A Conservation Design Checklist City of Orono – Conservation Design Checklist BASIC APPLICATION AND PLAN REQUIREMENTS Sec. 78-1634. Application requirements and procedures. Item Development Steps Action 1. Review and provide written response to the Goals and (Policies for Environmental Protection and Natural Resource Management as established in the Orono Community Management Plan and the recommendations contained within in the Orono Natural Resources Inventory. The intent is to establish the property's ecological connections both within Orono and as part of the regional ecological system. 2. Rural Oasis Study If the property exists adjacent to a documented corridor in the Rural Oasis Study, review and respond to the existing aesthetic and ecological analysis. If the property is NOT adjacent to a documented corridor in the Rural Oasis Study, developer shall have a qualified consultant prepare a similar analysis and submit it to the city for review. This analysis shall include the documentation of: a. Views, b. Corridor enclosure, c. And landmarks through a plan analysis -and photographs. Developer shall be charged a standard fee established in the city fee schedule to cover the expenses of the city in hiring a consultant to review the ecological site analysis submitted by the developer. 3. Natural Resource Inventory. Include all the following elements: a. Review and document the MLCCS data pertinent to the site. b. Tree survey --_---__--_-- —-.— -CIIK --- Include all significant individual trees greater than six in. diameter, and stands of trees, identifying tree species and size. Not needed because tree habitat dominated by Boa; Elder nearly exclusively. c. Wetland Inventory and 'Wetland Buffer OK Include delineation reports. _ d. Topographic survey CIIK_ ^ Include existing drainage patterns - ----------------- — e. Site Analysis -- ---- Analysis of the site based on the findings and recommendations of the Orono Natural Resources Inventory with regards to: • Conceptual greenways and open space corridors; • Existence of rare plant communities,; • Potential' need for proactive monagemeni and protection. _ Sec. 78-1635. Basic Conservation Design Master PI_a_n requirements and evaluation criiteria, Item Conservation Design Master Plan __ Auction Item_ 4. a. Consideration of the existing drainage syste_m _ OK _ b. Stormwater Management Plan Establishment of a storrnwater management system,, using multi -cell treatment principles, and defining proposed methods of stormwater _ phosphorus reduction_ c. Invasive Species Removal and (Management Plan d. Tree Mitigation and Diseased Tree Plan T e. Tree Protection Plan Protection of significant tree stands and woodlands that support scenic and/or ecological goals, including mitigation of any such stands to be impacted by development activities. f. Wetland Protection and Mitigation Plan Protection of existing iAretlands, including aug,nnentation of buffers, mitigation o f impacts, and enhancement of degradedsystems. g. Justification and mitigation of any negative impact to ecological communities. "Negative Impact" includes any modification to a lower level of ecological community quality, as described b;the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (M -34X Modifiers) h. Define Maintenance of E:cologlical Conn(-Kbons Through site design, as shown on the Orono Natural Resource Inventory i. Views Maintenance and protection of existing positive views, and mitigation of any existing or proposed negative views using appropriate measures such as site layout, screening, building design and coloration, etc. j. Landmarks ---------- - ---- — --- – Preservation or reinterpretation of existing landmarks DENSITY BONUS STANDARDS Item Sec. 78-1636. Density bonuses for urban density development. Action Item 5. For residential development in Orono's defined urban area (zoning districts allowing densities in excess of one unit per two acres, and including properties identified in the Orono Community Management Plan for conversion to urban density) within the ranges of the guided density & density bonus may be allowed if the city council finds that the performaince bonus requirements of this division have been met. The city council shall determine the extent of density bonus awarded for Such properties. NA -- Example: Properties guided in the Community Management Plan for a density range of two —four units per acre have a base density of two units per acre; while the high end of the density range is not guaranteed, the city council at its discretion may allow development at a final density of up to four units per, acre through the performance bonus process. Item Sec. 78-1637. Performance bonus requirements Action It_em 6. Within the urban density area, developers have the opportunity to increase the base density by going above and beyond the Basic Conservation design Master Plan requirement. By implementing a combination of development enhancements that not only preserve but improve the inatural characteristics of the property or preserve and enhance existing landmarks,, the developer NA shall become eligible for a density bonus. The extent of such density bonus shall be determined by the city council. Development enhancements include but are not necessarily limited to the following;: _ _ a. _Reforestation beyond existing; woodland limits; NA _ b. _Water quality Improvements:_ _ NA _ _ _ c. Improvements in ecological grade of existing communities; _ NA _ d. _Upgrading of edge buffering to maximum, or tunneled, character; and _ NA e. Major preservation or enhancement of existing; landmarks. _ NA } LONG-TERM PRESERVATION_ Item _ Sec. 78-1638. Preservation Requirements Action It_e_rn___ 7. The developer shall establish and implement measures that will ensure the preservation and maintenance of those elements of the development that are determined to require long-term or permanent protection from development or misuse. Such measures may include but are not limited to: conservation easements; deed restrictions; private covenants; transfer of ownership to agencies such as the Minnesota Land Trust or the Nature conservancy, or, to the city via dedication, etc. Item Sec. 78-1639. Buyer Education. T Action Item___ 8. The developer shall establish covenants documenting the elements of the development to be protected and how they are to be protected, and shall establish a defined program for education of the initial purchasers of lots Submit within the development as to the limitations that affect future use of the properly. Sub 78-1640. Resources. The primary references for facilitating the conservation design process include -.he following: • Orono Rural Oasis Study (DSU, 2005). • 2008-2030 City of Orono Community Management Plan, Chapter 3A — Environmental Protection Plan (City of Orono, 2009). • Orono Natural Resources Inventory (Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services/Bonestroo Natural Resources Group, 2006). • Minnesota land Cover Classification System (MU'CS). IFIC`URE`' Figure 1 Site Location Map 93°38.000' W 93°371000' W 93°36.000' W WGS84 93"35.000'W In 0 LrI )6 COUi T -Y Ya 1K r o 1 GaF,;e +a izsa r LfeQnm PR_ d .n DriveEK �' ° �✓rn41 0 Lo 9 xttf'! tlfhif.'' yp �`z Gurlt.}rl9tiaylJ� _„ Lf)i'r7Yf 1Mfi . 12� i+3ltfi[9 L F �tsJ _! 1 } y4 J F Cl l'•�' �� ,_.� '� ,.`.Lass .r. --o "'��y t B l -d Pert: 31d �89 ay "" --�.. - _ a.•y� 1+ 1. �r `.7 ._•'.—�--- � •�� Zak _' r � '? t •r.. lel � f � t]a Ci Line Til' 0 a �f_ auul Aw 0)m`ti; Irl ...._.�I_ 'r'hA i;, ,: •� —= r,:----'- (, kV!lat ertry--_Rc n_� .. ••'"" }'i r r I ,r I Stubbs 8cey a,� c> }� CD pCa3d5n 79 ."!co Ln qtr;.: Cl 06 I n t -FI 1 - - , J 14fa�,�t1°°!/l F'a.g! 77 c s rh1.. —�• 'f 3 Man cheated with o ^ o U200ZCNatlonall Geographic, ©2005�Tjele Atlas, Rel. £1/2005 93°38.000' W 93037.000' W 93036.000' W y--- WGS84 93035.000' W pp TN'IMN NATIONAL �-�� GEOGRAPHIC rear 101x" [�iOV—p��FTS tr 04/01/16 8 � m n y o n I ( fm 9A0 �4a� y I 0 i P _ LL CL LL 'fA r SA IIb� m c? W O U- � r e u_I w n I ^_ CN FLl Y rI-� a I . 9 s N � B89 hie � • s� q $ �• .3kyE, Ak.yS m t. .1 E € c - m \ a� r \ J r i i zm ! C°i uj 7• 5 x� o 'a L7 a 1 is •�� ii�x�e®� ;� ��ado® I I I w �s — q A os. n III z N ObOZ86b M„Z9£ A6 0 V N a O m h E c OS6T86b 098T86b OLCC86b 089T86b 06STB6b m at, C6 ObOZ86b OS6186b 098TS6b OZZT26b J891:86b 065 [8Gb z ry � Z h OQST86b `J M219£ IIE6 rt (O co N 4 a' I N a i � _ N II N U) U) o v P3 z 5FN Ol p W W W Cn � v C7 O7 X p O r-1 � C_ rn 0 m � Q c C) G O a � all in' Ln o N� (u.1 � 7 v O R o OCISTS6b �� z k�! h Soil Map—Hennepin County, Minnesota Map Unit Legond Figure 3 Soils Mao Hennepin County, Minnesota (MN053) Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of ACI 1EAMuskego, Blue Earth, and 44.1 -----'-- F,a; qqi 12.9'?0 1 '1.4'io 'I ®(1.0"roll USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/1/2016 .rte! Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Houghton soils, ponded, 0 to 1 percent slopes 1-22C2 Lester loan, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded 11-37B Angus Roam, 2 to 6 percent slopes U2A Udorthents, wet substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 12.9'?0 1 '1.4'io 'I ®(1.0"roll USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 4/1/2016 .rte! Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 L -E n�N c) I Hennepin County F roperty Map 1'Ja tr; : 3/18/2016 k 4 Figure 6 Overall Preliminary Area Conservautilon Plan Y e FI �' I„ `qt 5' 112 Tima F r .IIt .. d 1 inch 800 ftet PARCEL..ID: 3211822140002 Comments: �lb�► OWNER NAME: Lakewest Lic FigurE. 4 Site Map , PARCE:LAIDDRESS: 3245 Wayzata Blvd W, Orono MN 55356 PROPERTY TYPE: Vacant Land-Rural Residential "'°11•��9 '�'`��"��= HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead t°,� w �'llava'�• Rt��l ,�,� PARCELAREA: 25.8 acres, 1,123,933 sq ft �a A-T-E3: Abstract,.; i MARKET- VALUE: $135,000 This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no TAX TOTAL:$1,310,86 representation as to or�mpletewm,'. or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no j warranty of any kind; and(lii) is notsuiiable SALE PRICE: for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable: to, any damage, injury or lost, resulting frorn this dEita. SALE DATA: COPYRIGHT © HE NNEiPIKI 13ALE CODE: COUNTY 2016 i Hennepin County Property Map Date: 3/2,3/2016 PARCEL ID: 32.11823140002 a1wt 0661 per_,Lf OWNER NAME: Lakewest Llc PARCELADDRESS: 3245 Wayzata Blvd W, Orono MN 55356 PROPERTY TYPE: Vacant Land-Rural Residential HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead PARCELAREA: 25.8 acres, 1,123,933 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract MARKET VALINE: $135,000 TAS: TOTAL: $1,310.86 SALE PRICE: SALE DATA: SALE CODE: Comments: This data (i) is furnished AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; an (iii) is notsuitab le for legal, engineering or surva:ying purposes. Hen nEapin County shall not be liable forany damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2016 L m 0 CL 0 co 0) cn X N ID � mE c - o'n Ui TJ _ C N C l cioo ois > o a L J b U L p) G A:- ❑: d F U ' IT ro � 'Jc � -'L U E m (7 - o � .' v y ., _ o zJ n o .� �� _ z In r6 O $�E�)LU (^E O aL.a 73 �u i F3 m LI ' �O fU lU C -n N C N lJ O O U O U1 N -,Op o ra ia' O m U j Appendix A Buffer Establishment and Management Plan For 3245 Wayzata Boulevard 'Nest Orono, MN April 30, 2016 IL Overview: This project is for the establishment of several bluff buffer areas and for Area A., Area B, and Area C as shown in they attached plan to effectively buffer adjacent wetlands as shov,m on the attached Figure 7 Site Detail Conservation Plan and the Figure 8 Top of B1ufl'Buffe:r plan. The maintained buffers will depend primarily upon surface water from adjacent land to maintain the necessary hydrology, I1. General Project Goals: The primary goal of this project is to maintain buffer areas that will ]')reserve and enhance the functions and values of the current buffer. An ongoing buffer maintenance plan ,viilll be employed in this case. There may be some variation from these guidelines where timinh2 and site conditions warrant modification. Five years of aftercare are planned to control invasive species such as canada thistle, stinging nettle, garlic mustard, bull thistle, purple loo sestrife, common buckthorn, and spotted knapweed in the buffer or managed. areas. III. Specific Buffer Type Goals: The goal of this project is to maintain or establish the follo)h,ing: Grassed bluff buffers as shown -on the attached Figure 8 from the 986 contour or the black :line to the tree line which is to the west, south, or east of the black: line to the tree edge which is principally box elder (Acer negundo). Common Buckthorn (Rhamnus cathar•tica) of over 1" dbh cut off at the ground in Area lB as shown in Figure. 7 and stumps sprayed with glysophosphate as recommended in the Al-Tendix. A native grass buffer established in Area C on Figure 7. Below is a summary of the specific areas of buffer maintenance as shown on. the Centum% Farm VVMC Declaration Plan: Buffer Size Size Area (ft.2) (acres) Buffer Type Bluff TBD TBD Preserved Grassed Buffer of 30 -- 50 feet on the south B TBD TBD Preserved Wooded Buffer, Buckthorn Controlled C TBD TBD Preserved Grassed Bufter Total = TBD TBD W. Planting Considerations if' areas are disturbed and not: ,just rnaintained: Prior to establishing the contours on the buffer areas careful removal and sorting of the sod and native soils must take place to minimize contamination by seed and roots of invasive species. Maintenance Methods Bluff Area In the Bluff buffer area the buffer area will initially have buffer mon umentation placed ipproxi:maAtcly every 200 feet along buffer edges. Area B In buffer area B the buffer ;area will initially have buffer monumenta.tion placed approximately every 200 feet along buffer edges. Area C In buffer area C the buffer area will initially have buffer monumenta.tion placed approximately every 200 feet along buffer edges. Next year vegetative management will ocei.ir with spot spraying and weed whipping of areas, followed by Escort or Glysophosphate application to weed areas needing control. Seed will be spread if necessary per the below seed specifications if needed. V. Seeding Specifications if Planted: a. Timing of Seeding: Due to the small size of most buffer seed varieties, all seed will be broadcast. To maximize success, the planting of seed can only occur within tw,o small windows„ April 1 to June 30 or September 1 to December 1. b. Seed Mix and Installation Specifications*: The grassy buffer maintained areas will be sc!eded with Mix 35-541 at 12.0 pounds of pure live seed per acre. Cover crops specified for each mix will be seeded with each mix_ in accordance with BWSR_ mix specifications. The Appendix contains the specifications for the seed mixes specified. Below is a table and surn:mary of seed mixes. Seed Mix Trate Est. Total Amt. (11b,/ac.)_ Seed Used (lbs.) Mesic Prairie Southwest Seed Mix 12.0 TBD *Note: See "Guidelines for Restoring and Managing Native Wetland Vegetation"for seed mix percentages and specifications for seed density on a. square foot basis. c. Site Preparation and Seeding Technique: 'The upland buffer areas will be dra;ged after the seed is broadcast as needed to achieve proper seed to soil contact. Straw mulch will be applied at 1.5 tons per acre and disk anchored where possible. On any slopes in the buffer area exceeding a 10 percent slope, straw erosion blanket will be installed after seeding. VI. Prevention of Introduction of Invasive Species: It is important that any topsoil that is pll aced on the site be free of any rhizomes and seed from vegetation that is unciesira,ble in a buffer. Therefore it is imperative that the coordination between the grading contractor .and the environmental consultant is adhered to carefully as specified earlier in this Appendix. .Also, any mulch used should free of weed seed. Certified Weed Free Mulch, grain straw, and wood fiber mulch Is acceptable. Under no circumstances mny hay, wild hay, alfalfa, or marsh hay be used as mulch. VII. Aftercare / Invasive Species Management: It is critical to any buffer restoration project to provide monitoring and aftercare for several seasons until the late successional wetland species are established. Aftercare will include spot spraying two times duririg the first growing season (.hone., August), two times during each year (June and late .August) for years 2 and 3, and once a year In years 4 and 5. Target species of the spraying program include, but are not: limited to, Canada Thistle, Bully Thistle, Garlic Mustard, Spotted Kriapweed, Purple Loosestrife, Common Buckthorn, and Stinging Nettle Spot mowing and inter -seeding will be done as necessary, as determined by monitoring. Common Buckthorn control methods are attached in the Appendix of this document. VIII. Pre -Maintenance Meeting: The sut:cess of a buffer, maintenance plan relies to a large part on the coordination of the efforts of the owner, the environmental consultant, and the seeding contractor so that the needs and requirements of each party are realized. Therefore, a pre-mairitenance meeting must be held for the benefit of all parties to allow questions to be fielded and to provide a tentative project schedule. This plan was prepared by Wayne Jacobson, PSS, WDC on April 31;,x, 2016. Contact Information: Wayne Jacobson, Certified. Wetland Delineator Jacobson Environmental, PLLC 5821 Humboldt Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Phone: 612-802-661'. Email: jacobsonenv(qrrisn.com Appendix; (seed mix specifications and buckthorn control methods) 35-541 Mesic Prairie Scmithw PO Common Name Scientific Name Rate (kg/ha) Rite (lbiac) % of Mi:�: (% by wt) Seeds)' sa ft big bluestem Andro oc on gerardii _ 1.01 090 7.491>6 3.3(" side -oats grama -_ Bouteloba curtipendula _ 1.01 090 _ _ 7.491/) nodding wild rye____ El mus canader,sis _ 1.01 090 7.46% 1.71 slender wheatgrass ---.-----,EI mus trachycaulus_ 1.01 U 90 _ 7.46`6 _ green needle grass Nassella viridula 0_1.9 3.67`6 1.7i switchgrass _ -_ Panicum virgatum _ 0.18 -0.44 16 _ 1.30',6 _ 0.8i western wheat rass Pascop rum smithii _ _U 050 _ 4.15`.,1, _ 1.3D little bluestem - _ Schizach-rrium scoparium__ -0.!-,'El 1.6_8_ 1 50 _ B.2 Indian grass _ Sor hastrum nutans _ 1.6_8 1 50 _12.50`.%;, 12.54`.:, 6.6'; _ Total Grasses _ 64.06°0 :?'7.96, Canada milk vetch Astragalus canadensis _8.6_3 0.07 _7.70 0.06 _ 3.4(_ partridge pea _ Chamaecrista fasciculate_ 011 _0.53`%;, u_ 0.841")__ _ 0.1 0 white prairie clover -_ Dalea candida _0.10 0.24° 0.20 purple prairie clover Daleaur up rea _0.0_3 _0.03 _ 0.6111;, 0.4(> Canada tick trefoil -_ _ Desmodium canadense _0.08 -0.07 U.05 0.45°,, 0.1 1 narrow -leaved purple coneflower _ Echinacea angustifolia _- _0.0_6 _ 0.659,:, 0.2(;' ox -eye Helio sis helianthoides_ _0.09 _0.08 _ 0.509,) rough blazing star Liatris aspera T _0.0_7 0.03 _0.06 0.289;) 0.2(:. great blazing star Liatris py_cnostachya 0,02 _0.03 _ _ 0.21 °,) _ 0.1(: wild bergamot Monarda fistulosa _ _0.02 _ _ 0.299,) 0.9(" stiff goldenrod _ -----0,G4---0.04 Oli oneuron rigidum __- OM 0.03 0.28°': 0.5t:' gray -headed coneflower Ratibida Rinnata _ 0.619,: 0.8(;I black-eyed susan _ - Rudbeckia hirta _0.08 0 07 _0.07 _ 0.491,,) _ 2.0('I smooth astermphyotrichum _ laeve 003 _0.06 0.254,) 0.60 blue vervain _ Verbena hastata 008 _0.03 D.07 _ _ 0.61 hoary vervain -_ _ Verbena stncta 006 T 0.414, 0.50 olden alexanders _ - Zizia aur9a 28 -D.05 _ 2.069;) _ 1.00 _ Total Forbs _0 _D.25 _ 9.31° _ 110.6!5 Oats or winter wheat (see note at beginning of list for recommended dates) I -1.231.10 59 _ _ 26.639�> --- Total Cover Cro��-3_59 _3 _3.20 1.42 Totals: 13,.45 _3.20 12.00 _26.631% 100.00°!,40.03 Purpose: _ Regional mesic prairie reconstruction for wetland (ritigation, ecological restoration, or conservation proo ramplantinclss_ Planting Area: __ North-Central Glaciated Plains Section. 4(south), 7 & 8. (•An/DOT [Districts 3A(southwest) 3B, APPENDIX; B Buckthorn Removal CGluidelines HERBICIDE TREATMENTS Thine to Apply For larger buckthorn reduction or control projects, some type of chemical treatment is the best control :method. A single stern of buckthorn cut down to the ground and not herbicide -treated will re: -sprout from the stump and grow many new stems up to 8 feet tall in, a single season. "If you cut it, you just anger it," says 1,lorm Erickson, a buckthorn -busting volunteer from Rochester. This aggressive, "Medusa -like" re -growth must be stopped or the plant will soon reach its former size, take up more space, and continue; to out -compete the native plants. It is :important NOT to treat during; the spring -flush growth period, usually Ptlay and June. This is a tune when the planl'is using its stored energy reserves to grow, until the plant is fully leafed out. During the spring -flush, the plant generally does not store energy, it spends energy. Herbicide treatments work best when the plant is transporting; sugars to its root system or is dormant (July through Ma.rch). Summer, autumn, and winter are the three seasons when herbicide treatment is effective. Late September through November is an especially good time, because this is when buckthorn is easiest to identify: leaves remain green and attached while leaves of our native plants are turning color and falling. When using herbicides, always follow label instructions and take recommended safety precautions. Be certain that your herbicide is labeled for your s ite. See page 6 for herbicide suggestions. Cut -Stump Method with herbicide During cutting and brush -hauling operations, stumps are, easily lost wider leaves and debris, particularly in later fall. Ivlarking stump locations with wire; flags (similar to those used by utilities to mark underground wires or pipes) is very helpful when it comes time to locate the stump for treatment after an area has been cleared. Secure the flags well, so they too will not be dragged away with the brush. Stumps can be chemically treated with a paint -brush (single -use foam, brushes work well), a wick applicator, or an ultra. low volume spray wand. Apply chemical to the outermost growth rings immediately under the bark. It is very important that water-based herbicides are applied soon after the cut, Be especially quick to apply herbicide if the air is warm & dry. There is NO NEED to drill holes in the stump and pour chemical as some labels suggest—this over- exposes you and the environment to herbicide. See concentration amounts next page. Frill -Cuts with herbicide Frill cuts can be made on any size stem and are made by wounding the bark: at the base of the plant with an axe or - hatchet (a butcher knife will work on small stems). Cut through the bark and cambium ata downward angle with a. series of light, shallow chops around the basal circumference of the tl-ee. These cuts create a frill (bark & wood E ap.). Next, apply herbicide (paint brush or spray) to exposed cut areas and inner bark. Chemical contact with the cambium (the layer just: under the bark) is very important. This is a good method to stop female trees from producing fruit and to minimize e=rosion on slopes (no soil disturbance). If you physically remove all the buckthorn, you set up the site for erosion. Buckthorn can be left standing for bird habitat or as a leafless trellis for native vines. Once dry, standing dead trees can decompose in place or be cut down and used for firewood or wood. working. Basal Bark Treatment with Herbicide When mixed with a diluent (a solvent containing dye that can be mixed with some herbic'.des), ester formulations of Triclopyr can be applied directly to the bark at the base of the Vee to provide effective control. Spray the lowest two feet of bark around the entire circumference of the tree. For diamet=ers 2 inches or less, only one side of the stem needs to be sprayed. This is a fast, effective way of controlling larger trees, up to 6 inches in diameter on large sites. Dead trees can be left standing or cut at a later time. Garlon 4, Crossbow, and Pathfinder II (ready to use), containing the active ingredient Tryclopyr, are effective brand-name chemicals for basal bark treatment. Herbicides that work well on buckthorn: Do NOT use more chemical than you need! If a little is good, a tot is not better. LGrosate is the active ingredient in Roundup (now off patent), Ortho Basic Solutions 'Need & Grass Killer Concentrate, and others. This herbicide is a good choice since it does not leach through the: soil. Use it for cut -stamp and frill treatments. Many different concentrations are available. Check the fine print in the lower label corner. • 110 to 25% active ingredient :!s needed for cut -stump and frill treatments+. • Apply to a fresh cut when temperatures are above freezing. • Only 2% active ingredient is necessary for foliar spray (best; for seedlings in the late fill). 2. Tryclopyraraine is the: active ingj,edient in Garlon 3A and Ortho Brush B-Gon. • Mix with water for cut stump, frill, and foliar applications • Use goggles when spraying, since exposure to this chemical can cause a burning sensation in eyes • For the cut -stump and frill method, apply immediately after cutting 3. Tr cly opyr ester is the active ingredient in Carlon 4, Crossbow, Patl finder. (Pathfinder is ready -to -use.) • Mix with diluent or Kerosene for cut-stu np, frill and basal bark treatments • Can be used when the temperature is below freezing; Note: Garton 3a needs to be applied immediately after the cut. Carlon 4• can be used long after the; cut because it is solvent -based and will penetrate the stump and bark. Tordon RTU Is NOT RECOMMENDED because it leaches through the soil, is persistent in the soil, and can affect roots of other plants. VPet Sites: For areas directly adjoining wetlands, ponds, creeks, and lakes, you must use an herbicide labeled for aquatic use, like Rodeo.* This is necessary when working within ten feet of the shoreline. Use the sarne rates as Roundup;, above. • Rodeo is now beyond its legal ;patent. The glyphosate product may be offered for sale under other brand names such as Aqua Neat. lips for spraying; in a dense buckthorn thicket 1. In. densely infested areas, use a hand-held tank sprayer; backpack sprayers can be difficult to negotiate through the woods. 2. An ultra low volume spray wand (available through "http://www.ar,borchem.com";I can cut chemical use by 75%. 3. Be sure to wear appropriate protective clothing when using chemicals, especially when mixing concentrate. Use neoprene or chemical resistant gloves, not latex, cloth, or leather. Wear goggles or safety glasses when mixfig chemicals. Be certain to read and follow label instructions. Where to buy the herbicides • Glyphosate herbicides are readily available at 'hardware stares, Menards, Florne Depot, etc. Be certain to look for active ingredient: concentration between 10 & 250i6 for cut stump and frill treatment uses. • Garlon herbicides can be purchased through local agriculture, turf, and horticulture co-op suppliers or wholesalers. BRUSH DISPOSAL OPTIONS 1. Utilize: salvage buckthorn for firewood &/or wood -working (trellises, arbors, fences, walking sticks, etc.) 2. Chip,: chip brush and spread on trails 6" deep or in the woods 1-2" deep. Not recommended far branches with fruit. 3. Cut -slash is to cut up and leave the: wood on the ground; wood/soil contact can reduce erosion and create habitat for amp::tibians, small mammals, and insects; aesthetics is a consideration. 4. Cut & haul: check with your garbage hauler or tree service; Minnetonka's resident brush drop at Public; Works is open April through mid November. 4. Bum: recommended for branches with fruit containing viable seed; burn pennit is required; contact your local fire mashal. 5. Brush piles provide wildlife habitat & cover for songbirds, amphibians, and small mammals. Note: Minnetonka Public Nuisance ordinance does not allow brush piles (neatly stacked wood is okay). 6. Energy conversion: District Energy in St. Paul burns wood waste to generate haat & electricity, Some cities have their brush ground and transported there. HOPE FOR A BIOLOGICAL CONTROL "(rood news came; this month," wrote Cynthia Boyd in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, Sept., 26, 2001, "in a $20,000 report commissioned by the Minnesota Department of Natural R.esoui-ces from the Center for Applied il3ioscience hiternational in Delmont, Switzerland. The 100 page research paper includes a list of 14 insects that are possible natural predators (of buckthorn), thus potential control agents." According to Luke Skinner and Jay Rendall, coordinators in the DNB's exotic species program, the feasibility study was completed in 2001, but the entire study may take up to ten years to complete. The next step will be to test the 14 species and determine which ones harm buckthorn exclusively. In the meati -time it is up to us to make an effort to control buckthorn in an ecologically - friendly way. Then we will see the return of our native plants, OVTRWHELMED BY IT ALL? If you've worked in a heavily buckthonl-infested area, it is easy to feel overwhelmed. Don't give up. Buckthorn has had decades to get a root -hold ahead of those of us who would like to etimi:nate it. With the conixol methods described here, total elimination oi'buckthorn on a city lot is possible. In larger wooded areas the volume of buckthorn biomass can be staggering. There, it will be a multi-year battle; fust against the large plants, later against the seedlings that will emerge. The cost in terms of hurnan-power, time, equipment, and dollars is high. Reduction of the critical mass is possible; so prioritization is essential. Knowing wha: to do and doing son, ething is far better than leaving the invasion unchecked. See priorities below for a good place to start. BUCKTHORN REDUCTION PRIORITIES FOR THOSE OVERWHELMED CPR WITH A LIMITED BUDGET 1, Survey your site to find pockets of remaining native plants. Clear around these plants first. By doing this you "release" these plants from their buckthorn competition. Protect them :5rom being harmed during cuti,nng and removal. Sometimes these natives are very, very small, the size of sticks; but they are worth protecting, because when they are freed, they bounce back with new growth. Find. a local native; plant expert to help you with identification. Use colored ribbon flagging to mark the special plants to protect. These remnants are the very important local gene pool (plants that are indigenous to your area). 2. Remove or kill female buckthorn first. This stops annual seed production in the area, Mark the; female plants when ever fruit is visible, late; summer through winter, for priority removal. 3. Protect quality wooded areas that are only partially infested first. FOR NEIGHBORHOOD REMOVAL PROJECTS 4. Partner with conservation groups, your city, garden clubs, other neighborhood volunteers. 5. Search locally for potential grant funding, then write grant proposals. Ask local businesses and fowndations for assistance. 6. Prioritize buckthorn removals to be in high-profile areas; f'or example, along bike paths, parkways, and in parks. 'l. Publicize what you're doing;: put up informational signs in the: project area; distribute flyers to nearby residents; write an article for your local paper or association. 8. Stop to answer questions of all those who inquire while you are working. These methods sound like a lot of work, and frankly it is. The lbenefits of organizing ia project are many. When'[. began to organize projects in my neighborhood, I met neighbors for the first time after living or.ly a few doors away f'or many years. You will be proud of your work when you see how the natives respond to release. Helping to preserve a small piece of our diminishing native woodlands, savannas and wetlands is noble indeed. Good luck. "cc page 8 for references and where to go for more information. MWA _ } s � h F , 7 m v l�6 Q v bD Ln m L.{., aw l:- F , B �Y, s., m -a - v m Q. tic � bA C� C aJ C m u _ v Q MWA _ } s � h F , 7 m v l�6 Q v bD Ln m L.{., aw l:- F , B �Y, s., m m Q. C� C aJ C m u I L Q) 0- 0 L L U L O O Q) O _O 4 L v a O L O v N 4- Ln ru LLJ To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 17 September 2018 Subject: #LA18-000057, Text Amendment: Accessory Building & Structure Setbacks Memo #4 - Public Hearing - Continued Application Summary: The draft ordinance would re -organize the regulations, and clarify the setbacks for accessory buildings and structures throughout the City. Staff Recommendation: Planning Commission should continue the public hearing opened in June and discuss the proposed format and amendments. Staff will prepare an ordinance for future consideration, based on input received. Background/Update This is a continuation of the discussion beginning in June, regarding proposed changes for Accessory Building and Structure setbacks. The changes discussed thus far have been regarding the overall organization of the regulations in the Code, and whether or not adjustments to the existing setbacks are needed. For the August meeting, Staff prepared a summary of the existing regulations in a newly organized table format, as well as a table showing proposed changes to the setbacks for the R - 1A, R1 -B, LR -1A, & LR -1B districts. The proposed changes to the setbacks shown reflected the feedback from the previous discussions with the Planning Commission. Staff took the feedback given at the August meeting and continued to develop the remainder of the residential tables continuing the same agreed-upon philosophy. The RS District (i.e. Big Island and Deering Island) has some additional complications and staff is seeking guidance on how to proceed regarding accessory building/structure setbacks in that district. For clarification: AS = Accessory Structure, anything which is built, constructed, erected, etc... AB = Accessory Building (a structure with a roof) less than 1000 square feet OAB = Oversized Accessory Building a structure with a roof exceeding 1000 square feet Planning Commission should review the additional tables and the setbacks contemplated within; some are new and some are a clarification on the existing. Additionally staff asks that the Planning Commission provide direction on the following questions/topics: RS Seasonal Recreational District - Big Island/Deering Island. The current minimum side yard setbacks for all structures and buildings are based on the width of the property. For example: Lots 200 feet or more in width have a minimum side setback requirement of 50 feet. Lots greater than 100 and less than 200 feet in width have a minimum side setback requirement of 30 feet. And lots less than 100 feet in width have a minimum 10 foot side setback. This can also be accomplished similarly to our recent setback flexibility for lots with nonconforming widths where we permit the side setback to be 10% of the lot width but not less than an appropriate minimum (10 or 7.5 feet, etc.). FILE #LA18-000057 17 Sept 2018 Page 2 of 2 2. Staff has proposed to allow for Accessory Buildings (AB) to follow the nonconforming lot width flexibility for side setbacks, but does not provide the same for Oversized Accessory Buildings (OAB) and Accessory Structures (AS). Does the Planning Commission wish to discuss this further or to explore other setback flexibilities? 3. The current City regulations would prohibit an AB/OAB to be located streetward of the principal building. Staff would like Planning Commission feedback on this requirement. If an AB or OAB meets the required principal building setback, and the principal building (house) itself is set back further than the minimum, is it appropriate for the AB/OAB to be closer to the street? What are the impacts, if any? 4. Some of the proposed changes, where setbacks have increased with this amendment, may result in a significant number of existing buildings in the City becoming legal nonconformities which would limit their expansion, etc. There is no inventory of the accessory buildings so it would be unrealistic to have an accurate number. The Planning Commission should discuss the potential impacts for property owners. 5. Private recreational facilities may warrant their own discussion for clarification. Private recreational facilities are defined, and are listed in the zoning code as allowed accessory uses within each Residential district. However, the definition and subsequent district regulations may leave too much up to interpretation. See the following code language as noted in each Residential district's Accessory Uses section: "Within any [..] residential district, the only permitted accessory uses and structures are the following: (4) Private recreational facilities subject to the pertinent accessory structure location and height requirements of this chapter." Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Direction The Planning Commission should reopen the Public Hearing and receive public comments. The Commission should discuss the above topics and give Staff direction on the same. Any other Planning Commission questions or concerns should also be discussed. Following direction given the Planning Commission should table the application to a future meeting. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Proposed Regulations Tables: R -1A; R1 -B; LR -1A; LR -113; LR -1C; LR -1C-1; RR -1A; and RR -16 districts Exhibit B. Draft Minutes from PC meeting 08/20/18 PROPOSED SETBACKTA BLES: Proposed Notes: 1. BOLD = proposed regulation. StFiI(ethFGWgI4 = removed language. Underlined = brand new language. i. Staff proposes to keep provision for detached garages to be at reduced setback in front/street setback on lakeshore lots if vehicle doors do not face the street. Garage Doors / Street *** 3. OAB will meet Principal Structure Setbacks — Unless it is a detached garage on lakeshore lot, see #2 above. 4. Combine all Accessory Structures (AS) into one category. 5. AB setbacks determined by zoning district. %2 to 1.0 acre = 10'; 2.0 acre = 15'; 5.0 acre = 20'. 6. Nonconforming lot width setbacks will apply to AS and AB, but not OAB. 7. Front/Street setbacks for AS = 50% principal structure setback for district. 8. Private recreational facilities regulated under AS setbacks. 9. 4Indicates nonconforming lot width setback provision is available. 10. Lakeshore lots do not have a front, the "lake" takes the place of the front. 11. 78-1279:: OHWL setback + ALS + Bluff/Bluff Impact Zone: V non -building "structures" <42" tall (from existing grade) may be located within ALS (not within the shore impact zone, as defined) for the subject lake classification. Shore impact zone means land located between the ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback. § OHWL setback depends on protected water classification (NE, RD, GD, tributary) See 78-1279(1) R-1A One Family Sec. 78-230. - Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. Residential District Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 1.0 acre 140 feet 30 feet; accessory no higher than principal Setbacks: Street/Front Interior Side Side Street Rear (feet) OHWL Wetland (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Principal Structure 35 10 35 30 na 25 or MCWD buffer Accessory Building 35 104-5 35/1 §/10/45 na 25 or (AB) <1,000 sf MCWD buffer Oversize 35 1030 35? 30 na 25 or Accessory Building MCWD >1,000 sf (OAB) buffer Accessory 02415 1045 Q245 5f 10% 5 na 25 or Structures (AS) 17.5(50% 17.5(50% MCWD principal principal buffer structure structure setbacki setback R-16 One Sec. 78-255. - Area, height, Family Residential lot width and District yard requirements. Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 0.5 acre 100 feet 30 feet; accessory no higher than principal Setbacks: Street/Front Interior Side Side Street Rear (feet) OHWL Wetland (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Principal Structure 30 10 15 30 na 25 or MCWD buffer Accessory Building 30 10/45 15 -5/10/35 na 25 or (AB) <1,000 sf MCWD buffer Oversize 30 10-39 1se4 30 na 25 or Accessory Building MCWD >1,000 sf (OAB) buffer Accessory 02/15 10/35 02/35 7.5 §4/10/5 na 25 or Structures (AS) MCWD buffer L R -1A One Sec. 78-305 Area, height, Family Lakeshore lot width and Residential yard District requirements. Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 2.0 acre 200 feet 30 feet; accessory no higher than principal Setbacks: Street/Front Interior Side Side Street Rear/Street OHWL Wetland (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 50 304 30 50 75/100/15 25 or Structure 0§ + ALS MCWD buffer Accessory 50/5 10¢154 30 X9/15 75/100/15 25 or Building <1,000 sf 0§ + ALS MCWD buffer Oversize 50 30 15P4-10- 50 75/100/15 25 or Accessory 0§ + ALS MCWD Building >1,000 sf buffer (OAB) Accessory 42/1-525 44/15 92/15 X9/15 75/100/15 25 or Structures (AS) 0§ + ALSY MCWD buffer 478-305 (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. LR -16 One Sec. 78-330 Area, height, Family Lakeshore lot width and Residential yard District requirements Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 1.0 acre 140 feet 30 feet; accessory no higher than principal Setbacks: Street/Front Interior Side Side Street Rear/Street OHWL Wetland (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 35 104 20 30 75/100/15 25 or Structure 0§ +ALS MCWD buffer Accessory 35/194& 1044-5 20 §/104& 75/100/15 25 or Building <1,000 sf 0§ + ALS MCWD buffer Oversize 35 -3010 20? 30 75/100/15 25 or Accessory 0§ +ALS MCWD Building >1,000 sf buffer (OAB) Accessory o?/ -5-17.5 10/4-5 9245 10 -5/10/4-5 75/100/15 25 or Structures (AS) 0§ +ALS MCWD buffer 478-330 (c): Within the LR -1B zoning district, the side yard setback for lots that are non -conforming as to their width shall be the lessor of ten feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 7.5 feet. LR -1C One Sec. 78-350 Area, height, Family Lakeshore lot width and Residential yard District requirements. Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 0.5 acre 100 feet 30 feet; accessory no higher than principal Setbacks: Street/Front Interior Side Side Street Rear/Street OHWL Wetland (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 30 104 15 30 75/100/15 25 or Structure 0§+ALS MCWD buffer Accessory 30/5 104/45 15 -54/104/45 75/100/15 25 or Building (AB) 0§ +ALS MCWD <1,000 sf buffer Oversize 30 10 15? 30 75/100/15 25 or Accessory 0§ + ALS MCWD Building >1,000 sf buffer (OAB) Accessory 915 10/35 °'� 15 510 75/100/15 25 or Structures (AS) 0§ +ALSY MCWD buffer 478-350 (c) Within the LR -1C zoning district, the side yard setback for lots that are non -conforming as to their width shall be the lessor of ten feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 7.5 feet. LR -1C-1 Sec. 78-370 Area, height, One Family lot width and Lakeshore yard Residential requirements. District Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 0.5 acre 100 feet 30 feet; accessory no higher than principal Setbacks: Street/Front Interior Side Side Street Rear/Street OHWL Wetland (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 30 10 15 30 75/100/15 25 or Structure 0§ + ALS MCWD buffer Accessory 30/5 10/5 15 510/4-5 75/100/15 25 or Building (AB) 0§ +ALS MCWD <1,000 sf buffer Oversize 30 10 15? 30 75/100/15 25 or Accessory 0§ + ALS MCWD Building >1,000 sf buffer (OAB) Accessory 9?�15 10/4-5 92/4-515 510, -5 75/100/15 25 or Structures (AS) 0§ + ALSY MCWD buffer RR -1A Sec. 78-395 Area, height, One Family Rural lot width and Residential yard District requirements. Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 5.0 acre 300 feet 30 feet; accessory no higher than principal Setbacks: Street/Front Interior Side Side Street Rear/Street OHWL Wetland (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 100 50 100 100 75/100/15 25 or Structure 0§+ALS MCWD buffer Accessory 100/ I 20 100 55/20 75/100/15 25 or Building (AB) 0§ + ALS MCWD <1,000 sf buffer Oversize 100 50 10W? 100 75/100/15 25 or Accessory 0§ + ALS MCWD Building >1,000 sf buffer (OAB) Accessory n?� 50 19454-0- 924 50 5 20 75/100/15 25 or Structures (AS) 0§ + ALSY MCWD buffer R R-16 One Sec. 78-420 Area, height, Family Rural lot width and Residential yard District requirements. Dimensional Lot Area Lot Width Height Requirements (Minimum) (Minimum) 2.0 acre 200 feet 30 feet; accessory no higher than principal Setbacks: Street/Front Interior Side Side Street Rear/Street OHWL Wetland (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) Principal 50 304 30 50 75/100/15 25 or Structure 0§+ALS MCWD buffer Accessory 50/49/1& 49/154 30 54/94/15 75/100/15 25 or Building (AB) 0§ +ALS MCWD <1,000 sf buffer Oversize 50 30 30? 50 75/100/15 25 or Accessory 0§ + ALS MCWD Building >1,000 sf buffer (OAB) Accessory n?� 25 40/15 92/15 50/15 75/100/15 25 or Structures (AS) 0§ +ALSY MCWD buffer 478-420 (c): Within the RR -1B 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. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 20, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 4. LA18-000057 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT — ACCESSORY BUILDING AND STRUCTURE SETBACKS, 7:09 P.M. — 7:30 P.M. Curtis noted this is a continuation of the discussion that occurred in June regarding proposed changes for Accessory Building and Accessory Structure setbacks. The changes discussed thus far have been regarding the overall organization of the regulations in the Code and whether or not adjustments to the existing setbacks are needed. Staff has prepared a summary of the existing regulations in a newly organized table format as well as a similar table showing proposed changes to the setbacks for the R -1A, R1 -B, LR-lA, and LR -1B districts as a starting point. Any proposed changes in the setbacks are the result of discussions with the Planning Commission at a work session. Private recreational facilities are defined and are listed in the zoning code as allowed accessory uses within each residential district. However, the definition and subsequent district regulations may leave too much up to interpretation. Within the existing regulations tables the setbacks noted with a question mark are done so because it appears the current regulations are ambiguous or silent to those particular setback requirements. The draft proposed regulations tables attempt to clear up these identified ambiguous areas. The Planning Commission should discuss whether all private recreational facilities should be treated equally or regulated at all. The definition of private recreational facilities includes detached structures or equipment, whether stationary or mobile, such as swimming pools, tennis courts and sport courts, hockey rinks, hot tubs, and spas, etc. Curtis stated the public hearing should be reopened tonight. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. There were no comments relating to this application. Curtis recommended the public hearing be continued to next month. Thiesse stated in his view they cannot lump private recreational facilities in with the accessory structures. Curtis indicated that was added to clarify things and it is a relatively recent change. Thiesse stated in his mind a basketball hoop is different than a swimming pool or a tennis court and that he is not sure they can all be lumped together. Curtis asked if the Planning Commission likes the format of the draft ordinance. Thiesse indicated he likes the format. Curtis stated the intent is to include the new tables and replace the little table in the code for each district so there is one concise accessory structure section that is applicable to all districts. Thiesse asked whether Staff feels the average homeowner will be able to understand it. Curtis stated in Staff's view it is laid out in a clearer format and is easier to understand. Barnhart stated in his view the questions people might not understand is what is considered an oversized structure and the interior setback, both of which are easily addressed in the code. Curtis stated Staff took away from the discussion at the work session that the Planning Commission does not necessarily see the need to regulate based on 700 or 1000 square feet for a structure that does not have a massing impact, but that Staff is proposing to separate out a 1000 square foot structure or over a 1000 square foot structures. The draft ordinance also eliminates any special regulation for sport courts, large tennis courts, pools and flat things accessory structures without a roof and put them into a different category. Curtis stated to that end, there are some pieces of the proposed table the Planning Commission may want to discuss. Currently the Code is somewhat silent on front street setback for less than 1000 square foot accessory structures and it may appear someone could have it at right at the front lot line. Staff does not feel it is appropriate to have a pool or other accessory structure there and the Planning Commission may want to discuss that. With the draft ordinance, Staff is trying to look at the impact and what is allowed. Lemke noted under accessory structures/private recreational facilities it says 25 or MCWD buffer. Lemke asked whether someone could have one or the other. Curtis indicated that is the current regulation and that if there is a buffer required by the MCWD of 50 feet, it would need to be 50 feet. Curtis stated they do want to have a setback in place in the event the MCWD does not require a buffer, which is the 25 feet. Lemke asked what would happen if he has a shed that is exactly 1000 square feet. Curtis stated oversized is currently defined as larger than 1000 square feet and that it would be considered an accessory structure if it is less than 1000. Curtis stated a building at 1000 square feet would be considered an accessory structure. Barnhart commented the definition may have to be adjusted slightly to clarify that. Thiesse noted the issues raised during the workshop have been incorporated into the ordinance and that he is fine with the ordinance so far. Thiesse stated as it relates to private recreational facilities, hockey rinks typically come with boards and lights, and asked whether they would be included with sports courts. Curtis stated private recreational facilities would include some things the City already has a specific regulation for but then would also include such things that are stationary or mobile, such as a hockey rink or a basketball hoop. Curtis stated there is value in having discussion about some of the mobile things since they could have a massing impact but noted not everything that is listed has the same kind of impact. Thiesse indicated he is in agreement with that and that perhaps they should also look at the intent. Thiesse commented someone could string a batting cage all the way across their property 50 feet from the lake, which could result in the neighbors having to look through that to see the lake. Curtis noted setbacks would apply, but if they are called private recreational facilities, each district would have its own accessory structure setbacks. Thiesse stated he would like the Planning Commission at some point to look at that. Lemke asked whether any consideration should be given to the permanence of the structure and the length of time that it will be there. Barnhart stated variables such as permanence and season -ability can be brought into the equation. Curtis stated she will attempt to have a draft ordinance ready for next month's meeting that would incorporate the general accessory building and accessory structure general regulations but that the issue is complicated due to some of the exceptions and allowances for different types of structures. Thiesse asked whether retaining walls should be included or whether language should be included that says it is regulated somewhere else. Curtis stated retaining walls are included in the non -encroachment sections. Curtis noted the City does not define everything that is considered a structure but generally defines it as something that is constructed or built rather than a boulder. Lemke moved, Erickson seconded, to table Application No. 18-000057, City of Orono, Text Amendment — Accessory Building and Structure Setbacks and to continue the public hearing. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.