The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-19-2021 Planning Commission Packet *Of\JA;oc.) Agenda Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2021, 6:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers,2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 'kEsH00" 952-249-4600 /www.ci.orono.mn.us Audience Members: Please sign in for the public record if you wish to address the Planning Commission. The sign in sheet is in the lobby. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available on the City website (www.ci.orono.mn.us) in Agendas Minutes & Videos and in the Public Packet—located in the lobby near the sign in sheet. Applicants will be asked to move to the lectern to answer questions after staff presents the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda,they will be scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting. A quorum of the City Council may be in attendance of a Planning Commission meeting to hear comments made, though no action or deliberation of the Council will occur. Council Representative: Richard F. Crosby II Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Agenda Oath of Office Commissioners Erickson, Libby, Ressler Approval of Minutes: March 15, 2021 Public Hearings: 1. LA21-000023 Mark Prueter, 3215 Crystal Bay Road, Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 2. LA21-000024 Lorraine Goodwald, 706 North Arm Drive, Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 3. LA21-000026 JALIN Design, LLC, 1395 Orono Lane, Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 4. LA20-000047 Text Amendment related to boat storage (Staff: Jeremy Barnhart) 5. LA21-000027 Text Amendment related to plumbing in accessory buildings (Staff: Jeremy Barnhart) Other Business: 6. LA21-000025 Dunkley—Vogstrom, 2709 Walters Port Road, Sketch (Staff: Jeremy Barnhart) 7. Update on April 12, 2021 City Council meeting Adjourn Planning Commission Liaison to Monday, April 26, 2021 City Council meeting: Scott Kirchner Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us—follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification • Date Application Received: 03/16/2021 Date Application Considered as Complete:03/16/2021 IcLOAT 60-Day Review Period Expires: 05/15/2021 To: Chair Kirchner and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator e L� -'kESHO From: Melanie Curtis, Planner i'Y1GG Date: 19 April 2021 Subject: #LA21-000023, Mark Prueter, 3215 Crystal Bay Road, Variances Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variances in order to replace an existing nonconforming detached garage. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. Background ",, The applicant is requesting variances in 51°'6y �� order to build a new detached garage in Cr , • • `k �' ` PROPOSED ;� O generally the same location as the --s .: \ existing,failing garage.The new garage ; �Qb GARAGE will be 82 square feet larger than the N) �s existing,to improve the functionality; but STEPS(x) ;5 1,-•' 01) *o•• :' „ ED the project will result in a 49 square foot 1.Lw °ROVEw reduction in hardcover. Hardcover and eceoaancr> w� -*� side yard setback variances are c _t„� requested.The existing home does not •• • have an attached garage. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information:The applicant has identified the size of the property as practical difficulties supporting the requested variance(s); as well as the property's orientation and access with respect to the lakeshore, Crystal Bay Road, and the Dakota Trail.Additionally, they have provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds that there are practical difficulties in the lot's shape,size, width, and the configuration of the existing garage and access over the easement in the rear which support the applicant's request for variances in order to rebuild the existing garage with a more functional and more structurally sound garage. The proposed garage replacement is at a scale which is consistent with the immediate neighborhood. • FILE#LA21-000023 19 April 2021 Page 2 of 5 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET • Section 78-350—Garage Setbacks: LR-1C Required Existing Proposed Rear 10' 11.5' 10' West Side 7.5' 3.6' 7.5'garage 4'stair 10. 'grage East Side 7.5' 6.8'1staiar/landing 4.5' Section 78-350—Lot Area/Width: LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100' Actual 10,965 s.f. (0.25 acre)* 53' @ 75'/60' @ OHWL *after subtraction of 966 s.f. blacktop area of Crystal Bay Road Section 78-1403—Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 10,965 s.f. (0.25 acre) Allowed: 2,193 s.f. (20%) Existing: 1,466 s.f. (13.3%) Proposed: 1,548 s.f. (14.1%) Section 78-1700—Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Tier Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover Tier 1 10,965 s.f. 2,741 s.f. 4,134 s.f. 4,085 s.f. (25%) (37.7%) (37.3%) Applicable Regulations: Hardcover Variance (Section 78-1700) The applicant is proposing 37.3%total site hardcover where 25%is permitted; 1,344 square feet more than allowed but a 49 square foot reduction from the existing level. The garage footprint is proposed to be increased from 20'x 22'to 22'x 24'to accommodate more reasonably sized vehicles. The 2-car garage is proposed with an 18 foot-wide overhead door.The driveway is 19 feet wide,the minimum required for that door width. The overall hardcover will be reduced by 49 square feet with the removals proposed as part of the project.There are limited parking opportunities due to the property's location along Crystal Bay Road and with access along the Dakota Trail easement area. Side Setback Variance (Section 78-350) The proposed garage is shown to conform to the west and rear setbacks.The applicant has received supporting comments from the property owner to the east where the 4.5 foot setback is proposed (Exhibit F). An accessory shed on the property to the east appears to mitigate visual impacts of the reduced setback. The elevation difference from the rear requires that the stairway be replaced. In moving the stair from the east to the west side of the garage,the applicant is able to reduce • hardcover for the pathway in addition to removal of the walls which encroach into the Dakota Rail property. Supportive comments have also been received from the neighbor to the west where the FILE#LA21-000023 19 April 2021 • Page 3 of 5 3.5 foot wide stair will be 4 feet from the property line. Governing Regulation:Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health,safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, subd. 14,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 §462.357 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 proposed variances are in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance.The substandard lot has difficulties in its small size and width, and unique access circumstance over the • easement on the rear.The garage location moves and improves a non-conforming existing setback on the west side moving the encroachment toward a lesser affected property to the east.The project results in an overall reduction in hardcover. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.The variances proposed to rebuild a detached garage on this nonconforming lot are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; the request to permit re-construction of the detached garage on the substandard lot is reasonable. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The substandard lot size is an existing condition, there is no available land with which to make the property more conforming.The restricted driveway access and lack of off-site parking availability are challenges not created by the owners.There should be consideration for a setback variance approval for from the lot which is substandard in width and area requirements. The project has been designed with an effort toward limiting the additional hardcover without sacrificing functionality; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances are requested in order to permit construction of a detached garage, which is reasonable. 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 FILE#LA21-000023 19 April 2021 Page 4 of 5 • defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 17, 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 a garage is an allowed use in the LR-1C District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property's substandard size, width, and unique configuration creates difficulties which also apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood.The proposed setback and hardcover level are not out of character. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The property's substandard size, width, in addition to the unique configuration creates difficulties which apply to very few properties in the City. The neighboring properties have similar challenges. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The local climate supports the need for a residential garage.The proposed size of the garage is minimal.Granting of the setback and hardcover variances are necessary for the preservation of the property right of the applicant. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the variances for hardcover and setback in this situation is not contrary to the intent of the • zoning chapter. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.The variances for setback and hardcover are necessary,and do not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Public Comments Public comments have been received and are attached as Exhibit F. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested subject to the proposed hardcover reductions. FILE#LA21-000023 19 April 2021 110 Page 5 of 5 List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application & Narrative Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing& Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Public Comment Exhibit G. Aerial Photo Exhibit H. Property Owners List Exhibit 1. Plat Map • • Land Use Application Summary Exhibit A Application Date: 03/16/2021 •i Address: 3215 Crystal Bay RD Orono,MN 55391 Parcel Number: 1711723410010 Land Use Number: LA21-000023 Application Submitted By: Property Owner Owner: Name: MARK R PRUETER Address: 3215 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA, MN 55391 Applicant: Name: Mark Prueter Company: Address: 3215 Crystal Bay Road Wayzata,MN 55391 mark.prueter@gmail.com Contact Information: Associated Contact: Mark Prueter mark.prueter@gmail.com Associated Contact: Mark Gronberg markg@gronbergassoc.com • Associated Contact: Rick Stolein Rick Associated Contact: Project Description: Removing existing old detached garage located on the rear of the property and rebuilding a new detached garage in the same location Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application Applicant Signature: • 2021 Orono Variance Application Narrative 29-year residence of Orono, Mark and Jennifer Prueter, 3215 Crystal Bay Road respectfully request variances for the removal of an existing 20'x 22' (440 sq ft) 1 story walkout garage to construct a new 1 story walkout 22'x 24' (528 sq ft) garage in the rear of the property. The existing garage is approximate 3' 6" off the west property line, 10' 3" from the east property line and 10' from the rear property line. The structure is estimated to have been built in the 1970's. It is constructed with a block foundation on the lower level with wood construction for the 1st floor and roof. 2"x 10"joists with 2"x 6" tongue and grove decking serve as the first-floor garage parking area on which two SUVs are parked. We are concerned about the structural integrity of the foundation and parking deck. As a result, we request the Orono Planning Commissions and City Council approval of our variance application to enable us to proceed with this project. Side yard setback, rear yard setback, and hardcover variances are requested to enable the construction of a new 22'x 24' 1 story walkout garage in the same vicinity. The new garage would be centered on the property to measure 7' 5"from the west property line, 4' 5"from the east property line and 10' from the rear property line. The current exiting total hardcover of the property is calculated at 37.73%. Select existing hardcover in the new construction area to be removed to reduce total proposed property hardcover to 37.29%. • Exhibit B PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA21-000023 • 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: Yes, 29-year residence of Orono, Mark and Jennifer Prueter, 3215 Crystal Bay Road respectfully request variances for removal of the existing 20 x 22 (440 sq. ft.) 1 story walkout garage to construct a new lstory walkout 22 x 24 (528 sq. ft.) garage in the rear of the property. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The uniquely narrow, small size, location with respect the Three Rivers Park District Dakota Trail, the alley way, Crystal Bay Road, and required setbacks prevent a private garage footprint consistent with the neighborhood. The proposed hardcover level, rear yard setbacks and side yard setbacks are unique to the Property. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The variances are requested in order to permit construction of a private garage detached garage designed to mirror style of the residence and fit the character of the neighborhood. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: Economic considerations are not influencing the decision to replace the existing garage and replace with a new detached garage. The existing detached garage is uniquely constructed with a wood supporting the parking area on first floor. Structure settling has heightened the desire to rebuild a new garage with concrete construction 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: This condition is not applicable. 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: This condition is not applicable. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: 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. . Response: The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The Property's substandard size, narrow width and orientation with respect to the lakeshore, Crystal Bay Road, Three Rivers Park District Dakota Trail, alley way and adjacent properties create difficulties which also apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The Property's substandard size and orientation with respect to the lakeshore, Crystal Bay Road, Three Rivers Park District Dakota Trail, and adjacent properties create difficulties which also apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Granting rear yard, side yard setbacks and hardcover variances are necessary for the preservation of the property right of the Applicants. 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 will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested hardcover, rear yard and side yard setback variances in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter. 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 such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variances for rear yard setback, side yard setback, and hardcover are necessary, and do not merely serve as a convenience to the Applicants. . c:' 1L",./,yew 301/5 a LAKE CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR MINNETONKA MARK R. PRUETEIRONO COP' IN LOT 1, BLOCK 2, TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK CRYSTAL BAY1 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Exhibit A1111 s<n� t\ `o` Existing ``\\ami \\\ ,`\ \` NIA {�I 6011. 1 , ,j LOR r 1e, e `;' S) 1, 4� tN gC. + N 4� '' It ��/ . a /. Y I\' // Lf '/ a \ , m moi. 0, • , V, ..,:.o /. /KSURVEY 4�` `1`1 +, e,/ L sear ` s\ .'�^e r.�/' EASING �' / �� `` HOUSE / � l;1..•. 91201$ ua / '414' /• / �\ EXISTING E\•'Nt� wrt•. F,4.rwn' / / HOUSE b.'par +\ / 0 Ex6T640 -\ I 4. M- \�/ HOUSE / •/ A `\ / ,:011 t IA i __ &\ / '] •war A . ..-- \ \ • '\ W.V. oras "cL 4I.N\.' '\ uawe,aa. �,5,. CNyof0a / - CP Q� �{3,�4� 5w node+044 0 ,� S4L.4♦y1`L vaea QDOMED Wmlpfvr•p,g(eeraesl PONT OF wNA>Eeree Of.m , ��4ti4�A �9 Mew s l cera er oll 1 off 2 A1ti GI. Q�¢04. oe M � a1 G°. OESCRTION CF PRAE$:,'zzz NorVan Railway Company with the Souther,/ lensi00 f the drilog line r between Lots 1 ord 2 in said Block 2,TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK:thence Northwesterly along the dividing line between soid Lots 1 ond 2 and same extended,0 distance o`213.14 feet:thence Northeasterly deflecting right al angle of 82 degrees 55 minutes from last Eescrbed avec o distance f 160 feet to the actual point of beginning o,the tract of land'to be of thencecontinuing from id tool point of beginning Northeoslerfy the extension f said sl described line, distance of 60 feel:thence on ly a straight line 263.2 feel to o point,n the Northerly Mne • of said 140 feet Northeastof erly the meOCVed GreatNorthern the Northerlylineof said roRr002 is Tright of y from ini4d port ofcommencement. thence SaRhwesterly tki a'ng said Northerly right or soy fine 35 feet:thence Norfneeslecy m. o treeghl Mee 2477 feet to toe actual point of beginning Also including all teat part of Lot 1 in sad Block 2 tying between the Northwesterly kn of the p emisee hereinabove described and Ina shore of Lake Minnetonka end between the Northerly extension of the Northeasterly any Southwesterly side Ines of the premises hereinabove firs:described • -20 0 20 40 60 o: denotes iron marker set IIIh1111 ill IIIII�INI'"I011i 111111 •. denotes iron marker fouls �IIIIItIlill'OtI1d.IN 1 IIIII!!IIIIIIGIiIII Bearings shown are based upon oo asw assumed datum. SCALE t N FEET )•his survey shows the boundaries of the abo,e described property,the boatio.,. of eresb+gib hour Ie and garage.the cat'ian of d visible"hardcover'',hardcover *doesntcn pport t lho yony Otheroinproo a trolls f e.nicoo0ch�i[ion thereon. REVISIONS ,beefy Certify fro he ear.epecir„atio,er rep.) PROJECT 101-'+h' GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES. INC. ..,, I seesfewaro Chill erre art the rw Z.s Erle.es e;.a Leal --- — .x re a wn M w ooa V'pe no s,,.,,,ma ue C we or Stale o1 Wwaota 1,201, ` �CIVIL!MCINNES&LAND SURVEYORS,LAND PLANNERS `4� G 005 NORTH eLLOW DMA LOM LAKE.MN 55356 i h60 ......Gasasg 14resete License haw.+2)55 _ se'''. 952-473-4141 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR • LAKE MARK R. PRUETER IN LOT 1, BLOCK 2, TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK MINNETONKA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA CRYSTAL BAY • I: edi Proposed tikiggr' —411W- .:'. Q4¢ lin • / P• �P N o-ey/� ,em � 'rose / ter. i.., '.(p) 1\ m a eFa.era ry V el. ll, // �n / \ a8 / .« 3. / Ntl k l `/ N. / \URVEY £ 1 `� \ to ti. e+u / / s / ^ / * EXISTING '' / \J '� HOUSE '` / ,..„ \ HOU IkUSE (AJ /3235 \7. % /., \ 1 \\\ / \ '• , j/ d i..4_ 2 $\ J Mi LFltOPo31 O LO \ NI 11 M \\ / �� , \ 'Not - fir • iy.\ / lJ f �� \.. b^�°F A. \ P\\ s gyp' ply \ S \\ 7 .....ate : 4.41 Ply)VPq CP,c P o44 z,' Of MONO LACkW 7 , .:?,.6 „NOWSCCOW CF p isTIT OF FAY LW OF CREW XORTIMN % X11�� g�Q$4OP9 aw„wamu oar • A 4ti4 O�gQ\y yo V LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: Thot pat of Lot 1,Block 2.and that pmt of Northern Avenue,now vacated, TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK.described as flows to-wit Commencing at the point of intersection of the Northerly line of the right of way to the Great Northern Railway Company with the Southerly extension of the dividing line between Lots 1 and 2 in said Block 2,TOWNSITE OF LANGDON PARK;thence Northwesterly long the dividing line between said Lots 1 and 2 and same extended,a distance of 213.14 feel;thence Northeasterly deflectinggahht at angle of 82 degrees 55 m' les from lost described ourse osldistance f 180 feet to the actual point of beginning or the tract of to be described;thence continuing from said actual point of beginning Northeasterly nn the extension of said lost described line, distance of 60 feet;thence ' Southeasterly a straight line 263.2 feet to a point in the Northerly line of said right of way of the Great Northern Railway Company, hich point is • 140 feet Northeasterly measured along the Northerly line of said railroad a right ofinitial point of commencement; thence Southwesterly L�7 along said Northerly fight of y line 35 feet;thence Northwesterly in straighta line 247.7 feet to the actual point of beginning. Also coding all that port of Lot 1 In said Block 2 lying between the Northwesterly line of the premises hereinabove described and the shore of Lake Minnetonka and between the Northerlystenion of the Northeasterly and Southwesterly side fines of the premises hereinabove first described. o. denotes iron marker set 0 20 40 80 denotes iron marker found se•eO•In Bearings shown ore based upon an assumed datum. ID SCALE IN FEET This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property.and the locations ofeaisenghouse d gage,and all visible"hardcover.,and the proposed locationa of proposed agarage and driveway thereon.It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. .,�..,.. I hereeOo Certify Owl ws o specification, pecfi aatioenwo wart PROJECT yGRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. mar •—_ :MI tlet 111et of ricL a Lona Svveyar sneer the foal-07 CIVIL ENGINEERS,LAND SURVEYORS,LAND PLANNERS _ - — W„fj,(��f IX�/.JJ eer t O' 445 NORTH WILLOWDRP./ LONG LAKE.MN 55356 Mark Smrnn rlea Minnesota LkZe N 12755 _31-0]p EJ NW`ONO1IO g Ovo I AVa WiSdkiIJ SIZE R: a3NarISn2I MaLLafllId 4 o $- BILL 110A HOtlNtlO OHHJdSHO y 11 o N O B S • A i 1 1c • i I I i lilel Ph 1 j bil IL gilid it: Is si;If j-i ` °,, O W il i!Ph aE U S ° ___,!": z !? � eh 1, 1, m ; �� :i,.-:, - _---_ II ---J .. 11111 i relliki-1.:1:,,,1,,,,, ' ® rrJJ5IlZ u., 111111 P ooo CIO • 111111 KJ :: IIwIII11H1111 3 @iAl 1 1 iia I 74. i4 i•iiii e "rl z amigo,- � Ii -�--.: iii oaxa-ac -I e, 1a4\110 ti - I - I 7e 1°4 E Z o 1} 0- d C. qI`- Q 6� 8 a a a �9 y 0 De gg;gg O 2ii IF , F A I� I •N •a11 ha p � J t o 4 LL a' 7YE q N 2 Yt 8 4 €00 ig L. 4-__..i 0.E 1 ave T. L ..- .. Fa �J� f a o I I f �a.. # a-..i 6 rill 1 1 1 Its } _LLL L1 ` 11 Exhibit E City of Orono • �*onto Hardcover Calculation Worksheet s , Property Address: 32/5 CRrfrA4 t94y' /0/14 (PRNFTEA) f� c 't 5, Prepared by: Date: GAo,✓ecxc rt AS;9c /Arcs, lNC, 1/--/5_20 Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) (Tier 1) Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 1: STING HARDCOVE In the following e i en i a items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75'setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Survey Hardcover item(Describe) Length x width Total y (Square Feet) (Example) (Garage) , (24'x 30') (720 S.F.) A h/auJ'E COZo S.F. B GARAGE 5'Y6 S.F. C DE'r/c i ITfps 7 3 S.F. D Or rk t J'7-EAS Z G e S.F. E PA✓FR S/DFw/1 LK _ ZBE S.F. F Q/A L/�F-L /A R K/UG ARE-017VC S.F. G G424 t1EL Opt/L/FW/i y S.F..3 y8 H WaoD P74/Ai >F GANG/NG ,Ir GA4dac $9 S.F. I 17E-AP'A1c 57 ONFS 4-FTE"P Q8 S.F. J Lc/ t41ALK • 120 S.F. K Aardc aAd PLATT/C /7yf/y( 320 S.F. • L TTo,/E STGci,o t Trrp 57 S.F. M J7 o.c'E PLANTE,tS NfxT rc fTccO 'C S.F. N 37'st/E ♦L<�TEk Ar /tfA/LBoX /2,„_ S.F. 0 CrAa✓rL <T fTrAl Tp fti/o/4F /8 S.F. P J'7 04/f I'T Eli ,(j _A/aR r ,/ S.F._ Q , WeaQ 4A4.D/NG 4T Jkc.0 F 1i S.F. R Aos,i/ DER tLuDOQ 1.4.44 Lt. 1 1iYohF y/ S.F. S S'TO.t/E �Q'RS S.F.QCAS /6' T WALLS Sy U S.F. V S.F. W S.F. X _ S.F. Y _ S.F. S.F. Z S.F. (1) Total Existing Hardcover y219 S.F. Excludable Hardcover(bee City Code Sic 78-1684): /e 1 i 2f'4 #Woe0 WALL y/ S.F. T IAA,Lt..s S y S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover 95 S.F. (3) Net Existing Hardcover [Subtract line(2)from line(1)] y13 ' S.F. (4) Total Lot Area ".92_2_ CC e/Atk7cp,o--Gt7fId c 44 `/Roll = /0, 956- S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)+(4)] 3 7. 73 % (Proposed Hardcover next page) 4110 This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contained herein; however,if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code,the Code provisions will prevail. Page 8 af 9 City of Orono • z�oNo Hardcover Calculation Worksheet -i.''1.4t Property Address: 32/.s CRY.rrrc BAr ,Qa.to (/RwETFR) `'r!N0"` Prepared by: Date: GA0tva f RG f ATJoc /A Tri, /Nc. V /S to- .3-8-Z/ Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) (MID Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 2:(ROPOSED HARDCOVE) In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey(survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75'setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Hardcover item(Describe) Length x Width Total Survey S.uare Feet) (Example) (Garage) r_24'x 30') (720 S.F.) A /YOe/f'ECEX/ c)r7J ' . /020 S.F. B GAL,,iCc fro A£ /tFhcvEOI r+ —jt'�- S.F. C DE-rk vi. 170S If /7 3 S.F. D ecrK #. t1 /1 I. 2 0$ S.F. E /,t VfR fI0£f,c_xLK ,, /26 S.F. F cAA ✓FL IA,tK/.vG A,!t',4 ,. G GRv I List_ /.t� 6u-AY (To ,6E�tf,4ouc0� ,, — S.F. 269- I H 1.410 ell ITLIAI14444 1A,C N “ S.F. I 3171E/i,A,G 1T ut'f'3 #. in-A '' 88 -/0 6fia.c '4i,'i _ - S.F. S.F.J Wo' O WICK " /20 i K ,tock i,ciAA .'TiC „ _ 17YA /`/6 320 S.F. L 57-0,(-1" ,STOOP it fTf,P i, S 7 S.F. M fToA/f A 1 4-415.A f A 4x7 rQ 17c d „ /6 S.F. N S atA• /4/.c-rfk AT N//4,40X " /2 tt S.F. O G. Lift d7Fflf T I' 7o r�v�£ !8 S.F. P ,_170AIC 17f/S AT Q ' /r g i S.F. Q woo LIA-414/GA7 INckf ,. 1/ S.F. R BoucB[A,t-ft/ota 141.1Gi. kr LN"A•f Is y/ S.F. S 5`7-04,_E Ac,i iFRS i, ,/,?S-/6f/AxAirr►ta - 76"5' S.F. T lvc, LS _SY- L5 .4E/.✓cIE,4c . - 39 S.F. U 'AGI6frO rrilAA_GE 528 S.F. ✓ 1ALAa.ffi _l,t/[/EC41d}- 2 7/ S.F. W 1,01611C0 1.4.A000 OfC.t; 1 Ldit,40r,vF _TZ S.F. X iii.4 0/VIEB frrAi Y2 S.F. Y S.F. z S.F. (1) Total Proposed Hardcover 4'/68 S.F. Excludable Hardcover(See City Code Sec 78-1684): If IG/G/Llint i 4'C L4,dLL y1 S.F. 7-' ' 14/41-4,7 y2 S.F. S.F.^ - _ S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover 3 S.F.r (3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line(2)from line(1)1 y0 8 5 S.F. (4) Total Lot Area/I 9 2 2 - 9 CC,9 Acic roP /N CA r fTA L 84 Y AcAQ = /0,95 6 S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)+(4)] 3 7, 2 9 % 0 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 Exhibit F ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we) eC.-\\ .S A I:\i\ le'•'Q ,) of 32q L tAL. U ‘ [print name(s)] [print-address] h ve revie ed the las for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at S7.4 o referred to as Land Use Application No. . I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the imp .vement ,.ns and the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. 111. 20 'roperty Owner Date 3 i L dQo_ j Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building &Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. • ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we) of [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No. . I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building &Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. i Adjacent Property Owner Form—January 2021 r f.AD CEEI��R'OPERTY OWNERS'ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM • I (we) , 1 / - i . of -.5 ,-f(j/' Ji�f4f '? I [print ame(s)] [print aggress] have reviewed th plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at t5d--- l"R also referred to as Land Use Application No. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement. I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the propos d ighbor's project or use requires Council approval. ....----- ''.. d''''' r Pro ,47 1,0 p • •wner / Date 'r.pe • ner Date J If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building &Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. • ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we) of [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No. . I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date if you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building &Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. • Adjacent Property Owner Form-January 2021 . It • . - •*WA.*.lft! \''. ' :':• .2-,k,,...' . :''. ./.46 CD Titgi,...- ,, ..,, ,..,...-4) -- - •..,. .._,., ,. .,. . . - ,... , . ,........,..., . . ..'if. • • ,,. 4, •ft, , , , 4-•., 1 . .,. . v . C . , ,..„ .• .... . . _. ... . . , . . I r= . .•.,- . \' ' ' . '. *.,. , ,...,,,. • ... < . • 3 1, . ,..•'''",1' ..a ,ru; •I '..*• *. . . , 46- ri, , . 'IL `* , Ill • .....0., A- . . . .-4, ....... ..., - " ..., - \ \ " t•- , 4 . .. . _ .., . . ... ... ' .It_ ''' • t;:."':- ' • 'I. :: '' (re* :,, ' Ike 1'', • ,: 1 (A.,..,r .., ..` • •- t."., ,..-M1 - -' ' A. t . - •'`'.'i '11"4,','''' . tii‘ viih.... .... -- ••..:„ --_-.-.;...--- :::: - '''''''' 4.. r",.. .-t.";• .... '4 \ . ' '1 L. . , -: p • relflie - V - . . . ,- •‘• --- . - - • 6;r •,- ,, , es•- -.. .'..i • :44.ktt'''Sii. : '- • /. . ' ' : ' . _ • 't 0.-....". . .., • t t.," tn... ....°3 t ' • ":41 *tf• •, . 1 ' 7 tle" '' it i4.- liki'...c ' 4".!..- - .'"..."- ,'•,-.,:.•..4 ,,,,„:„400-. ., , .. .. .0,...> ,. . .-, ,"...,444. .:. ° ' s.'-.II,. 1,, 4 --...-;-• _ , - . Nib ' ' ' •Y ".. ' Ifr., . -''c -- Vf,S.7,:* `'°%•...,:'' - '- kg......, . c '.. ' ' 4 - ..4. • ' - ' '1/4 . I .'.• ' ,4" 4 - 7,""Cf., ,:',`..,..- ' „.‘ en- s. V -;;11' . . '11/4 •' - ' Ite‘t.e, ,, . --c5,•.... ....i-Ci. '7,,t...; ... '414%.k,' , , ,.14, icr,:-,' -''' . •.:1• . — • (2 4c., 4-. ,, • r cit,itikk ...4 f: k•-.. .. 0%.'... '40 ' • . • k.- •'•4 ...et . . . , 'c ''''' ... . - -. •14:, ' .,.a:, ' • - 4 n \\• Ilk N.. , . In ii`-... Y .. ,,.. '''', \\' . \ ' 0-1 ,I\ ... ',.... , . • '''. 17', , -.•11111. ' ''' .'•t.'1-.'''' ,,,,' .•. ,,,,„,. . ,., ., •,oti ..4., . • ..;..C.. • '. t'''-'6., -,, .4:4F,' .- ' ''.,..\ a 104...'44'''''. ...V1 ..."; - 1*' 7; ' --,-,v,.;;;!, - * ' 1,.. ' , _ . ,......... .... ... t_ ,.. •c.--'-, '' .4 ,!.f.,., 4 •'.-4- ,... • ' ' , '.. ..,•, _ '' . ,... .:,, ' ,..1'4 .. 144,140N- • .. ,,,, ''.. 4' '7 - .. ."..... , "'"'''.'sk4, . , .,,.„ , • it,,, . . . ''. •-; ' .'44.' ' ' ' '''-'''',' r''''..::.. - c' . 4.3''' .'''',.' 14. 1" '' •'' '- , • ,, ... . - t-7,4. , .. ,-. • • 1 - .. ' *,* ' • " - , 41 .i. .::' ' - - " -•,-'''* .,. '`Arr5 ; 47 *-ter." •!.. '" , °..„!-.2 ,,,t-.. imf„. _.''',., %,-; '.', --• ,'," -,.. • . .. .- 1-- .. - -'-' ` ' --:-.:- ;,....t..-,-,..--; •,r' ; . s. . . - 1 , . ..• 4 • . . ..4 • • Ir. <.' • . ... e . . _ • .. . . . 4,..* . .. .,..., 0 %, .t , ¶ - It .., .....,......7,. ...0. . , . ,e , oat N; r- ' ' * • .• ... Exhibit H RUN DATE:03/16/2021 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) 38 17-117-23 34 0052 38 17-117-23 41 0013 38 17-117-23 41 0033 II HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH GREGORY J BLASKO PATRICIA A STUDSRUD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 3295 CRYSTAL BAY RD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 HENNEPIN COUNTY GREGORY J BLASKO PATRICIA A STUDSRUD REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY 3295 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3130 OLD COUNTY RD 701 4TH AVE S SUITE 400 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 38 17-117-23 41 0001 38 17-117-23 41 0014 38 17-117-23 41 0035 DONNA KABANUK LEROY J ERGER&WIFE C G OWEN&J L HUGHES 2130 KENWOOD WAY 3265 CRYSTAL BAY RD 2175 KENWOOD WAY ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 DONNA E KABANUK LEROY J ERGER CLIFFORD G OWEN 5233 TWIN LAKE BLVD E 3265 CRYSTAL BAY RD JILL L HUGHES BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 WAYZATA MN 55391 2175 KENWOOD WAY WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0002 38 17-117-23 41 0015 82 16-117-23 32 0010 DONNA E KABANUK CRYSTAL BAY LLC THE RHONDA ONEILL REVOC TRS 2140 KENWOOD WAY 3285 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3144 NORTHVIEW RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55391 DONNA E KABANUK CRYSTAL BAY LLC THE RHONDA ONEILL REVOC TRS 5233 TWIN LAKE BLVD E 3285 CRYSTAL BAY RD 4877 ROLLING GREEN PKWY BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 WAYZATA MN 55391 EDINA MN 55436 38 17-117-23 41 0003 38 17-117-23 41 0016 82 16-117-23 32 0011 S P KANE&M A RETHLAKE DAVID A SCHMID T E EMMEL&K L EMMEL 2150 KENWOOD WAY 3309 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3138 NORTHVIEW RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55391 SEAN PATRICK KANE DAVID A SCHMID THOMAS EDMUND EMMEL MORGAN ANN RETHLAKE 3309 CRYSTAL BAY RD KATHERINE L EMMEL 2150 KENWOOD WAY WAYZATA MN 55391 3138 NORTHVIEW RD WAYZATA MN 55391 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0004 38 17-117-23 41 0017 82 16-117-23 32 0012 GREGORY BLASKO DALE OLSEN&JONMARI OLSEN GERALD R ANDERSON REV TRUST 2160 KENWOOD WAY 3315 CRYSTAL BAY RD 3150 NORTHVIEW RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55391 GREGORY BLASKO DALE OLSEN&JONMARI OLSEN GERALD R ANDERSON • 3295 CRYSTAL BAY RD 4680 CREEKWOOD TRAIL 3150 NORTHVIEW RD WAYZATA MN 55391 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0008 38 17-117-23 41 0027 82 16-117-23 32 0013 J HOROSHAK&A HOROSHAK J V FINNEGAN&K C FINNEGAN EDYTHE B MISEL TRUSTEE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2190 KENWOOD WAY 3156 NORTHVIEW RD ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55391 JOHN HOROSHAK JESSICA V FINNEGAN EDYTHE B MISEL TRUSTEE ALEXA HOROSHAK KEVIN C FINNEGAN 3156 NORTHVIEW RD 3159 NORTHVIEW RD 2190 KENWOOD WAY WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0009 38 17-117-23 41 0028 82 16-117-23 32 0014 B C BAKKE&L A BAKKE JULIE COPELAND L K&R A ANDERSON TRUSTEE 3235 CRYSTAL BAY RD 2180 KENWOOD WAY 82 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 00000 BRADLEY&LORI BAKKE JULIE COPELAND RICHARD A&LEESA K ANDERSON PO BOX 86 2180 KENWOOD WAY 3205 CRYSTAL BAY RD BOX 135 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55361 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0010 38 17-117-23 41 0029 82 16-117-23 32 0024 MARK R PRUETER DONNA E KABANUK PATRICIA A STUDSRUD 3215 CRYSTAL BAY RD 2170 KENWOOD WAY 3130 OLD COUNTY RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55391 MARK R PRUETER DONNA E KABANUK PATRICIA A STUDSRUD 3215 CRYSTAL BAY RD 5233 TWIN LAKE BLVD E 3130 OLD COUNTY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0011 38 17-117-23 41 0030 82 16-117-23 32 0028 LEESA K ANDERSON ET AL TRST DONNA KABANUK J M KLOSS&R K KLOSS 3205 CRYSTAL BAY RD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 3155 NORTHVIEW RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55391 RICHARD ANDERSON DONNA E KABANUK JOHN&ROBERTA KLOSS 3205 CRYSTAL BAY RD 5233 TWIN LAKE BLVD E 3155 NORTHVIEW RD WAYZATA MN 55391 BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 41 0012 38 17-117-23 41 0031 82 16-117-23 32 0029 III C WILLIAM WOLFE AND WIFE DONNA E KUBANUK JOYCE W MCCANN 3255 CRYSTAL BAY RD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 3148 BROOKS LA ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55391 C WILLIAM WOLFE DONNA E KABANUK JOYCE W MCCANN 3255 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD 5233 TWIN LAKE BLVD E 3148 BROOKS LA WAYZATA MN 55391 BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 WAYZATA MN 55391 RUN DATE:03/16/2021 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:2 82 16-117-23 32 0030 82 16-117-23 32 0062 • J A ROTHBAUER&C C LEAF MARY A YOUNG 3135 BROOKS LA 3157 NORTHVIEW RD MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55391 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55391 JOHN A ROTHBAUER MARY A YOUNG CONSTANCE C LEAF 3157 NORTHVIEW RD 3135 BROOKS LA WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 82 16-117-23 32 0031 82 16-117-23 42 0032 LANCE C RADUENZ TRUST HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH 3142 BROOKS LA 82 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55391 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 00000 JOHN B WALDRON HENNEPIN COUNTY 1951 CONCORDIA ST REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY WAYZATA MN 55391 701 4TH AVE S SUITE 400 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 82 16-117-23 32 0032 BRADLEY JANS&JANET L JANS 3127 BROOKS LA MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55391 BRADLEY JANS&JANET L JANS 3127 BROOKS LA WAYZATA MN 55391 82 16-117-23 32 0052 ALAN G CARLSON 3132 NORTHVIEW RD MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55391 ALAN G CARLSON 3132 NORTHVIEW RD WAYZATA MN 55391 82 16-117-23 32 0054 RICHARD A&LEESA K ANDERSON 82 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MINNETONKA BEACH MN 00000 • RICHARD ANDERSON 3205 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 82 16-117-23 32 0057 CAMMY&RICHARD A SKALLA JR 3124 OLD COUNTY RD MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55391 CAMMY J SKALLA 3124 OLD COUNTY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 82 16-117-23 32 0058 R&RABDO 3126 OLD COUNTY RD MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55391 ROBERT&ROBERTA ABDO PO BOX 576 WAYZATA MN 55391-0576 82 16-117-23 32 0059 R&R ABDO 3128 OLD COUNTY RD MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55391 ROBERT P&ROBERTA L ABDO PO BOX 576 WAYZATA MN 55391-0576 82 16-117-23 32 0060 J HOROSHAK&ALEXA HOROSHAK 3159 NORTHVIEW RD MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55391 JOHN HOROSHAK ALEXA HOROSHAK 3159 NORTHVIEW RD WAYZATA MN 55391 • 82 16-117-23 32 0061 DONNA E KABANUK 82 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED MINNETONKA BEACH MN 00000 DONNA E KABANUK 5233 TWIN LAKE BLVD E BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55429 Exhibit Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 3/16/2021 • of. •' • • s 4 • • \\IN\ • • • • • • • • • /„ • • • 3132 4:, 3138 421 11 s 32115 ; a is 3215 .'l, 3. 3140 3142 3235 ; u 3255 tim • 3 'ar 3265 r 1 n5 II 32/35 ` Oh /� 3127 '?: a 3159 la' J295 dl i '. 'Iii ` 1411 13.0,___4 ''' 2164 .n - u �, a 3130 3128 312E 3124 ' alrar, iri • 73 2175 'a, * 2160 128, J JJ or dt 1 �:I.r 2ti��flTl �'Y��ll I. ?215 �r gr, • +``� 3171 3115 3111 3 131 t 31 Buffer Size: 500 0 50 100 200 Feet Map Comments: IIIIIIIII 3215 Crystal Bay Rd This data O is furnished 'AS IS with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (i)is fumshed with no warranty of any knd; and (ii) is not suitable for legal, engneering a surveying purposes.Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage,injury • or loss resulting from the data. For more information,contact Hennepn County GIS Office 300 6th Street South,Minneapolis,MN 55487/gis.info@h en nepin.us Date Application Received: 03/17/2021 Date Application Considered as Complete:04/12/2021 liZLO` V 60-Day Review Period Expires: 06/11/2021 To: Chair Kirchner and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator 'kESHOft From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: April 19, 2021 Subject: LA21-000024, Lorraine Goodwald, 706 North Arm Drive,Variances, Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting side yard setback,75 foot lake yard setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover variances in order to construct a new deck. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval, in part. Background The applicant is proposing a new deck along the lakeside of the existing home. The existing home and deck are currently located within the 75' lakeshore, average lakeshore and side yard setbacks of the property. The existing deck is 95 sq.ft. The new deck will be 288 sq ft and will . maintain the same 8 foot depth, but will be widened to match the width of the home. The survey, attached as Exhibit C,shows an existing garage and sidewalk to be removed. According to the aerial photo,these improvements have been removed. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information:The applicant has identified the existing conditions of the home and deck in relation to the lakeshore which eliminate any building envelope on the lake side of the home. The lot is substandard with reference to the zoning district requirements for 1.0 acre and 140 feet of width. The applicant has stated that the unique triangle shape of the existing deck, built in 2003, results in limited use of the outdoor space and does not allow any wheelchair accessibility. The new proposed deck is the same 8 feet in depth but is a rectangular shape to allow for wheelchair to access the deck. No stairs are being proposed with the deck. Additionally,they have provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds the existing conditions of the home and deck in relation to the 75' lake yard, average lakeshore and side yard setbacks are practical difficulties supporting a deck lakeward of the home. The property has a unique concave shoreline making an irregular 75' lakeyard setback. The applicant is looking to maintain the same depth of the existing deck but create a new rectangle shape, widening the deck to allow for wheelchair access.The property is substandard with respect to size and width and currently exceeds hardcover on the property due to driveway access,there is no conforming locations for any additions on the property. LA21-000024 April 19,2021 Page 2 of 5 Staff is not convinced, however,that the practical difficulties support a 288 sq ft deck. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-330—Setbacks: DISTRICT LR-1B Required Existing Proposed Street 30' 62.5' No Change Side (West) 7.5' 4.5' No Change Side (East) 7.5' 2.4' No Change Lakeshore 75' 58' 56.64' Average Lakeshore Not Met Section 78-330—Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT LR-1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acres) 140' Actual 7,947.3 s.f. (0.18 acre) 45' @ 75'/ 50' @ OHWL Section 78-1680 and 78-1700—Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Overlay Zone Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover District Tie_r Tier 1 7,947.3 s.f 1,986.75 s.f. 2625 s.f. 650 sqft. 2718 s.f. 813 sq.ft • (25%) (33%) w/in 75' (34.2%) w/in 75' Existing hardcover within the 75':House(410 sq.ft.), Lake Stairs(115 sq.ft.), Paver Patio(125 sq.ft.) Proposed hardcover within the 75':House(410 sq.ft.), Lake Stairs(115 sq.ft.), Paver Patio(125 sq.ft.)NEW DECK ENCROACHMENT(163 sq.ft.) Applicable Regulations: Side Setback Variance (Code Section 78-330) The property has a 7.5'setback applied to each side yard.The existing home and deck currently encroach into the setback. The home currently is set back 4.5'to the West and 2.4'to the East. The existing deck is 5 feet from the side yard setback to the West. The new proposed deck will run the length of the home and is proposed to maintain the 5 foot setback along the west side yard setback. The new deck is proposing a new encroachment in the east side property line to 4.75'where there was no current deck located. 75-foot Lake and Average Lakeshore Setback Variance(Code Section 78-1279) The house and deck are currently located within the side yard, 75' lake yard,and the average lakeshore setback. The closest point of the existing deck is roughly 58'to the OHWL. The new proposed deck will create a new setback from the lake 56.6'. The average lakeshore setback bisects the property through the existing home's footprint.This current existing location of the home and deck limit any conforming building envelope on the lakeshore of the home and the average lakeshore. • LA21-000024 April 19,2021 • Page 3 of 5 Hardcover Variances (Code Sections 78-1680 and 78-1700) The current hardcover level exceed 25%with a portion of the existing hardcover located within the 75' lake yard. The existing hardcover level is proposed to increase from 33%to 34.2%with a total increase of 93 sq.ft. There are no likely candidates for removal of existing hardcover. 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. 14,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 §462.357 Subd. 6(2)variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The requested hardcover level, side yard setback, 75' lake yard and average lakeshore setback variances are in harmony with the Ordinance as the adjacent neighbors have indicated their views of the lake will not be impacted by the improvements. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.Allowing a usable deck space for a single family home for enjoyment of the lake 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 applicant is requesting to expand the deck to allow for wheelchair accessibility and allowing a more functional rectangle shape instead of the existing triangle shape. The applicant has noted the request is reasonable for the use of the property. The Commission should determine if 288 sq ft of deck is necessary and appropriate. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The substandard lot,concave shoreline,and existing footprint of the home and deck and the neighboring homes are conditions not created by the landowner. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. It does not appear that the request deck will alter the character of the area and there is currently an existing deck practically located in the same footprint. 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. LA21-000024 April 19,2021 Page 4 of 5 •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. 17, 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 residential improvements are an allowed use in theLR-1B District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The lot shape, and depth, and the home's proximity to the lake are particular to this property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.The setbacks of adjacent homes in this neighborhood are somewhat similar to this lot.The conditions specifically impacting this property(lot area,lot width and shape, and home proximity to the lake) do not generally apply to the other properties in the LR-1B district. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The owners indicate that granting the variances are necessary for the preservation of their property right. However, their property right is established by home and existing improvements on this substandard lot. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort • or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the variances to allow construction of a deck is not likely to impair health, safety, and comfort. 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 for the deck expansion is limited by existing conditions of the property and orientation to the lake. The granting of the requesting variances are necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty resulting for the location of the existing home and limited building envelope on the property. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Public Comments The applicant submitted letters from the abutting neighbors in support of the project. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the • LA21-000024 April 19,2021 Page 5 of 5 • impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of a variance for a reasonable shaped deck that encroaches into the lake and average lake setbacks, and increases hardcover. Staff does not support a deck across the entire width of the home. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing& Proposed Survey Exhibit D. Proposed Plans Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Narrative Exhibit G. Neighbor Letters Exhibit H. Property Images Exhibit I. Property Owners List and Map S S Letter View Exhibit A Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 03/17/2021 S Address: 706 North Arm DR Mound,MN 55364 Parcel Number: Land Use Number: LA21-000024 Application Submitted By: Property Owner Owner: Name: Address: Applicant: Name: Lorraine Goodwald Company: GEM-Ash Processing LLC Address: 706 N Arm Dry Mound,MN 55364 lgoodwald@hotmail.com Contact Information: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: Outside Deck Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application 0 Appeal of Admin Decision 0 Concept Application 0 Conditional Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Application ❑ Subdivision Application ❑ Subdivision Exception LI Vacation Application ❑ Variance Application ❑ Applicant Signature: LA:A4. file:///ci.orono.mn.us/...LA21-000024%20(706%20North%20Arm%20Dr)%20VAR/Land%20Use%20Application%20Summary%20(8).htm[4/15/2021 12:22:16 PM] Letter View Exhibit B PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA21-000024 "The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: There will be no further encroachment towards the lake than 8 feet that was approved by the city on 10/1/2003 via the Site Plan. The plan is to have approximately a 36 by 8 foot square deck. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: Wheelchair assessable is a concern. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The next door neighbors have been consulted. Both parties have reviewed the deck proposal and do not object. Notes have been written for the city to review. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: The deck extension is do to a personal handicap. 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in onnesota Statutes, Section 116106, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: I believe this does not apply 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: Understood. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: My mother will be staying with me on occasion. This is a one family dwelling. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: The deck extension does not impede with the site line from either neighbor as personal notes have been written by the homeowners. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: I do not believe this is the case. S. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. file:///ci.orono.mn.us/...024%20(706%20North%20Arm%20Dr)%20VAR/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(5).htm[4/15/2021 12:22:17 PM] Letter View Response: I feel this is a safety issue as stated. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, Ask morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Response: Granting the variance will improve the health, safety, comfort and morals and is not contrary to the intent of the zoning code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: This is my primary concern. My mother is 81 years old and is planning to stay with me for an extended period of time. I need to accommodate a wheelchair (reclining for blood pressure concerns) and navigate a radius turn safely per ADA compliance. Along with added guests this requires additional space. The existing deck size doesn't allow for this to occur in a safe manner. The doorway opens at the narrowest section of the deck. Refer to the Site Plan. • file:///ci.orono.mn.us/...024%20(706%20North%20Arm%20Dr)%20VAR/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(5).htm[4/15/2021 12:22:17 PM] 1 N O U g`s ff h Si; $ • ads = O +_+ K1`o8 cin "g� o�°• aot P °{mss (}V� ♦� 10 S.§.-.0-Oct q J y� C n' Mi 0 .- f/T31 X r; �or� ce i ;2 T �fy�• y �yif'0-S.ig E. Al aidC n 3 y��• =al eVti 3o mitt if a,g N S o$ ° E g uV as) -FD -.le 0 al i,zcz E -Il..4 hilt 2 h1— 1 ,4-j ki Q $soreioee p I etizn€ C O J 01 �"� h°K.si p� 11.3 6 ,,IA, il5 *661131'... OP) C .1 v p2$ i C X• g o Z4 U t1ihiiIr 11111 iami.1 }, nxthi x s _ Ss� �o O / z, _g° Wa /: a `�6 c gi •G cla s k S'- ,9y\ /fa. � / 1�' ��SSNN 6. O �Y- s° r 06 04(4/ <yl � ` ,./27.,43/0/ a � g' � y / / ' 4. �,,,,„ // ar l* t� / // �// i 'a \ B O •. ///, / / \L,4is` -cei /Y // / / 1. ) 00. 7, 4,4 / // / , 11 04/ /' . 4 E'' �i '<✓ ' \ <„ //, 2.:ED • '.4- OW s A� , e ------. / N / q9' // J /V/'' �i,.'i'lls' \ i'�q'P `V 4. Or °ZS '-' /'' (447 /I 9 4A�. / W IN V P rc �C '2 8 V °+ E o �{�,,'p" r CN / 8 8 Ct3 in U-1 iY .�-414/4k. �_ ` res N, q \1.\� '� i ,\ _/ % I '''''Y\ ' �e � h Mumma 4" / N .AY / o Ni 2 It /4( 47/ •c /4 / / / a,--0, h ,,-- � / 9. it o 4 /- - d y O = 0 / -- 6'' / C 9 / , -- °`/ NOS /- _ %L = O /- u re o m 0 C =l O Y v v c v v • O 650 L 3 0 g1$ oY z y Ca vi J0 vJ A° °sLsa_° T N K % A p / II moi° �a;`yea L C. ^^ J bee g..1111-0 zts $ Q 3 mi�W Z clisi oos F a a) �t3 O a$��ap° p' ° st �s°Ei \I Lb O O q -F-+ ¢ :out 222 g l ii 8 ; al 00000 6'� °°L G O O . 1 IzE 23 Olt 1, ka102;4 P opeet'xe� f `a c i' glg x & 8 g 0 Cl) Q U d ttIiJiJ � 11tH E G frol Clio !!i. ° , S €EggV � i8.1-4: L.j� ff ! // as // )0•74( /nal 1 <>,,,w \' 7/7.4(0// \`� e o,° I +, //// 41`ai tr\ \ $clq x AO � i y / iF // 1 sem° / \'41 - 4 co °15 a, /i/o ¢off E��p9,�'ril i �c r 1 p .,A,' atm 'r. ° k'• • O N i 10 0 / N)SV4'4 '.'\ ,‘ 7% ,e, \''''\ - /c''' c' Aer 9,0_, aft \,,,, 07,:effirr - 0,c. ,,, t s, ,,, y o / �'// \ o / // 7 /ad b .ey o. o �i 2 . 'at 4/1 //4/ 1---- / / //�& o� •1(...) I' i I\ — U O �6 / / 04/ i / Pce - t ° q / c,-, 2 °'2 Pg. ° a° 0 0 / ,,,,y-- �/ N E "a o o 4 / q / ° - , /a" L ,.Y m° a 0 0 2 rto u o c 0 0 u c d C v v -0v° • o eo N O g:*E•s • Vj a°.Co$ Ti e`u� 04l N R6 � a eggg II Fp 1iilh1 � � Si �o mW ZQ) —.KG c, a''u4coke L ; 1 .., i , Ai„,„, — c?"-Asa i g a 4Ql 00[8[0 �[ EH= o �O� Q MR S £b2& O ' :jflifl 1 tr- CO 1 I i! o .q.IN Ig2 Eo U 0 '44 t!V 'WWI in : o sy r $g "2 Q E`so �: ° �,� iwo- 3t 3 a Kii .4k-'49;e e ,; / / nv..vim a° d CI) �1``�?°�`,p ` ,b ////�////°�`ash V\ / /i i io \ OC:Im ,,,,/ .-_- \. .**, -.,--,- // •/ / , 11I P \ 3. We cu J PL. . __,,,,.,,ti . _ `T Vg d ./, , rn 1 ,- ,_)r+ L O z / C` --31/4-- $ N viliama II 4, , 01— III �°a 'A� o d ` 'h. '1� U d�" 9 0 ,6�" 1 E y cY�+ 4 I Y c� -4` 4 y o s / a� / o ¢ 0 4 Y .� .n9 o fri 2 NS. •_ /4/ // 0,01.,`„, / tl 10 0 c It S U ft z czi 0,m / / . / / '- ''r ........ ' ...., 4/4 / / 1 O1 \0 // Y, u C Om 'C i+ /odt NAO O E .:1-73• / B o 4 7 / c _ ` 8. // m mi 0O m ° 2 0 0 0 c CLo v v .D0 ' a • o 00 in 0 Uli s c.eg. sO° % OR amps e).- N.) oMJe - ,F EnIIIP NI- ° OCVn !ill ` 6gSgan 1111 ii • J .--i• • • =ry 3 ; CD -....4� O a$ Fa sit ar e LIHag iiiii _€e : R� �s2o.� b. o Uhiiti1• o ' tq` i- E$kt a,og g p.E 2$g Easi O E" g' r�,� _,,,Az . a°8 513sct 4 ; , sf. aloft. <G•°� 4, \: /� °"gym' a Oi l .1 to \ ..0 0Y \71444 -'/V ,-. //, / ,L,V 'I It )I 't . 2, so Q. 10 /� jrt'' /` 3 ' / r � � ',, ' / / INO1 \ / \ Ncu 2 itAO /4r * /// ///, \\, , ' ' �// Ir �) §;12i =/ , i4.44....: ,,, R` ` n N � .",....../4, °6 if 0/ ,,,,,,le,N__ , trif oe- 15t l'r I <s �r -4,s,- ,v ;�. a o �, _ N .. `'k ms_ /'�' I'44) � ''': E �dr Cla IL ....0,r___mmo--- ''''''',. 'ite \.\1404 i .12 42 / / - V .AY / O �i 2 ■ / / ,' /64 1�e gytl'�W� m/ ii t /1 / i /�/ i2 af/ tl g 4 / / � i� / (3 V,j 4/ r / E /i MM"" / (!)' O 0T. / , - �M ° ° P / o /4/ ,�c/ ' �O�` / 2 oL c O. 4 / /_ 7.,/ C d0 O // E a6 °m / uE ti m c d 2 v°v u v vo • 0 ea ,a o N a . c 12 c 2 ui �- N .5 N 10 cs to -0 Li ! it -....- a--+ .......i. -Th.--- 1 r X FritFu 213 Ji W �}— L , , , i , . . t N tio O N CI L c Q cu� � N NV �, x c0 -4 w a 0 ILD If \ \ L AI - I w Ti e 1 I ".... ..-- %.- s. t ,,, I in telt ( Q 'T c ----_- > t r+ n 4= c e • C:b c City of Orono Exhibit E �oNo Hardcover Calculation Worksheet • Property Address: 706 North Arm Drive 1C1 !)!It 'rfSHOREe Prepared by: Date: 4-5-21 Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 1: EXISTING HARDCOVER In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to site plan or survey(must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Total Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Survey (Square Feet) (Example) (Garage) (24'x 30') (720 S.F.) A Existing house 902 S.F. B Existing garage 500 S.F. C Existing driveway 877 S.F. D Existing concrete walk 126 S.F. E Existing deck 95 S.F. F Existing Paver Patio 125 S.F. G S.F. H S.F. S.F. J 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. ✓ S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. (1) Total Existing Hardcover 2625 S.F. Excludable Hardcover(See City Code Sec 78-1684): S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover S.F. (3) Net Existing Hardcover [Subtract line(2)from line(1)) 2625 S.F. (4) Total Lot Area 7947.30 S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)_(4)] 33.0 (Proposed Hardcover next page) Last Updated: January 2021 Note: This is an information sheet only, every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contained herein; • however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. Page 8 of 9 City of Orono �oNo Hardcover Calculation Worksheet • Property Address: 706 North Arm Drive c` (4$fsuo9.8' Prepared by: Date: 4-5-21 Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 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 site plan or 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 Total Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Survey (Square Feet) (Example) (Garage) (24'x 30') (720 S.F.) A Existing house 902 S.F. B Existing garage 500 S.F. C Existing driveway 877 S.F. D Existing concrete walk 126 S.F. E I : L.... ...J (to be removed) -95- S.F. F Existing Paver Patio 125 S.F. G New proposed Deck 36'X 8' 288 S.F. H S.F. S.F. J 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. ✓ S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. (1) Total Proposed Hardcover 2818 S.F. Excludable Hardcover(See City Code Sec 78-1684): G First 100 s.f.of pervious deck 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover 100 S.F. (3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line(2)from line(1)] 2718 S.F. (4) Total Lot Area 7947.30 S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)_(4)] 34.2 • Last Updated: January 2021 Note: This is an information sheet only, every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contained herein;however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. Page 9 of 9 Exhibit F City of Orono, • I am writing to you for permission to square the deck across the back of my home. As I stated previously, the space is needed to accommodate a reclining wheelchair for my mother. The survey shows a deck with steps that were not built. The site plan sent to you contains the correct measurements. My husband and I bought this home in 2010 as a foreclosure and have little information on the entire building process of this home.The photo that was sent of the deck post with cedar shakes will be changed to a stand-alone post. I am not asking for steps off the deck. My neighbors have been consulted with no objections. Notes from my neighbors have been documented for the city to review. Thank You, Lorraine Goodwald • • • Kirk and Brigitte Otteson 710 North Arm DR Mound MN, 55364 March 15, 2021 City of Orono Zoning and Planning 2700 Kelley Pkwy Long Lake MN, 55356 Dear City of Orono: Brigitte and I are the house immediately to the south of 706 North Arm DR (Goodwald's residence). Brigitte and I do not object the Goodwald's request to extend their deck across the lakeside of their home. Additionally, we would approved any variances that may be required to accommodate a new deck. • Please call with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, 74/. ' /', Kirk Otteson Cell 952-240-1630 .t . e • S 461 Brigitte 0 eson Cell 952-240-1630 • • Kirk and Brigitte Otteson 710 North Arm DR Mound MN, 55364 March 15, 2021 City of Orono Zoning and Planning 2700 Kelley Pkwy Long Lake MN, 55356 Dear City of Orono: Brigitte and I are the house immediately to the south of 706 North Arm DR (Goodwald's residence). Brigitte and I do not object the Goodwald's request to extend their deck across the lakeside of their home. Additionally, we would approved any variances that may be required to accommodate a new deck. Please call with any questions or concerns. • Sincerely, 7-4/- /-/- age Kirk Otteson Cell 952-240-1630 r S Brigitte 0 eson Cell 952-240-1630 Exhibit G Matthew A. o 700 North ArmGoDF Mound,MN 55364dw ald March 15,2021 City of Orono Zoning and Planning 2700 Kelley Pkwy Long Lake,MN 55356 iV- '= z,• Dear City of Orono wald My house is located right next door,on the north side of Jerry k Lornhe lakesideraine ood of dtheir home. k do not have an issue with Jerry and Lorraine extending their I would also approve of any variances that maybe required to accommodate a new ec . Please call with any questions or concerns Sincerely i . • } Matthew A Goodwald Cell 218-590-0640 • • 4 3 X .1 0 /1/1k:„ /1/4/ 1: al 1 fr �m ,' k / AW /- � - `eL�: __ ',/,k4 _..-_ - -- 'i r f r it' /,4/' _/- ,,, - ' 1 ' ' '-- _..,..,_:--_-m„....... 4,J0111 4 a , t if 1, pc, )441,,, ••• ti • ‘ . .\ ' ".i''''(X!"JAW rl#V‘i.':IL 1 : VI!, - I ' ' ,-, : .1:-.4"..1 ri ' i'. —,, ., likillit: -- I ''r II . ii - s. i\ - - +cy •t • • Illk„ '' ,,Y:-. :--__\-..._,, :7,-.,,,,,,,,. .._:-.„ „ 7,-- Ilk- !� NNE& ... - ---\- ,._...„__......__ ...._ N----, _ , ._____ _ .., __ .. _ ____ :,.,, . _ ....' - - --- -----'---- 2 _.. .,. .. _... , ..,,,4 , ,, . 1 '.,.. , i. -,., ' - ' \\„virarn _.. . , , ., j .._, L, i . - , ..._ .uL-,,kv__-_-__-_=_._--_.___N, / . 1 fid, �� i R ..4 • L 0 k i ® -' a` �� T r . • .tir ,, z. I k ' - "stV at: "�- 1 ''Cir' Mi .. } _ .{ 1' t4 ','..' ', , lYFFA • TTT 4 R4 - IC"-T -e :t=- "y am-." . r !9 A e•- `.1 I w /It_ (�� FC' .‘",ts„;‘E... ef,..,.. ,..„ „ . !/ ...... .. , , .: ,.. . . i-' L\ . ...„. . . .... .. , ... „. . ..,,,,„.„., ., ...'-','7'', - '-,..T 0 1.• . , 1,....it..,,. s le ” - ''..f‘' ' 410,4' '.':„.f;''''''''''-el'...-,' ''‘,.i.*",..'.'i-1 ,-,:it la Sp., „, , . ' '... ' (..:-.. .4 A'.- 711thi, -•• f - •, .7'. -s...- " -•'.-'..4"'4... s \ t.,_ '4, 7 ;O.-- ,,, , ... • .-1 -.1.taw-. ..,...„„t„, "... wo , :,...-*--....,,,.-, _ .. , „ "11.„.- -- ,..-.- 41** '. 4110M vit..' k. • r .i. 4' � ' ;' . ,i Ilk \ ' .k . i. yamy.y.f-4 -f : C11 11; ....i..,..,, -,-, -41 t v r1 „ 4�' 1� . � gi 7-',:••P.' % ' ^ , f, • 21,'"'-`cji,i y�f „. - ' iv 4 N, till V. • t�r - 4 1144• -- * .i '' 41 4. -�.r -2 .,-„-iN 1. a*:.,-' �. • � Y Y • �' �. t Jkt 1 eSi,i • *,•-•J J t _ .+��t` i♦ ' to.r • • �' . 4:: S ti1�1. I� t 14`y A-1.,, : . ', ,..„47'..i, , 7 t t. Ct '. 4. . '>_�l8.:4„...V., 1i,, x '�f • AC ., 4 • } -$.14'.!F -.t .4 ,,„fit /1::',..:)". _ � ,tT- . • Ate:' 5+ , i t •,. + „`^,�x' SJ,Y .ice -t• ! ...i.,; ,T,-,.,4,1.._V ' f' • .y. CLS<X _� t } "fin 3V .r -7 � .V,,4_ d ', ,j . y" dPT' K y 1+'!' i'7a►'t t`�' ,:''',i;,'.:1''.' w-,p.:1.41f....2 1.'t'y� _wi _ ,� Z r.' 1. F '� f , T�h k its jt • it ' 1 M 1 - �7; r i R +Y5 ,_, s ti• r 4Y "fir4 .. . yyr_ •?-1,'„'`' �ys Ill ; , , • • n� ` _ w '} +t js5 r f 0 p '�` ;�Tip.. x`= -s Mn4 1>10 k,E a 7"64.."‘"I''''.1..'":":::1;:17::":::'1111:71-164:74'... $ . m o 7 tv * 4 ..t 4. ='r t ' t t=, , . -s..---,, r _ . y -,••/ 4 + - 4 „ 'i• t 141p4 1•.• . - _- *. ,�. ti J.1 r {M +' . + t 1.,,,; 0'11 .1 t � s=t R'V +a A y }, ,„Y a'i' ft�j l7 = a a i 4',• i� , `r1•i •Lt t ,.,V.V. k..11. R.- r' 3 ,....1,11). .•_. '1, r-, 3,_ . 'y�i/'.. 'SFS p i,, , � 9 j' >. 1 rhJ l ,°•IP ♦ M pl fig- ,%!...--..• 3 t. y',k,., M V,,J ' %. {t l+�l h 1► ",'L " 1 .TM�h 'va a f� „ .•. • C `•L , s iL• 1.,'IRS, e1` Lar ". Ijih r r IP �'• y .[MRI(S. aan3 44' r . �� • tie 9' 0,,,,„ , 4 r ) 3 . . .. z ..,.• • • tiN J�„ , . 1 ,: r '-',„t'''':: a fy , : .... • w . i . ' 4'''{ wrtias .. ,. 'y Y if "a�, k �, `` tet I r .'\ /'/#fA .�`4 !'{ F r A ,� � 1 all ' 10,8*,!, 1 r • kt. -144 i. �.4R � ` 1 4 6 , r , ..to.litmo. 4:.,,,,:.: .„...,„, . . .-,,•• . „.-•,,,,•-• •-, • , ., . ......,... . r:444,t 4'7''.. " j.1 _.. , . .. '' "f44.*. .' ?1'.'' I(a ..a_e` w -, r... .. �.,3M fa. _ �„.g.M.. -' y •r" L}f.• AC `. t. -.."''' .'''''''(^, ' ' / ' ,—...,. " .-. ' '4 �Y litelek goal. '' 1- + - 1 -I - : .. ' Site v43 died by I QuestiorG?Email: -- RUN DATE:03/17/2021 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:1 38 06-117-23 43 0001 38 06-117-23 43 0012 Exhibit I • S BAKLUND&M BAKLUND K H&B M SHIN 650 NORTH ARM DR 645 NORTH ARM DR ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 STEVEN BAKLUND KWANG H SHIN MELISSA BAKLUND 645 NORTH ARM DR 650 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0002 38 06-117-23 43 0015 S J GIRARD&B R GIRARD K DE CLERCQ&A CAUWELS 680 NORTH ARM DR 4315 LAKEVIEW CT ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 SANDRA J GIRARD KARLIEN DE CLERCQ BRIAN R GIRARD ALEXANDER CAUWELS 680 NORTH ARM DR 6811 LILY LA MOUND MN 55364 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 38 06-117-23 43 0003 38 06-117-23 43 0016 MATTHEW A GOODWALD M R HENDRICKS ETAL JT REV TR 700 NORTH ARM DR 4325 LAKEVIEW CT ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 MATTHEW A GOODWALD MARK&JILL HENDRICKS 700 NORTH ARM DR 4325 LAKEVIEW CT MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0004 38 06-117-23 43 0017 JERRY A&LORRAINE GOODWALD MARK C GOODMAN 706 NORTH ARM DR 4330 LAKEVIEW CT ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 JERRY A&LORRAINE GOODWALD MARK C GOODMAN 706 NORTH ARM DR 4330 LAKEVIEW CT MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0005 38 06-117-23 43 0018 KIRK A OTTESON ANDREW COHEN/KATHERINE COHEN 710 NORTH ARM DR 4340 LAKEVIEW CT ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 KIRK A OTTESON ANDREW DAVID COHEN • 710 NORTH ARM DR KATHERINE DONNA COHEN MOUND MN 55364 4340 LAKEVIEW CT ORONO MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0006 38 06-117-23 43 0019 D R MITCHELL&L V MITCHELL XIN HE&YAN LI 740 NORTH ARM DR 4350 LAKEVIEW CT ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 DEAN R&LUCY V MITCHELL XIN HE&YAN LI 740 NORTH ARM DR 4350 LAKEVIEW CT MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0007 38 06-117-23 43 0020 J P CARLSON&T L CARLSON SOURCE LAND DEVELOPMENT INC 750 NORTH ARM DR 800 LAKEVIEW PKWY ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 JEFFREY P CARLSON SOURCE LAND DEVELOPMENT INC TOM L CARLSON 18215 45TH AVE N STE D 770 N ARM DR PLYMOUTH MN 55446 MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0008 38 06-117-23 43 0022 JEFFREY CARLSON/TONI CARLSON SOURCE LAND DEVELOPMENT INC 760 NORTH ARM DR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 00000 JEFFREY P CARLSON SOURCE LAND DEVELOPMENT INC TONI L CARLSON 18215 45TH AVE N STE D 770 NORTH ARM DR PLYMOUTH MN 55446 MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0009 38 06-117-23 44 0001 JEFFREY P CARLSON R WALLANDER/L WALLANDER ETAL 770 NORTH ARM DR 790 NORTH ARM DR ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 JEFFREY P CARLSON RAPHAEL T WALLANDER 770 NORTH ARM DR LAURA C WALLANDER MOUND MN 55364 1070 TONKAWA ROAD ORONO MN 55356 38 06-117-23 43 0010 • JEFFREY CARLSON TRSTEE ETAL 780 NORTH ARM DR ORONO MN 55364 JEFFREY P CARLSON 770 NORTH ARM DR ORONO MN 55364 • 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. • i1 + Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 3/17/2021 ill fit. c5C r,, •rth' . { 545 -it,D 1'.4a. 4\400 7(111a 1340 ns 435tit 4 rai te, I roll --......4 x ,,,,,,,oN. S N,, 741.1 r � s� ,9 0000110111111'0,41 �rl:..4 (.7i �# � o 4315 °51 01 v 433G �. 780 \,,,. 7. 4325 11111111' i, Buffer Size: 500 0 50 100 200 Feet Map Comments: IIIIIIIII 706 North Arm Dr. This data (ti is furnished 'AS IS with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (i)is furnished with no warranty of any knd, and (ii) is notsuitable for legal, engheering or surveying III purposes.Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage,injury or loss resulting from the data. For more information,contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South,Minneapolis,MN 55487/gis.info@hennepin.us • Date Application Received: 03/17/2021 O� Date Application Considered as Complete:03/30/2021 1Itp11 T ` V 60-Day Review Period Expires: 05/29/2021 O To: Chair Kirchner and Planning Commission Members y Adam Edwards, City Administrator � 4kESHsco0' From: Melanie Curtis, Planner h'1GG Date: 19 April 2021 Subject: #LA21-000026,JALIN Design LLC o/b/o Tim Holland, 1395 Orono Lane, Variances Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variances in order to rebuild two nonconforming accessory buildings with minor changes. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval as noted on page 6. t x 934.4 9 'T0 01 3 3tvFr` Background 151 \ \�61 x 936.9 X937.6 On behalf of the property owner,the applicant is requesting 20 �3 x approval of variances for two separate nonconforming accessory 03 O x93�'4� ��\ 53 932.5 �"'� 9N, -. buildings in order to reconstruct them with minor changes. The 9 20P 3' Js2' x 933.4x97 �\� x 9351 applicants prepared the plans with the goals of minimizing __ PROPOSED \� encroachments into required setbacks, and maintain the footprints ` 4. BOAT HOUSE �� "in-kind" as much as practical. \ '5.P // 16.3 // WOE=933.5 �� rL� c 32.6 x932.7 x 932.8 x 9. x'`-$=I"9 '' "' For the boathouse:the applicant has requested side yard, lake, + 9341'r --- 53" 54 C" and average lakeshore setback variances in order to expand the °' < N ""9.5 ' 932.3 9J envelope of an existing accessory building as part of an in-kind CO n xx932.4./ 1 x 932.3 OSx , 1 / replacement in order to meet floodplain regulations.This results in 9" ,I; WOE- N ithe corners of the new flat roof expanding outwards from the 933.2 I �_ ^h 1 25.8 x=31.7rnx931.8` T'L sloped portions of the existing roof with the building in a new , , location±9 feet further from the lake and±2 feet further from the 5.s�> 4.. `./ side lot line. F.:i"O011:4 ` �5 431.2-J x 931 0 x 931.2 x 931.0 // For the carriage house:The carriage house is located in the n`�` 9 .e 47" x 931 , northwest corner of the site. The applicant is proposing to raise \ 32.0 931.2 r-�' x 930.9 the roof inside the first floor to allow for more current garage ' ' " 1 Q'45' ceiling dimensions.To accomplish this the applicant is proposing a x 931.3 \\"-0 32' `` R g,S21931.4 minor roof and side wall change, resulting in a new envelope x o ^30.5_� x 931.6 31: expansion slightly above the existing roof on the street side, and A932.0 £oa£ nr 26 --. -0G �� t.; beyond the pitch of the roof on the lake side requiring rear and side yard variances. 4111 Both of the buildings have existing plumbing, and there is an existing guest house CUP in place for the carriage house (which also includes a variance for the substandard lot size). FILE#LA21-000026 19 April 2021 Page 2 of 6 • The projects are part of a comprehensive redevelopment project for the property which will also involve construction of a new, conforming home. The proposed expansions of the nonconforming buildings are minimal. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information:The applicant has identified the location of the existing buildings, their setbacks and sizes, as well as the internal dimensions: 100-year floodplain low floor requirement, and the need to increase the garage door and ceiling height, as practical difficulties supporting the requested variance(s). Additionally,they have provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds the applicant's request for a variance for the boathouse to allow the minimum building adjustment necessary to conform to the floodplain and shoreland low floor elevations is reasonable.The variances for both buildings are supported by the practical difficulties resulting from the existing building locations on the property, as well as the existing elevations of the floor and ceiling. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-305&78-1279—Setbacks: LR-1A Required Existing Proposed Rear/Street Carriage House=50' Carriage House=3' Carriage House=3' West Side Boathouse= 15' Boathouse= 2.5' Boathouse=5' • Carriage House= 15' Carriage House= 1' Carriage House= 1' East Side Boathouse= 15' Boathouse=+100' Boathouse=+100' Carriage House= 15' Carriage House=+100' Carriage House=+100' Lakeshore Boathouse=75' Boathouse= 15' Boathouse=24' Average The boathouse is entirely lakeward of the average Lakeshore setback line. Lakeshore The applicant is proposing to improve the setback by±4 feet. Section 78-305—Lot Area/Width: LR-1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200' Actual 40,206 s.f. (0.9 acre) 158' @ 75'/ 150' @ OHWL Section 78-1403—Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 40,206 s.f. (0.9 acre) Allowed: 8,041 s.f. (20%) Existing: 4,915 s.f. (12%) Proposed: 4,915 s.f. (12%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700—Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Allowed Overlay Area in Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover District Tier Zone _ 40,206 10,051 s.f. 5,963 s.f. ±786 s.f. 5,615 s.f. ±786 s.f. w/in Tier 1 s.f. (25%) (14.8%) w/in 75' (13.9%) 75' FILE#LA21-000026 19 April 2021 Page 3 of 6 .mc EXISTING BOAT HOUSE 13 SCALE,I u'-r.0. •-- GCLAIM PER� -- - ELEVATION lMw W ONI IiKMI IKTM� YK.pT� • AXIS 1 roCrte tiep r r ff "`P 11 414 3 IMM eM IB.t WEST EIEVAT.ON !!mac ,.•••:� Carriage House Boathouse Applicable Regulations: Lake Setback and Average Lake Setback Variances (Section 78-1279) The existing boathouse on the property is located in the 100-year floodplain. The applicant is proposing to rebuild it with a similar size footprint and a lowered,flat roof design 9 feet further from the lake.The boathouse will be reconstructed with an aesthetic more consistent with the future new home (currently in the design phase).The variances are supported by the practical difficulties resulting from the existing building location on the property,the floodplain, and the existing elevations of the floor and ceiling. The proposed increases in volume is offset with the boathouse in • particular by the lowering/flattening of the roof, and minimally visible to the neighbors. See page 4 of the attached Exhibit E for photos of the existing boathouse, including a view from the living room at 1397 Orono Ln. The expansion of the building will not impact neighboring properties. Side Yard and Rear Yard Setback Variances (Section 78-305) The changes proposed are illustrated in the survey and building plans, attached as Exhibit C and E, respectively. The buildings are currently nonconforming with respect to side setback.The expansions within the setback are minimal. Boat House The applicants propose to increase the side yard setback 2.5 feet,to 5 feet. The boathouse will be approximately 2' 2" higher at the edge of the building with the flat roof corners expanding upward, and the overall height being reduced 2' 9%2" lower than the existing boathouse peak(reference pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit E to see the expansions and reductions in detail). Carriage House The carriage house is proposed to be reconstructed on the same footprint 1 foot from the side lot line.The carriage house roof within the rear and side yard is approximately 1.6 feet taller than the existing roof with an overall peak height reduction of 1' 51/2" (reference pages 6 and 7 of Exhibit E to see the expansions and reductions for the carriage house in detail). The proposed improvements are in blue, existing is in purple. FILE#LA21-000026 19 April 2021 Page 4 of 6 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. 14,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 §462.357 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 variance supports the minimal expansion of a non-conforming structure within in the lake yard and average lakeshore setback.Lake yard construction prohibitions are intended to maintain the natural lakeshore and encourage development away from the lake.Alternatively, the goals of average lakeshore setback include protecting views from land into the lake,the requested variances to increase the height of the existing boathouse the minimum amount necessary to meet the ceiling height and floodplain regulations is in harmony with the Ordinance.The most adjacent neighbors are situated so that their lake views will not be impacted by the changes to the existing boathouse.The minimal additional mass of the flat roof areas within the setbacks will not be closer to the lake than existing and will not negatively impact the views into the property from the lake. Additionally,the minimal expansions proposed to the nonconforming carriage house building will not adversely impact the adjacent property,nor will they result in a significant massing increase within the required rear and side yard setback areas.The requested variances to increase the height of the existing carriage house garage ceiling while maintaining a livable height in the upper level are the minimum amount necessary to meet the ceiling height needs.This criterion is met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in reconstruction of the existing buildings (without footprint expansions) within the setbacks in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variance to permit the minimal upward volume expansions is solely to upgrade the functionality of the carriage house,as well as allow the boathouse to conform to the floodplain regulations.This criterion is met. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to permit minor upward expansions of the buildings within the setbacks appear to be reasonable;the flat roof design of the boathouse minimizes any potential negative impacts; the mature vegetation, and location of neighboring homes separate the buildings from the adjacent neighbors.This criterion is met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The applicant proposes to reconstruct two nonconforming buildings to improve • FILE#LA21-000026 19 April 2021 • Page 5 of 6 functionality for the owners. The buildings were not constructed by the current owners and are in need of replacing due to their age and deferred maintenance;and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The requested variances will not result in the property being out of character with the neighborhood; will not expand the footprint of the buildings; or result in additional encroachment into the setbacks toward the lake. The new encroachments will not alter the character of the locality.This criterion is met. 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. 17, 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 accessory buildings are 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 proximity of the existing buildings within • the setbacks is an existing condition which is unique to the property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The location and existence of the nonconforming accessory buildings is an existing condition unique to a small number of properties in the City, but could be applied to all other lakeshore properties with detached garages, lake yard accessory buildings and boathouses. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Substantial property right is provided by the principal structure. The nonconforming buildings are allowed to be maintained and replaced in kind. Expansion of an existing non-conforming structure is not a right, however the buildings will be expanded in order meet modern garage functionality,and floodplain minimum low floor regulations. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variances will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; The Commission should determine whether the modest expansion negates to goals of the code in relation to views into,and out of the property. 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 asserts that the variances are necessary to modestly increase functionality,and for safety and regulatory compliance,and will not merely serve as a convenience to the owners. 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. FILE#LA21-000026 19 April 2021 Page 6 of 6 • Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances allowing the minor upward building expansions subject to the following conditions: 1) The boathouse shall not have hardcover landings. 2) The property owner shall sign the standard plumbing covenant regarding the plumbing within the boathouse. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application &Owners' Narrative Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan • Exhibit D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit E. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit F. MCWD Email Exhibit G. Resol. No. 2444 Exhibit H. Aerial Photo Exhibit I. Property Owners List Exhibit J. Plat Map • Exhibit A Land Use Application Summary ill Application Date: 03/17/2021 Address: 1395 Orono LN Orono, MN 55391 Parcel Number: 0211723340006 Land Use Number: LA21-000026 Application Submitted By: Agent on behalf of property owner Owner: Name: Wooddale Homes LLC Address: 6117 Blue Circle Dr Suite 101 Minnetonka,MN 55343 Applicant: Name: Jeff Lindgren Company: JALIN Design,LLC Address: 6514 108th Trail N. Brooklyn Park, MN 55445 jlindgren@jalin-design.com Contact Information: Associated Contact: Daniel Schmidt schmidt@sathre.com • Associated Contact: Eric Bunkers ericb@bunkersandassociates.com Associated Contact: Tim&Rhonda Holland Tim.Holland@metromold.com Associated Contact: Project Description: Demo and Rebuild a Street side Guest House and a Lake Side Boat House. Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit _. Site Plan Application Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application / Applicant Signature: S TO: City Of Orono FROM: Tim and Rhonda Holland(Property Owner) SUBJECT: Variance Narrative DATE: March 17,2021 RE: 1395 Orono Lane, Orono,Mn 55391 A future of owning a home on Lake Minnetonka has always been a part of our story.For years,we have come to Lake Minnetonka and have spent endless hours boating and driving around the area,dreaming and planning for the day when would be ready. Turns out, it was not as easy as we thought it would be.....Since 2015 we have looked at over 50 properties,making multiple offers only to get out bid.Last summer we decided to sell our cabin in Northern Minnesota so that we would be fully prepared for the next opportunity.After that,everything fell quickly into place.Our cabin sold on September 15t and within two weeks 1395 Orono Lane came on the market. The property checked all the boxes: close to trails,restaurants,a beautiful South-facing lake view,garage with apartment and a historical boat house. Our offer was made within 2 hours of touring the property. We were elated when it was accepted. Our Lake Minnetonka chapter finally began! The property itself has been neglected for a long while. We are already making improvements to the property by dealing with overgrowth,untrimmed and dying trees. The next major improvements will come with construction of the boathouse and garage this summer. In our current plan,we would like to move the boathouse back 7 feet and rebuild a similar size structure to comply with Orono's regulations. • Moving back 7 feet will improve the property by removing the boathouse from the floodplain, improve the neighbors view and be more aesthetically pleasing. Because we truly appreciate the historical value of the unique and original artifacts in the home. We are currently working with Architectural Antiques to salvage those items. At this time we are projecting starting our final phase of building the main house within 2-3 years. This will give us time to completely understand the properties surroundings; seasonal wind,sun,nature and noise.Understanding the elements will help us to build our perfect home. Thank you, Tim&Rhonda Holland Exhibit B PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES APPLICATION TO: City Of Orono FROM: Tim&Rhonda Holland(Property Owner) Jeff Lindgren QALIN Design,LLC) SUBJECT: Variance Requests for the Boat House Structure; A)Boat House: Increase side yard setback to 5'; Increase lake setback 7'; Encroachment into average lakeshore setback; Hardcover within 75-feet of the lake B) Guest House: Raise garage floor elevation .5'; Raise Guest House floor elevation .7' Adjust structure volume. DATE: March 17,2021 RE: 1395 Orono Lane,Orono,Mn 55391 Required Variance Findings 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Yes it will. To begin, back on August 4th, 1988 the city of Orono granted a variance • resolution to the then property owner for the specific use of the lake side boat house structure and the street side guest house.From this resolution our intent is to uphold it as best as possible, but are uncovering difficulties that require some subtle adjustments to meet ordinances and building codes 33 years later.With this said; A) Yes,Our intent is to recreate a new boat house structure that has a similar footprint to that of the existing boat house which is 786 sf. In addition,per city request,we're proposing to move the structure out of the flood plain.In addition to this move,we felt it to be in our and our West neighbor's best interest to increase the West side setback to 5',since the existing structure was only located 3.2' from the property line. B)Yes,Our intent is recreate a guest house structure that has a similar footprint to that of the existing guest house which is 643 sf.However,the existing structure is not fit to stand due poor construction methods, poor site water management and settling over time. Our intent is to rebuild the structure while using current construction methods and standards. To do so, we're request to raise the lower garage floor elevation .5' so that it can be higher that the existing street elevation and have proper pitches to divert street water from entering the structure.Additional,the existing structure was at one time a "Carriage House" used for storing horse and carriages. Given time and the evolution of vehicles,a taller ceiling is needed in the garage portion,so that we can increase the garage door height from 6'-6"to a modest 7'0" tall door and track system. This adjustment then compounds our needed to increase the height of the guest quarter's floor elevation and additional.7'. Finally,with current energy code requirements and construction methods,we're proposing an innovative roof and wall panel system,called SIPS to help minimize thicknesses while maintaining energy code standards, but even so,we will still need to increase the volume of S construction over the exterior wall line. But in doing so,we're proposing to reconfigure the roof lines for a more aesthetically please roof form,while reducing the overall total roof peak height. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Yes. A)The overall plan is to rebuild this structure out of the flood plain and while doing so, reduce the overall height by going with a flat roof structure. The main principal build will be begin its design journey once the boat house and guest house are complete.The main principal house will be designed so that this new boat house structure with a flat roof,will coordinate and be a simple stand-alone extension of the main building. Yes. B)The overall plan is to rebuild this structure so it has proper pitch for drainage and with surrounding water management to alleviate unwanted hydrostatic pressure on the foundation walls. Additionally,the original guest house structure was also intended to be used for horse carriages,but with today's horseless carriages,the standards call for higher access points,of which we hope to achieve with this variance,there by provide access for more off-street parking. 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; Yes,the property owner,is currently taking steps to make this their forever home, but to are strategically taking steps to better the property by updating the(2) smaller buildings so they are safer and more appealing,while working through the layout and positioning of a new home that fits their needs and style for the years to come. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; A)Yes,for the boat house we are proposing to fixing the circumstance by relocating the structure out of the floodplain while proposed to reduce the over all height to allow for more lake viewing for us and our neighbors. B)Yes,for the guest house over time settling has really taken a toll on the structure and to fix some of these issues,floor elevations need to be increase to provide property pitch away from structures.Additional,better water management around the building is needed due to the existing topography. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. • 2 A)The approach we're requesting is being done with the intention of bringing the spirit back to this site and so it can work harmoniously with the neighborhood.Our intent is to add beauty to the already charming,yet eclectic,character found in the surrounding homes.We are also trying to work forth right at the request of the city of Orono,via FEMA to remove an existing structure from a flood plain. In addition,we would like to attempt to reduce some of the roof height by transitioning to a flat roof structure,but in doing so,we would need to increase the"rebuild"volume to allow for adequate thermal protection above the exterior wall so our structure can meet energy code compliances. All the while allowing us to minimally adjust the existing contours and keep as many of the mature trees as we can in the 75' lakeside side back. B)Our alteration is being done to provide a positive effect by embracing the neighborhood's eclectic charm. Even though we're requesting to increase the garage elevation by.5' and the Guest house floor by.7'we are overall reducing the height of the structure.Additional,with these elevation increases,this will allow for a minimum standard garage door to be installed,there by allow us to use(3) parking stalls,which reduces the number vehicle in the street and driveway and will seamlessly laces into the existing site's contours with minimal disturbance to the existing grade and surrounding mature trees. 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. 4110 Agree.A) The variance request for this structure has nothing to do with an economic decision.It is based on ordinances and thoughtful placement for neighbors,and attempting to rebuild using current construction methods and energy compliant codes. Agree. B)The variance request for this structure has nothing to do with an economic decision. It is based on recreating a similar structure in its place while making keen decisions on elevation placements,thoughtful water management strategies and using current construction standards to allow this structure to be used the way it was intended to be used. 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. OK 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. OK • 3 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a • two-family dwelling. OK 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Correct.A)It is in the floodplain and needs to move so it is safe and rebuilt to habitable. Correct. B)The structure is failing do to settling and poor water management which needs to be fixed so it is safe and rebuilt to habitable. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. Correct.A)This request only applies to the boat house which is 100%within the property limits and will not affect any other property or it's owners. Correct. B)This request only applies to the guest house which is 100%within the property limits and will not affect any other property or it's owners. • 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Yes.A)Updating the structure is imperative since it is unhabitable and moving it out of the floodplain is an unyielding move for the structure and surrounding parties. Yes. B) Updating the structure is imperative since it is unhabitable due to poor water management and settling in the foundation there by making it an unhabitable structure. 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. Correct.A)Our plan is to improve these attributes by moving the structure further away from the lake and updating the overall aesthetics for neighbors and boaters passing by. 0 4 Correct. B) Our plan is to just the opposite with the requested adjustments we'll be able to • create a safer and welcoming structure there by relieving added vehicles in the street and reducing stressful traffic situations. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Correct.A)It is good practice to move the structure out of the floodplain. It is in good faith to reduce the overall height of the structure by proposing a flat roof structure and doing so, increasing the"rebuild"volume over the exterior wall heights. Correct B)The guest house is falling apart due to poor water management and settling overtime. We want to make this a safer and more manageable structure by using current construction methods and applicable energy code standards. Practical Difficulties Statement from Property Owner's: A future of owning a home on Lake Minnetonka has always been a part of our story. For years, we have come to Lake Minnetonka and have spent endless hours boating and driving around the area,dreaming and planning for the day when we would be ready. Turns out, it was not as • easy as we thought it would be Since 2015 we have looked at over 50 properties, making multiple offers only to get out bid. Last summer we decided to sell our cabin in Northern Minnesota so that we would be fully prepared for the next opportunity. After that, everything fell quickly into place. Our cabin sold on September 15th and within two weeks 1395 Orono Lane came on the market.The property checked all the boxes: close to trails, restaurants, a beautiful South-facing lake view,garage with apartment and a historical boat house. Our offer was made within 2 hours of touring the property.We were elated when it was accepted. Our Lake Minnetonka chapter finally began! The property itself has been neglected for a long while. We are already making improvements to the property by dealing with overgrowth, untrimmed and dying trees.The next major improvements will come with construction of the boathouse and garage this summer. In our current plan,we would like to move the boathouse back 7 feet and 3' more into the property. Our hope is to rebuild a similar size structure to comply with Orono's regulations.This movement will improve the property by removing the boathouse from the floodplain and after discussions with our West neighbor, it will improve their view of the lake and will be a much more aesthetically pleasing structure. Because we truly appreciate the historical value of the unique and original artifacts in the home. We are currently working with Architectural Antiques to salvage those items. • 5 At this time we are projecting starting our final phase of building the main principal house within 2-3 years.This will give us time to completely understand the properties surroundings; seasonalII wind,sun, nature and noise. Understanding these elements will help us to build our perfect home that these structures will be complimenting to it. Thank you, Tim & Rhonda Holland Thank you for considering our variance requests. Respectfully, Jeffrey A. Lindgren,President JALIN Design, LLC • • 6 2 \N jj �ais 1132 a 1 e1 j{f It 106 2 vi 1.L ale a 1 j 1' §y Q itii , --. V $ o 6 sa@, g . l.., r ' !I 50141R4Y114 Nii1101111411 , $$ ¢$ ! p�5�5 E rYr111i13i !IpppMel Fbo•N w Sa !0 � _ !' I ckd iIITIII I{IOIII y : t s IYIrg 3 !! ${ i E z _, gg 3E gg§D.ae g y 0 a `>' 8 s 0 S" - - b i- i fz9 • l ° t LLi 3 H @ 3F y' i� F a O 11 f a 4 Y Es Hill illi .0vm®eo®•.vlMolrOeeaa®®.a•®e:pe�Fe F' /0 ! @ 5 1111! H211€ R 61 W ii. .f a� .tR$Re ash � ( r %igx ! gg r 5 r41,- . U 4 I 1 11 I 1 ii kii/I !i! 1,r= ! !4t gI ;. i = 2 m 11'1 1151111 a dy j IA ; 1 e4 , 1 !€e I 1,511 g. I - I • if I! a� r I ;! !. L I yi 31i/i111 R 0.62 440..eeu0 •02_ L@.....no -. P. r : F fgt d < A F > g$ 60 wC N no z d Z I 2l h1 Di i rf o•1- W; i ii CO I I I CeU I s =m= I = 6 < a / i Lo R� v1$ I F_ I — — 31;7 ` • ,/ ,/ I r- ,/ / I 1 „,.: , I I a' I / ii /. / 3 `v III 1 j I �. , i w x / F- i i i g 1 $,' / IL26L33.YILt,1O6 i C. i 2 T � �,. 1 1.a V 1 = - _ nI € '/ 1 r A'.�. -f_OYc.- J �\V)' _ c 1 I L if .l - - , § i-*/17 i % /ii f 41-2 fie -.a,.r. `a#i . Y. I i/ / / 1/r e+ . -'� ga I //g,�Lp ll ". 3 '4t' ® a A 1, 4�Idly /L---9-1-11-5--Y7`/ 1 :7_74 f{ "'t� •i ii / i+ .fl• j( dgg IF,c*. i,. ,s 4 . i i,-iii i *1 i 1 1 q ii.vq, w 9 74. / / ,`2*3. 4; 3 jl y r'i' (*Q it. 'vt ,I.i j /7/ // ,�' ) i'. //t4,::, i `�` l 9 I �w 1 • �'', - i Y 8 5ii, \i /;[j�/ l.' / / `Y �Q 1 1.. ..51,/,: i!o! 8 l 3. x I a4�.r\ ?\t 4 3'ro,... w•\ p \ if(/ // / f ,// /// 1ii $ n 1 1 I o ` eq f� L}„s� k . i e1�='�,ii / /.4,/,‘ / pii�"-"-, �,_ � �e 'g, i ti I< r11 'N '�"i "i pm o f �A '° _ . i/f Q/ l . 1,.'// i I• . / i'--,ro t@: - $ i.1 P1 1' ii La MIIiPtiji�� _ F..,' y M1•R):a. / f �')` i i.,_,), • �� °, 1 i b w W r / ' s g; �11 i4 \ "IT-F 1 /i I 1 /i(0. ,/.i./,”. / �- PI d Iia 3s z �$ /;i 0p ifbi< .0' ti _ /4/, L a1 a € g �A . $@ -gi1�i 4 s..._i___,..1_,_ __--,,..._ r /T /i w o gyral 1 1:1.-/.,:::'fy g ixo<8z 4 - s 'Or, '.,- / .a ,,.— 4, ii',%e. ,,/ 1s ./ ;,� Iv.- , S .SbL MatST.IONi . is •Ii i 1 V I I uN I y • / L1 —� a y 1 i!I Ln U 2 i :,„ 1, . O f2 N y�J � �U c ',SM -.' HI I g ,I) ��iii J 1, < �\ Exhibit D City of Orono •s O4, Hardcover Calculation Worksheet A. Property Address: 1395 Orono Lane,Orono \<'74k ; Prepared By: Sathre-Bergquist Date: 12/8/2020 SB Job Number: 37545-001 Prepared by: BRV Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier:(Circle One) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 1:EXISTING HARDCOVER In the following table,identify all items of existing hardcover on the property,keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey(survey must accompany this form).Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property.For Tier 1 properties,Identify any features by letter which are split at the 75'setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Survey Hardcover Item(Describe) Length x Width Total(Square Feet) (Example) (Garage) (24'x 30') (720 S.F.) A HOUSE 2,766 S.F. B STOOPS 100 S.F. C SIDEWALK 900 S.F. D DRIVEWAY 232 S.F. E CONC.STEEPERS 46 S.F. F Existing Structure 643 S.F. G DECK 74 S.F. H PAVER PATIO 416 S.F. I Existing Structure 786 S.F. S.F. K S.F. L S.F. • MS.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. ✓ S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. (1)Total Existing Hardcover 5,963.00 S.F. Excludable Hardcover(See City Code Sec 78-1684): S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2)Total Excludable Hardcover 0 S.F. (3)Net Existing Hardcover[Subtract line(2)from line(1)] 5,963.00 S.F. (4)Total Lot Area 40,206 S.F. Existing Hardcover Percentage[(3)+(4)] 14.83% (Proposed Hardcover next page) This is an information packet regarding Hardcover.Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information • contrained herein;however,if any information is not consistent with City Code,the Code provisions will prevail. City of Orono op& Hardcover Calculation Worksheet ' Property Address: 1395 Orono Lane,Orono Ac / 4ArCitoRs-'/ Prepared By: Sathre-Bergquist Date: 3/26/2021 SB Job Number: 37545-001 Prepared by: BRV Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier:(Circle One) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 1: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).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 Survey Hardcover Item(Describe) Length x Width Total(Square Feet) (Example) (Garage) (24'x 30') (720 S.F.) A HOUSE 2,766 S.F. B STOOPS 100 S.F. C EXISTING SIDEWALK 275 S.F. D DRIVEWAY 232 S.F. E CONC.STEEPERS(REMOVED) 0 S.F. F Existing Structure 643 S.F. G DECK(REMOVED) 0 S.F. H PAVER PATIO 416 S.F. I Existing Structure(REMOVED) 0 S.F. PROPOSED PATIO 300 S.F. K PROPOSED SIDEWAY 115 S.F. L Proposed Boat House 768 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. ✓ S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. (1)Total Proposed Hardcover 5615 S.F. Excludable Hardcover(See City Code Sec 78-1684): S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2)Total Excludable Hardcover 0 S.F. (3)Net Proposed Hardcover[Subtract line(2)from line(1)] 5615 S.F. (4)Total Lot Area 40,206 S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage[(3)+(4)] 13.97% SThis is an information packet regarding Hardcover.Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contrained herein;however,if any information is not consistent with City Code,the Code provisions will prevail. ED Z E Gy x CD4 sF M • Z - A: JNV1 ONO2i0 S6£ I Iii=aZ s °o- 1A0J GN`d11OH 6 s s .0_ °o a ^ `` 13 = Ef s- e1 6;0 r,6a O e z ° ° S ° gi m ° E-.YE e o 9-21 .6-.1Z O < Z b g OF R „WC 6-,S / .HI 0-.9 / .1,-.Z9-.1/ .11-.1 .11-.[ /.1-Z/ Z E o z x o o� . g 11 r----- d0 0 E z F F ° i r' ',.;1 . \ \ o z z 6 6.3 6 6 So �; 3 I $ �t h a " [ c,SL �; �. �; m iiiiiiiii. - Si^3 '� II ' p 3= n 3E, 5 • ;5 8 88 e I• 1- ill il . - A- -.., _ -) > 4 II I 3 § ` o, ll '' a x_ Z. @1 E.--J) o o l 0 1 , I W C 3A13H5 \ 6i:-.'0 o f. o ° W ❑ 3� I � �1 11 § 11 \ s S'" • a < �I \�� p, f Md1 \\\\y - t: -rA Q 7f31w 4..' ly.N\\\\\\_ . \\\\�\\ 13NRYJ \ 1„ v `v r{q r F.� .v; - - �wvtoe 094191Antl 0, `----_.-. [N3w35VD.9.i NosNv6[.z•.9 - Nt 3NI131Y40114 • E-Af ..4,Z1 / .6-.IZ .Y: ._:'mss_.::.':ac;::�:, c'-.-.v -.i)•�•,,.::..:x-.,•i',.0. ,1r3 r__—_J ----I *.11 rj L . d I 5 I %` N I I 2$ 7-616 /o Q a :•' a ..,r--- + Z--_ a® _Ise Cl. 03 an 15 Il –Q .4- _,,,r , I c L- 1 .Y/101'.61 'I .8/5 E'.5 / 7..0'. 10 .E-.5E 3N11AlY39410 _______________________—_—__----_______—________ Z o W 2 - - -- - - u) �: I6£SS NN ONO2dO 4 - o - - A o ;z M E' emiT A: _O° 3NV1 ONO1O S6£I v a W < • • zao _ . 3AOD GNV1�OH n ao �of / 0 n • , Ea E0 a •i E w 3 IIS it i11 CZ F tAl N v K Z 1 Its If i! 11r if f11 — o 1 4 4 li., II r Z I, t, F 1 ! ? ill ;1 Z F t fF O 0. f- 1 l I ,1 1 GSA( k a 0. lal F w I# 0 / ' i I ' t 1 t ..,' 1 I L. iI l z, lir:. P z wa <N 10 wm wW OZ OZ , 1 Lu mOZ 2OZ �- 2PP 17w0 IM __ wti P a f . r ZHF Z F '" aZ u�cow 4117w o E9 I;Ed _ !i I A c. //1%1 oz ' a , /4 EMU w y N az w K .. — zo 4 • 1, D II 'II m6 o m� 1 .{ ,r z . i \ w Y 1 Q ; 7Ix 0 g 5N €: Z W a "s r a l `� <4 16ESS Nk 'ONO2dO o o e e W M WQ w �z • Z o 3NV1 ONO2IO S6E I o °5 — o; °' 3AOD GNV11OH 6 Y; 61 g6 'P_ E 1 m" 41/ c Al � ' z�3 R� a " = = a-ow x ,a•SPN i g0 3 w urliou = ac . J3L§s' . I I:I � I' 1 o 'I T z II 3J8 .o 1,72 8 Fd i g; , i -- • 00 2E 1 ra it 1 ? /� MOM W.5.11105'O1 / ral 4,,K1\ rnN.m.s.iuoN 01 j tAl I �- I I''- II I I I 1-----1'- II I: / h n LIAId s ® OdhI O. 7 11 I l • 07,NgSti ?.3G5S • 8.!6 l O i` } X ` •l • ria. it'..o .2! zo soa _Ii,... b 1Ij .4A I .11 0 §, Z e W CD O a° �: I6£SS NIA 'ONO2J0 0 a d e o o �„� M d Aa M " A. 3N`d1 ONO2f0 S6£ I w6 t �� = a P- a z z 0' 3n0D GNb'-1�OH 6 ,A Y 1 Ot 1 2 �2: Q • = P r, - 1' j rp t !i _ �` ' 1,,,,,,,-, .., *I;•.,.:'..:.:•:::,.'',,,`,;, ;.00":141-.i.V.4.--i* --= '.; Fi.7 2 cry,. .�� , 3 o .?Y .a++R•" l'r - �'- 4e Y : _.r �: � f r\; in L 4 v. • 1.--- r _ : 6 x e a ' o— tO , . .. ti eat {�e r� IZQ eb � II ' •I Ce,`t1J rP"-r: wi_,,,,or.is.:;:,:„I':,r ,:i*'..tl' • J/F yr P 7i e - H l 4-1 =# H u 41',34";., C.?Z � w ,� (k 0- ;„'„,-07..."L"' 1 . \ t ':,,,,,,..t,.-11.,,. . N; Gdi i ^ i' veh1 .f`�%1� /� By . ! C3 ' ` r • , 143. at ,.."44 !°7• ' • tI i 1a . -" /.' 0 z a w ° - - Q0 < I6£SS NN 'ON0210 e e sg� d- z G3Nd1 ONO2JO S6£I U � � a 3n0� GNd��OH oo e I 5:44s yY m e FS-.Oi '.0-.( Z W 2 E O O6 g O Pia .i/ Y 8 .4 Z ZM Z Z O F F o z z 8 E 3 8 Ls z N ��t��\w�.-t \scar»� 4 o .r. x.11 �4 .:.a:.s., V aa.. N06NV81 3 'I N I ��cL y n 1 hcS.il/M MI NAt.tE '6 I 3 ^ 1 j Z g X p':. (I 1)51 t ri Ili ' c4 ui o 5 Y 1It. , �''P II tom: = e �, i ,! I !, _ m w yo d —aa ? / .ds / ..1.E ry ag '� 1 ,�..�•� 4111) • g - E .1 o LJ �� a �b I ` C m .P M c �b \ a '�`E�9 N r▪+ as 17 \ N \�\ ` NOSNWl T 7 O 11 il Z110 MOl38lNM -� Q � II'.II L� 8J Q .trf LLKQw 7 Q W Q>[y Q $W QW 1 =W Q F� BC Q • to 0 W .tr,Sl .S-,9 a�n�racn�-�1rr.t tw w N n 22 H4 rgg 6 CD lic CD r I �_ �i 1 r 1 i L a fr „5 •50 / I .,, ... ,1 , i 25 o �i 85 8K ' I:- I ? lit; FE ..;i I W II '''ImillW'.1111/ 1 j ' 0,,, 11 1 1 a �� I . I I . 1L -----(Ki .,,, ,,/ •e � f o-sl ss / Z o W - T - -T - ._ A' w a b_ qW 16£SS NN `ON0110 8 ° e e e e e oa d- z _ ;`o 3NV 1 ONObO S6£I g -0 2< _ � ; _ Da 4. 11 ^ ti 0` 3AOD GNVT1OH 6 g 6_ Q 'W Q IIII Is ! i ! I 1 w k::11 virviii J . ua r w R iiir ■.1 ., z z . 0 1 Ww /7,"1 r= 1 �— 1 I Itdb 'r R!!t ilt I i ti. 1 • ! P �I Izq P �! Im W 0. Naz "l a, pl a i IQ o 0 D P 66 uaa g. P °I G H a igl 'u Pi g Zr gl I . O �I 'w s'. 11 I I � I I I -- ! _ I Ij j +1 j ., ! ! �� j ® I > ! j t i a — . ic,1 ,•13H � Z .„. , 4 ,, - . ...,., § 1, <o al i + _..... a !1• i' wwQ ic. . I • 1. aD i l i , j n �l k I t !1 IIII it I I ! d 1. 1 y ot p i 4U 3 S141-119*-Pit. 11 Stp 1 0 li !f' !, !1 �I ! I 1 Ii I ' it 1 I g co a <4: I6£SS NN `ONO2I0 A z o 0 A a o �" g la j• Z o= 3N`d 1 ONO210 S6EI g _6 _ a 0= 3n0D GNbllOH � t 0G44 .Z/I E-JZ Z11 S-.I .1,-,61 .9 'D11 ISOLA NW A',0 / / .b/C Al ./I 1,-9 O CII I ',IL-, r N '1 l 3 a Jb;:N fli.' z ~IW 'I .poap ! .bffB I I `u3Lru I A I wl -. 3AW ! /x..-, 1y rif I//I 1 .9 II '- ! NI 1 1 - - •• IDH Iu VT I' / • I AIL 01 '111M00NIy 1 ! L19NII it / .f1 ! I /% WF 1 W Q .• / w 2W ! ,/ / �a 6,< 1I / /�rF 1or �E x. ! I I/ // wO 1 IA,, '0� f ! 1 E I 1 ;/ / 1 / / 1 °3 I r i I l i 111 g I j/i w / 6 / i 1 / I // C i:; i Ngo I k$i 1 00 I I 1 J u 1 1 @ I.;,; ` Ste$ . 1 >�z -4 • 1 � ,Nmal ulw D 5 9, S 1 1 1 `S -- t 1 1 I i , 0 1 1 1 I I o, - L `. 1 .01 f L I: , `, 11 \``. \ /, 1 1 .<AN.(.,111 i t1L1,1,41 4 4Ilk ,( I_ 1'1'1Ii41Q1Jifl �1'. '1 33N ` .III I `I . 1 ‘ 11-191301ONI41W1 / NOI1K]NfWL �S , A/11, �I .YA Y 0 I :1 gHtgili p!Vel I 3 ;G 3�z�E Sig �3 fing,{ tOshb z 62 u1 ! 't • 1 (In 6 co E, ,_., l6ESS NIA 'ON0110 , * ,, A 4,, ,.., t AE, t ttatt . 0 S't'e' 1" ,`-f'.' <C: ---•', a ,is i I --.-: , 3NV1 ON0110 S6E1 • Z '-i- 11. ' 0= E i E I,0 13 6.-•EE, --.1 3AOD CINV110H • . 1. ,,, ,SNit • , ' '' 1.: 7 . NrarVt--f Ttr'.Z-•,"*---';.• • "'• i ,-,\•••••10 , .• - ..., ;; ,";•-•-'40--.. - • ' 'A.‘14`. • :03,11 AS.- ' -•-- opn / ,, '• .s''....:tiC'!: .'1. , . 91 . . - Mr" l• • -'• -4 ' . N /.,,:,-,-•1'7,!4,.-4..']'--.-Qt-,7r,...'Z"'.,4r.-..-'--.,..-A-.'--i;.....'-d..•L,'..l.. ikkl%-='e'- a,.',-i,'.'':s,',. • I0L-'''C,UO') ',..,.4.•4.. ._,1t.:,1-1,-1--h-.,"_- ..".'-1.1 j. I - 1 " - 1 i . , .. ''.•. . - •;••••..41111IF7-, ...4.--1- •••;!..• - / )ti • . ...:.'"Fr•-- •...r.r.41'.*:14.- , . ii I' 4 4 • - . 4,-• . ., . • . , v '900 t ro '•--"ValarOIL' . W-,.:1*-,;..k,1, • .. - ilki-,,'„ . .;."•':..,_I.!,•'- - . . ...4)-.. .4:•:i-',:. ,' ,. . •.,77, . • , •-.•,, . •./.... • ..4 ., ', i •4. , .. 1 , ..-ii-0-„....--- -----::-.-.:-,--- , t . ..., . rif ''''' i'.., • --..-,Titigjoit-I''.7 ...'14049kt..- . N __ ft't:ofeeklz,4'5. , I .,'..,:',7-.‘.,",, -',.-''-:;-.1.27_,_. i„. „JAI*, I N -,`;':.E „,st4--- /' 4- ,,T-,L..,..I „ . , " L'] • • .41,-.7:: . , _..,..... . a ,:-maltkfz:-. . . ,• w 5 ,., , ‘ . ( . 1 / ) ' t' . ' kri ' ' 8 -.7. , -,,,,, .1 , \ „,- . , ,, , f,. z , ,...,,....,r,,,-,,, ,,... .0.::i i 11. , ,, , E:--1 . •,' , ti)' 1W".7-1106414..!: 1 4, 0 7,-. -WIWI ,,.1:1,4• , .: --..","'"'"`" -- ----±-- 1. i...%_,1*1111,- . . o ,.. I--ill ' r•' *-0- ar< MO I II I . . 1 °- • ,. ..--,:.L.,,..• - I o< -• i u — -•..-•1 : iiii 1• ' ",•ifist--`":1, ,'," ..ii A VI "- N ''• 111.I i ,• -' • 't•', '-•,fr., ,,,r4f',i t,$l'i ,.1 ,. ''.•-; ‘,..4. 'i--:-0. ,,,0,A6k,.. Ell 1 cak,•,,,',,,,- __,,. ...•-":..-S ' N '..,r1.0.::-.1.mrip MI' . ......,-...,.:-..,. ....i.a.H. 11 :. * " Vil SW , ,• "Mr`,, If .,a' _ ' -• '' ''"wf Ill i i 'Iii,‘ ".I t d••• • 11'• '' ' • ''4., '-','":•ft% ''‘ ,.., f 0, '1.':. '1 tV • - „,,1 1 ,.,.. ft ,. .l• , lik” • .,:•1-'-., ;.,e,A.:,,. ilh.'won, ;-'' .-,.:.-. ,. r ,. 1`.t i ',„;..' . "...i•'1W _ ,--i let,--- 4 Atil -.r.•_-. 11,,, l,'i - ow!;•,:.. ,.....-, • . , °I— . - . 461kg9i-ii- ,, . . , .-',. ' , Ai( -r'1.,',4,4•416."i:.":. '•,,, 2',..-.4Siti:;.*:—..;•.i, 1,7, , < 2:- 1•-:. :.. =•1 ; i 4r 1'1i I ± 28 . '4.`,",„ -•1-,•?,•••iirt?,,..e.4„1„rn31,. • ,:c 9 9-,i 41 . C ,01.4....,,, . ,,,, f , , ,,: ..14,;•-, ' •,...,..::- ' . i.!.;,,....,..,,,,.;jr. ,,,,,,-, ,' ' 9,. ,,0, . . - :- ,..„•,-...v.v.:Iii:-...-ISO ' ' , , ,,,1-: 1-al 1-w ._..,. , . ., - , „ANNA,-- — .. 40.roik,\\—- - ' : •r ,.:i • ....,0/0.4 : !Vial':.. . i'' ''' t ' •• e.,!:,AlF.,.1 -_,.... 4..i....• ..,-_7 -..! ' ' -• ,.., • .• .,. - li t. I: • 1, ,-i'1741 , V ' r:11. • V. ;a::' V , 'i 4 ' .1411. ' 1:54.'. v..4.1 t x-, 0 ,,, Exhibit F MCWD Info From: Grace Barlow To: Jeffrey Lindgren • Cc: Melanie Curtis Subject: RE: 1395 Orono Lane Water Shed Permits Date: Wednesday,March 17,2021 1:35:21 PM Jeff, Good afternoon!Thank you for your email regarding the Boathouse construction- my apologies for emailing right on the Variance date. I have CCed the city on this email to let them know that it is still in the review process but that hopefully this email can suffice as documentation for City process deadline. Based on the additional information you submitted to the District,the project will require review under the District's Floodplain Alteration review. I understand that the purpose of the project is to remove the boathouse from the floodplain, which will ultimately be a net positive for the property. I do have some additional questions regarding the fill calculations, in order to meet District requirements. Based on the calculations listed on the application form, it appears as though more fill is being brought in than is being cut-the 211.5 CY difference will need to be taken out elsewhere in the floodplain in order to achieve a net fill of zero and no loss in floodplain storage. In addition,there are a few procedural requirements that go along with Floodplain Alteration, including engineering review and public notice,that I can follow up with in a separate email. • Melanie, please feel free to contact me with any additional questions regarding District review.Jeff, I will follow up in a separate email as well. Thanks, Grace • t Exhibit G • C_� . City of ORONO • „.4:,.!.„004.„-,.:.„ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL . : r �� NO. 2444 ' -ORONO A. RESOLUTION GRANTING •. • A VARIANCE AND • AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO - MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE . . . . SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 4 (A) • . .. 'FILE #1269 WHEREAS, Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, formerly known as Norwest Bank •Mineapolis, National Association, as Trustee, (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 1395 Orono Lane within 'the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as Lots 7 and 8, "Homes on Brown's Bay", Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "Property"); and • , WHEREAS, the-applicant,"•• has:•:; made application to the City of 4111 Orono to permit the reinstallation of a guest house use in the upper or econd level of an existing detached garage requiring an area variance of 36,990 s.f. or 3.14 acres or 79% variance. • . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT- RESOLVED.by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: - FINDINGS . 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1269. 2. The property is located 'in the LR-1A, Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring• two acres in area.' . 3. The property is approximately 37;250 s.f. or .85 acres in area. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on June 6, 1988, and recommended approval of the proposed variance to the area . • standard that would require 4 acres or 174,240 s.f. in area for both the principal residence and guest house per Zoning Code Section 10.23, Subdivision 4 (Al, and recommended approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the reinstal-latiori of the guest house use per that same y section based on the following findings: a. Based on the private covenant executed in 1982 by the previous owner of the property at the request of the City of • Orono, the existing apartment was allowed to remain with plumbing and heating with no other attempt to alter the structure as to • prevent future habitation. The intent and conditions of that covenant strongly suggest that a guest apartment could be reinstalled on the property in the future if the appropriate 1411, permits were obtained from the City of Orono. N. b. The guest house use had existed on the property prior to , 1982 and under the current existing LR-1A Zoning District. c. The property is now served with sewer. i . Page 1 of 4 .t City of ORONO • • • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2444 ORONO d. There will be no increase in hardcover proposed with the reinstallation of the guest house use. 5. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this pro- perty are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demon- strable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 6. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to allow the reinstallation of a guest house would not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not • adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to • neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.23 , Subdivision 4 (A) that would allow the reinstallation of a guest house use and approves an area variance of 136,990 s.f., 3.14 acres or 79% for two residential units on a single lot in a zoning district that would require 4 acres, subject to the following conditions: _ 1. The guest house is for the exclusive use of the members of the family who reside/own the principal residence on the property. 2. The guest house is not approved for rental purposes. 3. If the guest house is proposed for the use of a caretaker, a seperate or independent Conditional Use Permit shall be required. 4. Prior to the occupancy of the guest house, the guest house must be connected to sewer via the existing line that is under the garage. The primary residence shall be connected to municipal sewer via an independent new line. 5. Prior to occupancy of the guest house unit , the building inspector must inspect the structure to see that minimal standards ares complied with for residential habitation. 6. The accessory structure located within 75' of the lakeshore shall never be used for habitation as a third residential unit on the property. Page 2 of 4 . 1 :�, R • City� of ORONO . . . • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL • .. 01, NO. 2444 ORONO 7 . The current owner must make a sewer connection payment of S14,503.18 and a SAC payment . of $550.00 with the sewer connection permit for the principal residence. 8 . Authorities granted by this resolution run with the property not with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval, or the special'•conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (June 13, 1989). 9. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and condi- tions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 10. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees tothe terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of June 1988. ATTIT: ' � / � ��A. i /� ! /.tel ' •:''othy M 'allin, City Clerk Edward J. Call/an, Jr. , Acting ayor i / Norwest Bank Minnesota, National Association, formerly known as Norwest Bank Minneapolis, Nat ' 1 Association, a national banking association, as Trustee, By , /l , 17 Its 1�✓t�l P itue , and .' ,A,!,W-- 7 Its04,e P lV 1410 Page 3 of 4 1 i { i • r • . :_ _, Cityof ORONO • • .. .:4r.'r.. -0::z::,,, 'CITY � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4 _'3 NO. 2444 ORONO . 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) � On this y day of (i22.t u4 t , 1985 before me a Notary Pu lic within and for//said county, personally appeared 7--/mm . 4/,tir, iiiiir. known to me to be the person(sr described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. ±..'"---/9 - ---- /,,,_I , ire►. •,, NOT, :Y PUBLIC •_- ■ r. NATHALIE M.PETERSON NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA HENNEPIN COUNTY MY COMMI SSIi�I %oU PPlft'Egs iau.22,190 ,: x - `1 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. .. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) - ---- — - - - On this 4th - day of August- - ,_. 198 , before_me a Notary Public within and for: said County, personally' appeared Mary P. Barrett - _. known to me -to -be the. - person(s) described in and who executed the foregoinginstrument,- - _. and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as. his (their) free act and deed. .-___ _ C - i ',./ / / • A . NOTARY PUBLIC / " - 42w GENEVIEVE M.YOUNG NOTARY PUSLIC—MINNESOTA M,ComH`�ENNEPINi. t.COU • NNTY 12,1993 • • _ osr. It Page 4 of 4 1395 orona Exhibit H • .r lf . •,• 1 i ...1.1 ..-•:. r. . . . . . . ..4' %.14`.11111LAILin'' 1,11::.1,' N-4e1 .- -' 4pc• ..:,,;,-'4,,,,:- ,....„. :. .. ,,..). n, A i 'j . Carriage H,ous.e,_ •, +� • J '•ill" : . , a ;. c w s;s t .4%.' ''tA.i:',",*;•;',... ' .!*'''[ 1:—,070.1. 7,, 111.4'4 ; ', ' , y N ...:fer.. • •-' ..„• _ ..7. __ . . T s ., ,.,. .0 ., a w.% ;yys' y 44 j 4 . i •,...,y-:;;:, . • .�rll► a-¢ ' a ', - ♦ yi - T T 1397�r .. ,, ? • .., ,:,..:" ?:. . *,.1, ,:395 . ,r ._ , !r �1'G11Q' - 04131 WF A1,1' ' 11-.A.::ik .',,‘.,;( , •..,.. -.- ,, 2• , F{ , iltl�t* i _ .--.: ;,. ti- a F ! . {, X16 P• r • 1 , . ° 'MT {may r . x '- r( o - n-may' ,`, i - 4 ' `¢ -. tv yti T -1'0,. �` it f '•r' `.� - i ' .. ", 4001 ' :ATI" 4 . ' ",-` •* ' ..' ... '' ' '' '' .' ,,,. . ji' 'leF- ,4iiii6, Ili ,,'' ,,,,..,. -, - - I r, T,-.e"- ,-. _ .6-� /' .g" fir'. t,.- / Boathouse `t w • Exhibit I RUN DATE:03/17/2021 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) 38 02-117-23 32 0001 38 02-117-23 34 0008 EDWARD H HAMM TRUSTEE K R KOKESH&B J CAVALANCIA • 485 ORONO ORCHARD RD S 1399 ORONO LA ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 EDWARD H HAMM KEVIN R KOKESH 408 ST PETER ST SUITE 434 BARRY J CAVALANCIA ST PAUL MN 55102 1399 ORONO LA WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 33 0002 38 02-117-23 34 0011 S J FIELDS&S H COTTON B M MILLER&C R MILLER TRST 1465 FOX ST 1325 SHORELINE DR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 STEPHEN J FIELDS CRAIG AND BEVERLEY MILLER SARA H COTTON 26381 MAHOGANY POINTE CT 1465 FOX ST BONITA SPRINGS FL 34134-0761 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 33 0010 38 02-117-23 34 0012 A HARRISON&I L HARRISON TR LUKE BELTNICK REV TRUST 1410 SHORELINE DR 1380 ORONO LA ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ALFRED&INGRID L HARRISON LUKE BELTNICK 1410 SHORELINE DR 1380 ORONO LA WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 33 0012 38 02-117-23 34 0016 CITY OF ORONO JAMIE A SHAVER 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 1385 FOX ST ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 CITY OF ORONO JAMIE A SHAVER P O BOX 66 1385 FOX ST CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 33 0015 38 02-117-23 34 0020 EDWARD H HAMM TRUSTEE EDWARD H HAMM TRUSTEE 1401 ORONO LA 1391 FOX ST ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 EDWARD H HAMM EDWARD H HAMM • 408 ST PETER ST 408 ST PETER ST ST PAUL MN 55102 ST PAUL MN 55102 38 02-117-23 34 0003 38 02-117-23 42 0013 NICOLE MARIE R THOMAS REV TR HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH 1385 ORONO LA 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 NICOLE M THOMAS HENNEPIN COUNTY 1385 ORONO LA REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY WAYZATA MN 55391 701 4TH AVE S SUITE 400 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 38 02-117-23 34 0004 DOUGLAS C MOEN TRUST 1387 ORONO LA ORONO MN 55391 DOUGLAS&JUDITH MOEN 1387 ORONO LA WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-I 17-23 34 0005 CM3 LIVING TRUST 1389 ORONO LA ORONO MN 55391 CM3 LIVING TRUST 15407 MCGINTY RD W#28 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 34 0006 WOODDALE HOMES LLC 1395 ORONO LA ORONO MN 55391 WOODDALE HOMES LLC 6117 BLUE CIRCLE DR STE 101 MINNETONKA MN 55343 38 02-117-23 34 0007 A F GREENER A GREENE/D FOX 1397 ORONO LA ORONO MN 55391 ALLISON GREENE ROGER GREENE&DAVID FOX 1397 ORONO LA WAYZATA MN 55391 Exhibit J Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 0 Date: 3/17/2021 "*Ci' CC 1331 485 i Onr 1111°P- = a _ 1;.- o I c° 4 0 d 1325 4 n, .7000700000 . ,, t -4.4 ;1111P11111 1380 - �' 15 __ _ .1401 is 1337 Su, 1335 ,3 ________ .%iiiiiiiiiiiiii......_ .. [/! 1410 rt O 0A 7 ttik Buffer Size: 500 0 50 100 200 Feet Map Comments: I I I I I I I I I 1395 Orono Lane This data () is furnished 'AS IS with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii)is furnished with no warranty of any ID knd; and (ii) is notsuitable for legal, engneering 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 3W 6th Street South,Minneapdis,MN 55487/gis.info@hennepin.us To: Chair Kirchner and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator A From: Jeremy Barnhart,AICP �4&EsHOO"L Community Development Director Date: April 19, 2021 Subject: #LA20-000047, City of Orono Text Amendment related to Boat storage Public Hearing Application Summary: The City is contemplating an ordinance amendment related to the storage of recreational equipment, including boats and boat trailers, on residential property. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. Background/Problem The City Prosecuting Attorney has identified challenges to the enforcement of the regulations related to boat and boat trailer storage,and has recommended the City amend the ordinance to address these issues. The City Council has further directed staff that any resulting changes be • easy to understand; understandable regulation is easier to follow. The Council noted that residents of a lake community should expect some level of boat storage in residential districts. During the March 15, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners requested a workshop to review the proposed changes. Pending the Commission workshop discussion,this item should either be tabled, or approved. The Commission wanted to discuss the following: Identification of boats being regulated (Kayaks, canoes, etc.) Fish houses Operability Time period (of boat storage/ repair) Lake yard boat storage Solution The draft ordinance is attached as Exhibit A. The draft regulation adds a definition of boat and fish house. It modifies the operable condition requirement as requested by the commissioners. References to a time limit were removed,as that is one of the primary purposes behind the amendment. The revision does require currently licensed to the owner or occupant of the property,which should address storage of boats as a side business, or concerns with boat density on a property. The code removes references to the length of the boat in question. The Commission should discuss the yards where boat storage is not permissible, noting that the • commission felt that some lake yard storage was appropriate. FILE#LA20-47 April 19,2021 Page 2 of 2 • Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received, though one resident has requested a draft of the ordinance. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Commission suggest any yards as off limits for boat storage? 2. Should fish houses be regulated like boats, or like accessory buildings? 3. Does the Commission recommend any other changes? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends the ordinance as drafted. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Exhibit B. March 15 PC Minutes-draft References March 15, 2021 Planning Commission Packet • • • Sec.78-1577.-Exterior storage in R districts. In all R districts,it is the responsibility of the owner of any property,improved or unimproved,to maintain the outdoor areas;including courtyards and the like,of the property and adjacent rights-of-way in a manner that complies with the following requirements.All recreational vehicles,mobile homes, camping trailers,motor homes,pickup coaches,travel trailers,special mobile equipment,and utility trailers shall meet the requirements of this Code.Additionally,all exterior storage must comply with subdivision(6)of this section. (1) Definitions: a. Blight means a deteriorated condition,something that impairs or destroys. b. Junk means any cast-off, damaged, discarded, junked, obsolete, salvage, scrapped, unusable, worn-out or wrecked object, thing or material composed in whole or in part of asphalt, brick, carbon, cement, plastic, or other synthetic substance, fiber, glass, metal, paper,plaster,plaster of Paris,rubber,terra cotta,wool,cotton,cloth,canvas,organic matter or other substance,regardless of perceived market value or requiring reconditioning in order to be used for its original purpose. c. Recreational vehicle. Mobile home and recreational vehicle shall mean and include the following definitions,and shall not include any manufactured housing unit bearing a State of Minnesota manufactured housing seal or certificate, for uses including but not limited to those listed below: 1. Camping trailer means a folding structure,mounted on wheels and designed for travel, recreation and vacation uses,also called a pop-up camper. 2. Motor home means a portable,temporary dwelling to be used for travel,recreation and • vacation,constructed as an integral part of a self-propelled vehicle. 3. Pickup camper means a structure designed to be mounted on a truck chassis for use as a temporary dwelling for travel,recreation and vacation. 4. Travel trailer means a vehicular, portable structure built on a chassis,designed to be used as a temporary dwelling for travel, recreational and vacation uses, permanently identified as a travel trailer by the manufacturer of the trailer. d. Special mobile equipment means every vehicle not designed or used primarily for the transportation of persons or property and only incidentally operated or moved over a highway,including but not limited to:ditch digging equipment,moving dollies,pump hoists and other well-drilling equipment, street sweeping vehicles, and other machinery such as asphalt spreaders, bituminous mixers, bucket loaders, tractors other than truck-tractors, ditchers,leveling graders,finishing machines,motor graders,road rollers,scarifiers,earth- moving equipment. The term does not include travel trailers, dump trucks,truck-mounted transit mixers, truck-mounted feed grinders, or other motor vehicles designed for the transportation of persons or property to which machinery has been attached. e. Utility trailer means any motorless vehicle,other than a boat trailer or personal watercraft trailer,designed for carrying of snowmobiles,motorcycles,all terrain vehicles,or property on its own structure and for being drawn by a motor vehicle but shall not include boat trailers,a trailer drawn by a truck-tractor semitrailer combination,or an auxiliary axle on a motor vehicle which carries a portion of the weight of the motor vehicle to which it is attached. f. Boat, for the purposes of this article, means any water craft required to be registered or licensed by the state of Minnesota.but excluding canoes.kavakes,paddle boards,or peddle boats. Fish House means an temporary,motorized structure constructed with the intent to provide shelter for ice fishing.L_ Commented[JB1]:Fish house regulation introduced. Include as a utility trailer? • _(4) [Storage of boats and boat trailers.]Boats,unoccupied boat trailers,and boats on trailers shall be subject to the following storage requirements when not stored for commercial purposes: a. Licensing,operability and restorations.All boats stored outside on a residential property shall be currently licensed to the owner or occupant of the property.All boats stored on a property shall be in operable condition. For the purposes of this section, Inoperable condition shall mean a boat lacking parts essential to operation, including but not limited to motor, propeller,battery;or having the interior,including the driver's position,used for storage in such a manner that no person can operate the vehicle.,except that inoperable boats under active restoration may be stored on a property for not more than two years,the intent being to discourage the long term storage of inoperable boats on residential property. b. Principal residence required. No boat shall be stored on a property or on a group of contiguous commonly owned properties that does not contain a principle residence structure. c. Maximum length. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers exceeding 30 feet in length shall not be stored on any residential property except within a fully enclosed building meeting all applicable zoning and building code standards. Exception: Existing boats over 30 feet in to the effective date of the ordinance from which this section is derived shall be allowed to requirements of this section d. Allowed storage locations. Boats and unoccupied boat trailers up to 30 feet in length may be stored outside on residential property as follows: 1. Lakeshore Jots. Boats may be stored in a side yard, street yard, side street yard and iakoshoro yard as long as they meet required setbacks and have no significant impact on lake views enjoyed by adjacent neighbors. • may be stored on trailers in a driveway in a front yard or side street yard. le. Required setbacks. Boats, including trailered boats, and unoccupied boat trailers may be stored in any yard,provided that a shall be stored no leaf than five feet setback is provided. from any lot line and no lc^s than 15 feet from the principal rosidonce structure on any adjacent lot.1 Commented[JB2]:How to handle small motorized boats f. Screening.Screening is not required for outside boat storage when in conformance with this pulled ashore? section.If boats are shrink wrapped,white is the preferred color but is not mandatory. Sections 2,3.5 and 6 purposefully skipped S MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION • Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 8. LA20-000047 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO BOAT STORAGE (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Staff presented a summary packet of information. The City Attorney has identified challenges to the enforcement of the regulations related to boat and boat trailer storage, in particular the section of the code that deals with inoperable boats and the duration that those are stored on the property. Staff and the City Council have been discussing this over the last 6 months or so to come up with a solution to address the issue of enforceability of the boat storage regulations. It quickly snowballed into whether they should really look at everything. The Council, in the direction of the Staff, primarily focused on the boat and trailer storage, to identify other glaring issues that need to be addressed, but also look at an ordinance with the goal of keeping it simple,making it easy to understand so the residents and constituents can have confidence in what the ordinance says and know they are satisfying that ordinance which is always a goal. Staff has put together a draft ordinance,he provided the Commission with the entire text of that chapter for context as it includes a lot of storage in the residential area. In the draft ordinance they are just proposing some changes related to boat storage. Barnhart showed the section of the code that deals with the exterior zoning and the residential zoning districts and includes vehicle storage regulations and other things. Primarily they wanted to focus on storage of boats and boat trailers. Staff is recommending some changes that address the City Attorney's goals in terms of keeping it enforceable, removing or suggesting the removal of the requirement that it be operable conditions for the reason that it is hard to prove that, and certainly for a period of more than two years. Staff said as long as the boat is currently licensed to the owner or occupant • of the property, that is what the focus is. One is allowed to store a boat on their property as long as it is licensed. Staff also recommended removing the recommended maximum length provisions;currently City code says as long as the boat is less than 30 feet in length, one is allowed to store it on their property. The question is where is that 30 feet measured—on the trailer or the boat specifically? He noted the argument is they are a lakeshore community,people are going to have boats,and it seems reasonable that people will want to store them on their property. If they are licensed,that is the primary goal there. The discussion for the Commission is whether they have any guidance for the Council as to where it is appropriate within one's lot to store a boat. The way it is drafted here is that boats and occupied trailers may be stored in any yard except for the lake yard provided that a 5 feet setback is provided. Barnhart said this is written that one can store it in the rear yard, side yard, front yard,but if there is a lake yard on the property the 0-75, that one is not permitted to store the boat there. Obviously, that would not apply to storing it in the water as the City's jurisdiction ends at the water's edge there. He welcomes feedback to take to the City Council. He noted they also took out the dispute resolution as it seems to be a dicey situation for Staff to resolve disputes in this manner, so Staff suggests removing it. Bollis is thinking about kayaks, paddle boards and things that are registered boats and watercraft that are commonly stored at the lake yard. Barnhart noted some cities have identified what watercraft is, it is not just something that will float but meets certain requirements. It is certainly something they can look at as an issue and he thinks that is a good comment. He stated some of his earlier drafts had a definition of what watercraft is and he thinks it is probably appropriate. Bollis is right, there are a number of kayaks, canoes, paddle boards that people pull up on the shore and it seems a logical location to store those. Bollis is curious as to how that would affect anybody that has a shore slide for a small fishing boat or jet- . ski. If the jurisdiction ends at the water line,things that are traditionally on a shore slide instead of a dock. He thinks there might be a conflict on those. Otherwise,he thinks the changes look pretty good. Page 1 of 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 • 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler agrees with Bollis. The term licensed might need to be registered,because he believes registration tabs are how watercraft are identified. He thinks about how some people have fish houses that turn into storage sheds and if they maintain their registration on the fish house,they can keep their storage shed so that becomes a bit of slippery slope with a boat. Somehow,he has an idea of someone that has a giant cabin cruiser that they are using as a guest house all of a sudden. Not a perfect scenario under any circumstances but perhaps something to be cognizant of. He understands that the operable condition is a very difficult thing to regulate and he thinks striking that language eliminates some vulnerabilities and some costs for every complaint that is issued. Ressler would like the Commission to look at some other means to measure, whether it is a timeline of any craft without being relocated or something other than the registration. He again said,picking on fish houses that turn into storage houses or auxiliary buildings. Barnhart thinks it is reasonable to suggest from the Commission that the Council consider changes or regulations related to fish houses and the like. Ressler said he cannot speak on behalf of the whole Commission but that is part of his recommendation. Kirchner would be supportive of that. He knows it is a stretch, but for instance someone had a watercraft fire and got it extinguished and it was towed out of the lake on to a trailer and parked in their front yard. Technically, if they went through the registration for a boat that is completely burned out on a trailer it would be acceptable the way this is worded right now. He believes the operable condition is something he would still like to see in there; it would be consistent with junk vehicle ordinances for many cities around . and how that is enforced. He agrees there is a neighboring community to the south and every time he drives down a certain County Road Kirchner passes a sailboat on the side of the road in someone's yard that has been there for the last 6-7 years. He is hesitant to do away with the operational condition and is not necessarily supportive of just saying it needs to be registered because there are ways to skirt around that. Ressler thinks so too. He has an idea that may be a happy compromise. Operable versus inoperable for a boat versus a vehicle might be more difficult to prove; perhaps they could strike the language of operable versus inoperable but retain the language talking about a period of time and define that time by whether it is relocating it to a different location or lot altogether. Is there something they can use as a measurement that does not have to do with registration as that seems like an easy work around. Barnhart stated inoperable is nearly impossible to prove. To Ressler's point,the junk car is usually defined as missing key components such as tires,hood, and windshields. He thinks they may expand that to apply to boats with a hole in the hull, etcetera. Barnhart said he cannot prove that something is moved because he does not check every day. The goal is to try to keep it reasonable and simple. McCutcheon is thinking of those who are restoring a boat because it is technically not licensed yet or operable yet. He is sure that is probably a small subset and perhaps even zero but one would hate to take that away from a citizen whose lifelong dream was to retire and build a boat. Barnhart noted they cannot do it and store it outside. McCutcheon noted if one is building a 30-foot boat,not many people can accommodate that. Barnhart understands and that is part of the balance. While one has the right to develop their boat, the . neighbors have a right to not have boat construction right next door for an indefinite period of time. Page 2 of 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION • Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. theh i i rudent to redact some Libby can certainly see legal counsel's reticenceto doand w y t s p of these things and get them out of here. He tends to agree with Kirchner in regard to the dilapidated or less than sufficiently functional storage. It will still be difficult to enforce, but that and the safety aspects of setback—he cannot answer the enforcement question but considering that so many of these boat vehicles store a substantial amount of fuels on them perpetually and out of water, as fuel tanks usually do not get drained. He pays dearly to store his boat indoors and he has a couple hundred gallons of fuel in the boat all winter. If he did store it like some people would be able to do,if theyredact this and take it out,that setback P P they are removing is a safety issue that perhaps the Fire Department would chime in on. Libby suggested seeing if they can keep the setback from the principal residence as an element of regulatory compliance so they do not have boats that can have electrical problems start on fire in the winter with a large quantity of fuel destroy a home. Bollis commented on the RS district for the lake yard storage. Not to bring up Big Island, but he knows residents out there that have no other place to store their boat if they are storing on land. It effectively has to be in the lake yard. Barnhart noted to keep in mind this is for residential(R)districts. Bollis clarified this does not have anything to do with the RS? • Barnhart will have to look at it closer,but immediately, no. Bollis said they are not talking cabin cruisers but some people keep their fishing boats on the shore slides in the winter. Barnhart said that is a good point and worth exploring. Ressler said it looks like they are proposing to strike the two-year mark as well. Perhaps there is a period of time recognized that says this boat has not moved for 3-4 years and at some point,the City has to have some grounds to require that action be taken. That is not going to be difficult to prove. Barnhart stated it is, actually. He has to document for 365x2 that it did not move. That is the challenge and it is in the code now two years and the intent was to capture people from improving their boat over an extended period of time, but he has to prove it has been inoperable for that two-year period. If one day it worked or floated,it is operable even though there is no engine in it. He said to capture what the main goal is, which is impact to the neighbors, the visual impact, use of property impact, and capture and try to regulate that versus throwing a bunch of rules at people that address some discomfort. That is what he is trying to balance. Ressler asked a different way. He thinks the boats they are referring to that don't move probably wouldn't be removed and floated—at least the ones he is thinking about have not moved for several years and would not even be mobile. But this would at least give some teeth to their language. Whether the City can enforce it or not would be up for debate but at least it gives an argument. He sees Curtis shaking her head. He understands how it could be difficult but if they do not have anything in there it just makes it less difficult to enforce. • Page 3 of 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 • 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart said Kirchner made a point about the junk car regulation and if they somehow expand it into the junk boat, and he thinks there are some avenues there. He thinks that is what he would rather pursue than trying to identify what moving is or those type of regulations. He noted there is a legitimate and pretty well-established junk car regulation and he thinks they can find a way to expand that into a boat or watercraft scenario. Kirchner said from an enforcement standpoint he assumes it would be considered a misdemeanor violation, as most city ordinances are. That puts them into the criminal courts where they need beyond a reasonable doubt;for the City to say it does not look like it moved because the weeds are 8.5 feet tall growing through the bottom of the boat, based on personal experience it will not hold up in court and they will not get a judge to grant based on that evidence. He noted all it takes it someone to come in and say they did move it on this day, at this time, 1:00am in the morning they pushed it 3.5 inches forward. He respects the thoughtfulness that goes into this and how they make it actually enforceable and accomplish the goals. Barnhart said before they go too far,they could have the public hearing. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Ressler hears Barnhart loud and clear. They are not trying to make it difficult to prove but also provide some protection for neighbors in the community. He thinks the feedback provided is reasonable and he is • not sure they will solve it tonight. Whether or not there is a provision of time that says it has to be taken off the site, not just moved 3-4 feet or pulled in and pulled out. He is looking for something that could trigger to at least provide some reasonable doubt—that is all he is after with the time provision. Bollis' feedback is reasonable and he thinks it was heard and there is support for the lake ward setback and depending on what kind of watercraft referred to,for example a canoe,kayak,jet-ski no a rolling slide that brings it on to shore. Setback from principal structure from Libby is worth noting and taking into consideration. Erickson commented regarding vehicle storage in number 3b, item 2 in the amendment it says the vehicle must be set back 50 feet from the property line. He thinks that is generally okay but there might be an exception if there is a vacant lot adjacent to the vehicle, perhaps it might be more desirable for the owner and the neighbors to have it close to the side of the vacant lot. If the lot is vacant and there is no neighbor that will be bothered by it,it might be less objectionable to the neighborhood if it is off to that side. Perhaps if there is some way to allow for that. Barnhart can certainly look into that. He said the Commission is well within their rights to table action on this. He can come back with a revision and they can act on it in April. Ressler thinks the feedback provided is pretty good and inevitably it needs to go to the City Council to decide. He thinks the Commission is all in agreement as to what they want it to say but they do not want to make it complicated and put themselves in vulnerabilities. Based on that,unless anyone feels otherwise, Ressler thinks it prudent to keep it moving and for Barnhart to clean up and present to Council. Bollis has a question on the principal resident required(item 4b) -he is looking for clarification as it says it has to be a principal residence and no boat shall be stored on property or group of contiguously common- owned properties. He noted there are a lot of 50-foot-wide lots that are combined of three different lots and • Page 4 of 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION • Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. there is a house on 2 of the 3. He asked if they are saying there is no storage allowed on the other piece of the 50 foot. Barnhart thinks that is referring to a situation where it is almost a lot of record type of thing. He is not proposing any changes to that but the primary objective here is that people are not allowed to store on a vacant lot. Ressler asked if anyone wants to approve the item. Bollis would rather move to table than approve so the Commission can see the wording of the feedback. Barnhart clarified if the Commission recommends approval or denial it goes to Council. If they table it, they will see it again. Bollis noted if the push it to Council there would be no public hearing for the language. Barnhart said there will not be an official public hearing,but the Mayor has consistently allowed people to speak at the meeting. Bollis moved,Kirchner seconded,to table LA20-000047 City of Orono Text Amendment Related To Boat Storage. • Ressler is not entirely sure they will all be in agreement as to how they modify this language,but the City Council has enough information going after what the Commission is going after. That would be the only reason he would be opposed to tabling. He thinks cleaning this up sooner rather than later cleans up the vulnerability and puts it in the Council's hand to make this revision live. McCutcheon noted the Commission would probably like to button it up and get it done but since there is not a citizen waiting in this situation,he tends to agree with tabling it. Bollis said the other option would be to move it forward with the comments if they could have an official public hearing at the City Council meeting. Barnhart noted the Commission will not have another public hearing,and he cannot require the City Council to hold a public hearing when the Commission has already had one. He said up front, all 7 of the Commissioners will not like the draft ordinance. The Council has given some direction of what they would like to see and there is certainly debate in some areas, but the breadth of comments he has gotten are somewhat outside of that boundary. If the vote is to table, he will come back with something, but he is prepared to go forward with a recommendation of denial on certain aspects of it, which is fine,that is the process. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 2(Gettman,Ressler). • Page 5 of 5 • To: Chair Kirchner and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator ti€(t): From: Jeremy Barnhart,AICP, Community DevelopmentkFSHO� Director Date: April 19, 2021 Subject: #LA21-27, City of Orono Text Amendment related to Plumbing in Residential districts Application Summary: The draft ordinance would remove the requirement for Conditional Use Permits for showers/baths in accessory buildings. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval as drafted. Background The city closely regulates guest apartments and guest homes,to avoid undesired increased density in residential districts. As part of that regulation, any accessory building that includes a shower or bath requires a conditional use permit. • In the last 15 months,there have 8 conditional use permits for plumbing/guest houses, including one of those for a guest house. City staff sees this as an unnecessary burden for residents,given the conditions imposed by ordinance. When plumbing in an accessory building is approved,the property owner is required to record a covenant against the property that states the accessory building will not be: a. Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by this Code. b. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained. c. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. To address this issue,staff proposes the changes illustrated in the draft ordinance. These changes include: o adjustment to the definition of a guest house to incorporate building code standards o Removal of the CUP requirement for plumbing improvements that include shower or bath. It should be noted that changes to the Conditional Use and Accessory uses sections of most residential districts will be necessary to reflect the changes. The two sections(Section 78-228 and 78-229) are provided as examples. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. FILE#LA21-27 April 19,2021 Page 2 of 2 • Issues for Consideration 1. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the changes as proposed. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance • • • Plumbing in Accessory Structures Working draft Dated 4-13-21 Sec 78-1. Guest apartment means an apartment within a principal residence structure for the sole use of the occupants of the principal residence, including their domestic employees or their nonpaying guests, with at least one access door to the apartment from within the principal structure, such door being the primary access to the apartment. Guest house means an accessory separate dwelling dwelling unit in a detached accessory building constructed on an existing undivided lot for the sole use of the occupants, including their domestic employees or their nonpaying guests, of the primary dwelling. All regular lot requirements shall be met by the guest house. For the purposes of this Chapter, a guest house is considered a dwelling unit if it meets all of the requirements of a dwelling unit outlined in the Minnesota State Building Code, as amended from time to time. These requirements include complete independent living facilities with permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. Sec.78-1437. Plumbing. • Because the provision of plumbing fixtures and wastewater plumbing in accessory buildings has the potential to allow such buildings to be used as dwelling units, and because it is the policy of the city to limit residential development density to the allowed densities within the respective zoning districts, plumbing in accessory buildings shall be regulated as follows: (1) The provision of outside sillcocks and indoor water supply shall be allowed in any accessory building. (2) Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing that does not • . •_ _ .. • . _ . . . . -: in any accessory building-,subject to provision of municipal sanitary sewer or a conforming sewage treatment system designed to handle the anticipated flows from such fixtures, and subject to the property owner's executing a covenant providing that the accessory building will not be: a. Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by this Code. b. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained. c. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. (3) Installation of any combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing that includes a shower or bathtub shall be allowed only in an accessory building which meets one of the following criteria: a. The accessory building has been approved for a guest house conditional use permit;or b. The accessory building has been approved for a bathtub or shower in accessory building • conditional use permit. • Sec 78-228 Conditional Uses (Typically found in all residential zoning districts) (2) Guest houses and non rental guest apartments. a. Guest houses, provided that: 1. The lot is at least two times the minimum lot area required by this section; and 2. The guest house is for the sole use of the occupants of the principle dwelling, including their domestic employees and nonpaying guests. 3. The property owner executing a covenant providing that the Guest House will not be: a. Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by this Code. b. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. b. Guest apartments with exterior ingress and egress, provided that: • 2. There is at least one access door to the apartment from inside the principal dwelling and this door is the primary means of accessing the apartment; 3.The guest apartment does not have a separate address; '1. The guest apartment's utilities are not metered separately from the principal dwelling; and 5.The guest apartment is for the sole use of the occupants of the principal dwelling, including their domestic employees and nonpaying guests. (6) Provision of a bathtub or shower in an acce-sory building. Approval shall be conditioned on provision of municipal sanitary sewer or a conforming sewage treatment system designed to handle the anticipated flows from the building plumbing. Approval shall be granted only when the a. The council finds that the proposed use of the accessory structure with a bathtub or shower will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. b. The council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. • 410 the accessory building will not be: Code. 2. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained. Sec. 78-229.Accessory uses. (Typically found in all residential zoning districts) Within any R-1A one-family residential district,the only permitted accessory uses and structures are the following: (17) Guest apartments with exterior ingress and egress, provided that: 1. The guest apartment does not create concerns with regard to parking, or sewage treatment; 2. There is at least one access door to the apartment from inside the principal dwelling and this door is the primary means of accessing the apartment; 3. the guest apartment does not have a separate address; • 4. The guest apartment's utilities are not metered separately from the principal dwelling;and 5. The guest apartment is for the sole use of the occupants of the principal dwelling, including their domestic employees and nonpaying guests. • Item 6 From: Griffith,William C. To: Jeremy Barnhart Subject: RE:2710 Pence-2709 Walters Port application Date: Monday,April 19,2021 1:26:31 PM Jeremy, I appreciate the information you provided on the above matter. I want you to know that my clients are opposed to this application for the following reasons: The prior condition requiring access to Walters Port Lane was intended to minimize the traffic on Pence Lane which is a private driveway and not constructed to City road standards. The second driveway is duplicative of the access on Walters Port Lane and unnecessary. Therefore, the owners will not be able to show either undue hardship or practical difficulties as the criteria to support a variance. The introduction of a second driveway parallel to the existing driveway serving the Vogstrom and Hueler homes is unsightly and unnecessary and increases impervious surface in the shoreland zone. As a practical matter, my clients have endured years of construction activity,code violations, debris and broken utilities, and this project simply increases that activity without legal justification. Please share these concerns with the City Council. Thank you. Bill William C. Griffith Shareholder Larkin Hoffman Attorneys direct 1952-896-3290 mobile 1612-986-7711 1311, 8300 Norman Center Drive Suite 1000 Minneapolis,MN 55437-1060 www.larkinhoffman.com From:Jeremy Barnhart<jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us> Sent: Friday,April 16, 2021 11:45 AM To:Griffith, William C. <wgriffith@larkinhoffman.com> Subject: 2710 Pence- 2709 Walters Port application This Message Is External to Larkin Hoffman. FYI Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director City of Orono 952-249-4626 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: INFORMATION IN THIS MESSAGE, INCLUDING ANY ATTACHMENTS, IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. This message may be an Attorney-Client communication from the law firm of Larkin Hoffman Daly&Lindgren Ltd.,and as such is privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient of this message,or an agent responsible for delivering it to an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error,and that any review,dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately,delete the message,and return any hard copy print-outs. No legal advice is being provided or implied via this communication unless you are(1)a client of Larkin Hoffman Daly&Lindgren Ltd., and (2)an intended recipient of this message. This message may have been sent to you using encrypted delivery. If you reply to an encrypted email, your email provider may deliver the response with encryption. [Forwarding this message may not provide the same encryption safeguards,depending on the email services being used. By doing so, you may unknowingly expose the sensitive content to others via the Internet.] To: Chair Kirchner and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator A From: Jeremy Barnhart,AICP, Community Development q �' Director ` kFSHo� Date: April 19, 2021 Subject: #LA21-25, Eric Vogstrom o/b/o Eric Vogstrom and William and Susan Dunkley 2709 Walters Port and 2710 Pence Lane,Sketch Plan review Application Summary: The applicant is requesting non-binding feedback on a proposal to amend the conditions imposed on the original final plat for the subject parcels, resulting in a replast of the two buildable lots and the outlot. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff requests direction on the proposed changes to the Final Plat conditions. Background The sketch plan is a voluntary 1"step in a platting/subdivision process and gives the applicant 110 an opportunity to hear initial comments prior to formal application. This sketch plan is to review possible changes to a previously approved resolution that approved a final plat. This project is not a subdivision (it does not create any new lots), but rather an amendment to the Final Plat Resolution,and the process to amend these conditions follows the same process that applied them: Preliminary and Final Plat. In November 2018,the City Council approved Resolution 6918 (attached, Exhibit D),which created Pence Lane Addition,which platted the two parcels and an outlot, Outlot A. Included in the conditions of approval were the following statements: 4)Access to Lot 1 (2709 Walters Port)will be via Walters Port Lane only. 6) Vehicular access to Pence Lane from Lot 1 is expressly prohibited. The conditions were added to prevent 2709 Walters Port from connecting to Pence, creating a 3rd lot with connection to Pence, a private driveway. City Code allows for up to 2 lots to connect to a private driveway; 3 or more requires the conversion of the driveway to at least a private road standard. The applicants now propose a new plat and improvements to Pence Lane, including the establishment of a cul de sac conforming to city standards. If Pence Lane is improved to a private road standard,the connection to Walters Port is permissible, however,the conditions of the Plat must be formally removed. • The attached Exhibit B illustrates the proposed changes to the boundary lines, including cul de FILE#LA21-25 April 19,2021 Page 2 of 3 sac and driveways. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET The proposed changes to the boundary lines do not impact any setbacks for the principal or accessory structures. Impacts to the hardcover calculations are summarized below. Section 78-330—Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT LR-1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acres) 140' Lot 1 (2709 Walters Port) Actual 117,610 s.f. (2.7 acres) ±231' @ 75'/ ±411'@ OHWL Lot 2 (2710 Pence)Actual 75,800 s.f. (1.74 acres) ±160' @ 75'/±150' @ OHWL Section 78-1403—Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area—Lot 1 Total Structural Coverage 117,610 s.f. (2.7 acre) Allowed: 23,5422 s.f. (20%) Proposed: 10,704 s.f. (9%) Total Lot Area—Lot 2 Total Structural Coverage 75,800 s.f. (1.74 acre) Allowed: 15,160 s.f. (20%) • Proposed: 3640 s.f. (4.8%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700—Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Total Area Allowed Existing Proposed Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover Tier(Tier 1) Lot 1 117,610 s.f. 29,402.5 s.f. 22,471 s.f. 27,571 s.f. (25%) (22.14%) (23.44%) Lot 2 75,800 s.f. 18,950 s.f(25%) 17,741 s.f. 17,741 s.f. (24.95%) (23.4%) • FILE#LA21-25 April 19,2021 • Page3of3 Analysis. Hard Cover impact. Outlot A was reduced in size, and the resulting remnants were added to lots 1 and 2. Though additional hardcover was added to lot 1 (for the driveway), the hardcover calculations for both lots remain conforming. Private Road standards. The standard for a private road include a minimum amount of paved surface width, and right of way width,for both the drive and the cul de sac: Required Proposed Right of Way Pavement Right of Way Pavement Private Road 50 feet 24 feet 30 feet* 24 feet Cul de sac 50' radius 45' radius 50' radius 45' radius *The existing portion of Pence Lane is a remnant of an early plat, and is only 30 feet wide. The standard width required by Ordinance cannot be met without a variance or acquisition of adjacent private property. Driveway Setback. Section 78-1405 requires a five foot setback for driveways. It is not immediately clear that the five foot setback can be met for both driveways, however this can be clarified in future drawings.A portion of the driveway may impact the wetland buffer,Watershed district approval will be necessary. Access to Pence. Staff has requested evidence that supports Lot l's rights to access Pence Lane, • a private road. The have submitted a court order,which the City Attorney is reviewing. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received for this sketch plan. Issues for Consideration 1. Are there any issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff supports the reconfiguration of the lots, pending resolution of the Pence Lane Right-of-Way width issue. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Proposed layout Exhibit C. Hard Cover worksheets Exhibit D. Resolution 6918 • PC Exhibit A LA21-25 Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 03/17/2021 Address: 2709 Walters Port Lane Orono,MN 55331 Parcel Number: 2111723230059 Land Use Number: LA21-000025 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 Name: eric vogstrom Applicant: Company: P y: Address: eric@vogstrom.com Contact Information: Associated Contact: Mark Gronberg markg@gronbergassoc.com Associated Contact: eric vogstrom eric@vogstrom.com • Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: Subdivision Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application ❑ Appeal of Admin Decision ❑ Concept Application ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Application ❑ Subdivision Application ei Subdivision Exception ❑ Vacation Application ❑ Variance Application ❑ Ir Applicant Signature: PC Exhibit B LA21-25 SKcrc' CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY s�'t BILL & SUE DUNKLEY AND ERIC VOGSTROM ,► , OF LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1, PENCE LANE ADDITION NCE. R > • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA i • 4,, 4, , . n / 0 30 60 120 j d •MrMdlr%M �e� /NR INI•110011 1. • SCALE N FEET t :��• s, sas 41141 - i - S 8 ..). ..._v,c ..oma_.- ! - f E%6TN0 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: I Lot 1.Book 1,PENCE LAtE ADOrt10N((D.AI.y) _ - ! Lot 2.Block 1,PENCE LANE ADDITION(vrgetrom) ,..I Y 1 ' •: denotes Judiciol Imomark fomd l I •: denotes iron marker fount . I - - +., o: denotes'van marker set _ =' ,. I i OSSA: denotes winging spot Nevelt,mean sea:duel down +51 ` \ I i• '�a \\a\a-1 I MI: denotes Proposed spot Nemban - TN+� - * 14 g --917.-_: &Mote.misting amntoir.mem sea level dotum `i .)- denotes proposed some,to, 4 � M 1, k This survey Intends to how the boutlmAs of the Move descfLW property.and i _;,:4`, `%`\\\ l , r' the locationfbeating houses,retaining ate,drives,pot elmotion.,lopoyaphY. ` •1 d visible"hardcover,and the proposed Ipcallan of 9ara0• 1 ' .\ '' thereon It does not purport to shoe my other improvements encrtoachmenh, t m J 4 1 1 GT.11.la } o.:,• t' 4 i F1(i� ' 11 ral.1.1 ".•a"- p p, r ,[ r r 111 �emna+r res R�IO,DO 1 , x,. %.I•/ � Mi�.ro�Gift .l .�, lw.•I S 89.2r 17•E /I �a'�'"'c' , ' 2.70 S ' ,' / tYIP IIPUF ; .I Ir:COLLT ` 7G.l l /// I/ I I I (1/,1� T . I ew--� % � ..,.., d � /"!Tr/I - 1`J - / g....na�'w mu`imirs« 411111 . _ .,.,.-„,... --\., COMO QT 7l jje'_.3— �',i 1N " N 83.35<3 e'rri��.!4,r y `f x "t" I - / f .,—.11.9t 5,....4...iC�.'ni N tR bk., :! t 1. �� '-" I .alis"' r--"'—`7...4"-...,\,k .... �v .• �--1,'k., y 24,E 1 ."m•� ;' n - i ..�: \�.�eBi/ 'i"'MY s-\i_s�rs --zz��1�RQ` /ri i!1 ', i a] . mss} _ / „T, _,,,,,-- m 1____ ,,,,-.,„ ,. . , ______,- , „, - ,it, ,,, eV" -'" 4 -• .&-...,, , 4,,.s. „yy. ,-. ... ' F, F) 1 \, p, _ .gip, _ 7F�r'" �, y,.. �r 4-.)!,,,,t1,�Gys°'°" `rl l fn/6' EXISTING LOT 1 ;``r }�7`'. .\;`Y � r; Hoo�,.Ot AREA•2.53-.C. r o/'/ - _' l"1 1 e o sy - ,(A) •C. `, I 's,n Joq ,1 144 e a as• sa n•'w tAf 30 ur � s t "7 A. '' 1 1 4 `# '. 11� - vE705TNG HOUSE�� f I LAKE ., SLI � 7,p .�` � ,/ in l_0 T 2 yFich s�' 1 ,els �, ='N T MINNETONKA \v \\VA x:91 I v,, _ `* S )10e/4 .1 EXISTING CARMAN'S BAY I �I m i7` i , r NOUSSE I l w ..,.w • 12715 �,\\,,i,„,1. I I ti. S. ( C4 '' �,. 4 ./ WS Mend + \ t` of v=tr-zi I h•r.6y cartIly Slat hN. w«r:e,4°n> GRONHERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. __ sod at i ern d7 eta Lana be PROJECT 7-7-les CIVIL 00015553.LAND N5VEYOHS WS PWMNISS —7. e,tM sa. eqstt Aril.//1 1-mks 405 NORTH YILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE,WI 55.}56 Mark 5.armMWarmest*.ot*Lp/• e.Nen1275.1 - 20.0.11,• 051-473-a1A, PC Exhibit C LA21-25 City of Orono 0 LA,o Hardcover Calculation Worksheet z.) Property Address: Ic_____!,;, �: 4/a 5 GcJir(.7ri. OC3•F ZIA"E- �t3/C4 f .rL!F Qe,,r,t ke F7 Prepared by: Date: '` (i to Q,vh E"R. G r h 7 C its rr E:.r _ //,,,1', ' .°`'r-9e--r.-> 23 ,r,...- Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 ~-Z---&i,...2..0__ Step 2:41Q OSED HARDCO�VEit 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 t Survey (Square Feet) (Example) (Garage) (24'x 30') (720 S.F.) A A,"..?rl.i 6 l' -i -4- /�-c f JD, 7 P Y S.F. B c/}c'V i Co S''-r,,;,' 85 S.F. C !,6CK r yTFp-S t/ 2 2 S S.F. D lti/F/i 0 COA./t. til rl1i i,_-•f; fi'r'i,-a r,1:i 75`a'2. S.F. E e''`j Cf' F�1c,li_' F .06-1-4: ,f ZY S.F. G T7 v" IS O S.F. H S7crP,r- a (4/,ILk 2 3 S.F. I ,/o,t;-ios sr6PS r, /3 S.F.-' J _F1S'F l' ei 3 u S.F.i • K f'f{r/o t t.✓4L1< 1/ .3` S.F. L �F E;'?,' L , s 4'.,f,:. •` 7419' S.F. M !/o1,j2< f.5- '6y S.F. N P .4;.;F1i 1(-1;:‹ .. t'O S.F. S.F. 0 5,e J A L FTI;/1-•,--- /t :16 S.F. ' P 1-1./A 4 P.c evoICI) l r 2 S.F. 0 AFri,A-di A: cr444" S EX/TY,•- 1//ti1G,Tc0 /27 S.F." R Co,vcitcrc Patio Ex/r�c,c,c._ /7 S.F. S "7-61.•_7 ,p' , 3 S.F. T (Add 71FAf€tt`%.:t,: (//'o/409'E401 5,2,2 S.F.1 U Gs'/✓. .4- 4/c PAPS .i S.F._ y'_. :a . 3 42,6' V _PFCk 4 s-*t"t'!'itr �Ak'f Px•Pr//.,1: 2 `t ° S.F. W - 1, txit1 v'Cc,4.-frt S/ ov S.F. X S.F._, S.F.., Z 28, 26[ S.F. (1) Total Proposed Hardcover .2-3,•.1‘.-,4S.F. Excludable Hardcover(See City Code Sec 78-1684): _ S.F.,, Q • /5'r-,1„r/,,:• a,/.vAI< r Eeetr'/ F yecc 0 1Cr S.F. S.F. S.F. 1 S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover 1?0 S.F. (3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line(2)from line(1)] 2 7, 57/ 2-t--Afr7/ S.F. (4) Total Lot Area // 7, 6/O /b>;-$04- S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)+(4)] 2 3, ii`:' g X • Subdivision Application-January 2016 This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein;however,if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code,the Code provisions will prevail. Page 19 • City of Orono 7r�%v� Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: Z(1-1PIL641 71O PF/�� G t vtJF Fi �OP g T/ a+1fElH0,t Prepared by: Date: GR c a.re(t u' 4- A.r 3\J(1 A:r.: -2 Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) - 6 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 —17-2./7^z, Step 2: PROPOSED HARDCOVER In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey(survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, s well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Total Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width (Example) (Garage) (Square Feet) A f24'x 30') (720 S.F.) 1yt/ti�t 'tiSR'J S.F. B FR 0/-7 _77-0GP C /AQ,t-T 5-/4 eA 4.k f 9%'D S.F. "o /FCA t T tEPS /3 ? SF E �JGc7 82 .. F }pkr�r't‘7.1- 7," .tI>P'/t/ Sr 5€ - Y Y =-S..S.FF. G /Fee=//t 7 cy ' r'!/Ji7 re -. l r0 . 4/9T /i•- c4. _S', Fit AT.Fc.-.i. AJf I;,J,'G�'' H C 4rrvA!E"'c' j'A 1? ' _ 3 6 H c,? S.F. 2 o S.F. 1• .c"(-7-it ',!t i ''Lit G1 /z'r t"',Vii jai" 1 (let-it ELi t=x A�;rr' ,/P ? S.F. t"/tr.1-r' 4OtrtBFk 1.....4,,t-: /S S.F. K R ✓EQ-of raG ' tc 5 S.F. Li?rt ris Y/(R0 `f76 S P S.F. M C'r/. 1`T!.;i L..LiR4.t<.5. `iy S.F. N sr e e S .7-,:, . F: ,4- ti- i 3$ S.F. 0 7.4aF LA/✓Qi1vc7 0 S.F. P C Clic-i:.Fv 774200 A7 jr:.--,, ` ;ffi,/, 413" S.F. Q RQ7/ ,(- t`r -gymr ' r - /Y4 S.F. R D ETL r4:2E'� /i GT/ S `�' 5�" S.F. L01,-/£f1 et'T1O I17—EP T F Y!!-rVi' C_ 'f.,,,R1 /-el 7-7cZ 22.4 S.F. U 23 S.F. V _ S.F. W S.F. x S.F._ Y S.F. Z S.F. FL, o 95 S.F. (1) Total Proposed Hardcover / - S.F. Excludable Hardcover(See City Code Sec 78-1684): .Z NFig'1'r /O SF Ar fi ',wFiRLe ,. C'r) S.F. 7 /�t "F(r i E-r; /err. .c.-.'4 t S" S.F. At�c`i-,.*i zi,ti/F :Am�c.L 5 q-. ;'?9 S.F. CR AE TA LAi'.✓G 1414 L t. 1 .S l YD S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover I S.F. (3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line(2)from line(1)] / 7 7'Y. ".S� S.F. (4) Total Lot Area - S.F. 75, Q- -6-,; y`,/ S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)+(4)] 2 `tG 3. % • 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 PC Exhibit D LA21-25 -OAT CITY OF ORONO y RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL • NO. 6918 F c, likESHOvs(c A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLAT OF PENCE LANE ADDITION FILE NO. LA18-000092 WHEREAS, the City of Orono (hereinafter the 'City") is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "City Council") has adopted subdivision and land development regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, William M. Dunkley and Susan K. Dunkley (a married couple), are the owners of the property addressed 2709 Walters Port Lane (hereinafter the "Owners"); and WHEREAS on October 26, 2018, the Owners applied for Final Plat approval to • subdivide the property into two buildable lots and an outlot for the property legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1, Carman Bay Heights; and Lot 4, Block 3. Walters-Port. Hennepin County(hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on October 8, 2018, the Orono City Council granted approval for the Preliminary Plat per the findings and conditions of Resolution No. 6907; and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2018, the Final Plat application was deemed complete; and WHEREAS, the Owners have agreed to comply with all conditions of Resolution No. 6907 and has completed or has agreed to complete all other requirements of the platting regulations of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, based upon the findings of Resolution No. 6907, the Orono City Council and the City of Orono does hereby approve the plat of PENCE LANE ADDITION, Hennepin County, Minnesota (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A), subject to the following conditions: 1) Development within PENCE LANE ADDITION is subject to the Conclusions, Orders and Conditions enumerated within Preliminary Plat Resolution No 6907. 4110 p CITY OF ORONO • RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL y� GSC. NO. 6 9 1 8 `i ESHOv-t 2) Dedication on the plat of the perimeter Drainage and Utility Easements as required in Resolution 6907. 3) Plans and Specifications. Development within PENCE LANE ADDITION is subject to the City approved plans and specifications: a) Final grading, stormwater, drainage and erosion control plan, dated 11/16/18. b) Final stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), dated 11/16/18. 4) Access to Lot 1 will be via Walters Port Lane only. 5) Access to Lot 2 will be via the private driveway (Pence Lane) that connects to Kelly Avenue. This access is shared with 2715 Pence Lane. • 6) Vehicular access to Pence Lane from Lot 1 is expressly prohibited. 7) The common Pence Lane driveway shared by Lot 2 and 2715 Pence Lane shall be maintained to provide an acceptable driving surface at all times. 8) A covenant to outline responsibility for all future maintenance activities related to the stormwater facilities shall be recorded. 9) A title opinion for the Property and certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the Property shall be submitted. 10)A Letter of Credit and escrow to ensure that all site improvements are installed and maintained to the City's specifications and satisfaction, shall be submitted. 11)Payment of Development Fees. Total due: $16,550.00 a. Final plat fee: $500.00. b. Park Dedication Fee: $5,550. c. Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee: $10,500.00. 12)Financial Guarantee. The Owners shall submit a final plat review escrow in the amount of $2,500.00 with the final plat application. Additionally, the Owners shall provide a financial guarantee to ensure the completion of site improvements. The City Engineer shall complete an estimate of improvement costs, • including but not limited to storm sewers, landscaping, grading, erosion control, utilities, 2 V.OAje.‘ CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL • y� G ' NO. 6 9 1 8 .'CES HO's driveways and stormwater management facility construction, and the applicant shall provide to the City a financial guarantee of 150% of the improvement costs. 13)The City Clerk shall release the plat documents for filing only upon certification by the City Attorney, Community Development Director and City Engineer that all requirements of the platting regulations have been satisfied. 14)The aforesaid plat shall be filed by the City of Orono with Hennepin County on or before May 26, 2019, together with a certified original copy of this resolution and executed copies of the easements and covenants pertinent thereto. 15)No building permit shall be issued until all fees paid, and all documents recorded. 16)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 26th day of November, 2018. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: 0°\--Q3222 • ir Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor • 3 L w ern w x • • d ,..,0 LL z. 8 . I- I co w z z . I Z n ti a IiiO5 S a s 8 f z i Z 11111 ; 3 i 0 L 4 ; i1P tui l I• f i 1111 ! i R il i _1 , _ csi J E T liPIR 4 j „� s a _ ff f m 0 W s y Z 11 i c0 11 IR L i g Will 11 . I 1 184 DR k 1.. oz- 1 2 3 t it r os . W 1 , 3 eta Mil JIG: i3 li �a Al lIII u- €gnu- r24 1 g rc� R 2 1 • F- w 00 i w = 0 CO �r...... ^m >- N O• z I a% 11---___Z'!___."-.......___.,:______ 1+, m o gg Qco cm I- Va OE 3 S! �� I. , Y Za § it, o I++ Er i W W U % I W Z H I " a e /3°�e St 11 1 s --1), „ „ X\ ' ilil i 41 e o i itgii 0 Dean en 11,+s.w n % / \ e. ■p r i. M i — — — 5� 9 bye j/ ;� B �s ccw .I li %441 O / gg-1 z b Z .— • I O ! Q _ S a5 -r._ = rte__ �# r 11!iI k N p E7 €.G1 ----;<' w �"a ESE g i ca \',0`,.k i $ I o W 3 �I � ob '�/ ttI �1, _ w Z ` .I I m : / ;/ I 1-:1 0 • l I . • _ 4. a:s Z a L� u+wM IR I- /- !i Iii z z '�...ua.asnlurun' 1g J 9; ...Ar.. i3 f4 6 O el_ ale lb 2 w (= a Ha < ._. _...!s I i11 " g a A., LIJ F.V, 5-� - 6 'i CI Z CO Om < a I I I' eA - 311ti BQS ¢ S CO I-LJQ I 1i I § 0 = ui I ; m sI ` .-- I id \ IIh ill .L ' _-" \ g lb 1 ; r1 ci *1 s I 0' I PA • n-- ----km ••od3 I yh!\j �'- \Mu3.M.MeIB iI \-N\ I s i Iii A 1 0 Pi 1 v .�oitno \ j I �\ \ I V \ I., T1s !9g '1.m ,4VIr''/ iLE Ny�6� z • O. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Jon Ressler, Commissioners Chris Bollis, Bob Erickson, Matt Gettman, Scott Kirchner, Dennis Libby, and Mark McCutcheon. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and City Planner Laura Oakden. City Council representative Matt Johnson was also present. Chair Ressler called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Libby moved,Bollis seconded,to approve the Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 16,2021 Kirchner moved,McCutcheon seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of January 19,2021 as submitted.VOTE:Ayes 7,Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. LA21-000016 SCHIMMEL CONSTRUCTION, 1405 REST POINT RD, VARIANCES (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) David&Kathryn Wiemer,Applicants,were present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Curtis stated the Applicant proposes to build a 125 square foot addition on the south side of the home and an approximate 500 square foot deck on the lakeside. The addition is shown on screen in red and the deck is shown in yellow on the survey. The property is non- conforming with respect to area,width,hard cover,and setbacks. The entire home is located within the 75- foot setback from the lake. The proposed addition is shown to encroach within the 30-foot rear street setback and the 75-foot lake setback. The deck is shown within the 75 foot and average lakeshore setbacks. Existing hardcover on the level today is 22.7%with almost all of the hardcover within the 75-foot setback. The 75-foot setback is the line that starts here [noted on screen] and goes diagonally through the driveway. The Applicant is proposing an increase of approximately 604 square feet for 27.2% total site hardcover. Hardcover, lake setback, average lakeshore setback (ALS), and rear street setback variances would be required. Curtis noted the lake and rear street setbacks overlap eliminating the buildable area, creating a practical difficulty for development of the lot. The existing home has an approximate 2,000 square foot footprint which does result in reasonable use of the property. The 500 square foot deck and 125 square foot addition are relatively minimal, however, result in additional encroachments in both the rear and lake setback areas and add to the non-conforming hardcover on the property. The neighboring home to the north is located approximately 30 feet from the lake, determining the ALS which is not shown on the survey but she can provide an aerial photo. The Applicant's proposal results in additional encroachments with the deck proposed at 23 feet and the addition to the home as close as 45 feet to the lake. Staff has received no public comments on the application. The practical difficulty analysis was provided in the Staff report; regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds that there are no practical difficulties supporting the current variances to further encroach within the required setbacks to increase the total site hardcover above 25%or to place a deck within the ALS. In summary, Planning Staff recommends denial of the variances as proposed. Page 1 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. David & Kathryn Wiemer, Applicants, moved into this house in November 2019 after 35 years in Minnetonka. They looked at over 35 properties and this was"the one." They have loved living on the lake and have had a little over a year to understand how they live and use both the indoor and outdoor spaces. The goal with the variances is twofold; they would like to convert what is now a small office space into a four-season porch with a door to a patio or a deck. There are also tables,chairs, and a fire ring outside that are regularly used and in the warmer months, the legs sink in to the grass. They are outside a lot to enjoy the lake and the views and look forward to working with the City to respect the interests of the various setback requirements while trying to achieve the goals and dreams of using and enjoying the property.Ms. Wiemer is available to answer any questions. Mr.Wiemer noted a photo with a room in the foreground that is the current office they would like to expand to the south;they can also see some chairs and a grill to wrap a deck or patio around on that side of it. Bollis asked if there is currently any deck or patio out there. Ms. Wiemer said there is nothing, they just have wood chips. They bought the house from the original owners who built the house in 2000 and there is overlap between the two setbacks, so they know there is already a challenge here. The Applicant noted they would like to use more of the outside space because there really is nothing right now. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. Ressler noted it is always difficult when there is lakeshore involved in setbacks. Erickson asked who prepared the 3D color graphic. Ms. Oakden said it was the Applicant's contractor. Erickson noted those were very well done. McCutcheon thinks the big thing is the allowed hardcover, it is 25% and the existing is 22%. With the house being built behind the lakeshore setback, he will throw that one out the window because that just makes sense. Then it is a skinny lot so the 30-foot setback from the road seems kind of ridiculous,too. He noted it is a unique situation and that is why they are here. He clarified the hardcover is where he draws the line—they can do things but within the hardcover limits is his initial thought. Bollis tends to agree with McCutcheon as the hardcover is so close at 27.2% for what they are asking for and he feels it could be modified to meet at least the hardcover. He agrees with the setbacks—he thinks they need to throw those out on this one and if they could meet the hardcover it would be a yes for him. Kirchner agrees with the comments that have been said. It is a unique lot and he agrees the hardcover does not seem to be implicated by the shape of the lot,rather the addition and amount of the addition. Ressler said there seems to be support for hardcover and not support for additional structure. Bollis clarified no support for above the 25%hardcover but the setback requests seem to be fine. Page 2 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Gettman thinks they are all in agreement that the 25% is really the stickler,but he would prefer to have the reduction of the overage above the 25%come back away from the lake so it is not contradicting everything the Planning Commission has said on everything else. He noted the red area could potentially go away and the yellow area reduced to get under the 25%; he is not trying to redesign but it is back to a preference. Ressler noted that is the difficulty, they try not to change what is there but it is nice to have additional feedback if it goes further to Council. He noted they could make a friendly amendment or make a motion one way or the other with the feedback they have provided. Gettman moved, Kirchner seconded, to deny the application as it exists with the comments the Planning Commission has made. Curtis asked for a point of clarification, noting Gettman mentioned removal of the building addition, the red area. Is the Planning Commission specifying in their recommendation that the hardcover be reduced in a specific way or just pull the hardcover further from the lake and keep in the 25% limitation. Gettman suggested that no comments be added to the denial because the City Council can hear the comments. It is an outright denial of the application as it exists. Curtis is looking for clarification on the discussion point. Gettman replied yes, if the Applicant can pull it back from the lake, it is not necessarily removal of the entire red area. Libby agrees with Gettman. Ressler thinks Staff has already made those comments and he tends to follow the Staff recommendation. This is always one of the tougher ones to find a solution around. He does not have anything that would disagree with the comments already made. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 2. LA21-000017 JOE THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,DOCK PERMIT ON ROW (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) Joe and Sara Thull,Applicants, were present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicants own 480 Big Island which is a non- lakeshore property on the eastern portion of the island. They have owned the property for a number of years and it is located between two platted, undeveloped rights-of-way which connect to the Bay Place right-of-way and connects to the lake on the eastern side of the island. There are many interconnecting undeveloped rights-of-way which are accessible to the public but no developed roads on Big Island and non are open for vehicular traffic. Code section 78-567 provides a mechanism for inland or off-lake property owners to request a permit to install or construct private improvements, such as a dock, on public rights-of-way. A dock would provide access to the Applicant's property and this provision only exists within the RS district which consists of Big Island and Deering Island. Pursuant to this code the Applicants seek a permit to place a seasonal dock on City right-of-way. Two dock permits have been issued in the past Page 3 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. 20+years. Resolution 4456 attributed to 220 and 130 Big Island granted in 2000. Resolution 2038,referred in the Staff report as Permit 2038,attributed to 230 Big Island granted in 1986. 230 Big Island is an inland lot and that permit was for a dock that existed on the property on that location in the right-of-way since approximately the 1950's. It was granted subject to a number of conditions including the following verbiage:"should there be any other requests from inland property owners to use this site for the installation of a dock to their properties, this permit is automatically revoked."Permit 2038 appears to have remained in effect since that time, and has been transferred to the subsequent owners(Fred Brunjten/Nancy Farnes). Ms. Fames has provided comment on this request,which was emailed to the Commissioners and placed at their seats, in addition to other comments received after publication of the packet. Staff finds the Applicants'request generally meets the criteria outlined in the code for approval. Knowing the subdivision code has recently been changed to allow for easement access as another option for inland lots in the RS district only, the Applicants have attempted unsuccessfully to secure a private easement from neighbors including Three Rivers Park District as detailed in the submittal. They made the permit request in February. As a result of the request and based on the language in the resolution for Permit 2038, it should be considered to be revoked. Staff has concerns that the holder of this permit continues to desire dock access. There are two additional interior lots on the east side of the island, both just to the east of the Applicant's property—they do not have lake access and may in the future request a permit for dock on the right-of-way as well. The City should anticipate requests from these property owners at some point.The other remaining properties on the east side are either lakeshore properties or in common ownership with a lakeshore property,thus providing the opportunity for a dock. Staff recommends the dock access question for inland lots be looked at comprehensively by the City. A number of public comments were received and included in the packet as Exhibit I; most of the comments received oppose the dock. Staff recommends approval of a dock with the following conditions: 1. The location of the installed dock shall be approved by the LMCD, and shall be approved by the Public Works Director. 2. The permit issued shall be valid for one year, and shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the council at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date of issuance except upon written notice from the city to the permittee at least 30 days prior to the anniversary date. 3. The approval should identify which property(ies) has rights to use the dock, and each owner shall be permitted one boat slip for use by the owner of the property exclusively. 4. The dock shall be removed for the winter season. A winter storage location should be identified and approved by staff. 5. Dock sections shall not exceed 6-feet in width. 6. No canopy shall be erected Curtis noted most of those comments are from the code section that allows the permit. Staff further recommends that a comprehensive solution to the dock access question be considered. After the packet was finalized last week, Staff received an updated request and narrative from the Applicant in which he addresses some of the comments he received. His updated request includes an alternative to share a dock with the current permit holder for 2038. The Applicant can speak to his request. Kirchner said in reference to Permit 2038,he asked Curtis to note where that dock is situated on screen. Curtis pointed it out and said at the subject location. Ressler noted the way the City's existing permit that is currently granted becomes revoked in the event that another request is made. Page 4 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Curtis replied upon request from another property owner it is automatically revoked. Ressler asked if Staff understands why they would have such language in that approval. Is it because they are trying to be sure they revisit the whole situation all over again rather than an addition of another permit. He asked what it is that they typically see in those situations for such language? Ressler understands he may be asking Curtis to speculate. Curtis noted she cannot speculate.Curtis said they do not typically see that kind of language.The language in the 2000 permit—although it mirrored some similar code-required conditions—did not include this. So, a permit that was issued after resolution 2038 did not include that automatic revocation language. Curtis could speculate a lot of things but she would rather not. Ressler stated it is a landlocked lot so the only access right now is by right-of-way and trails? Curtis replied that is correct. They are pedestrian access but there is no dock access. She thinks the Applicant can better describe the situation but she thinks they have been anchoring and swimming to shore as they have used the property over the years. Ressler commented he knows there is a lot of interest based on the feedback the Commission has seen and there are a lot of voices that want to be heard. He said in the essence of time they want those voices to be heard, but at the same time the Commission requests in the public comment section that people try to limit their comments to 5 minutes or less if they can. If one is in agreement with a previously stated comment, he asked if they could just state that they support the previous comment instead of restating the comment in different words. He noted they appreciate any consideration on that. Joe and Sara Thull, 480 Big Island, showed a few slides on screen to give more context. Ressler is right there has been a lot of feedback and comments regarding his application and he hopes to add a little more color to that. He noted he has owned the property for over 12 years and the intention was always to build a cabin out there. They have approached the City and have a permitted shed and have started construction on that off-site in a modular way and will move that out to the location. Mr. Thull reiterated the intention is to eventually put a cabin out there. As mentioned,they have primarily accessed the location by anchoring near the lot, swimming,and then hiking across the Three Rivers location that abuts the property. Mr.Thull noted they have been members of the Power Squadron in the past but that is probably 8x the distance and really not feasible. He said they have aging parents and kids and they want to find a more permanent way to access the property as they invest in it. They are not developers or property flippers, and have sought multiplied easements, one with Three Rivers, noting that roadway comes just short of the lakeshore and unfortunately Three Rivers denied that. The Applicant has also pursued easements with neighboring properties and has not found a path forward on that. He looks at the property rights and does not think they are asking for what other interior lot property owners have been provided underneath the code. They are seeking,basically,those same rights afforded to others and there is some precedent in terms of the spirit of multiple lot owners collaborating and sharing an access point to create a feasible solution for those interior lot owners. He showed a few sites they identified in working with the City—some are better than others— and they identified the site they felt was most feasible. Some criteria was feedback from the City Planning office regarding location 1,also the site in terms of its level terrain and the low impact in terms of the right- of-way, really the walking path, proximity to the property and that the Applicant is not looking to use the site as a construction access point as that will all be done through the primary access point on the other side of the island. He noted they are really looking at minimal lakeshore disruption and that was the criteria Page 5 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. they looked at. Two additional requests if this would be approved. No 1) if a new permit is granted that the previous permit be noted in that document to show the continuity of this site being used as an access point for many, many years, and he thinks officially a lot longer than that. He asks that it be noted as he thinks there are questions as far as the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District(LMCD)as far as the access and the rights-of-way. No 2) he asked for a reasonable spot to put a seasonal dock in the winter months within and around the right-of-way. He thinks there is probably a similar thing granted for the other property owners that are not hauling their docks. In looking across the various easements,there are various uses of those to store things currently across Big Island. Mr. Thull noted there was a lot of feedback and addressed a couple of points within his application. Regarding the impact to Ms. Fames and Mr. Brunjten as owners of 230 Big Island,Mr.Thull supports that they should not have something taken away,and thinks that language created a win/lose scenario and that is not fair. As a property owner,he believes their rights need to be withheld within that. Although sharing a dock is not a perfect scenario in a perfect world,this is a unique situation and they are trying to balance each other's rights. Mr.Thull noted there was a question of the use of turning the right-of-way into construction and taking out trees and vegetation. He clarified he has no intent to do that and that would be less convenient. They are looking for a walkway path from the dock up to the inner road that leads to the property through the right-of-way. He stated there have also been some questions about the LMCD and compliance. Does the site comply,should it be grandfathered in? He thinks that is a question for that group. In looking through the code,there are many points within the code itself that lay out different ways that unique situations are addressed. Whether it is pre-existing conditions for permitted use, practical difficulties, a unique situation, setback variances provided. He thinks one of the main points of that is so that docks are not stacked up on top of each other. At this access point,looking to the left, he showed a photo on screen of the neighboring location; in another photo he showed the neighbor's dock and location. Mr. Thull said the use of variances are obviously sprinkled throughout the LMCD documentation so if this property is not grandfathered in, he thinks given the unique situation he would imagine 99% of the issues they deal with are ultimately how one accesses the lake versus this situation which is how one accesses their property. Substantially different in terms of how they are trying to use this going forward. He said it would seem reasonable as it states, reasonable in terms of under the circumstances and in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. In conclusion, Mr. Thull thinks his application fits the code,there is already a permitted dock there for a single dock so no material change in terms of should a dock or can a dock be placed there. He is in favor of sharing the dock and also believes the site may qualify as either grandfathered in or a variance as part of that. Mr. Thull noted they have had a long-term dream of building a cabin out there and are now in the position to actually move forward with that. Mr.Thull has one question in regards to the information about the Public Works Director and what it entails getting approval from them. Curtis believes the Public Works Director,being that it is a City right-of-way,would want to have approval of the dock location should it change,or in addition to the dock that is there,and where that storage location would be in the winter. Bollis thinks the Applicant has done a good job of answering the neighborhood questions and asked if they would be interested in adding those as additional conditions to the permit if the Commission gets that far. Such as no modification to the platted rights-of-way, Bollis assumes the Applicant is not using this dock for recreation but just for access,that type of conditions. Mr. Thull said sure. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:33 p.m. Page 6 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 • 6:00 o'clock p.m. Jud and Aleya Champlin, 210 Big Island (next door), live at 2643 Thoroughbred Lane. He thanked the Staff and Commissioners for doing all this and noted he is kind of surprised that his neighbors Freddy and Nancy are not here, but Freddy has had some health problems the past couple of years and Mr. Champlin guesses the snow storm kept them away. As Curtis will attest,there are very deep feelings going back from them and their belief as to how that dock should be allocated. Mr. Champlin said this is a tough thing because by filing this it automatically takes away Freddy's dock access. He noted it is a very kind thing of Mr. Thull to offer some alternatives and at the same time it gives this quite valuable piece of property to Mr. Thull—Mr. Champlin can certainly understand the predicament. In his reading of the City code, one of the requirements for granting this access is that there are no reasonable alternatives. Mr.Champlin thinks there are reasonable alternatives and they have not really explored them all. Other than being asked for an easement,this is the first he has heard about it and he thinks if they went around the island,usually people team up and help each other and it is generally a pretty good community. It is when this sort of thing starts happening is when some heads get butting. One thing Mr. Thull said is that the primary access point is down next to 460 Big Island and in an email to Mr.Champlin,Mr.Thull also said that is the most convenient access way. One does not have to put a dock there to get access;the requirement of the City's code is not that one access a dock, it is that one has reasonable alternative access. It is very easy to nose a pontoon boat in there, even at the end of the Power Squadron property that is very close. There are other dock locations that could be looked at as well. Having trouble putting in a septic system,a shower,and running water might be good reason to renew the membership to the Minnetonka Power Squadron and as a past commander he can say that would be very good. Mr.Champlin thinks if the Commission went around and asked neighbors,they would find a lot of people helping out. There is a reason that Freddy does not have a dock there: he does not want that in front of his house. This pretty much shows there are reasonable alternative ways to access property on the island. Freddy does not have a dock. He asks his neighbors to dock there,and can use Mr.Champlin's dock any time,he pulls his pontoon boat right up in front and walks right through. Mr.Champlin's other concern is the pathway through the woods—right now it is all wooded —there has not been a survey done recently so he is not quite sure where the boundaries are but he thinks it will either be going over Mr. Champlin's property or Freddy's property or through the woods. If they are familiar with the island it is a big effort to increase ground cover and leave things as natural as possible and Mr. Champlin would hate to see those woods come down. He understands the intent is not to do anything bad there but intent is very hard to put into a permit. Once people start walking up there,who knows what will happen? As another alternative, Mr. Thull is welcome to use Mr. Champlin's dock up to 10 days a year,just shoot him a text and let him know,don't bump the boat into it too hard,but he welcomes that and is pretty sure he would find a lot of other people that would support Mr.Thull as well. They like people on the island and like them doing good things on the island. He appreciates all they have done for Big Island. Aleya Champlin agrees with her husband's comments and asked to go to Exhibit Ito show the pictures that were taken on Big Island on March 6. This is what the shoreline currently looks like and they think there is a property marker with a stake in the ground for 260 Big Island. The rectangle is where the Champlin's think the proposed dock is going to go and there are a lot of trees and native growth there that would have to go and she just does not want to see all those trees gone. Dave Saari,21035 Oak Lane,Greenwood,along with his brother,owns the property at 260 Big Island. The family has been cutting the grass on the City's public property for probably the last 50 years and their grandparents built the cabin that Fred Brunjten now owns. He noted they have been on that property for a while and appreciate the fact that it has not been developed and it is a fine piece of property. The Commissioners heard from the neighbors their enthusiasm for that. He suspects there will be a larger conversation about the use of those access points regarding the interior lots. In his notes to the City (he apologizes for them arriving late) there are east and there are west bay alternatives and he thinks it is a Page 7 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. bigger story than simply accessing the lake via one particular location. To that end, there are a couple of access points on the west bay, four on the east bay and asked how is this all going to look? They certainly do not want to have a marina next to their property and if that becomes the access point for all inland properties on the island,that would be a significant concern. He thinks what would be fair is west going to the west and east going to the east. From a larger standpoint they then discuss the strategy of all the inland owners as opposed to simply one. Suzy and Peter Thiss, 270 Big Island, have thoughts of one land owner, one boat, one slip. She does not understand the wording that Fred and Nancy's dock permit can be revoked;does that mean Fred and Nancy can revoke it from the Thull family next year? Ressler noted that is one of his questions, as well. Again, they have to speculate because it was several years ago that it was issued, but he ventures a guess that the reason it is worded that way is because they want the opportunity to revisit that permit at the same time of issuing another one; and that is the trigger for the event. If there is another application for a dock,they want to be able to change the approval or the use of that—that is the only speculation he might have. It will probably come up in the discussion among the Commissioners. Ressler does not think it is a black and white situation where now there has been an application, one loses their rights to a dock. He thinks it becomes more of a situation where it is revisited because of the trigger. Ms. Thiss noted it is a very passive, quiet place with deer, foxes, and all kinds of things in that meadow. She noted everyone enjoys it, and so does nature. The whole idea of making it a multiple dock or dock sharing,Ms.Thiss does not think it is a marina and thinks that the Power Squadron is a super viable option for someone who needs to get to their place,use a bathroom,take a shower, as all those facilities are there. She stated the whole idea that someone can put up a cabin and not cut down trees and make more paths...this past year there were ATVs going around the island with chain saws at night and there were people cutting paths and running the camouflaged 4-wheelers like crazy. She noted that is the kind of stuff she would hate to see because there is so little land in the City, it is important to preserve Big Island and to look 10-15 years down the road and keep it that way. Ted Hanna, 490 Big Island, said his parents have owned the property since 1968 and he got it about 10 years ago. He would be a little concerned about having some access in the future. He lived over in Greenwood until about a year ago so it was mostly just winter ski access for him with a tent platform and a teepee. He noted it would be great to get out there and visit some more—they do not have a family cabin which used to be on the south side of all this for years. He would ask that some kind of solution might be figured out for some kind of dock access. He noted one comment mentioned a piece of land where Three Rivers is—he asked if that would ever be up for imminent domain. Curtis clarified the piece of land that is blocking the right-of-way continuation used to be all one little sliver. Mr. Hanna sees that those pieces are now deeded to the adjacent landowners. Curtis replied that is right and this one is owned by Three Rivers and they have declined—she believes one of those reasons is the funding source that they used to purchase the property prohibits granting an easement or selling it for any of those uses. Mr. Hanna asked the Thulls if they have thought about using something down on that side. He noted he may be in front of the Commission in the future to try to figure something out, as well. Page 8 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Nancy Farnes,230 Big Island,approached the podium with an eleventh-hour package she is delivering,but she only brought five and can get more for the following day. She noted her property is directly affected by this application. In the exhibits,she showed that it started off with 7 inside lots back in 1980-something. This application is revoked and given to 484 Meadow because he transferred over about 4-5 different private properties. It also adds five additional inside lots to the three that he says are remaining. So now they are kind of over—going backwards—in 35 years,using this as a solution. Ms.Fames feels that history dictates there is just not lakeside for accommodation to 3 or 7 inside lots. Furthermore,they bought the cabin with the value included at$45,000. If this is taken from them and revoked,that value in 35 years of maintenance, taxes, appreciation,just tanked to possibly $20,000 with a property they cannot use. She noted they have spent substantial time improving it, maintaining it, and in the last ten years they have endured several emergency and physical health crises that have deferred them from enjoying the island as they always have with three generations of family. During that time period, which they are still winding down, their kind neighbors have allowed them to use their dock, have helped maintain the area, and in goodwill have even cut the grass and maintained the permit without Ms. Fames even asking. They have even offered to bring the family out there as time has only allowed for them to go out about twice a year, and that is basically to rake leaves, clean up inside and out, and go home. This is while everyone else is out in June and July on the boat, in swimsuits,enjoying life. She sees an end to this in about a year or two and she finds this is the first time in 35 years anybody has tossed out the words"revoke our permit"and it is very,very disturbing, unsettling, and emotional. Ms. Farms does not find any precedence to do that. Perhaps they revisit the wording on the two existing permits so they do not have to go through this grueling, tumultuous, and emotional process, because there just simply aren't enough and everything has been exhausted, in her opinion, by the City. She will happily work with Ms. Curtis and has boxes of records she can help assist with for clarity to the recommendation of this Board, if necessary and required, if they still feel it warrants a recommendation instead of a permanent solution. Ms.Fames has one final thought: it is assessed at$165 [$165,000] with no lakeshore but the permit. The 480 application bought his property just ten years ago, there was precedence, and it was valued at $9,000. Ms. Fames stated it makes it unsellable, and their investment in real estate,and their retirement,is now gone over one dock permit that was properly secured through the proper channels that had a boat since 1942 with that cabin. Initially it was a handshake on the family to the owners.When Ms.Fames' family bought it,it converted to this permit. The only permit they created for this unique property and unique situation. Ressler thinks it will be difficult to read through the handout on the fly. Curtis believes the materials Ms. Fames has provided were emailed to the Commissioners this afternoon. Ms. Fames said [off microphone] there are photos. Ressler clarified for those watching online, the comments were that the handout included some photos reiterating the difficulty of being inclusive of adding more dockage. Chris Bollis,470 Big Island, is just adjacent to the Applicant's property. He only wants to comment about access on the west side of the island. There is a road right-of-way that comes in—he does not know if it has a name—it is just by 460 Big Island. Curtis pointed it out on screen. Page 9 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Bollis said that is probably the only vehicle access on Big Island where one can drive from the ice or from a barge right up on there. He noted they have used that for septic pumping,well drilling,and in 2005 (he thinks)there was a big fire on the south end of the island and they hauled in fire departments,pumps, food, bobcats, and it was a big problem. He wants to say that the access by 460 Big Island should not be considered as a dockage area because it is the only spot one can get on the island with any size of a vehicle to do the service work that is required. Ted Hanna, 480 Big Island, said that however many years ago this thing was platted out—the spirit of the whole plat to allow people access to their interior lots—he thinks that is something that should be considered for future use, as well. As Ms. Fames said,they combined a bunch of lots so it cut it down but there could have been a bunch more people there asking for it. He thinks that was the spirit of the whole thing,to have roads and not just for fire access. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:59 p.m. Ressler noted this is a tough one. Kirchner said first and foremost from what they have heard at the public hearing, he does not believe that there is ill-intent upon the Applicant to revoke the existing permit 2038. He does not believe that was the intent but is just an unfortunate wording. Regarding the permit, he noted Staff, City Council, and City Attorney could have further discussion on this - he does see at the bottom it states that the City of Orono further reserves the right to review this permit for any reason as deemed appropriate. Kirchner would say this would qualify as a reason to review it rather than to automatically revoke it. Therefore,that may give some leeway and some time. He agrees with Ressler's remarks that this is not a black and white,just because there has been an application there should be a revocation of this permit. With that said, he appreciates the Applicant's due diligence in exploring options, speaking with City Staff, evaluating those options,asking for easements,and speaking with the Three Rivers Park District. Where Kirchner struggles with this application is that he feels this could potentially create a bit of a ripple effect, in that if the City will allow this for one lot,will it produce other similar applications. In that case,he believes that perhaps there needs to be a larger scale approach to this, to find a solution if a dock is deemed appropriate, rather than try to band-aid this several times over the next many years. That is Kirchner's biggest hang-up, and he is concerned that by allowing one parcel this, it merely kicks the can down the road. He thinks there needs to be a larger evaluation of this to find any potential solutions and work at it on a larger scale. Libby said there was quite a bit of material given to the Commission fairly late in the game so it took him a while to actually read through some of this and it was very interesting. As they were listening to the cases of the property owners, there seems to be a reason for him to ask Staff a question. He noted there was a submission by Aleya Champlin, 210 Big Island, which is very detailed. Having had many, many years working with LMCD and MCWD (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District), he is quite familiar with their authority and functionality. He does not know how to ask this any other way than to ask Staff if they have known that whether one of the MCWD functional assessments of wetlands has actually been performed on this public access they are talking about. Curtis brought up Hennepin County's wetland map. Libby stated the information provided to the Planning Commission is quite well-delineated and is very specific in the categorical classification. He said he is bringing this up as a point of information. He has about 30 years of living on the lakeshore and having the blessing of having a dock and owning lakeshore, Page 10 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. so he is familiar with properties that have riparian rights where they actually have lakeshore and a lot and are allowed to put it up. He noted the circumstances of these permits are quite unique, pretty much in Orono, Mound, and surrounding municipalities there are common areas and permits that can be lotteried and assigned. However,when there is a landlocked property without any access to the lake,he can see why this is a very sought-after commodity and why it is a point of discussion. He thinks when they see in the City of Orono —particularly within the auspices of the LMCD — one cannot really even have a dock on property that is owned even if they have riparian rights, unless there is a structure there. Libby said this is a different situation because they have landlocked properties that do not have access. If in fact MCWD has delineated this area and has conservation and wetland attributes, he wonders if it could have been an oversight by the City over these many years that people are talking about. He feels it would be prudent before a decision is made by this body to find out whether or not this type of a survey has actually been done by the MCWD because it could actually be appropriate from a conservation standpoint. Curtis does not believe the area identified on the map indicates a wetland. She believes it indicates what the commenter has written here,that it is noted as a MCWD conservation area but not a wetland. Libby said it is a conservation area but does not need to be a wetland to be a conservation area. Curtis noted they do not have any specific protective requirements over that and if there are other regulatory bodies that have input on this application, they will not purport to assume what they will decide. She clarified they have to talk about the City issues. If this issue moves forward,she thinks the Applicant would need to inquire with the Watershed District and the LMCD what regulations and rules they need to follow. The location they are talking about has had a dock so that is what the Applicant is asking for as well. Libby said that answered his question. The idea was that they do not want to overlook anything, many circumstances when talking about variances or applications they have other authority that they have to wait on. If this is something that had perhaps been overlooked,the initiative that the property owner took to put this together and bring it to the Commissioners attention was of great value. Ressler asked to clarify that the existing permit in place and others alike all share something in common which is they are either lakeshore property themselves or common ownership in lakeshore property. Curtis asked Ressler to restate the question. Ressler asked if the existing dock permits have been issued. Curtis replied they are for inland lots. Ressler said for all of those that have been issued. Curtis clarified they are for inland lots and they have two permits. Ressler restated a different way:regarding both inland lot dock permits,do they both share these two things in common. They are either owners of lakeshore property as well or have a common ownership. Curtis replied no. Any of the other inland owners that they have not identified in addition to the Applicants and the two adjacent are the only ones that are not connected to a lakeshore lot, in ownership or actual lakeshore. Page 11 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Bollis stated the Commission has to look at what is in front of them and the code allows provision for inland lots to apply for a dock as long as it does not affect the neighboring properties. The first thing this does is affect the neighbor at 230 Big Island because it revokes their dock permit. He thinks any solution they come up with should really consider 230 Big Island and make sure it is an equitable solution for both. He does not know that they can find a comprehensive solution tonight for all of the inland lots,he thinks they have to look at the permit requests the Commission has in front of them and design the permit so that it is similar to what they did with the original one 2038 and have some language in there that if additional people apply,then that permit gets revisited and looked at again. He knows as a permit holder it is not fun,but it seems like it could be an easy solution right now and the Applicant is being neighborly about this and agreeing to additional conditions on the permit to appease the neighbors. He noted there are endless conditions they could put on it so the neighbors feel comfortable he will use the dock for the purpose he wants to use it for. McCutcheon said he did not hear from Ms.Fames about what she thought of the shared dock solution. Ms.Fames said the information delivered to her was late on Friday and she has spent 24 hours a day trying to pull something together. She said absolutely not. In the packet she delivered,it is not even feasible and the space does not even allow for two boats with one dock and/or two docks. Bollis stated it appears that it would require a variance from LMCD for that dock. Ms. Fames noted all the traffic,the drainage area that has been tampered with, it is full trees there on both sides which she showed pictures in her packet. There will have to be surveys, trees cut down, damage to the island, and it just seems a bit much when there are still so many other empty lots. For 35 years there has been the same amount of empty,vacant lots. Perhaps a lottery when somebody turns it in to amend the language. Bollis clarified Ms. Fames' short answer is no, she does not like it. Ressler is not entirely in disagreement and thinks what the Commission has ahead of them is addressing how the City would like to grant access to all of these inland lots. It is not going to stop here and he thinks there are other considerations here. If they take out the water and were looking at this as if it were a road accessed lot, it would also be difficult to figure out how to provide access because there is no road there. Ressler thinks it is prudent for the City to decide how they want to handle all of these inland lots. One of the public comments was about a fire—the more structure they have out there besides the fact that it would take away trees which the City is generally opposed to—they are also creating a fire hazard with the more habitation and structure there is,the less ability there is to extinguish that structure and the greater risk of losing that structure as well as the rest of the island. These are his concerns as they talk about developing these inland lots which are generally not even accessible and that is probably one of the reasons why the price tag is what it is. He said of course the property owned by Three Rivers would be a great alternative to provide some dockage for inland docks and he understands that Three Rivers is not in support of providing an easement for that. He does not know if that resonates something on its own. Ressler said before they make it easier to access these inland lots,they need to address the additional use and access of the inland lots. He does not know that they will be able to decipher that tonight. Once they get through that,then they have to talk about lot sizes and what the building envelope is. Being able to provide private sewer and septic or well becomes a concern,they have minimum setback requirements, reasonable access requirements, and there is a lot to unpack. He personally feels this is an issue they need to figure out but Page 12 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. he is not sure they can figure it all out today. He noted they rarely do this but he would almost rather table this so they can have a City work session. Curtis noted that is an option. There has been a lot of feedback and public comment tonight and she still believes the City Council is the decision maker and should be holding that conversation between themselves and the issue. She said if the Commission is going to table it, she thinks they need to have a good reason to table it, and a direction to go. Otherwise, Curtis thinks they can provide their feedback and comments and move it forward to the Council for their analysis. Gettman moved,Libby seconded,to deny the application as is. Gettman moved so as to move it along and have the City Council then send it back to the Commission or have a workshop. Barnhart thinks it would be appropriate that the Commission recommend that the Council direct Staff to examine a more comprehensive solution that could be reviewed. Gettman amended his motion. Gettman moved, Libby seconded, to deny the application as is, including Barnhart's additional comments and the feedback that has been provided. Erickson is in favor of tabling. The subject matter demands a comprehensive approach and he can think of more things to avoid than to positively strive for at this particular moment. It is a conflict subject,and they have many property owners here,each with their own view. One thing the Commission needs to remember is at the top of the pyramid of priorities for land use is the Comprehensive Plan; in looking at the Plan and many portions of the ordinances as well, the phrase "preservation of property value" comes up over and over and over again. It is a very basic part of the code. Part of that overall, they want to make sure they are not doing or suggesting anything that would detract from someone's value, so the Commission needs to preserve whatever they can. Also, there is often a chance for improvement where property values can be improved. He said they need to be very careful how they do that, keeping in mind that there are some changes and many people are resistant to any change. However,the City is involved in some very positive changes on the east end of Big Island in improving trails,access for the handicapped,and so on. From what Erickson is hearing about these trails, one has to be pretty athletic in order to get there and as one is there they may not even know if they are on the frail or on someone else's property. If some modest improvements were made to mark the trails and some minor grading done to make it more walkable,that would be an improvement to him but perhaps not to everyone. He thinks tabling is important. Ressler noted that was his perspective as well,this one is a little more complex and has a lot more moving parts and he is generally opposed to tabling as well. If they table, that gets them back together as a Commission before going to the City Council. Because there is a motion to deny on the table,if that passes, it would go straight to the City Council. If the Commissioners are comfortable with that,they should vote as such and if they are not,they would need to table it. McCutcheon thinks City Council wants to know as that is the Planning Commission's job. He thinks they are all on the same page in needing to look at this holistically and where they want to go. He does not know the entire history of the island and at first glance there is a property owner who needs access to their lot,he understands that people do not want new docks in front of their lots, some of these lots are very small, and Page 13 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. what can one really do with them. There is a history of all the different access points, and it needs to be looked at holistically to find a long-term vision of where this will be 20-30 years from now so residents do not need to keep going through the emotional—they saw what happened today—there is a lot to unpack here,the Commission should tread lightly and be cautious,and get all the data. McCutcheon would support denying it just to get it in front of the Council and go from there. Ressler asked Staff if the Council decides they want the Planning Commission to weigh in further on the issue, do they have the right or ability to do so. Curtis replied yes. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 1 (Ressler),Abstain 1 (Bollis). 3. LA21-000018 GLENN SOLIE, 3500 BAYSIDE RD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) Nancy Solie,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a bathroom including a shower in an accessory building to be constructed. Staff recommends approval pursuant to the standard conditions for CUPs for plumbing. Nancy Solie, 3500 Bayside Road, noted her husband Glenn had to catch a flight and the Commission may know more about it than she does. Ressler noted it is pretty straightforward,they have seen it before. Ms. Solie noted they are not planning on renting it out, it is just in the backyard. Curtis clarified it is a gym with a bathroom. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Bollis moved,Kirchner seconded,to approve LA21-000018,3500 Bayside Rd,Conditional Use Permit as applied based on Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 4. LA21-000019 TODD ZIESMER, 3440 BAYSIDE RD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Todd Ziesmer,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)to allow honey bees on their property. Planning Department Staff is recommending approval. The definition for farm animals includes honey bees and farm animals require a CUP in the LR1A district meeting City code standards and those conditions are lot size and setbacks. The Applicant is proposing to have 2-4 hives with a maximum of 6. City code is silent on number of hives allowed. The Applicant has Page 14 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. been coordinating with the University of Minnesota bee squad to find the best fit appropriate for their size and location of property. A narrative is included in the exhibits with additional information from the Applicant. Regarding setbacks, one of the conditions for the CUP is that all animal structures are required to be 75 feet from all property lines and 150 feet from adjacent homes. The Applicant submitted a site plan indicating all these setbacks are met with the proposed location. Another requirement of the CUP is that 1 acre of their land is dedicated to dwelling and 1 acre is dedicated for each animal unit. This is just over 2 acres in size so Staff feels this is met. All conditions outlined by the City code are met with no adverse impacts anticipated for the use of hives and honey bees. The Applicant submitted comments of support from the neighbors and the issues for consideration,if the Planning Commission finds it necessary to impose any additional conditions in order to mitigate any potential impacts by allowing this CUP. Ressler clarified this is a CUP, setbacks are being met per code,and there is support from the neighbors. Oakden replied that is correct. Todd Ziesmer, 3440 Bayside Road, said it is very straightforward,no variances, everything complies, and he is looking forward to his new hobby. He sent out letters introducing the project to 8-9 of his neighbors and has received very positive feedback. One neighbor had just a few questions and the primary concern some have about bees is them being a nuisance. He wants to clarify that honey bees are very different than wasps. Honey bees forage on natural plants, nectar, and pollen, so they will not be bothering the hummingbird feeder, oils,jellies, and when sitting outside honey bees stick to the flowers and the plants. Mr. Ziesmer noted they are amazing and he and his wife have been contemplating it for a couple of years. They are enrolled in the University of Minnesota bee squad online program and it is very fascinating. All neighbors that have responded have said they are looking forward to the bees helping out all of the gardens and flowers. Erickson noted Mr. Ziesmer may want to go up to 6 hives and asked if he would be comfortable with a limitation of not more than 6. Ms.Ziesmer would be fine with that,yes. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. The neighbor two doors down Ms. Solie, 3500 Bayside Rd, noted she received the letter, she is totally in support of it, and thinks it is fantastic. She is very much in favor. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. Ressler said setbacks are met, neighbors are in support, and there is a recommendation from Erickson to limit to 6 hives which he thinks is smart because if it turns into a larger operation the Commission can revisit it. Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA21-000019, 3440 Bayside Rd, Conditional Use Permit with the recommendation of a cap of 6 hives. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0 5. LA21-000020 JACOB BROWN, 4085 WATERTOWN RD, VARIANCES (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Page 15 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Jacob Brown& Stacy Kromenhoek,Applicants,were present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicant is requesting a lot area, lot width, front yard setback, and side yard setback variances to allow for a new home on 4085 Watertown Road. The Planning Staff is recommending approval on these requested variances. Currently the property has a non- conforming single-family home which is outlined on the survey on screen. The property is non-conforming. With respect to area,it is.64 acres and measured at the road is about 93 feet wide. This is the RR1A zoning district which is a five-acre zoning district, and 300 feet in width. The Applicant noted overall height is roughly 35 feet from final grade to peak height, following the City code calculations for defined height, Staff has actually calculated the proposed height of the home to be 28.3 feet so it is meeting the height requirements of City code. Oakden said the Applicant has identified practical difficulties,the overlapping side yard setbacks,as seen on the survey there is a 50-foot side yard setback and she showed from the north side and the south side completely overlapping, eliminating that building envelope. Oakden noted the substandard lot area, lot width, and there is also quite a bit of slope in getting to the narrow part of the property. Staff agrees with the Applicant's findings of the reasons for practical difficulties. The Applicant is proposing to move the house further away from the front yard setback than the existing home footprint and working to bring that home closer into conformity. The existing home sits about 21 feet from the road and the Applicant is proposing a farther setback of 35.4 feet from the road. The required front yard is a 100-foot setback. The Applicant worked to find a narrow house design of 28 feet in width to try and accommodate some spacing and side yard setbacks, closely maintaining that existing house footprint. The proposed home was designed to create as large setbacks as possible and the Applicant is requesting 19 feet to the property line because of the proposed deck stairs, and 23 feet to the west property line and that is measured from the closest point(noted on screen)due to the strange configuration of the lot with the small jut-in on the property line. Lot area and lot width variances are because the lot is substandard in the new house construction. Staff found supportive findings for the proposed variance included in the memo. The Applicant submitted letters of support from the two abutting neighbors. Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area, lot width, front,and side yard setback variances. Ressler noted the zoning is what is making this a bit of a rat's nest as there is 19 for one side setback and 23 on the other;they are going to 35 as proposed to 21 right now for front yard setback. Oakden stated that is correct. 21 was the existing house and 35 is the proposed house, so they are bringing the house slightly farther back away from the road. Ressler said improving the position. Oakden replied that is correct. Stacy Kromenhoek and Jacob Brown, 1025 West Cove Lane. Mr.Kromenhoek thanked the Commissioners for voting for the bees-as future neighbors in that area they are thrilled to hear that. She also thanked the City Planners who were immensely helpful as this is a very difficult process and they really held the Applicant's hands. As the Commissioners see they have a very unique lot, she is difficult but quite pretty and they are trying to make a best attempt at meeting all the setbacks or at least improving their compliance to the setbacks. They chose a very narrow house design that would probably fit within the room they are standing in now and pulled it as far back off the road as possible. They also tried to reorient the house—it was sitting at a funny angle on the lot—so they could get equal setbacks on both sides. They have met with the neighbors and spent a considerable amount of time talking with them and let them know they were trying to make it equal on both sides. She noted it is about 22 feet on the other side except for those stairs Page 16 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. and they were all amenable to that. They also received an additional letter of support from the neighbor across the road,the owner of Dandelion Farms. They also intend to build the home to make it fit the flavor, character, and charm of the neighborhood. It is a very rural, residential area and the home they chose reflects that farmhouse style as well and really complements the neighbors' designs. Ms. Kromenhoek noted they read through the Comprehensive Plan as it was important to her to understand what was expected and she thinks they have made all best attempts to meet the variances and the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Ressler noted they have an existing condition that is being improved as far as front yard setbacks, side yard setbacks are reasonable and are just being triggered because of how it is being zoned. They have support from the Staff. He asked if there is anyone opposed to the application as presented to the Commission tonight. McCutcheon replied no and it is a pretty conservative house footprint to be honest. Ressler agrees and thinks they have approved different things more aggressive than this. Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA21-000020, 4085 Watertown Rd, Variances as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0 6. LA21-000021 JOHN NEWELL, 1485 6TH AVE N, PRELIMINARY PLAT (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) John Newell,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. In front of the Commission is a proposal for a three-lot subdivision to take the existing 24-acre parcel, split it into three buildable lots and one outlot for a road. This project was the subject of a sketch plan about a year ago and the project is fairly consistent with that sketch plan. Barnhart highlighted the access for the project would be off of County Road 6 and Hennepin County has provided some comment as to what they would like to see in terms of additional right-of-way. It seems to him that they are accepting the location as proposed,though they may require some work near the right-of-way to preserve a site visibility issue. Staff supports the project subject to Hennepin County approval of the access. Staff has also reviewed it from a City Engineering standpoint and provided some commentary in terms of additional changes primarily related to storm water management. Staff recommends approval subject to those conditions also. All three lots will be consistent with the City's zoning ordinance in terms of lot area and lot width; all three lots have adequate sites for a new home in character with the neighborhood,and for two septic sites located for each lot. Staff suggested that approval would be subject to identification of those septic sites. Each lot will be served by an on-site well. During the sketch plan process the Commission had some comments about connecting to the sanitary sewer. Staff does not recommend it as a requirement, although it is certainly feasible, because it is not immediately adjacent to the property. Generally,they require sanitary sewer to be immediately adjacent to the property before instituting a requirement to connect to that. Each lot meets the minimum size requirements for dry buildable area and meets the lot width requirements in terms of the requirements for the zoning district. For Lots 1 and 3, the measurement will be off the new road outlot A, and Lot 2 frontage will be based on the distance at the building setback and does meet those requirements. Staff has asked for confirmation for Page 17 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. that number,as Staff's computation came out above 235 feet and they would like verification for that. The Applicant has provided a storm water management proposal that the City Engineer provided comment on; they also expect the Watershed District to provide some additional comment. There are a number of basins or infiltration areas scattered throughout the development and the unique feature of this project is that throughout the area is Long Lake Creek which is a tributary to Long Lake. That water has been identified as impaired and is part of the strategy of the Watershed District to improve water quality of the Long Lake Watershed District. Barnhart would imagine the Watershed District will have some comments coming in terms of recommended conditions so Staff has tagged on to those and suggests approval subject to the Watershed District comments as they complete their review. The project provides a landscaping plan based on the length of the road. Previously in the City's rural areas,they have tried clumping of trees rather than a suburban, tree every 40 foot on center, and the plan reflects that goal. Planning Staff is recommending approval of the project subject to four conditions: 1. City Engineer comments 2. Hennepin County approval 3. Watershed District approval 4. Confirmation of two conforming septic sites for each lot. John Newell, 1485 County Road 6, stated they have hired someone to come in and verify those two septic locations on both lots and that has been done. There are some hoops to deal with regarding the Watershed District and Mr. Newell is working with them at this point in time. They have requests for an easement across Lot 1 in order to be able to access the pond; he has already given them full access and he thinks it was applied for back in 1995 and never followed through on. Mr. Newell thinks the documentation is already there and he does not believe that will be an issue. Mr.Newell is a landscape architect so the first thing he did when he bought the property was to machine-move trees, so they already have a regimented landscaping appearance to it which he hopes will conform. He knows that will have to be determined once they have that plan in place. Bollis asked regarding lot width for Lot 2,was that a question? Barnhart replied the comment was that Staff just wanted confirmation that it was over 200 feet; his math shows that it is over 200 feet and he just wants confirmation from the surveying company in the final drawing. Bollis assumes the easement for the Watershed District is through Lot 1 at the end of the cul-de-sac. Barnhart replied yes. Bollis asked if that will eat into any of the dry buildable on Lot 1. Mr.Newell replied it shouldn't; there is already an existing easement or entrance there that he planted off as much as he can leaving about a 45-foot path to be able to still get access in, which should allow just about any kind of dredging. He believes that is the reason they want to be able to get back in and clean that pond should it silt-out.Mr.Newell noted they just examined it last year and when he spoke with Heidi there were no plans to do any type of work,except there is one thing up by the dam that they are proposing. Bollis asked to clarify that it is not an access easement, but more of an easement to do work within that wetland. Page 18 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr.Newell replied that is correct...it is so they can get into that pond. Barnhart said to be clear, he does not know what the full intent is for that property or easement and that is why they are deferring to their comment. Mr.Newell stated their intent, once they clear the mortgage, is to actually donate all the wetlands. So,the property that is directly below Lot 3, those wetlands and the pond would be donated to the Watershed District. Gettman asked to go to the second to last page of the packet showing the lots that border the lake. Mr.Newell noted they do not border a lake. Gettman understands that. He noted on screen the area below the blue line and asked if those are three separate,oversized lots that have houses on them;how will they be affected by the wetlands area. Barnhart does not understand the question. Gettman noted it is for the Applicant and he is trying to make sure he understands what Mr. Newell is talking about regarding the wetlands; is the area that has the house right now below that or south of that or is it the area west of it. Mr. Newell said it would be north of his house, pretty much due north. It is really where the creek runs through the property. He clarified it would be the pond and the entire marsh area. Gettman noted those three properties to the south,those are not Mr.Newell's properties. Mr. Newell replied no, there is an easement driveway-wise to access those two lots, the point and then Megan Dayton's home;those two lots at the point. Gettman was trying to clarify that those two lots will not be affected by this plan. Mr.Newell replied no,they will still have that same access through the same driveway. Ressler noted the application as proposed is not to donate those wetlands so it is still intact based on the application in front of the Commission. He appreciates the color and the clarity as well. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Ressler noted the Commission has seen this before and has feedback from the past they can memorialize if necessary. There were some changes recommended and Staff noted the previous feedback was supportive of City sewer,but that it is not required. Barnhart stated previously the Commission suggested it, Staff notes that it is an opportunity but does not recommend it as a requirement. Page 19 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler noted Staff recommendation is for approval and Lot 2 is the one they wanted to clarify on record as a condition to verify the width is 200 feet. Barnhart replied yes. Bollis moved,Libby seconded,to approve LA21-000021, 1485 6th Ave N,Preliminary Plat with Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0 7. LA21-000022 ALLIANCE BUILDERS, 15 STUBBS BAY ROAD NO/ PID 32-118-23-34-0006, VARIANCE(STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Efim Shukalovich,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Ms. Oakden noted the Planning Commission saw this property not too long ago. The Applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance and Staff recommends approval. This property received lot area, lot width and side yard setback variances in December 2020 (LA20-000071). That application established an 18.2-foot setback to the north, and a 15.5-foot setback to the south property line for side yard setbacks, addressing the neighbor's comment to create maximum setbacks to the north at that time. The Applicant recently purchased the vacant property and is proposing to place the new home at a similar front setback as neighboring properties have and as the previous house footprint had but does encroach into required setback areas not previously approved. She said the Applicant is maintaining the same side yard setbacks but it a new house footprint so it is a new volume and house footprint within those required yards. The Applicant is proposing a rambler style home with a walk out basement. The new application is maintaining the side yard setbacks but a new home footprint within the setbacks is being proposed. That new footprint within the required yard is the trigger for the Commission's re-review and this additional variance. The property is non-conforming with respect to area with 1.22 acres and in width at 123.77 feet,where the RR-1A district requires 5 acres in area and 300 feet in width, so it is substandard. The Applicant has identified the existing lot width as practical difficulties supporting the requested variances. Staff finds there are inherent practical difficulties with the substandard lot size and the building envelope of the property. She noted a lot analysis was done as well as an analysis of that side yard setback. Staff has found supportive findings for practical difficulty requirements and is recommending approval of the proposed side yard setback variances with that new footprint. She noted on screen there is an overlay where the yellow is the proposed house footprint and the blue was the original approved; the white is the overlap. Originally there was some approval of house on the side and the front and the new proposed house is pulled back about two feet from the original for the front yard, but they are proposing more massing on the north side and the south side with the wrap-around deck. Most of that additional footprint is to the rear of the house so it should not make too big of an impact from the street. The Applicant also reached out to that neighbor who commented originally and spoke with them about maintaining that setback. Ressler clarified the new footprint of the front yard setback is the trigger and asked if that is correct. Oakden noted it is the side yard setback. Ressler clarified and said they are improving the front yard setback. Oakden replied that is correct. Page 20 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler said it is a substandard lot and makes the building envelope difficult to comply. Oakden said that is correct. McCutcheon said the Applicant reached out to the neighborhood and the neighborhood was fine with it. Oakden believes they reached out to the neighbor and if the Applicant is here,he can speak to that. Oakden did receive an email from the Applicant stating they had reached out and communicated with that northern neighbor. Ressler asked if any neighbor has gone on record with their feedback. Oakden has not received any official statements or signatures. Efim Shukalovich,Alliance Builders,was the initial buyer who provided the plan to the seller when he was applying for the variance. He is looking to build a house for a family, his wife and three girls. They are changing the house a little bit and moving the deck from the back to the side and that is the house they have come up with. He hopes for approval. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Kirchner appreciates that this has been pushed back a bit from the front and it does not look like,where he is assuming a garage would go based on the proposed driveway, looks no further forward than what the Planning Commission had originally approved. While he understands there is additional footprint towards the rear, it still appears to maintain within the original setback. Barring any neighbors concerns or public comment against it, Kirchner does not see an issue with this as it seems to conform for the most part to what they had already approved specific to the side yard setbacks. Ressler agrees and thinks the Staff recommendation of approval is prudent based on the mitigants that have been presented. Kirchner moved, Bollis seconded, to approve LA21-000022 Alliance Builders, 15 Stubbs Bay Road No/Pid 32-118-23-34-0006,Variance as applied. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0 8. LA20-000047 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO BOAT STORAGE (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Staff presented a summary packet of information. The City Attorney has identified challenges to the enforcement of the regulations related to boat and boat trailer storage, in particular the section of the code that deals with inoperable boats and the duration that those are stored on the property. Staff and the City Council have been discussing this over the last 6 months or so to come up with a solution to address the issue of enforceability of the boat storage regulations. It quickly snowballed into whether they should really look at everything. The Council, in the direction of the Staff, primarily focused on the boat and trailer storage, to identify other glaring issues that need to be addressed, but also look at an ordinance with the goal of keeping it simple,making it easy to understand so the residents and constituents can have confidence in what the ordinance says and know they are satisfying that ordinance which is always a goal. Staff has Page 21 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. put together a draft ordinance, he provided the Commission with the entire text of that chapter for context as it includes a lot of storage in the residential area. In the draft ordinance they are just proposing some changes related to boat storage. Barnhart showed the section of the code that deals with the exterior zoning and the residential zoning districts and includes vehicle storage regulations and other things. Primarily they wanted to focus on storage of boats and boat trailers. Staff is recommending some changes that address the City Attorney's goals in terms of keeping it enforceable, removing or suggesting the removal of the requirement that it be operable conditions for the reason that it is hard to prove that, and certainly for a period of more than two years. Staff said as long as the boat is currently licensed to the owner or occupant of the property, that is what the focus is. One is allowed to store a boat on their property as long as it is licensed. Staff also recommended removing the recommended maximum length provisions;currently City code says as long as the boat is less than 30 feet in length, one is allowed to store it on their property. The question is where is that 30 feet measured—on the trailer or the boat specifically? He noted the argument is they are a lakeshore community,people are going to have boats,and it seems reasonable that people will want to store them on their property. If they are licensed,that is the primary goal there. The discussion for the Commission is whether they have any guidance for the Council as to where it is appropriate within one's lot to store a boat. The way it is drafted here is that boats and occupied trailers may be stored in any yard except for the lake yard provided that a 5 feet setback is provided. Barnhart said this is written that one can store it in the rear yard, side yard, front yard, but if there is a lake yard on the property the 0-75, that one is not permitted to store the boat there. Obviously,that would not apply to storing it in the water as the City's jurisdiction ends at the water's edge there. He welcomes feedback to take to the City Council. He noted they also took out the dispute resolution as it seems to be a dicey situation for Staff to resolve disputes in this manner, so Staff suggests removing it. Bollis is thinking about kayaks, paddle boards and things that are registered boats and watercraft that are commonly stored at the lake yard. Barnhart noted some cities have identified what watercraft is, it is not just something that will float but meets certain requirements. It is certainly something they can look at as an issue and he thinks that is a good comment. He stated some of his earlier drafts had a definition of what watercraft is and he thinks it is probably appropriate. Bollis is right, there are a number of kayaks, canoes, paddle boards that people pull up on the shore and it seems a logical location to store those. Bollis is curious as to how that would affect anybody that has a shore slide for a small fishing boat or jet- ski. If the jurisdiction ends at the water line,things that are traditionally on a shore slide instead of a dock. He thinks there might be a conflict on those. Otherwise,he thinks the changes look pretty good. Ressler agrees with Bollis. The term licensed might need to be registered,because he believes registration tabs are how watercraft are identified. He thinks about how some people have fish houses that turn into storage sheds and if they maintain their registration on the fish house,they can keep their storage shed so that becomes a bit of slippery slope with a boat. Somehow,he has an idea of someone that has a giant cabin cruiser that they are using as a guest house all of a sudden. Not a perfect scenario under any circumstances but perhaps something to be cognizant of. He understands that the operable condition is a very difficult thing to regulate and he thinks striking that language eliminates some vulnerabilities and some costs for every complaint that is issued. Ressler would like the Commission to look at some other means to measure, whether it is a timeline of any craft without being relocated or something other than the registration. He again said,picking on fish houses that turn into storage houses or auxiliary buildings. Page 22 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart thinks it is reasonable to suggest from the Commission that the Council consider changes or regulations related to fish houses and the like. Ressler said he cannot speak on behalf of the whole Commission but that is part of his recommendation. Kirchner would be supportive of that. He knows it is a stretch, but for instance someone had a watercraft fire and got it extinguished and it was towed out of the lake on to a trailer and parked in their front yard. Technically, if they went through the registration for a boat that is completely burned out on a trailer it would be acceptable the way this is worded right now. He believes the operable condition is something he would still like to see in there; it would be consistent with junk vehicle ordinances for many cities around and how that is enforced. He agrees there is a neighboring community to the south and every time he drives down a certain County Road Kirchner passes a sailboat on the side of the road in someone's yard that has been there for the last 6-7 years. He is hesitant to do away with the operational condition and is not necessarily supportive of just saying it needs to be registered because there are ways to skirt around that. Ressler thinks so too. He has an idea that may be a happy compromise. Operable versus inoperable for a boat versus a vehicle might be more difficult to prove; perhaps they could strike the language of operable versus inoperable but retain the language talking about a period of time and define that time by whether it is relocating it to a different location or lot altogether. Is there something they can use as a measurement that does not have to do with registration as that seems like an easy work around. Barnhart stated inoperable is nearly impossible to prove. To Ressler's point,the junk car is usually defined as missing key components such as tires,hood,and windshields. He thinks they may expand that to apply to boats with a hole in the hull, etcetera. Barnhart said he cannot prove that something is moved because he does not check every day. The goal is to try to keep it reasonable and simple. McCutcheon is thinking of those who are restoring a boat because it is technically not licensed yet or operable yet. He is sure that is probably a small subset and perhaps even zero but one would hate to take that away from a citizen whose lifelong dream was to retire and build a boat. Barnhart noted they cannot do it and store it outside. McCutcheon noted if one is building a 30-foot boat,not many people can accommodate that. Barnhart understands and that is part of the balance. While one has the right to develop their boat, the neighbors have a right to not have boat construction right next door for an indefinite period of time. Libby can certainly see legal counsel's reticence to do the enforcement and why it is prudent to redact some of these things and get them out of here. He tends to agree with Kirchner in regard to the dilapidated or less than sufficiently functional storage. It will still be difficult to enforce, but that and the safety aspects of setback—he cannot answer the enforcement question but considering that so many of these boat vehicles store a substantial amount of fuels on them perpetually and out of water, as fuel tanks usually do not get drained. He pays dearly to store his boat indoors and he has a couple hundred gallons of fuel in the boat all winter. If he did store it like some people would be able to do,if they redact this and take it out,that setback they are removing is a safety issue that perhaps the Fire Department would chime in on. Libby suggested seeing if they can keep the setback from the principal residence as an element of regulatory compliance so they do not have boats that can have electrical problems start on fire in the winter with a large quantity of fuel destroy a home. Page 23 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Bollis commented on the RS district for the lake yard storage. Not to bring up Big Island, but he knows residents out there that have no other place to store their boat if they are storing on land. It effectively has to be in the lake yard. Barnhart noted to keep in mind this is for residential(R)districts. Bollis clarified this does not have anything to do with the RS? Barnhart will have to look at it closer,but immediately,no. Bollis said they are not talking cabin cruisers but some people keep their fishing boats on the shore slides in the winter. Barnhart said that is a good point and worth exploring. Ressler said it looks like they are proposing to strike the two-year mark as well. Perhaps there is a period of time recognized that says this boat has not moved for 3-4 years and at some point,the City has to have some grounds to require that action be taken. That is not going to be difficult to prove. Barnhart stated it is, actually. He has to document for 365x2 that it did not move. That is the challenge and it is in the code now two years and the intent was to capture people from improving their boat over an extended period of time, but he has to prove it has been inoperable for that two-year period. If one day it worked or floated,it is operable even though there is no engine in it. He said to capture what the main goal is, which is impact to the neighbors, the visual impact, use of property impact, and capture and try to regulate that versus throwing a bunch of rules at people that address some discomfort. That is what he is trying to balance. Ressler asked a different way. He thinks the boats they are referring to that don't move probably wouldn't be removed and floated—at least the ones he is thinking about have not moved for several years and would not even be mobile. But this would at least give some teeth to their language. Whether the City can enforce it or not would be up for debate but at least it gives an argument. He sees Curtis shaking her head. He understands how it could be difficult but if they do not have anything in there it just makes it less difficult to enforce. Barnhart said Kirchner made a point about the junk car regulation and if they somehow expand it into the junk boat, and he thinks there are some avenues there. He thinks that is what he would rather pursue than trying to identify what moving is or those type of regulations. He noted there is a legitimate and pretty well-established junk car regulation and he thinks they can find a way to expand that into a boat or watercraft scenario. Kirchner said from an enforcement standpoint he assumes it would be considered a misdemeanor violation, as most city ordinances are. That puts them into the criminal courts where they need beyond a reasonable doubt;for the City to say it does not look like it moved because the weeds are 8.5 feet tall growing through the bottom of the boat, based on personal experience it will not hold up in court and they will not get a judge to grant based on that evidence. He noted all it takes it someone to come in and say they did move it on this day, at this time, 1:00am in the morning they pushed it 3.5 inches forward. He respects the thoughtfulness that goes into this and how they make it actually enforceable and accomplish the goals. Page 24 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Barnhart said before they go too far,they could have the public hearing. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Ressler hears Barnhart loud and clear. They are not trying to make it difficult to prove but also provide some protection for neighbors in the community. He thinks the feedback provided is reasonable and he is not sure they will solve it tonight. Whether or not there is a provision of time that says it has to be taken off the site, not just moved 3-4 feet or pulled in and pulled out. He is looking for something that could trigger to at least provide some reasonable doubt—that is all he is after with the time provision. Bollis' feedback is reasonable and he thinks it was heard and there is support for the lake ward setback and depending on what kind of watercraft referred to,for example a canoe,kayak,jet-ski no a rolling slide that brings it on to shore. Setback from principal structure from Libby is worth noting and taking into consideration. Erickson commented regarding vehicle storage in number 3b, item 2 in the amendment it says the vehicle must be set back 50 feet from the property line. He thinks that is generally okay but there might be an exception if there is a vacant lot adjacent to the vehicle, perhaps it might be more desirable for the owner and the neighbors to have it close to the side of the vacant lot. If the lot is vacant and there is no neighbor that will be bothered by it,it might be less objectionable to the neighborhood if it is off to that side. Perhaps if there is some way to allow for that. Barnhart can certainly look into that. He said the Commission is well within their rights to table action on this. He can come back with a revision and they can act on it in April. Ressler thinks the feedback provided is pretty good and inevitably it needs to go to the City Council to decide. He thinks the Commission is all in agreement as to what they want it to say but they do not want to make it complicated and put themselves in vulnerabilities. Based on that,unless anyone feels otherwise, Ressler thinks it prudent to keep it moving and for Barnhart to clean up and present to Council. Bollis has a question on the principal resident required(item 4b) -he is looking for clarification as it says it has to be a principal residence and no boat shall be stored on property or group of contiguously common- owned properties. He noted there are a lot of 50-foot-wide lots that are combined of three different lots and there is a house on 2 of the 3. He asked if they are saying there is no storage allowed on the other piece of the 50 foot. Barnhart thinks that is referring to a situation where it is almost a lot of record type of thing. He is not proposing any changes to that but the primary objective here is that people are not allowed to store on a vacant lot. Ressler asked if anyone wants to approve the item. Bollis would rather move to table than approve so the Commission can see the wording of the feedback. Barnhart clarified if the Commission recommends approval or denial it goes to Council. If they table it, they will see it again. Page 25 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Bollis noted if the push it to Council there would be no public hearing for the language. Barnhart said there will not be an official public hearing,but the Mayor has consistently allowed people to speak at the meeting. Bollis moved,Kirchner seconded,to table LA20-000047 City of Orono Text Amendment Related To Boat Storage. Ressler is not entirely sure they will all be in agreement as to how they modify this language, but the City Council has enough information going after what the Commission is going after. That would be the only reason he would be opposed to tabling. He thinks cleaning this up sooner rather than later cleans up the vulnerability and puts it in the Council's hand to make this revision live. McCutcheon noted the Commission would probably like to button it up and get it done but since there is not a citizen waiting in this situation,he tends to agree with tabling it. Bollis said the other option would be to move it forward with the comments if they could have an official public hearing at the City Council meeting. Barnhart noted the Commission will not have another public hearing,and he cannot require the City Council to hold a public hearing when the Commission has already had one. He said up front, all 7 of the Commissioners will not like the draft ordinance. The Council has given some direction of what they would like to see and there is certainly debate in some areas, but the breadth of comments he has gotten are somewhat outside of that boundary. If the vote is to table, he will come back with something, but he is prepared to go forward with a recommendation of denial on certain aspects of it, which is fine,that is the process. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 2 (Gettman,Ressler). 9. LA20-000053 DALE RICHARDSON O/B/O CBS MN PROPERTIES, LLC, 2060 WAYZATA BLVD W,CONCEPT PLAN(STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Dale Richardson,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. This is a sketch plan or concept plan review for a propose 40-unit apartment building located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard. In 2005 this property was the subject of a proposed office condominium/townhome project. At the time there were 5 townhome office buildings. One was built in 2008 and a foundation for another was poured. The existing building was the subject of a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)for a daycare center and was the first activity in this project area since 2008. The property owner purchased the property in 2017 and is looking to develop a 3-story apartment structure with 40 units. The property is guided for high density residential and used to be guided for commercial; in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan the property was re-guided to high density residential (20-25 units/acre). The Applicant is working under that guidance from the Comp Plan. The building will be 4 stories including one level of underground parking with 66 stalls plus three above ground apartment floors proposed. The project is being proposed as a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) and the Commission may recall last month that they do not have a zoning district for high density residential; most come through as an RPUD of which this is a permitted use. They are operating under that from a guidance standpoint in terms of the final zoning district. Barnhart's memo included analysis of the RPUD zoning regulations. Page 26 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Regarding elevations, he showed on screen access to the underground parking in the south portion of the building and noted there are three levels exposed on the back and a little bit of the fourth story adjacent to the parking garage is shown exposed. The project is proposed as a flat roof building. In Barnhart's analysis of the RPUD zoning district it requires a five-acre minimum lot size for an RPUD zone—this property is at 2.48 and is calculated based on the remnants of the original project less the existing daycare center building at the northwest corner. The Council may find this project conforms to this exception under C;the zoning ordinance has certain exceptions where the Commission or Council can support a re-zoning. The exception here that would apply is the property is located in an area where it is a transition between commercial and existing residential.On the west side of the property is a fertilizer warehouse and gas station and on the east side is a senior housing project. It would meet with that condition in terms of a transition. To the north is single family residential. Barnhart noted the main issues are the roof style,the height of the building, and the private recreational areas. The RPUD zoning district requires 10% of the gross land area of a project to be private recreation. The City has allowed a range of uses for the private recreation. Orono Crossing last month had a tot lot and some open space in the center of that project, and for a senior housing project they had a walking path and a pavilion area,they have also had an outdoor deck for other uses. This plan shows a rooftop deck over the southern portion of the project which could meet some of the private recreation area. He would appreciate any comment the Commission has regarding the private recreation area. Perhaps the biggest issue that Staff and Applicant are looking for is feedback on the building height. Historically the City has kept to a 30-foot maximum limit for building height and there is a mechanism to define that different height. This is a unique situation because the property developed in 2005 and grading occurred for that project so the building is set up for walkout basements and office buildings. Obviously, this project is not that so there is some redevelopment as part of the grading proposal. In both situations, the building is more than 30 feet high. The shortest,most generous way to review it is a 35-foot-tall building and based on existing conditions it is defined as a 41-foot-tall building because of some challenges in terms of fitting within the 30-foot limit. The setbacks are based on a minimum of 35 foot for side yard and rear yard, but also there is a clause that the setback should not be less than the height of the building. If the height is measured at 41 feet the setback should be 41 feet from the side and rear and obviously this project does not do that. The roof is a flat roof and the RPUD regulation specifies residential character by incorporating pitched or hipped roof. Barnhart does not know what was predominant in 2002 or whenever the RPUD was created but he thinks the intent with a residential hipped roof is something with a residential- type scale. He looks for feedback from the Commission and noted the challenge is when adding a gable, they add a pitched roof to the building and the height only increases unless they shorten the number of stories. Staff is looking for feedback on this project,primarily site size,building height,and the roof style. Bollis asked if there have been any projects where they have used previous grade to establish the height versus the grade that is there. Barnhart cannot remember any specifically and certainly not with an 18-year difference between them. He noted across the street they did an apartment building and used the grade that is there today,not what it was before it was mass-graded for Stone Bay. He does not want to say they have never done it. Kirchner said it notes a 750 square foot deck on the third floor as well as the 2nd and 3'floor perhaps have some recreational space. He asked what the overall square footage of amenity space is. Barnhart does not know what amenity means, it could be the lobby and not the recreation space. He is looking for feedback of what the Commission expects out of a project of this scale and they can go forward from there. Page 27 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Kirchner clarified they do not yet know if the 10%recreational area is met. Barnhart replied they do not know. Dale Richardson purchased the property in 2015, did the first development in 2017 and the road construction put a halt on the second building project. On the first level there is an exercise room, and the community room will be on the top deck area, also. It will be a rental for parties or a guest suite; he noted there is a little more footage than what they are explaining. They would fill in the back area back in so it will butt up to the original grade that it was at and will actually be lower than what the original was as it was physically cutout to accommodate walkouts because that site was originally a hill. He noted they are just trying to make it work with what they have and this is the minimum number that makes it financially feasible to do the project. The green area from the corner of the building around to the back will be a nice level area and they will use the stone they have to do retaining walls around the property. Gettman said for marketing, what ranges do they have for the different sized units, the 860 all the way up to 2,300. Mr. Richardson said the 2,300 will be a three-bedroom unit and will be a market rate for local families living on the lake who want to keep a presence in the area but do not want to maintain a home. It will be a nicer unit,post-tension concrete construction. Gettman asked if it will be$200,000-$300,000 or$400,000-$600,000 range. Mr. Richardson said bare bones construction on post-tension,the cheapest they can do is about$250,000 a unit. He noted they are not selling but renting these and to keep the style of the building that compact,the price goes way up. Gettman clarified this is an apartment and not condos to sell. Mr. Richardson said that is right, it will be built like a condo, everyone will have their own heat and air conditioning unit and water heater. It will be set up like a condo—style system and metered individually, but will be a market rate apartment. Gettman asked what rates they are anticipating the different sizes. Mr. Richardson noted they have not fully determined that yet but will be comparable to a project off 394 and 494—they range from$2,800/unit for the three bedrooms and charge for parking on top of that. Gettman said the one bedrooms would be what. Mr. Richardson said one bedrooms would be around$1,500-$1,800. Gettman asked with respect to the recreation that it will be geared more towards families. Mr. Richardson said it will be open to anybody; if someone is getting divorced and wants to live in Orono next to the schools, or if someone is moving out of their home, anyone that wants to live there. It is not 55 or older,but they are keeping it to the market rate. Page 28 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Gettman clarified the target numbers are based on the 48 units and he knows City Council has pushed back quite a bit on the 3 versus 4 story scenario. Mr. Richardson noted they are basically a 3-story building but they have underground parking. He thinks when they are fully landscaped it will not look like the extra story underneath which would have originally been underground anyways. Gettman asked if they have run numbers to make this still feasible in having two levels of apartments. Mr. Richardson said they would not even consider it; it is not possible. Libby said the ceiling heights can also be a constructive way of dealing with building height and asked if the top floors are any higher ceiling-wise than the lower. Mr. Richardson replied they are trying to keep them uniform at close to 9-foot ceilings, but there are structural beams, sprinklers,electrical, lots of stuff to get in there. Libby said from the grade and elevations, is it conceivable in order to bring the overall building height to a 30-foot maximum, can they do garden levels on the main level and still be able to have the density, rental income, and cash flow they need to do that. Garden level apartments right now are renting for over a thousand dollars a month. Mr. Richardson understands where Libby is coming from. He does not want to make it feel like one is half underground on the main level. He noted the codes have just recently changed to that 30-foot level—they have always been 35 or 36 feet. He said they are not trying to exceed the old code but they were not able to do this project until this point because of the road construction project. He noted he has been in a lawsuit with Hennepin County since 2016 on it and have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars that could have gone to development, but he could not develop it when he was having problems with the County. If he could have done this right from the get-go and rolled right into it; the neighboring building Orono Woods is 45-50 feet. He is not asking for the max,but they just want 35. He thinks it is a very reasonable number to ask for, it is not in a high residential area,but right on the end of Orono and the site was elevated another 10 feet as a hill was cut out of there. If they had gone with the original plan and grading,which he did not own at the time, he does not think they would even have had an issue because they are hauling dirt out in massive quantity to get the grade into the hill that was originally there. Ressler wants to clarify the height by definition is not cut and dry,it is not actual,it is how they measure it. He noted they have been 30 feet for at least ten years or perhaps longer. He asked Staff to clarify how they measure that height. Barnhart stated they measure height through a combination of the lowest floor and where the highest adjacent grade touches the footprint of the building and then on a flat roof structure, the top point of that flat roof. For a hipped roof structure, it is usually between the midpoint of the peak and the eave. In his memo, he included some arithmetic sheets and the Applicant also provided their math of how they get to the height. There are two buildings in town that he is aware of,that are more than 30 feet,one is the building next door that was approved in 2002 and that project also received City financial assistance because the Council at that time had certain goals in mind for that property. The other one is the Stone Bay project that was approved in 2002 or 2003;again,that was approved with RPUD and the Council had specific goals for that. With anyof the requirements in the RPUD zoningdistrict,the Council can waive certain requirements. e uirements. qq Page 29 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. In the 6 years Barnhart has been here and the 15 years before that, the Council has been pretty consistent of staying to that 30 feet. They can waive that but his advice to the Applicant and the Planning Commission is that the Council has pretty consistently held to that 30 feet and he is looking for feedback if they think it is appropriate to change that at this juncture. Libby said obviously the flat roof works in the Applicant's favor and he is interested to hear him speak of runoff and drainage with a flat roof,especially drainage away from the building as it is a different dynamic with a flat roof. He asked if there are engineering designs that have worked well in the past. Mr. Richardson stated they are working with Lux Engineering and they did the original site development on this project and also on Orono Woods. They have the holding pond on Brown Road as part of this project and are working to redesign it so the roof drains will actually go right into the storm drain system, so they will not be any runoff from the roof, at all. Libby clarified storm drain to the ponding. Mr. Richardson replied yes, it will be all internal drainage so it won't have any more impact than the five buildings they would have had. He thinks an apartment is needed here,there has not been market rate for an apartment in Orono for quite some time,he was told over 20 years but he does not know if that is correct or not. Libby noted there are somewhat limited setbacks for the building positioning and they will have limited ability to move that water away quickly, it will all have to be subterranean then. Mr. Richardson replied that is correct, and it is all there now,they have to rework it. All the infrastructure is already in...all the water and sewer. The Applicant is going to reconfigure it to their needs and take some of the surface drains out and put the roof drains right into catch basins. By making that back level, it will give quite a bit of flat area in the backyard. Libby noted there is a fair amount of grade. Mr. Richardson said it is higher behind the building right now,the hill actually goes uphill. Libby stated there is a fair amount of pitch away from the building. Mr. Richardson agreed and said it will still flow around the building and this is just a preliminary. Libby asked where the entrance to the underground parking will be. Mr. Richardson said it is from the existing parking lot, on the top right on screen. Kirchner asked if they plan to allow pets at this property. Mr. Richardson said they are not going to restrict pets, although they will not want Rottweilers in there. Kirchner understands they will have the standard pet addendum that limits breeds to some degree. His question is, looking at the structural and parking lot massing, in a complex this size, has there been any thought to a dog run or something like that. He is assuming they are going with somewhat of a luxurious Page 30 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. market rate and building some of those amenities that typically come with. With the walls in the rear and the structural mass in the parking lot he is struggling to see where there might be that type of area. Mr. Richardson noted they have a partial wrought iron fence on the back of the property and they will probably just carry that around the property. Erickson asked if the existing daycare building is going to stay as is. Mr. Richardson answered yes, and the foundation that has not been built on they will remove. He was not aware that the restrictions were 30 feet,he has built homes in the past and was always told 36 feet. Barnhart thinks the difference is the defined height versus the actual top of the building. Mr. Richardson said from what he saw in the code he did not see it actually isolated. Barnhart clarified it has been there. Bollis said regarding the overall height, he knows they measure from the highest existing grade that there is today,to the top of the roof(because there is not a pitched roof). He said it would be fair to say if they can build a two-story building here with a third story underground with a pitched roof, it may actually measure higher than what he is proposing because this has a flat roof. The reason is because they measure a pitched roof to the midpoint of the pitched roof, so that could be 30 feet and there could be another 15 feet of roofing above that. Barnhart stated the City has approved buildings that have a bigger mass impact because of the pitch of the roof Bollis said if they throw out the way they measure the code and they were to build these two buildings he just described side-by-side,the one that the code reads measures 30 feet with a pitched roof would actually measure taller than this building and look bigger. Barnhart clarified the peak height would be taller,yes. Bollis noted that is what a person sees driving down the road or standing there—that massing. The way it is proposed,he is okay with that height variance from what the code is just because of that. He clarified he would not be okay with it if it had a pitched roof and they were asking for 5 feet above code. Ressler's only feedback is that it is a different design style, this is more of a contemporary look and they are not here to design it. Bollis makes a good point that the actual or affective height versus the peaked height and how it is being measured could arguably affect the massing and he would like to look a bit closer at that before he can weigh in on whether he would be agreeable to going above the height restrictions they have in place in the code. He knows they have been pretty reluctant to grant any sort of height variances for proposals like these,but it is a reasonable point of view to say that the actual massing is more favorable this way. It is whether or not the Commission feels that is not going to have as much of an impact. Erickson would like to support the existing guidelines that the City Council has acted on a number of times. He thinks they are trying to accomplish an architectural theme and it is a theme that runs the length of Page 31 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. County 112 in Orono and includes a certain height restriction, a pitched roof, and setbacks equal to the height. He is comfortable in sticking with that. Ressler thinks there could be a project here that could be built without having to exceed that measurement and it would certainly be nice to see what that would look like in contrast. McCutcheon noted they should probably talk about the setbacks since it is not a five-acre property, it is much smaller. Is the Commission comfortable putting that much massing on a small lot. They may talk about where those people will walk their dogs, is there any kind of playground area, or anything the people there can enjoy. The rental space was mentioned but it needs to be rented. He would like to see a little more combination towards public space or common areas besides a parking lot. Ressler asked to go to page 9 of the cumulative concept,which shows a backset view of what the building looks like from afar. He thinks that was helpful for him based on setbacks to look at it from that setting. He noted there was a proposal last month and Ressler was very much against it due to the very mild setbacks...he thinks it was 10 feet. This one is proposed at 35 feet and asked if that is correct. Barnhart believes they met the requirements of 50 feet to Wayzata Boulevard and 35 feet to the rear and the side. The proposed plans show 82 feet to Wayzata Boulevard, 36 from the side, and 35 from the rear, so it meets the requirements from a setback perspective. He clarified it meets the prescribed minimum setbacks. There is also a clause in there that the setbacks should be at least the height of the building. If they use the existing grades and measure at 41 feet or so, then they are too close to the property line at 35 and 36 feet. Ressler stated if they were to grant a variance on height that would be an important part that they would need along with that. Kirchner agrees. Erickson pointed out that directly north of this property is the sugar woods neighborhood,a very high-level, professional neighborhood and years ago he saw homes listed in there for$800,000-$900,000 and he is sure they have gone up since then. The owners are professional people and as this moves forward, they will make themselves heard,he is sure. Kirchner said to McCutcheon's point regarding the setbacks,he does have concern over how limited green space there is,with what appears to be potential drainage,manhole cover styles in the back and side yards. He would better like to understand the 10%of recreational space and how that is being accomplished. Todd Mohagen, Mohagen Hansen Architecture and Interiors, clarified they did not really think about the green space at this point. They were very concerned about the height limitation. He noted they have a surplus of parking because of what the design was previously, so they can take out parking stalls and make more greenspace.In the back,the manhole covers are just there to change the direction for the underground system and there are ways to deal with that, also. Mr. Mohagen said from a technical standpoint they can increase green space and deal with the amenity space in a very easy way. To the architects,the big thing is what Barnhart said...the height. With the sloped roof, in looking at the section that is at the bottom, he pointed out on screen the neighboring houses are to scale,it is setback,there is heavy green space in between this project and that. The scale is very appropriate for this type of lot in his experience. Page 32 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. Libby noted they have looked at some similar projects that are different architecturally but have essentially a compound-type structure. He asked if the architect,in order to enhance the green space,to put something recreational,a family-oriented type area in. Mr.Mohagen said absolutely,yes. Libby asked if they have a future vision of screening and tree cover as this is Orono which is a very rural community. Mr. Mohagen said yes, and that is helpful for the project, to have landscaping around the project is imperative. Mr. Richardson said on the back side of the property there is a vacated easement for a future road that will not be going in because they sold Cliff Often the one section of that road. He assumes they will eventually vacate that property. Barnhart would not make that assumption but said they can certainly look into it a little more. Mr. Richardson said it is about a 40-foot section and half would go to Orono Woods and have to tot his project. Barnhart said not necessarily and it is probably something they need to dig into a bit more. Ressler thanked the Applicant and hopes the feedback was useful to the project. 10.UPDATE ON MARCH 8,2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart noted the Commission was fairly busy last month. There were a number of actions the Commission approved and most were done by consent. Approvals by the City Council:the variance at 746 Tonkawa Road, the vacation of the unimproved alley at 1121 North Arm, CUP for plumbing at 1150 Pineview, MUSA expansion for public works facility, Pillar Homes variance at 3220 Navarre, average lakeshore setback variance at 1825 Lakeside Trail, CUP for LuLu's pizza, variance at 1260 Spruce Place, CUP for the Day Nursery, Comp Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Master Development Plan for David Weekley. The Council denied the variance at 133 Chevy Chase on a 5-0 vote. The concern the Council had was it did not seem the practical difficulties were met; Barnhart received some feedback from the Council to really make sure they look at the practical difficulties objectively and critically because that is what approvals must be based on. The Council did not support the 12 duplex buildings next to the Fire Station—they would rather see a density closer to the 3 units/acre versus the middle of that range of 3-10 units/acre. Libby was the liaison between the City Council and the Commission and a remark was made by the Council as a uniform compliment to all the Commissioners who are working hard, solving a lot of problems, and giving a lot of guidance to the Council. McCutcheon noted they do not always have to agree with Council. Ressler agreed and said just because they do not agree does not mean they are wrong. Page 33 of 34 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday,March 15,2021 6:00 o'clock p.m. McCutcheon stated they are still friends. Libby said the Council let him stay the whole meeting. 11.PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR/VICE CHAIR ELECTIONS Barnhart said the Chair and Vice Chair positions generally rotate every two years. The present two-year term for Chair Ressler and Vice Chair Erickson expire after this month. Barnhart is looking for individuals interested in leaving the Commission to volunteer and the Commission moving and seconding a nomination as a recommendation to the City Council. The Council would confirm the proposal or put their own in front of the Commission, similar to how they do recommendations now. Barnhart believes three of the Commissioner's terms expire at the end of March: Mr.Ressler,Mr. Erickson,and Mr. Libby. He will put their names back on for Council reinstatement at the March 29,2021 meeting. Ressler is not going to nominate or vote because of the vacating Chair,he does not want to skew any votes, and thinks it is a strange thing because all of the people on this Commission are certainly valuable for this position. Ressler opened the floor for nominations or volunteers. Libby moved to nominate Kirchner for the new Chair. Kirchner accepted the nomination and thanked Libby for nominating him. Erickson seconded the nomination of Kirchner for the new Chair. Bollis moved to nominate Ressler for Vice Chair. Ressler accepted the nomination. VOTE: Ayes: 6,Nays: 0,Abstain 1 (Ressler). Ressler congratulated Kirchner and knows the Commission will be in great hands. He appreciates the recommendations and thinks all of their contributions have been appreciated, clearly by the Council's feedback and he looks forward to continuing in the future. He thanked them all for serving. ADJOURNMENT Gettman moved, Libby seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. The Orono Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. ATTEST: ^ Scott Kirch , Chair Page 34 of 34