The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-21-2025 - Agenda Packet Planning Commission - Full PacketAgenda Planning Commission Monday, July 21, 2025, 6:00 PM 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 /oronomn.gov 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes 4.1. Planning Commission Minutes of June 16, 2025 5. Public Hearings 5.1. #LA25-000023, David Charlez Designs o/b/o Mark Stadheim, 1390 Rest Point Road, Variances (Melanie Curtis) 5.2. LA25-000025, Southview Design, 1530 Orchard Beach Place, Variances (Matthew Karney) 5.3. #LA25-000026, Griffin Dooling, 1080 Ferndale Rd West, Variances, (Melanie Curtis) 5.4. LA25-000028, City Code Recodification, Ordinance Update (Laura Oakden) 5.5. LA25-000029, City of Orono, Comprehensive Plan Amendment #8 (Laura Oakden) 6. Old Business 6.1. LA25-000016, Charles Cudd Co LLC, 2545 Dunwoody Avenue, Conditional Use Permit (Matthew Karney) 7. Other Items 8. Adjournment Audience Members: Information regarding each of the agenda items is available on the city website under meetings and in the public packet located in the lobby near the entrance. 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. Sign up for email notifications at https://www.oronomn.gov/ 1 Date: July 21, 2025 Item: 4.1 Presenter: Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Section: Approval of Minutes Title: Planning Commission Minutes of June 16, 2025 1.Purpose: Approve the Planning Commission Minutes 2.Planning Commission Action Requested: Approve the Planning Commission Regular Minutes of June 16, 2025 AGENDA ITEM Exhibits DRAFT 06.16.2025 Planning Commission 2 Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting Monday, June 16, 2025, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Page 1 of 3 Chair Bollis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Orono Planning Commission members present: Chair Chris Bollis, Commissioners Jon Ressler, Thomas Brandabur, Andrew Jarnot, Kelly Prchal, Sam Tift, and Shane Weltzin. Absent: None. Staff present: Community Development Director Laura Oakden, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and City Planner Matthew Karney. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Prchal moved, Ressler seconded, to approve the Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 4. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 19, 2025 Ressler moved, Jarnot seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of May 19, 2025. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1. LA22-000033, REVISION LLC O/B/O MICHAEL + MARY RUSINKO, 2565 DUNWOODY AVENUE, AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE The Planning Commission is requested to review the Staff report, receive a presentation, and discuss and approve the request to reconstruct a lakeside deck with a slightly different footprint, removing a portion and squaring off some angles. It was noted that the plan as applied would not impact any neighbor’s view of the lake. The Planning Commission discussed the item and asked questions of staff and the applicant, John Daly, Revision LLC, Wayzata. Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. Commissioners said the change was small and would not impair a view for any neighbor. Ressler moved, Tift seconded, to approve LA22-000033, 2565 Dunwoody Ave., Average Lakeshore Setback Variances. VOTE: Ayes: 7, Nays 0. 5.2. LA25-000014, REVISIONS TO CITY CODE REGARDING THE KEEPING OF ANIMALS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 3 Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting Monday, June 16, 2025, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Page 2 of 3 The Planning Commission is requested to review the Staff report, receive a presentation, and discuss and approve the amendment to the City Code. Staff described the proposed text amendment as revised in keeping with comments from the Planning /Commission at the previous meeting. The Planning Commission discussed the item and asked questions of staff. Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. Katie Dunham, 1060 Brown Road North, provided a written comment. There were no additional comments. Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. Commissioners favored changing the allowed number of pigeons and doves to be higher than five, the allowed number for hens. Weltzin moved, Ressler seconded, to approve LA25-000014 Revisions to City Code Regarding the Keeping of Animals in Residential Districts as proposed with the addition of allowing up to 25 doves or pigeons under domestic poultry. VOTE: Ayes: 7, Nays 0. 5.3 LA25-000022, TEXT AMENDMENT: SECTION 78-823 GARAGE CONDO PARKING STANDARDS The Planning Commission is requested to review the Staff report, receive a presentation, and discuss and approve the text amendment setting parking standards for garage condos, providing for driveway width and a limited number of off-street parking stalls for guest parking. The Planning Commission discussed the item and asked questions of staff. Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. Commissioners supported having parking spaces striped and discussed space between buildings and discussed maneuverability, and the number and type of spaces in front of the units. Commissioners directed staff to add language providing for two parking stalls for units 200 square feet or more, one stall for units 200 square feet or less, 60 feet between buildings, a maneuverability plan accommodating emergency vehicles that addresses parking and snow storage and a striped no parking lane 12 feet wide before sending the recommendation on to the City Council. Ressler moved, Weltzin seconded, to approve LA25-000022, Text Amendment: Section 78-823 Garage Condo Parking Standards with updated language as directed. VOTE: Ayes: 7, Nays 0. 4 Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting Monday, June 16, 2025, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Page 3 of 3 6. OTHER ITEMS Community Development Director Oakden updated the Planning Commission on actions taken by the City Council on the Commission's most recent recommendations. 7. ADJOURNMENT Brandabur moved, Prchal seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:11 p.m. to July 21, 2025. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. ATTEST: _________________________________________ Christopher Bollis, Chair 5 Date: July 21, 2025 Item: 5.1 Presenter: Melanie Curtis, Planner Section: Public Hearings Title: #LA25-000023, David Charlez Designs o/b/o Mark Stadheim, 1390 Rest Point Road, Variances (Melanie Curtis) 1.Purpose: The purpose of this request is to consider variances from the 75-foot lake setback, average lakeshore setback, and rear yard setback to allow construction of an expanded 2nd story addition over the existing home and a minimal increase in the elevation of the existing deck. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: The application was submitted on June 16th, and considered to be complete on June 25, 2025. The 60-day review timeline will expire on August 24, 2025. 3.Background: The property is nonconforming in size, and the existing home encroaches lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line (ALS) and the 75-foot lake setback. It also encroaches 10 feet into the required 30-foot rear setback. The new owners are proposing 2nd story additions to increase the living space on the 2nd level of the home while maintaining the existing footprint. They also propose a minimal increase in height of the existing low-level deck to create a level threshold (no step down). No footprint expansions are proposed. Please refer to the Planning Report attached as Exhibit A for a full analysis. 4.Public Comment: Public comments in support of the variance request were submitted and are attached as Exhibit H. 5.Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval as applied. 6.Planning Commission Action Requested: Planning Commission should move to approve application LA25-000023. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Report Exhibit B - Application Exhibit C - Practical Difficulty Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Plans Exhibit F - Hardcover Exhibit G - Aerial Photos Exhibit H - Property List & Neighbor Comments Exhibit I - Map 6 Date Application Received: 06/16/2025 Date Application Considered as Complete: 06/25/2025 60-Day Review Period Expires: 08/24/2025 To: Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: Meeting Date Subject: #LA25-000023, David Charlez Designs o/b/o Mark Stadheim, 1390 Rest Point Road Variances Public Hearing Background The property is nonconforming in size, and the existing home encroaches lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line (ALS) and the 75-foot lake setback. It also encroaches 10 feet into the required 30-foot rear setback. The new owners are proposing 2nd story additions to increase the living space on the 2nd level of the home while maintaining the existing footprint. They also propose a minimal increase in height of the existing low-level deck to create a level threshold (no step down). No footprint expansions are proposed. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variances from the 75-foot (lake) setback, average lakeshore setback, and rear yard setback to construct an expanded 2nd story addition over most of the existing home and a minimal increase in the elevation of the existing deck. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. 7 FILE #LA25-000023 21 July 2025 Page 2 of 5 Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the existing conditions and substandard lot size as practical difficulties supporting the requested variances. Additionally, they have provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties (Exhibit C), they have provided a written narrative (Exhibit B), and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Staff finds that the existing conditions (the nonconforming size and depth of the lot and existing home location) may support the requested setback variances. The request for variances to expand the 2nd story of the home over the existing footprint appears to be reasonable, considering the location and orientation of the subject home, the neighboring homes, and the substandard lot size. The additions should not adversely impact the view of the lake for the neighbors compared to the existing condition. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-330 + 78-1279 – Setbacks: LR-1B Required Existing Proposed Lake 75’ 67’ home 54’ grade level deck No change Rear/Street 30’ 20.7’ No change Northeast Side 7.5’ * 10.7’ No change Southwest Side 7.5’ * 12.1’ No change Average Lakeshore The existing home encroaches approximately 4 feet lakeward of the ALS. The proposed expansions will not encroach closer toward the lake. * 65’ wide lot / Exception 78-330(b)(1) Section 78-330 – Lot Area/Width: LR-1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acres) 140’ Actual 9,289 s.f. (acre) 65’ @ 75’ / 65’@ OHWL Section 78-1403 – Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 9,289 s.f. (0.21 acre) Allowed: 2,000 s.f. [Sec 78-1403(a)(2)] Existing: 1,913 s.f. Proposed: 1,913 s.f. Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 – Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 9,289 s.f. 2,322 s.f. (25 %) 3,252 s.f. (35%) 571 s.f. w/in 75’ No change 8 FILE #LA25-000023 21 July 2025 Page 3 of 5 Applicable Regulations: 75-foot Lake Setback + Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) The purpose of the average lakeshore setback requirement is to protect and preserve views of the lake over a subject property from the neighboring homes. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing home upwards, which will result in new encroachments into the lake and the average lakeshore setback area. The expanded 2nd-story will not increase the overall roof peak height. No changes to the existing footprint of the home are proposed. The new encroachments will maintain the existing building setbacks. The minor increase in deck height will not impact views of the lake over the subject property for the neighbors. Rear Yard Setback Variance (Section 78-330) The existing home is situated 20.7 feet from the street property line where a 30-foot setback is required. The proposal will not increase the encroachment. 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 Property includes difficulties in its area and width, and location of the existing home. There are no footprint expansions. The 2nd story within the average lakeshore setback should not further impact the existing views of the lake for the adjacent properties. All proposed expansions maintain the existing building setbacks on the non- conforming property. This criterion is met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variances for the 2nd story additions are consistent with the comprehensive plan by maintaining the use of the single-family home. 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 for variances to expand the home with a 2nd story over the existing footprint (within the setbacks) appears to be reasonable, considering the location and orientation of the subject home, the neighboring homes, and the substandard lot size. The additions should not 9 FILE #LA25-000023 21 July 2025 Page 4 of 5 adversely impact the view of the lake for the neighbors compared to the existing condition. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The location of the home results in limited options for additions. The addition to the home over the existing footprint should not impact the view of the lake for the neighbors. The orientation of the roof and the conforming side yard setbacks will allow more air and open space between the subject home and neighboring homes. The circumstances are unique to the Property, and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances are requested to permit the construction of a 2nd story over the home, with no footprint expansions, that will not adversely impact the character of the neighborhood. Additionally, City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 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 single-family home is an allowed use in the LR-1B District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The Property’s short depth, the existing home location and proximity to the lakeshore, and the relationship to adjacent homes create difficulties for improving the property consistent with the homes in their neighborhood. 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 area and width, shallow depth, the location of the existing home, adjacent homes, and the home’s proximity to the lake create difficulties for the owners. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Granting the setback variances to construct a 2nd story over the existing footprint are necessary for the preservation of the property rights of the owners. 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 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. The requested variances are necessary and do not merely serve as a convenience to the Applicants. 10 FILE #LA25-000023 21 July 2025 Page 5 of 5 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 provided signed acknowledgement forms from three closest neighbors (Exhibit H). A letter in support of the project was received from the owners of 1405 Rest Point Road; no other public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner that is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances as applied. 11 Land Use Application Summary Application Date:06/16/2025 Address:1390 Rest Point RD Orono, MN 55364 Parcel Number:0711723330005 Land Use Number:LA25-000023 Application Submitted By:Agent on behalf of property owner Owner:Name: Mark Stadheim Address: - Mark Stadheim Applicant:Name: David Zweber Company: David Charlez Designs Address: 18476 Kenrick Ave Lakeville, MN 55044 Dave@DavidCharlezDesigns.com Contact Information:Associated Contact: David Zweber dave.zweber@gmail.com Associated Contact: Mark Gronberg markg@gronbergassoc.com Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description:2nd story additions to an exisitng home 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: 12 Page 1 of 1 18476 Kenrick Avenue, Suite 202, Lakeville, MN 55044 | 952.428.8200 | DavidCharlezDesigns.com Dear Members of the Planning Commission, We respectfully submit this application requesting approval for a proposed remodel of a home, originally constructed over 100 years ago, located at 1390 Rest Point Road. This carefully considered project prioritizes safety, architectural enhancement, and environmental stewardship, all while maintaining the character and footprint of the existing structure. Given the home's age, the remodel includes essential upgrades to improve the building's overall safety and structural integrity. This includes updates to roofing, framing, and drainage systems, ensuring the home meets modern safety standards. The proposed design also enhances both the street -facing and lakeside elevations, bringing a refreshed yet respectful architectural presence to the neighborhood. These improvements will result in a more cohesive and visually appealing façade, blending the home more harmoniously into its surroundings. Importantly, the remodel does not expand the existing footprint of the structure as the addition is designed to stay within the current building envelope. Furthermore, the proposed roofline modifications are designed not only to complement the home's updated look but also to improve water management by more effectively diverting runoff away from the structure, reducing potential drainage issues on the property. Finally, careful attention has been given to the existing site and surrounding properties. The remodel will not obstruct views from any neighboring homes, preserving the scenic vistas that are a valued aspect of our community. The remodel will also not affect or remove any of the existing trees on the property. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration and respectfully request your approval to proceed with these improvements to preserve, protect, and enhance this historic home for generations to come. Sincerely, David C. Zweber – Principal David Charlez Designs 18476 Kenrick Ave Lakeville, MN 55044 13 Practical Difficulties Statement for Variance Request Property: 1390 Rest Point Road, Orono, MN Applicant: David Charlez Designs on behalf of the homeowner 1. Harmony with Ordinance Purpose The requested variance aligns with the general intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance-to preserve neighborhood character, support property reinvestment, and ensure safe, orderly development. This remodel maintains the structure's footprint while enhancing the home's integrity, aesthetics, and drainage, which collectively supports the city's goals. 2. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The project reinforces the city's long-term vision for maintaining the quality of established residential neighborhoods. It updates a 100+ year-old home without expanding its footprint or encroaching further into setbacks, helping preserve Orono's historic and scenic identity. 3. Existence of Practical Difficulties a. Reasonable Use Not Permitted by Current Controls: The homeowner seeks to remodel and upgrade a historic home using modern standards, but due to the home's existing legal non-conformity (older setbacks and structure predating code), strict enforcement would prevent meaningful safety and design upgrades without a variance. b. Unique Circumstances Not Created by the Landowner: The property is constrained by its age, legal non-conforming setbacks, and narrow lot configuration (9,289 sq ft). These limitations were not created by the current owner and are unique to older lakefront parcels in Orono. c. No Alteration to Essential Character of Locality: The remodel keeps the existing footprint and integrates seamlessly with the architectural character 14 of the neighborhood. Views, vegetation, and lakeshore buffers remain intact. 4. Economic Consideration Not Sole Factor The justification is not based on economic grounds but on the need to preserve, stabilize, and modernize a historic structure while remaining within the current building envelope. 5. Solar Access / Earth-Sheltered Construction Not applicable in this case. 6. Use is Permitted in the Zone The use (single-family residential) is fully compliant with zoning regulations. No new or expanded use is proposed. 7. Two-Family Dwelling Temporary Use Not applicable. 8. Special Conditions Are Peculiar to Property The home's century-old construction, legal non-conforming footprint, and limitations from proximity to the lake and neighboring homes are conditions specific to this parcel. These factors inhibit full code compliance without relief. 9. Conditions Not Common Across District Most properties in the district do not share this combination of age, small lot size, and lakeside constraints, making the situation distinct and not general to the zoning district. 10. Preservation of Substantial Property Right Without a variance, the homeowner would be deprived of the reasonable ability to update and ensure the safety of their residence-rights commonly enjoyed by others in the district. Structural and safety improvements are necessary due to the home's condition and age. 11. No Impact on Health, Safety, or Welfare The proposal enhances safety through updated materials, roofing, and framing. Drainage will improve. The project poses no health, safety, or aesthetic threat to the public or surrounding 15 residents. 12. Necessary to Alleviate Demonstrable Difficulty This variance is not a matter of convenience but is essential to allow modernization within a legal non-conforming footprint. Without it, necessary preservation and safety upgrades would be significantly hindered. 16 9,289 SQ. FT. LOT17 a Notes: Dimensions, details and conformation to all local codes are to be verified by owner and contractor prior to the start of construction. The designer of the home is not a licensed structural engineer or architect and will assume no responsibility for items including, but not limited to : construction technique, quality of material, workmanship, code adherence, safety, water proofing, insulation, radon, mold/mildew or other designs, specification or construction issues. It is recommended that a licensed engineer review all plans for structural integrity and verify that the home meets code for extraordinary wind or other natural stresses such as flooding, snowfall or substandard bearing soil. All structural members on the plans should be verified by the manufacturer and their licensed engineering staff. Is is also recommended that a licensed contractor be commissioned to construct the home. All door and window size are approximate rough openings. Specific manufacturer sizes vary and egress openings should be confirmed prior to construction. The home should be flashed and enclosed to meet local code. Sizes of material and products reflect accepted industry standards and in no way indicate a specific manufacturer. All building components to be installed and constructed to selected manufacturer specified installation techniques and in accordance with local building codes. Optional items may be shown on the home, within the landscaping/site plan or in the rendering for illustrative purpose only. Consult builder for standard or included features. c David Charlez Designs 2025. Do not replicate with out permission (952)428-8200. David Charlez Design retains rights to all plans and detail shown. 01 s t a d h e i m r e m o d e l 1390 REST POINT RD ORONO, MN 18 a Notes: Dimensions, details and conformation to all local codes are to be verified by owner and contractor prior to the start of construction. The designer of the home is not a licensed structural engineer or architect and will assume no responsibility for items including, but not limited to : construction technique, quality of material, workmanship, code adherence, safety, water proofing, insulation, radon, mold/mildew or other designs, specification or construction issues. It is recommended that a licensed engineer review all plans for structural integrity and verify that the home meets code for extraordinary wind or other natural stresses such as flooding, snowfall or substandard bearing soil. All structural members on the plans should be verified by the manufacturer and their licensed engineering staff. Is is also recommended that a licensed contractor be commissioned to construct the home. All door and window size are approximate rough openings. Specific manufacturer sizes vary and egress openings should be confirmed prior to construction. The home should be flashed and enclosed to meet local code. Sizes of material and products reflect accepted industry standards and in no way indicate a specific manufacturer. All building components to be installed and constructed to selected manufacturer specified installation techniques and in accordance with local building codes. Optional items may be shown on the home, within the landscaping/site plan or in the rendering for illustrative purpose only. Consult builder for standard or included features. c David Charlez Designs 2025. Do not replicate with out permission (952)428-8200. David Charlez Design retains rights to all plans and detail shown. 02 s t a d h e i m r e m o d e l 1390 REST POINT RD ORONO, MN 19 EXST. GARAGE FOYER 8' x 7'-6" W.I.C. 5' x 13' PRIMARY BATH 10'-6" x 9'-6" PRIMARY SUITE 10'-6" x 17' GREAT ROOM 19'-6" x 18'-6" KITCHEN EXST. DINING 5'-9" x 6'-6" PWDRGAS F/PLINEN7'-0" VANITY 5'-9" x 3'-0" SHWR 16" BENCH7'-6" WET BAR UP EXST. DECK RAISED HIGHER EXST. DECK EXST. SIDEWALK DN 7" STEP DOWN EXST. WINDOWEXST. DOOR & SIDELITES EXISTING DOORS EXST. DOOR EXST. DOOR EXST. WINDOW EXST. WINDOWEXST. WINDOWEXST. WINDOW NEW FRONT DOOR EXST. WINDOWNEW WINDOWEXISTING VAULTED CEILING 21'-8"28'-8"10'-1 1/2"13'-4"60'-5 1/2"2'-5"20'-3 1/2"8'-10"14'-1"8'-0 1/2"28'-2 1/2"10'-1 1/2"11'-0"20'-3 1/2"10'-2 1/2" 41'-6"13'-4"60'-5 1/2"NOTE: MODIFIED SPACES DO NOT ADD TO THE EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FOOTPRINT.MUD RM 36" REF/FRZ10'-0" x 16'-6"REMOVE WINDOWREMOVE WINDOWDW BEAM CEILING STKD W/D ICE MKRFOOT SHOWERSOLID DOORSPANTRY garage foyer primary suite sun room great room dining kitchen sidewalk a Notes: Dimensions, details and conformation to all local codes are to be verified by owner and contractor prior to the start of construction. The designer of the home is not a licensed structural engineer or architect and will assume no responsibility for items including, but not limited to : construction technique, quality of material, workmanship, code adherence, safety, water proofing, insulation, radon, mold/mildew or other designs, specification or construction issues. It is recommended that a licensed engineer review all plans for structural integrity and verify that the home meets code for extraordinary wind or other natural stresses such as flooding, snowfall or substandard bearing soil. All structural members on the plans should be verified by the manufacturer and their licensed engineering staff. Is is also recommended that a licensed contractor be commissioned to construct the home. All door and window size are approximate rough openings. Specific manufacturer sizes vary and egress openings should be confirmed prior to construction. The home should be flashed and enclosed to meet local code. Sizes of material and products reflect accepted industry standards and in no way indicate a specific manufacturer. All building components to be installed and constructed to selected manufacturer specified installation techniques and in accordance with local building codes. Optional items may be shown on the home, within the landscaping/site plan or in the rendering for illustrative purpose only. Consult builder for standard or included features. c David Charlez Designs 2025. Do not replicate with out permission (952)428-8200. David Charlez Design retains rights to all plans and detail shown. 03 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 Main Level - Proposed 1/4" = 1'-0" 1Main Level - Existing 20 HALL bedroom bath BDRM #2 9'-6" x 16' BDRM #3 9'-6" x 16' W.I.C. NEW BATH LAYOUT HALL BUNK ROOM 11' x 19' DN DN DBL. SPLIT BUNK BED w STAIRS EXISTING CLOSET 42" VANITY 36"x60" SHOWERSHELVES EXST. WINDOWNEW WINDOWS NEW WINDOW NEW WINDOWS NEW WINDOWS MECH. 5'-0" x 12'-6" NOTE: ADDITIONS TO UPPER LEVEL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE EXISTING MAIN LEVEL FOOTPRINT. 12'-0"22'-11 1/4" 34'-11 1/4"29'-3"11'-2"20'-0 1/2"60'-5 1/2"32'-10 1/2"27'-7"60'-5 1/2"4'-5 1/4"30'-6" 34'-11 1/4" a Notes: Dimensions, details and conformation to all local codes are to be verified by owner and contractor prior to the start of construction. The designer of the home is not a licensed structural engineer or architect and will assume no responsibility for items including, but not limited to : construction technique, quality of material, workmanship, code adherence, safety, water proofing, insulation, radon, mold/mildew or other designs, specification or construction issues. It is recommended that a licensed engineer review all plans for structural integrity and verify that the home meets code for extraordinary wind or other natural stresses such as flooding, snowfall or substandard bearing soil. All structural members on the plans should be verified by the manufacturer and their licensed engineering staff. Is is also recommended that a licensed contractor be commissioned to construct the home. All door and window size are approximate rough openings. Specific manufacturer sizes vary and egress openings should be confirmed prior to construction. The home should be flashed and enclosed to meet local code. Sizes of material and products reflect accepted industry standards and in no way indicate a specific manufacturer. All building components to be installed and constructed to selected manufacturer specified installation techniques and in accordance with local building codes. Optional items may be shown on the home, within the landscaping/site plan or in the rendering for illustrative purpose only. Consult builder for standard or included features. c David Charlez Designs 2025. Do not replicate with out permission (952)428-8200. David Charlez Design retains rights to all plans and detail shown. 05 1/4" = 1'-0" 1Upper Level - Existing 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 Upper Level - Proposed 21 EXISTING MAIN LEVEL SQ. FTG. EXISTING GARAGE SQ. FTG. 199 SF New Upper Level 393 SF New Upper Level EXISTING UPPER LEVEL SQ. FTG. a Notes: Dimensions, details and conformation to all local codes are to be verified by owner and contractor prior to the start of construction. The designer of the home is not a licensed structural engineer or architect and will assume no responsibility for items including, but not limited to : construction technique, quality of material, workmanship, code adherence, safety, water proofing, insulation, radon, mold/mildew or other designs, specification or construction issues. It is recommended that a licensed engineer review all plans for structural integrity and verify that the home meets code for extraordinary wind or other natural stresses such as flooding, snowfall or substandard bearing soil. All structural members on the plans should be verified by the manufacturer and their licensed engineering staff. Is is also recommended that a licensed contractor be commissioned to construct the home. All door and window size are approximate rough openings. Specific manufacturer sizes vary and egress openings should be confirmed prior to construction. The home should be flashed and enclosed to meet local code. Sizes of material and products reflect accepted industry standards and in no way indicate a specific manufacturer. All building components to be installed and constructed to selected manufacturer specified installation techniques and in accordance with local building codes. Optional items may be shown on the home, within the landscaping/site plan or in the rendering for illustrative purpose only. Consult builder for standard or included features. c David Charlez Designs 2025. Do not replicate with out permission (952)428-8200. David Charlez Design retains rights to all plans and detail shown. 06 1/4" = 1'-0" 1Main Level Sq. Ftg. 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 Upper Level Sq. Ftg. 22 a Notes: Dimensions, details and conformation to all local codes are to be verified by owner and contractor prior to the start of construction. The designer of the home is not a licensed structural engineer or architect and will assume no responsibility for items including, but not limited to : construction technique, quality of material, workmanship, code adherence, safety, water proofing, insulation, radon, mold/mildew or other designs, specification or construction issues. It is recommended that a licensed engineer review all plans for structural integrity and verify that the home meets code for extraordinary wind or other natural stresses such as flooding, snowfall or substandard bearing soil. All structural members on the plans should be verified by the manufacturer and their licensed engineering staff. Is is also recommended that a licensed contractor be commissioned to construct the home. All door and window size are approximate rough openings. Specific manufacturer sizes vary and egress openings should be confirmed prior to construction. The home should be flashed and enclosed to meet local code. Sizes of material and products reflect accepted industry standards and in no way indicate a specific manufacturer. All building components to be installed and constructed to selected manufacturer specified installation techniques and in accordance with local building codes. Optional items may be shown on the home, within the landscaping/site plan or in the rendering for illustrative purpose only. Consult builder for standard or included features. c David Charlez Designs 2025. Do not replicate with out permission (952)428-8200. David Charlez Design retains rights to all plans and detail shown. 07 BUILDING VOLUME @ FRONT BUILDING VOLUME @ REAR BUILDING VOLUME ARIAL REAR BUILDING VOLUME ARIAL FRONT YELLOW AREAS INDICATE PROPOSED VOLUME ADDITION VOLUME ADDED TO LAKESIDE ELEVATION = 5,275 CUBIC FT. VOLUME ADDED TO STREETSIDE ELEVATION = 8,557 CUBIC FT. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 38 07-117-23 32 0002 JAMES HESSEL HOUTMAN KRISTINE JOANN HOUTMAN 204 WHISPERING PINES AVE FRIENDSWOOD TX 77546 38 07-117-23 32 0031 DAVID B & JENNIFER BOIES JR 1360 REST POINT CIRCLE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0034 CHRISTINA C NILLISSEN PO BOX 814 WAYZATA MN 55391 0814 38 07-117-23 32 0037 MICHAEL & LYNNE GERLICHER 1375 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0038 JAMES HOUTMAN TRUSTEE KRISTINE HOUTMAN TRUSTEE 204 WHISPERING PINES AVE FRIENDSWOOD TX 77546 38 07-117-23 32 0039 DAVID MILLER/JENNIFER MILLER 1350 REST POINT LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0053 GEORGE THOMAS AHERN CANDACE F AHERN 1345 REST POINT LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0054 GEORGE T AHERN CANDACE F AHERN 1345 REST POINT LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0056 KELLI GILLSPIE-COEN STEVEN C COEN 4685 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0059 YASMINA AHMED 4695 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0060 JAMES K & SHEILA LANGHANS 1366 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0061 AMY J MIGLINI 1371 REST POINT LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0062 DENNIS WALSH/AMANDA HEIEN 1354 REST POINT CIR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 33 0001 LAKE MINNETONKA PROP LLC C/O 2575 HAMLINE AVE N #B ROSEVILLE MN 55113 38 07-117-23 33 0002 DAVID LLOYD WILLIAMS 5141 PORTLAND AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55417 38 07-117-23 33 0003 STARLIGHT TRUST 2002 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 07-117-23 33 0004 TAMALA S GREIBER 1398 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 33 0005 MARK STADHEIM 1390 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 33 0006 J T NYGARD & K M NYGARD 1386 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 33 0007 EUGENE G DOBKIN GALINA DOBKIN 1380 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 33 0011 DAVID W & JODI L RAHN 1385 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 33 0012 GARY & KATHRYN GANGSTEE 1374 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 33 0013 DAVID A WIEMER KATHRYN L WIEMER 1405 REST POINT RD MOUND MN 55364 31 32 33 34 35 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 1390 Rest Pt 0 100 20050 Feet Date: 6/20/2025 Buffer Size:500 Map Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us 36 Date: July 21, 2025 Item: 5.2 Presenter: Matt Karney, Planner Section: Public Hearings Title: LA25-000025, Southview Design, 1530 Orchard Beach Place, Variances (Matthew Karney) 1.Purpose: The applicant requests approval of average lakeshore setback and separation between buildings variances to construct an accessory building. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: The application was made on June 17, 2025 and deemed complete on June 20, 2025. The 60-day review period expires on August 19, 2025. 3.Background: The applicant proposes an accessory building, a pool cabana, in the lakeyard of the property. Variances are requested to construct the proposed accessory building within the average lakeshore setback and roughly 7 feet from the home where a 10-foot separation between buildings is required. 4.Public Comment: No public comments have been received. 5.Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends denial as applied. 6.Planning Commission Action Requested: If the commission agrees with staff's analysis; a motion should be made for denial of the application. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits Exhibit A - Staff Report Exhibit B - Variance Application Details Exhibit C - Aerial Imagery Exhibit D - Cover Letter Exhibit E - Site Plans & Project Details Exhibit F - Building Details Exhibit G - Survey Exhibit H - Hardcover Information Exhibit I - MCWD Permit Exhibit J - Mailing List & Map 37 Date Application Received: 06/17/2025 Date Application Deemed Complete: 06/20/2025 60-Day Review Period Expires: 08/19/2025 To: Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Matthew Karney, Planner Date: 21 July 2025 Subject: #LA25-00025, Southview Design, 1530 Orchard Beach Place Variances – Public Hearing Background The applicant proposes an accessory building, a pool cabana, in the lakeyard of the property. Recently, multiple permits have been issued on the property for the construction of patios, walls, and a pool in conforming locations. Variances are requested to construct the proposed accessory building within the average lakeshore setback (ALS) and roughly 7 feet from the home where a 10-foot separation between buildings is required. There ALS is determined by the measured distance between the home and the lake on the property to the east. Adjacent to the property, on the west, is right-of-way for Orchard Beach Place, which runs north-to-south up to the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The proposed hardcover is within the 25% of lot area as stipulated with Tier 1 of the Stormwater Quality Overlay District, and the hardcover associated with the accessory building is mostly captured by the patio space underneath. The applicant has received an erosion control permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for proposed work on the property. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has indicated that the property is a uniquely shaped lot, with a shoreline that varies in depth in relation to the existing house. To eliminate impacts on lake views of the adjacent neighbor (4215 North Shore Drive), the accessory building is proposed roughly 115’ feet from the OHWL close to the principal building. Due to the diagonal shoreline there is no conforming building envelope for an accessory building on the property. As proposed the accessory building encroaches on the ALS and does not meet the building separation of 10 feet apart. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Staff contends there is no practical difficulty for a new accessory building lakeward of the primary residence. The property has use of the land with the principle building on the site. Due to the orientation of the land and the current vegetative screening the protected sightlines imposed by the ALS would be minimally impacted. However, the primary residence has similar setback to the OHWL that 4215 North Shore Drive (neighbor to the east) which supports the notion the ALS is not imposing a practical difficulty on this property. Area exists on the street side (north) of the residence that would conform to zoning requirements where an accessory building could be located. The proposed location of the accessory building, within the ALS and with limited separation of the residence, appears to provide convenience solely to the property owners. Application Summary: The applicant requests approval of average lakeshore setback and separation between buildings variances to construct an accessory building. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial of the variance. 38 FILE #LA25-000025 21 July 2025 Page 2 of 5 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-330 & 78-1279 – Setbacks: Accessory Building Section 78-1403 – Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 58,037 s.f. 1.33 acres Allowed: 11,607 s.f. * Existing: 4,607 s.f. (7.9%) Proposed: 4,950 s.f. (8.5%) *Maximum footprint of structures cannot exceed 20% of lot size on lots >10,000 s.f. Code Sec. 78-1403 (a)(1) Section 78-1438 – Building Placement: All principal and accessory buildings on the same lot must be separated by a ten (10) foot setback from other buildings. The separation between existing residence and proposed accessory building is approximately seven (7) feet. Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 – Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 58,037 s.f. 14,509 s.f. (25 %) 9,466 s.f. (16.31%) 0 s.f. within 75’ setback 12,577 s.f. (21.67%) 0 s.f. within 75’ setback Applicable Regulations: Average Lakeshore Setback Variances (Section 78-1279) As the subject property is located adjacent to Orchard Beach Place (right-of-way) to the west, the distance between the adjacent residence to the east and the OHWL establishes the ALS on the subject property. This distance is 129 feet, 54 feet further inland than the 75-foot lakeshore setback. The proposed accessory building encroaches approximately 20 feet into the ALS at most, and the existing home conforms to the ALS. The applicant has proposed the building location in respect to the pool and patio currently permitted for construction. This was done on the western portion of the patio to better address any impact of the building on the neighboring property’s lake views. Building Placement (Section 78-1438) The zoning regulations stipulate that buildings must provide at least 10 feet of separation, and the location of the accessory building is proposed approximately 7 feet from the residence. 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 LR-1B District Required Existing Proposed Street Side (West) 20’ Not Applicable 20.5’ Proposed Building Lakeshore 75’ Not Applicable 115’ Proposed Building Average Lakeshore The southwest corner of the accessory building is proposed ~20’ lakeward of the ALS line, with the northeast corner proposed behind the ALS line. 39 FILE #LA25-000025 21 July 2025 Page 3 of 5 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 average lakeshore setback (ALS) is intended to protect lake views from the homes on adjacent lakeshore properties. The proposed placement of the building would have minimal impact to the neighboring sightlines due to the orientation of the lot and the established vegetation on the site. Staff contends there are other portions of the applicant’s property, although streetward of the house, that the proposed accessory building could be constructed to be fully outside of the ALS. A variance in this case, where conforming alternatives exist, conflicts with the intent and purpose of the average lakeshore setback. This criterion is not met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan: The proposed variance to construct a building, accessory to an existing primary residential use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 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: Reasonable use is established by the principal building on the property. The request to construct an accessory building may be a reasonable request of the property owner to get more beneficial use of their property. However, the accessory building should be proposed in a location that meets the applicable official zoning controls. This criterion is not met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: Staff does not find there are circumstances unique to the property. This criterion is not met. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality: The character of the locality may be altered by approval of this variance. The character of the locality is based on Lake Minnetonka. However, part of this character involves utilization of outdoor patios and similar spaces that do not impact lake views of adjacent properties. An accessory building within the average lakeshore setback could impact this character in a negative way. This criterion is not 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: 40 FILE #LA25-000025 21 July 2025 Page 4 of 5 Staff does not find any economic considerations pertinent to the applicant’s request. This criterion is not met. 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: The property is allowed up to 2,000 square feet of accessory buildings based on the 1.3-acre property size within the LR-1B zoning district. This criterion is met. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling: This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property: Staff does not find there are special conditions applying to the property or the proposed accessory building. Additionally, Staff does not find special conditions applying to the land as the primary residence of the subject property is situated at approximately the same distance from the ordinary high water level as the adjacent residence to the east. This criterion is not met. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located: The conditions of this property do apply generally to other land or structures in the district, and in the general area. The shoreline of Lake Minnetonka creates unique property boundaries for the land in the area and not just for this property. This criterion is not met. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant: The applicant has an existing primary use of the property with a single-family residence, and the proposal for an accessory building in a non-conforming location is not reasonable for the preservation and enjoyment of the owners’ property rights. This criterion is not met. 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: Approval of variances to permit an accessory building within the average lakeshore setback and the without the required separation between buildings would be contrary to the intent and purpose of the zoning regulations. The average lakeshore setback and its application on this property is significantly more restrictive than the 75-foot lakeshore setback. Despite this, the existing home meets the average lakeshore setback, and the area of the property outside of this setback is sufficient in size to support the location of the proposed accessory building. This criterion is not met. 41 FILE #LA25-000025 21 July 2025 Page 5 of 5 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty: Staff finds the granting of the requested variance would not alleviate a demonstratable difficulty and would only serve as a convenience to the applicant. There has not been a hardship established by the applicant as to why a conforming location on the property for this building cannot be used. This criterion is not met. 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 No public comments have been received by staff as of the writing of this report. Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends denial as applied. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Staff Report Exhibit B. Application Exhibit C. Imagery Exhibit D. Cover Letter Exhibit E. Site Plans & Project Details Exhibit F. Building Details Exhibit G. Survey Exhibit H. Hardcover Information Exhibit I. MCWD Permit Exhibit J. Mailing List & Map 42 Land Use Application Summary Application Date:06/17/2025 Address:1530 Orchard Beach Place Orono, MN 55364 Parcel Number:0711723430003 Land Use Number:LA25-000025 Application Submitted By:Agent on behalf of property owner Owner:Name: NORTH SHORE FUNDING LLC Address: - Brett Schraber Applicant:Name: Stephen Filloon Company: Southview Design Address: 2383 Pilot Knob Rd Mendota Heights, MN 55120- permits@southviewdesign.com Contact Information:Associated Contact: Willie Dorniden wdorniden@southviewdesign.com Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description:Back yard renovation including cabana 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: 43 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA25-000025 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: yes 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The lakeshore juts in toward the home which yields no room for any improvements within the back yard of the home. The average lakeshore setback is within 5 feet of the corner of the existing home. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The addition of a cabana will not alter the essential character. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: NA 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight 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: NA 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: NA 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: NA 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: There is an outlot to the west of the property which adversely affects the average lakeshore setback. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: Generally the adjacent properties vary in distance from the lake shore as the waterline does move in and out throughout the properties. There is a drastic change in the distance from the home to the shoreline from the east property line to the west property line. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: yes 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Response: Yes. There will be no adverse affects to the adjacent neighbors and the structure 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: The calculated average lakeshore setback does not accurately represent the intended purpose of the ordinance in this case. The adjacent home is lakeward of the proposed structure and will not impact lake views. 44 Exhibit C – Aerial Imagery of 1530 Orchard Beach Place, Orono 45 46 Variance Request Narrative for Cabana To Whom It May Concern, We respec�ully submit this request for a variance for proposed improvements at our property located at 1530 Orchard Beach, including the installa�on of a cabana structure. This enhancement is intended to improve the func�onality, usability, and overall enjoyment of the property for the homeowners, while maintaining aesthe�c consistency with the surrounding neighborhood. We believe the current proposal represents a though�ul and balanced solu�on that meets the needs of both the property and the community. Justification for Variance Request This variance request pertains to the following zoning requirements: • Encroachment into the average lakeshore setback for the proposed cabana structure. • Requirement of 10 feet of separation between detached accessory structures and the principal building. The requested variance is necessary due to the unique characteristics and constraints of our property at 1530 Orchard Beach. Specifically: • The lot has a non-standard shape, and the shoreline varies significantly from east to west, which limits our ability to site the cabana in full compliance with the average lakeshore setback. These conditions have also necessitated positioning the cabana closer to the principal residence, triggering the separation requirement. • The proposed location of the cabana does not impact the sight line of the neighboring property to the east, as their structure is oriented further toward the street side of their rear yard, and not in direct alignment with our proposed improvement. • The property is a corner lot adjacent to a service road, further complicating placement options. Notably, a neighboring home on the west side of the service road is considerably closer to the shoreline. When drawing a line between the rear of the eastern and western neighboring homes, the proposed cabana sits a minimum of 15 feet behind this line, thereby maintaining the visual character of the lakeshore and preserving neighbors' views. • The proposed cabana will be positioned to limit direct sightlines from the neighboring residence without impacting light, drainage, or access. While the installation may exceed current zoning restrictions related to height or location within a setback, it is intended to assist in visual screening of the neighboring home to the west. • The front yard of the home is not a viable location for the cabana due to steep grade changes, making construction impractical and inconsistent with typical placement of such structures. We have worked closely with the city planner throughout this process and have made several adjustments to our original plan to align as closely as possible with city code. The variance we 47 are requesting is the minimum necessary to allow for the reasonable use of our property and is consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. Neighborhood Impact and Mitigation We have taken great care to ensure that the proposed improvement will not adversely affect adjacent proper�es. Specifically, the proposed cabana will not impede the lake views of the neighboring property to the east, as the structure is posi�oned toward the street side of the rear yard, well outside the neighbor’s primary line of sight. Addi�onally, the cabana has been sited to preserve open space and maintain the overall visual character of the shoreline. We are commited to being considerate neighbors and believe this improvement strikes a balance between func�onal use of our property and respect for the surrounding community. Conclusion We believe the requested variance is reasonable, minimal, and consistent with the spirit of the zoning code. Approval of this request will allow us to make meaningful use of the property while maintaining the aesthetics and character of the neighborhood. We appreciate your consideration and are happy to provide additional documentation or appear before the board to answer any questions. Willie Dorniden Southview Design 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 Purpose: Shoreline Stabilization- Rip Rap, Erosion and Sediment Control: Ice Ridge Grading, Pool, Patio, Landscaping Date of Issuance: 05/12/2025 Date of Expiration: 05/12/2026 (Statement concerning fees for inspections, violations, etc... on following page) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D, and on the basis of statements and information contained in the permit application, correspondence, plans, maps, and all other supporting data submitted by the applicant, and made a part hereof by reference, PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to the applicant named below for use and development of land in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Issued to: Brett Schraber Permit No: 25-132 Location: 1530 Orchard Beach Place, Orono, MN 55364 By Order of the Board of Managers Abigail Couture Abigail Couture Permitting Technician This permit is not transferable without District approval and is valid to the date of expiration. No activity is authorized beyond the expiration date. If the permittee requires more time to complete the project, an application for renewal of the permit must be received by the District at least 30 days before expiration. The applicant is responsible for compliance with all District Rules and for the action of their representatives, contractors, and employees. Conditions: Project to be completed as described in plans submitted to the MCWD office on 03/26/2025, 04/09/2025, and 05/09/2025 according to the provisions of this permit. •All equipment intended for use at a project site must be free of prohibited invasive species and aquatic plants prior to being transported into or within the state and placed into state waters •All equipment used in designated infested waters must be adequately decontaminated prior to being transported from the worksite •Properly install and maintain all required erosion control measures until the disturbed areas are re-stabilized •Notify MCWD in writing upon completing installation of perimeter and sedimentation controls 55 •When the site is re-stabilized and the MCWD staff has performed a final inspection, all perimeter control must be removed Inspection/Analysis/Monitoring Fees A site inspection and monitoring by District staff will be performed where the activity involves: •a commercial/industrial/multi-family residential development •a single family residential development greater than 5 acres or of any size if within the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed •any alteration of a floodplain or wetland •dredging within the beds, banks or shores of any protected water or wetland •a violation •any project which in the judgment of the District staff should be inspected due to project location, scope, or construction techniques In these cases, the applicant shall pay to the District a fee equal to the actual costs of field inspection of the work, including investigation of the area affected by the work, analysis of the work, and any subsequent monitoring of the work, which in the case of a violation shall be at least $35. Standard Fee Schedule District Professional Staff: $70.07/hour District Administrative Staff: $50.74/hour Consulting Engineer/Technician: Contracted rate District Counsel: Contracted rate Permit Application Fee: $10.00 Wetland Buffer Signs: $2.85/sign Black and White Photocopy Costs: $0.25/page + actual staff time Color Photocopies: $1.00/page + actual staff time Electronic Records: cost of production 56 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 1530 Orchard Beach 0 200 400100 Feet Date: 6/20/2025 Buffer Size:500 Map Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us 57 38 07-117-23 41 0003 CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PKWY ORONO MN 55356 38 07-117-23 41 0074 RICHARD O NORUM SHANNON R NORUM 1400 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0013 JO-RIKA ACKERMANN THOMAS R DEDWITH 1422 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0014 AUDREY SCHULTZ 1442 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0015 MARLENE ABELS JOHN ANDREW STROM JR 1462 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0019 ROBERT L & JEAN M HOWELLS 1423 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0020 ROBERT KIMMEL 1435 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0021 P J SCHLENDER & M R PALM 1447 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0022 BIG TIME & SMALL CHANGE LLC 4294 DAHLBERG DRIVE STE 800 GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55422 38 07-117-23 42 0023 STEPHEN R/JENNIFER P PAIDOSH 4300 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0024 MARK ALBRECHT & GRACE MEYER 4330 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 42 0042 BRIAN J BRANTNER 1415 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0001 CHAD JEREMY SMITH ANNE ELIZABETH SMITH 1496 PARK DRIVE ORONO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0002 MATTHEW R PTACEK 4198 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0003 NORTH SHORE FUNDING LLC 1530 ORCHARD BEACH PL MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0004 KEVIN SMITH & DANA SMITH 801 COLFAX AVE ELMHURST IL 60126 38 07-117-23 43 0005 WILLIAM & MARY K TITLER 4209 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0006 DOUGLAS & DIANE WALDOCH 4215 NORTH SHORE DRIVE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0007 DANIEL E HOUCK JANE HOUCK 1535 FAIRVIEW COTTAGE LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0008 ROBERT M EMFIELD LAURIE A EMFIELD 4203 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0012 CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY ORONO MN 55356 38 07-117-23 43 0013 CHAD JEREMY SMITH ANNE ELIZABETH SMITH 1496 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0014 PETER H SCHWARZKOPF JENNIFER L SCHWARZKOPF 4240 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0015 DENNIS D NALENZY 4210 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0016 DANIEL & MARY JO RYAN 4200 NORTH SHORE DRIVE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0024 NANCY M & LESLIE N DELTON 1535 ORCHARD BEACH PL MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0025 PATRICIA H WYSOCKY 1555 ORCHARD BEACH PL MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0026 INVEST CAPITAL GROUP LLC 1565 ORCHARD BEACH PL MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0027 ROBERT J KIMMEL 1448 PARK DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0028 PATRICIA M CLEVELAND 4315 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55364 58 38 07-117-23 43 0032 CHARLES TYE 4345 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 43 0033 TIMOTHY G BECKER MARY E SNYKER BECKER 1565 FAIRVIEW COTTAGE LANE ORONO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0024 B P BOWEN & S M DOWNS 4190 HIGHWOOD RD MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0046 DANAH L MCCAMMON BARON A ORTALEZA 4191 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0074 CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PKWY ORONO MN 55356 38 07-117-23 44 0075 CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY ORONO MN 55356 38 07-117-23 44 0090 GERALD S KOHLS HEATHER A HYSLOP 4196 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0091 JUNE E TOUVE 4300 TOLEDO AVE N ROBBINSDALE MN 55422 38 07-117-23 44 0093 ZACHARY MINK MARTHA SADIE MINK 4175 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 44 0095 ROBAN G & DOUGLAS M SMITH 800 BENTWOOD DR NAPLES FL 34108 59 Date: July 21, 2025 Item: 5.3 Presenter: Melanie Curtis, Planner Section: Public Hearings Title: #LA25-000026, Griffin Dooling, 1080 Ferndale Rd West, Variances, (Melanie Curtis) 1.Purpose: This application contemplates setback and hardcover variances to reconstruct lakeside decks on a substandard property. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: The application was submitted on June 18th, and considered to be complete on July 1, 2025. The 60-day review timeline will expire on August 30, 2025. 3.Background: The applicant requests variances to rebuild decks in a different, more functional configuration. The existing decks consisted of two circular areas; the new decks are configured with squared-off, rectangular areas in the same general location, and a hot tub is shown abutting the western deck, see Exhibits D and E. The existing improvements are located within the 75-foot setback from the OHWL and the 25-foot wetland setback (the existing home also encroaches as it is situated 28 feet from the OHWL). The existing eastern deck was located approximately 24 feet from the OHWL and wetland, and the western deck was 43 feet from the OHWL and wetland. The east deck is proposed to be 20 feet from the OHWL and the west deck is proposed to be 38 feet from the OHWL, resulting in new encroachments for both. An increase in hardcover is also proposed. Refer to the Planning Report attached as Exhibit A for a full analysis. 4.Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval of the setback variances supporting the deck footprint changes and denial of the variance to increase the site’s hardcover. The applicant should submit corrected hardcover calculations and demonstrate the hardcover reduction before placement on the City Council’s agenda for consideration. 5.Planning Commission Action Requested: The Commission should consider a motion to approve according to Staff's recommendation. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Report Exhibit B - Application Exhibit C - Practical Difficulty Exhibit D - Annotated Survey Exhibit E - Plans Exhibit F - Hardcover Calcs 60 Exhibit G - Aerials Exhibit H - 1070 Ferndale survey_annotated Exhibit I - Map & List 61 Date Application Received: 06/18/2025 Date Application Considered as Complete: 07/01/2025 60-Day Review Period Expires: 08/30/2025 To: Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 21 July 2025 Subject: #LA25-000026, Griffin Dooling, 1080 Ferndale Rd West, Variances Public Hearing Background The subject property is located on Ferndale Marsh, which is hydraulically contiguous with Lake Minnetonka, requiring a 75-foot setback from the 929.4’ OHWL contour and a 25-foot setback from the edge of the wetland. According to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), the edge of the wetland is consistent with the OHWL, based on the 2004 wetland delineation on the neighboring property (1070 Ferndale Rd West) (Exhibit H). The wetland and lake setbacks are therefore measured from the 929.4’ OHWL contour. The applicant requests variances to rebuild the decks with a slightly different, more functional configuration. The existing decks were documented and have since been removed. The existing decks consisted of two circular areas; the new decks are configured with squared-off, rectangular areas in the same general location, and a hot tub is shown abutting the western deck. The existing improvements are located within the 75-foot setback from the OHWL and the 25-foot wetland setback (the existing home also encroaches as it is situated 28 feet from the OHWL). The (pre-) existing eastern deck was located approximately 24 feet from the OHWL and wetland, and the western deck was 43 feet from the OHWL and wetland. As proposed, the east deck is shown at 20 feet and the west deck is shown at 38 feet from the OHWL, resulting in new encroachments for both. In the plan images below, the previously existing deck is shown in red dashed lines. Combined, the existing decks account for 615 square feet of hardcover. The proposed decks, including the hot tub (as shown), will result in 662 square feet of hardcover. As proposed, the hardcover will increase by 47 square feet more than the existing amount within the 75-foot setback. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a lake setback, average lakeshore setback, wetland setback, and hardcover variances to reconstruct an existing deck in a different configuration. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval with conditions (see the staff recommendation on page 5). East Deck West Deck 62 FILE #LA25-000026 21 July 2025 Page 2 of 5 Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the large area of Ferndale Marsh as impacting the developability of the property, with additional lake and wetland setbacks, as practical difficulties supporting the requested variances. Additionally, they have provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit C, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds the significant impact of Ferndale Marsh from a setback and lake designation standpoint results in no legal buildable area. These factors, combined with the location of the existing improvements, serve as practical difficulties generally supporting the requested variances. Due to the nonconforming conditions on the property, any change to the footprint of the decks resulting in new footprint areas will require variances. The purpose of the proposed changes, to improve the functionality of the deck areas, appears to be reasonable, and although minimal, Staff does not support the increase in hardcover. The additional hardcover proposed within the 75-foot setback should be offset by equal or greater hardcover removals elsewhere on the property. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-305 + 78-1279 – Setbacks: LR-1A Required Existing Proposed East Deck Proposed West Deck Rear (south) 50’ 35’ Home No change No change Side Street 30’ 61’ Home 80’ West Deck No change No change Northeast Side 30’ 27.3’ Home 33.8’ East Deck No change No change Wetland 25’ 24’ East Deck 43’ West Deck 20’ 38’ Lakeshore 75’ Average Lakeshore The adjacent home (1070 Ferndale Rd W) is situated as close as 52 feet from the OHWL. The new (east) deck is proposed to increase its ALS encroachment by 4 feet. The new (west) deck is proposed to increase its ALS encroachment by 5 feet. Section 78-305 – Lot Area/Width: LR-1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. 2.0 acres) 200’ Actual 22,740 s.f. (0.5 acre) above the OHWL ~ 192’ @ 75’ / ~226’ @ OHWL Section 78-1403 – Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 22,740 s.f. (0.5 acre) Allowed: 4,548 s.f. (20%) Existing: 3,756 s.f. (16.5%) Proposed: 3,756 s.f. (16.5%) 63 FILE #LA25-000026 21 July 2025 Page 3 of 5 Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 – Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 22,740 s.f. 5,685 s.f. (25 %) * 7,460.5 s.f. (32.8%) * 7,579 s.f. (33.3%) *The submitted hardcover calculations (Exhibit F) were not itemized. Staff calculated estimated hardcover but the application should provide clarification prior to placement on the Council’s agenda for consideration. Applicable Regulations: Variances: 75-foot Lake Setback + Average Lakeshore Setback (Sec 78-1279); Wetland Setback (Sec 78-1605); Hardcover (Sec 78-1680 & 78-1700) The new decks result in a 47 square foot increase in hardcover within the 75-foot setback; and the project reflect a total of approximately 118 square feet of new hardcover overall. Also, the new footprint will create 4-foot and 5-foot increases in the deck encroachments into the average lakeshore setback, lake setback, and partially within the wetland setback. 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 variances for the construction of new decks are supported by practical difficulties. Much of the existing improvements are located within the 75-foot lake setback. Therefore, there is existing hardcover within the lake setback as well. The new decks will maintain similar setbacks from the lake and wetland. The placement of the new decks is limited by the existing wetland and lake setback and existing improvements. The project is in harmony with the general intent of the Ordinance due to the practical difficulties of the property’s existing conditions and absence of a legal building footprint area. This criterion is met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances supporting the new decks are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has identified the necessary practical difficulties inherent in the land, supporting their requests. The proposed increase in hardcover for the site overall and within the 75-foot setback is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and should be offset by equal or greater removals. The criterion is met with a reduction in the hardcover. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. 64 FILE #LA25-000026 21 July 2025 Page 4 of 5 a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The property has no legal buildable area. The existing nonconforming decks can be rebuilt in-kind. The proposed construction of reconfigured decks in a similar location at a similar setback is a reasonable use of the property. However, Staff does not find practical difficulties supporting the overall increase in hardcover. This criterion is met with an amendment to the hardcover. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The existing house/decks were not built by the current owners. The existing conditions of the lot, including the location of the existing structures and improvements, were not created by the owners. Additionally, the lake, wetland, topography, and vegetation further limit the placement of conforming decks and that is not a circumstance created by the landowners; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed variances are supported by practical difficulties and will not alter the character of the area. The proposed decks are smaller in size. The setbacks from the lake and wetland remain similar to those of the existing improvements. The average lakeshore setback encroachment will not impact views enjoyed by the neighboring property. 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 improvements to a single-family home 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 existing conditions of the property, including the substandard size, existing location of structures, and their proximity to the lake and wetland edge, topography, and vegetation a are unique conditions to this specific property. This criterion is met. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The existing home is in a nonconforming location. The proposal is to construct a new single- family home in a similar location and maintain the current setbacks. However, the house size will be reduced and the overall hardcover will be reduced on the site. This criterion is met. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The setbacks impacting the property overlap, eliminating any buildable area. The existing home is in a nonconforming location. The proposal is to construct replacement lakeside decks in a similar location and with similar setbacks. However, the 75-foot hardcover should not increase, and the overall hardcover should be reduced by the amount added on the site. This criterion is met with an amendment to the hardcover. 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 of the community. This criterion is met. 65 FILE #LA25-000026 21 July 2025 Page 5 of 5 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 allow for the construction of new decks in a similar location to that of the existing improvements. This criterion is met. 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 To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner that 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 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 as follows: • Approval of the setback variances supporting the deck footprint changes; and • Denial of the variance to increase the site’s hardcover. The applicant should submit corrected hardcover calculations and demonstrate the hardcover reduction before placement on the City Council’s agenda for consideration. 66 Land Use Application Summary Application Date:06/18/2025 Address:1080 Ferndale RD West Orono, MN 55391 Parcel Number:0211723430007 Land Use Number:LA25-000026 Application Submitted By:Property Owner Owner:Name: GRIFFIN ALEXANDER DOOLING Address: 1080 FERNDALE RD W ORONO MN 55391 Applicant:Name: Griffin Dooling Company: Address: 1080 Ferndale Rd W Orono, MN 55391 griffin@dooling.vc Contact Information:Associated Contact: Nick Rukamp nick@deckselevated.com Associated Contact: Kelly Ness info@skysurv.us Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description:Re-building two existing decks with slight design modifications 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: 67 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA25-000026 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: The use of the property will not change as a result of the variance. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The property consists of approximately 3.5 acres total land area. Unique characteristics of the marsh covering approximately 2.5 acres of the land area, combined with the evolution of the city code over time, has resulted in the pre-existing decks (constructed nearly forty years ago) no longer meeting the requirements of the current code. As a result, a variance is required in order to re- construct the decks due to the administrative conflict caused by the intersection of city code and the natural topography of the subject property. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The character of the property and locality will not change as a result of the variance. 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 variance is required due to the unique nature of the subject property, not economic considerations alone. 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 variance does not involve a solar energy system or an earth sheltered construction. 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: The use requested under this variance is consistent with the character, use, and applicable zoning of the subject property. 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 variance does not involve any change to the subject property's status as a single- family dwelling. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. 68 Response: The property consists of approximately 3.5 acres total land area. Unique characteristics of the marsh covering approximately 2.5 acres of the land area, combined with the evolution of the city code over time, has resulted in the pre-existing decks (constructed nearly forty years ago) no longer meeting the requirements of the current code. As a result, a variance is required in order to re- construct the decks due to the administrative conflict caused by the intersection of city code and the natural topography of the subject property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: The conditions requiring this variance are unique to the subject property. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: The variance is necessary to maintain the property's existing and long-standing decks in a safe and reliable manner. 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 variance will not in any way impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of others. In addition, the variance is consistent with the permitted use of the property under the subject 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: The variance is necessary to maintain the property's existing and long-standing decks in a safe and reliable manner. 69 1080 Ferndale Rd WFerndale Rd WS32°49'55"E 150.00S32°49'55"E 124.00S54°38 '47 "W 171 .33N60°25'45"W 71.73N45°47'31"W 326.68DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYEDThat Part Of Lot 6 Lying Northwesterly Of A Straight Line Par With ExtremeSoutheasterly Line Of Lot 6 Running Thru A Pt In The Northeasterly Line Of SaidLot, Distant 40 FtSurvey Notes1. Bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System.2. Client Name: Decks Elevated3. Site Address: 1080 Ferndale Rd W4. This survey is based on the legal description as provided by the Client5. This Surveyor has not abstracted the land shown hereon for easements, rightsof way or restrictions of record which may affect the title or use of the land6. Do not reconstruct property lines from building ties7. Only visible utilities located8. Impervious areas include: House, ancillary structures, proposed structures,proposed decks, driveway, concrete pads, paths and decks.8.1. Lot size for impervious calculations measured from area inside cat tails.8.2. Building impervious category covers main residence only9. Elevation of Lake Minnetonka measured at was 929.15 at the time of thesurvey. The Ordinary High Water of Lake Minnetonka is 929.40FOUND IRON MONUMENTLinetype & Symbol Legend MINNESOTA LAND SURVEYOR CERTIFICATIONI hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared byme or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly LicensedLand Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Dated this 30th day of June, 2025.___________________________________________________Kelly D Ness Minnesota License No. 45847SET IRON MONUMENT7579.83Certificate ofSurvey5775 Wayzata Blvd #700St Louis Park, MN 55416info@skysurv.us20250515 1080 FerndaleRdW SkySURV-1080 FerndaleRdW.dwg Draft copy - not for submittal70 1080 Ferndale Rd WFerndale Rd WS32°49'55"E 150.00S32°49'55"E 124.00S54°38 '47 "W 171 .33N60°25'45"W 71.73N45°47'31"W 326.68DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYEDThat Part Of Lot 6 Lying Northwesterly Of A Straight Line Par With ExtremeSoutheasterly Line Of Lot 6 Running Thru A Pt In The Northeasterly Line Of SaidLot, Distant 40 FtSurvey Notes1. Bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System.2. Client Name: Decks Elevated3. Site Address: 1080 Ferndale Rd W4. This survey is based on the legal description as provided by the Client5. This Surveyor has not abstracted the land shown hereon for easements, rightsof way or restrictions of record which may affect the title or use of the land6. Do not reconstruct property lines from building ties7. Only visible utilities located8. Impervious areas include: House, ancillary structures, proposed structures,proposed decks, driveway, concrete pads, paths and decks.8.1. Lot size for impervious calculations measured from area inside cat tails.8.2. Building impervious category covers main residence only9. Elevation of Lake Minnetonka measured at was 929.15 at the time of thesurvey. The Ordinary High Water of Lake Minnetonka is 929.40FOUND IRON MONUMENTLinetype & Symbol Legend MINNESOTA LAND SURVEYOR CERTIFICATIONI hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared byme or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly LicensedLand Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.Dated this 30th day of June, 2025.___________________________________________________Kelly D Ness Minnesota License No. 45847SET IRON MONUMENT7579.83Certificate ofSurvey5775 Wayzata Blvd #700St Louis Park, MN 55416info@skysurv.us20250515 1080 FerndaleRdW SkySURV-1080 FerndaleRdW.dwg Draft copy - not for submittal71 14'16'32' 223 SQ FT 223 SQ FT DECK DECK RED LINE EXISTING 495 SQFT Project Design Version 1 Main Deck SHEET NUMBER: SCALE DECKS ELEVATED 1161 E WAYZATA BLVD #29 WAYZATA, MN 55391 LIC: BC804638 1/4" DATE 5/5/2025Faith Jones 1080 Ferndale Rd W Orono, MN 55391 DESIGN FOR SHEET TITLE SHEET DETAILS DESIGN BY 4 72 6'6'7'7' 139 SQ FT 32 SQ FTDECK DECK RED LINE EXISTING 120 SQFT SHEET NUMBER: SCALE DECKS ELEVATED 1161 E WAYZATA BLVD #29 WAYZATA, MN 55391 LIC: BC804638 1/4" DATE 5/5/2025Faith Jones 1080 Ferndale Rd W Orono, MN 55391 DESIGN FOR SHEET TITLE SHEET DETAILS DESIGN BY 5Project Design Version 1 Walkway Deck 73 City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: Prepared by: Date: 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 the existing hardcover status of the property. *For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter that are within the 75-foot setback or 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 S.F. B S.F. C S.F. D S.F. E S.F. F S.F. G S.F. H S.F. I S.F. 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. V S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. (1) Total Existing Hardcover 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)] S.F. (4) Total Lot Area S.F. Existing Hardcover Percentage [ (3) ÷ (4) ] % 1080 Ferndale Rd W 6/26/25Nick Rukamp per info from Survey Building Impervious 22740.53 3756.32 7460.55 11216.87 32.81 74 City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: Prepared by: Date: 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 the 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 the proposed hardcover of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter that are within the 75- foot setback or 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 S.F. B S.F. C S.F. D S.F. E S.F. F S.F. G S.F. H S.F. I S.F. 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. V S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. (1) Total Proposed Hardcover 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 Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)] S.F. (4) Total Lot Area S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [ (3) ÷ (4) ] % 1080 Ferndale Rd W Nick Rukamp per info from Survey 6/26/25 Building 3756.32 Impervious 7579.83 11,336.15 22740.53 33.33 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 o ost Northerly corner of Lot 4 M O Most Westerly corner of Lot 4 70. RO. mss mss oo s AN pro b a F NE corner - of Lot 4 East line -i of Lot 4 - O o I\ \ \ \ \ 126 O P C \ ) \ \\ \ oO 938.2 I ( \ \ Lo 935.0935.0 60.83 Jo DECK PROPOSED 21.0 N w \ \\ HOUSE 19.0 16.0 8.0 18.0 ---------- 92?.`,•------- --- 1 ------- 1 5 , # 1070 41.2 ' "5 I .. 8.0 944.7 „ 0 .n 944.7 944.7 i 1.6 o Lp 16.0 4.33 r T \ ? p OSS \ 0.3 1067 / I IPROPOSED67bW i DRIEWAY \ e srooA W / `8.64 P90SED I I I 2(f 941.2 p PL\ I- 21.67 941.2 / / / r- 139-4-4771 941.2 PROPOSED / // / w 24 MAPLE P" PROP. WALK / / EO O / 3 WELL / // / o F, t'' j dei` / e WOOD BORDER o _ 00 got Most E' ly corner X01 of Lot 6 / 89 4' , ' W 80.0 o NHOL / i J SE' ly line/ / / Most NortherlyofLot6cornerofLot 5GF / Line parallel with / / p / R / SE' ly line of Lot 6 / / / \ OW 0 000or ( y, 01 Most S' ly corner od / o \ of Lot 6 ° I Westerly e V 60°OR3S) S 33% kY of Lo 4 to 2 250' I SETBACK LI E - / r' \ \ oMostE-ryIII Corner of PARCEL 1 2 Lot 5 S. S,corner I S 3 ofl Lot 5 19019POWER \ 10, \ = \ N F . s eL w 05-020 POWER S 88024' 52" W 209.98 0,\ off\ CD o o \ 1 ROAD EASEMENT PER \ DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL 1 \I POWER POLE 0 7 0 Tin c[ a-& /eW CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JYLAND DISTICTIVE HOMES, INC. IN LOTS 4, 5, & 6, NORTH SHORE COTTAGE ACRES HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES PARCEL 1 That part of Lot 4, North Shore Cottage Acres, Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeasterly corner of Lot 4; thence South along the East line thereof a distance of 350 feet; thence at right angles Westerly 80 feet; thence Northwesterly 499.2 feet, more or less, to a point in the Northwesterly line of said Lot 4 distant 108 feet Southwesterly along said Northwesterly line from the most Northerly corner of said Lot 4; thence Northeasterly 108 feet to said most Northerly corner of Lot 4; thence Southeasterly along the Northerly line of Lot 4 to the point of beginning. Also, that part of Lot 4, North Shore Cottage Acres, Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point in the East line of Lot 4 distant 350 feet South from the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 4; thence South along the East line of said lot a distance of 137 feet; thence Westerly at an angle of 88 degrees 30 minutes to the right, to a point in ,the Westerly line of said Lot 4; thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said Lot 4, to the most Easterly corner of Lot 5 of said addition; thence Northwesterly along said Westerly line of said Lot 4 to the most Westerly corner of Lot 4; thence Northeasterly along the Northwesterly line of said Lot 4 a distance of 102.3 feet; thence Southeasterly 499.2 feet more or less to a point distant 80 feet West from point of beginning along a line running at right angles from East line of said Lot 4; thence East along said line 80 feet to the point of beginning. ALSO an easement for road purposes only over that part of Lot 4 lying South of a line commencing at a point in the East line of said Lot distant 487 feet South from the Northeast corner of said lot; thence Westerly at an angle of 88 degrees 30 minutes to the right to a point in the Westerly line of said Lot 4. EXCEPT: That part of Lot 4, North Shore Cottage Acres, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly corner of said lot; thence South along the East line of said lot a distance of 125 feet; thence deflecting right 126 degrees a distance of 210 feet; thence deflecting left to a point on the Southwesterly line of said lot distant 150 feet Southeasterly of the most Westerly corner of said lot; thence Northwesterly to said most Westerly corner; thence Northeasterly to the most Northerly corner of said lot; thence Southeasterly to the point of beginning. PARCEL 2 That part of Lot 5, North Shore Cottage Acres, Lake Minnetonka, described as follows: Commencing on the Southwesterly line of said Lot 5 at a point 90 feet from the Southeast corner; thence Westerly to Southwest corner of said lot; thence Northerly to most Northerly corner thereof; thence Southeasterly on the Northeasterly line 82.1 feet; thence Southwesterly to point of begijnning. PARCEL 3 Also, that part of Lot 6, North Shore Cottage Acres, La<e Minnetonka, described as follows: Commencing at the most Easterly corner of said Lot 6; thence Northv esterly ,along the Northeasterly line of said Lot 40 feet; thence Southwesterly parallel with the Southeasterly ine of slid lot to the Southwesterly line of said lot; thence Southeasterly along said Southwesterly line to the most Southerly corner of said lot; thence Northeasterly 152 feet to point of beginning. VACATED ROAD PARCEL The r or street as dedicated to the public in the plat of North Shore Cottage Acres shown as 30 feet wide lying southwesterly of the westerly line of Lot 4, between Lots 5 and 6 and northeasterly of a line drawn from 110 the niost o westerly corner of Lot 5 to the most southerly corner of Lot 6, all in North Shore Cottage Acres. IT F' .i .ta GP-,, 1NG PLAN aw fA J offs, NG4-.J /Z,.S L9OJ oazo C' AP -P SFS a'ti ) ,-*V, 7H REVISION'S M w Q J T UF-QQ E, I , pO OVE o denotes iron marker JFZ BT Z 03 it) o0) 0 z:2 o 3 -oma ____--30 3) : denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum 917---: denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum 904 denotes proposed contour line, mean sea level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey shows the boundaries of the above described Dropert Y, and the proposed location of a proposed house thereon. I-. does not purport to show any other improvements or encroach -rents. PROPOSED ELEVATIONS : 1) Garage = 944.7 2) Top of foundation 3) Basement 4) Lookout = 938.7 LO Zo00 v 0-< Z< 4) WM 11 20 I o o cal o 0inwz p aw fA J L9OJ oazo M w Q J T UF-QQ oK) W a JFZ Z 03 it) o0) 0 z:2 o i O zw Y) c 3 N t W Z E9 a F- 0' w =, U LO Zo00 O 0-< Z< N WM 11 20 I o o cal o 0inwz F- U W D 0 ry n F- oZo00 0-< Z< of0 o 0inwz oazow Q J UF-QQ m w0N W U -)W z 0 o v) = LLJ wCf) z:2 o zw QW a-, J n00Qz Zw F- 0' w =, og F- J CEQW I pro J Z h D M 0LL- I --0Q0 t w=>> N UQ_Q 0_ 1 iJaQZZ w QQF-< o o Nfz w CD Q U V) 0'w w o = 0 U V) Y Q w X r M wF-- 0 82 From:Chip Truwit To:Melanie Curtis Cc:Paula Picard Subject:1080 Ferndale Road West variance application Date:Sunday, July 20, 2025 2:22:01 PM Attachments:preview.webp Melanie I have been meaning to send a note to you in support of the neighbors (across the street) who have asked to restore their deck now that they have all but finished the remodeling of their home, with some variation, eliminating the curve. 6344488_0_Y6FzIU_p Image · 54 KB Paula and I have no objections. More importantly, the new neighbors, Griffin and Faith Dooling have done a terrific job with that home and property. In short, we support the proposed variance application. Regards, Chip Truwit and Paula Picard Sent from my iPhone 38 02-117-23 12 0001 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB 200 WOODHILL RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 42 0003 C F PETER ROSENBERG 450 WOODHILL RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 42 0006 NATURE CONSERVANCY 1101 RIVER PKWY W STE 200 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 38 02-117-23 42 0012 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB 200 WOODHILL RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 42 0013 HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY 300 S 6TH STREET MC679B MINNEAPOLIS MN 55487 38 02-117-23 43 0007 GRIFFIN ALEXANDER DOOLING 1080 FERNDALE RD W ORONO MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0011 GRIFFIN ALEXANDER DOOLING 1080 FERNDALE RD W ORONO MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0015 SHORES FOR THREE LLC 275 BERGAMOT DRIVE MEDINA MN 55340 38 02-117-23 43 0020 NAME UNAVAILABLE 1101 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0021 LUCAS DETOR ELIZABETH DETOR 1065 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0023 WILLIAM F WANNER JR KATHLEEN A WANNER 1204 CHESTNUT AVE MINNEAPOLIS MN 55403 38 02-117-23 43 0025 JAMES C WYMAN KATHLYN R WYMAN 1185 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0026 ROBERT BROOK & SHARON QUINN 1165 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0029 CLSC LLC 8547 E ARAPAHOE RD UNIT # J366 GREENWOOD VILLAGE CO 80112 38 02-117-23 43 0031 DEAN & LAURA GESME 1070 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0032 DEAN & LAURA GESME 1070 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0033 CHARLES L TRUWIT PAULA J PICARD 1105 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 44 0028 NATURE CONSERVANCY 1101 RIVER PKWY W STE 200 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 38 02-117-23 44 0029 EDWARD FEIWEN WANG 980 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 99 02-117-23 41 0010 NATURE CONSERVANCY 1101 RIVER PKWY W STE 200 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 83 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 1080 Ferndale Rd W 0 410 820205 Feet Date: 6/20/2025 Buffer Size:500 Map Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us 84 Date: July 21, 2025 Item: 5.4 Presenter: Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Section: Public Hearings Title: LA25-000028, City Code Recodification, Ordinance Update (Laura Oakden) 1.Purpose: The City of Orono is proposing a recodification of the City Code. A public hearing is required for recodification of Chapter 78: Zoning Regulations. 2.Background: Chapter 78: Zoning Regulations of the City Code (Exhibit B) is attached for your review. The new version has the same text as the current City Code but is renumbered with updated outlines to keep the City Code organized and remove the sections that have been left blank (reserved) over the years. Because the Zoning Regulations (Chapter 78) numbering is being updated with the recodification process, a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning Commission is required. It is a good practice to do a full legal review and update of the code every 10 to 15 years so it remains current. The City last competed recodification in 2003. 3.Public Comment: No public comments have been received. 4.Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. 5.Planning Commission Action Requested: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing and make a motion to recommend approval of the proposed City Code recodification. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits Ex A TA- City Code Recodification Staff Report.docx Ex. B. Proposed Zoning Chapter.pdf Ex. C. Proposed Land Use Division.pdf Ex. D. Proposed City Code 2025.pdf 85 To: Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Date: July 21, 2025 Subject: #LA25-000028, City Code Recodification, Ordinance Update Background In 2021, the City Council directed staff to review the city code and make necessary updates. The city staff partnered with CivicPlus Municode to conduct a detailed review of the entire city code. In 2022, CivicPlus completed a legal review of the code with recommendations. In 2023, staff and city attorney prepared draft updates and presented these to council and commissions as needed. In 2024, staff consolidated the updates and provided them to CivicPlus for implementation. In 2025, the City Clerk and CivicPlus performed final quality control, processed the tables and index, and shipped the code books for review and adoption. Chapter 78: Zoning Regulations of the City Code (Exhibit B) is attached for your review. The new version has the same text as the current City Code but is renumbered with updated outlines and updated state statue refences to keep the City Code organized and remove the sections that have been left blank (reserved) over the years. Because the Zoning Regulations (Chapter 78) numbering is being updated with the recodification process, a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning Commission is required. A well-organized and regularly updated city code ensures that our local laws remain clear, consistent, enforceable, and aligned with state and federal regulations. This helps the city run smoothly supporting efficient governance and the well-being of the community. It is a good practice to do a full legal review and update of the code every 10 to 15 years so it remains current. The City last competed recodification in 2003. Public Comments No public comments have been received. Planning Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing and make a motion to recommend approval of the proposed recodification of Chapter 78. Application Summary: The City of Orono is proposing a recodification of the City Code. Chapter 78: Zoning Regulations requires a public hearing. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 Date: July 21, 2025 Item: 5.5 Presenter: Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Section: Public Hearings Title: LA25-000029, City of Orono, Comprehensive Plan Amendment #8 (Laura Oakden) 1.Purpose: The City is proposing minor changes to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which includes: 1. To reconcile an error within Proposed Land Use Map under the Urban Estates Residential Classification and 2. Amend Table 3B-4 Predicted Growth Areas 2.Background: The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan (Plan) establishes Land Use classes for each area of the City. With each residential land use class, the Plan applies a density range to establish an appropriate level of density based on multiple factors, including surrounding land uses, transportation opportunities, community character, and utility options. The Metropolitan Council reviews all utility extension permits within the City. The plat of Wildhurst Forest was approved in 2022/2023 (Subdivision File #LA23-000034). As part of the Met Council’s review of the sewer extension permit, two areas of inconsistency were identified within the Comprehensive Plan. The inconsistencies involve the existing Planned Land Use Map (Map 3B-3a) and the Predicted Growth in Sewered Areas density table (Table 3B-4). The correction involves two separate amendments: Map Amendment: Map 3B-3a incorrectly identifies the Wildhurst Forest property as Rural Residential rather than Urban Estates Residential. The parcel was designated Urban Estates in 2018 when the property was added to the MUSA with the 2040 Plan Update. Since the 2018 Comp Plan highlights this parcel as part of the MUSA and identifies is as Urban Estate within the text and tables of the Plan, this reenforces that the Rural Residential classification of the property shown on Map 3B-3a is an administrative error. Table Amendment: Table 3B-4 identifies the Wildhurst Forest property for growth in the years between 2031 to 2040 rather than the 2020-203 period which is when the subdivision was approved. With the approval of the development in 2023, the Met Council requests an update to Table 3B-4 - Predicted Growth in Sewered Areas, to reflect that the parcel will be served by sewer sooner than previously predicted, within the 2021- 2030 decade. 3.Public Comment: To date, no comments from the public have been received. 4.Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval of the changes as presented. 5.Planning Commission Action Requested: Motion to recommend approval of the proposed Comp Plan Amendment #8. AGENDA ITEM 1331 Exhibits Ex A. LA25-000029, Comp Plan Amend #8, PCSR Ex. B. MAP 3B-3_PlannedLanduse_Amend #8 Ex C. Table 3B-4_ Projected Growth Table Amend #8 1332 To: Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Date: July 21, 2025 Subject: LA25-000028, City of Orono, Comprehensive Plan Amendment #8 Public Hearing Background The Comprehensive Plan (Plan) establishes Land Use classes for each area of the city. With each residential land use class, the Plan applies a density range to establish an appropriate level of density based on multiple factors, including surrounding land uses, transportation opportunities, community character, and utility options. The Metropolitan Council reviews all utility extension permits within the City. The plat of Wildhurst Forest was approved in 2022/2023 (Subdivision File #LA23-000034). To complete the improvements associated with Wildhurst Forest, the developer is extending city sewer to serve the property. As part of the Met Council’s review of the sewer extension permit, two areas of inconsistency were identified. The inconsistencies involve the existing Planned Land Use Map (Map 3B-3a) and the Predicted Growth in Sewered Areas density table (Table 3B-4). The correction involves two separate amendments: Map Amendment: Map 3B-3a incorrectly identifies the Wildhurst Forest property as Rural Residential (the land use category intended for rural parcels outside of the MUSA which are served by private septic systems rather than Urban Estates Residential. The parcel was designated Urban Estates in 2018 when the property was added to the MUSA with the 2040 Plan Update. Properties within the Urban Estates Residential district are within the sewered areas (or the metropolitan urban service area, the “MUSA”). Since the 2018 Comp Plan highlights this parcel as part of the MUSA and identifies is as Urban Estate within the text and tables of the Plan, this reenforces that the Rural Residential classification of the property shown on Map 3B-3a was done in error. Application Summary: The City is proposing minor changes to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan which includes 1. To reconcile an error within Proposed Land Use Map 3B-3a under the Urban Estates Residential Classification and 2. Amend Table 3B-4 Predicted Growth Areas Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. Figure 1: Existing Future Land Use Map 1333 FILE # LA25-000029 July 21, 2025 Page 2 of 3 Table Amendment: Table 3B-4 identifies the Wildhurst Forest property for growth in the years between 2031 to 2040 rather than the 2020-203 period which is when the subdivision was approved. As part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, every 10 years the City identifies specific growth areas. Each growth area/development area is then assigned to a specific decade for when the city anticipates the guided development to occur. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified the subject property to be developed in the decade between 2031-2040. With the approval of the development in 2023, the Met Council requests an update to Table 3B-4 - Predicted Growth in Sewered Areas, to reflect that the parcel will be served by sewer sooner than previously predicted, within the 2021-2030 decade. The current amendments propose to correct classification of the subject property on the Planned Land Use Map from Rural Residential to Urban Estates Residential and well as update the development period within the Growth Table. Analysis The City is required by a Metropolitan Council mandate to meet certain goals in the areas of affordable housing, growth opportunity, and density. The proposed amendment does not alter or impact the goals of the city. The City’s overall density, affordable housing, and growth opportunities are not changing. Affordable Housing. The proposed amendment will not impact Orono’s current affordable housing requirements. The City must provide an opportunity for 154 new affordable housing units. The Met Council recognizes that densities of 8 units per acre satisfy the affordable housing goal for the City of Orono. The City meets this goal by guiding the appropriate number of acres at a density greater than 8 units per acre. Sewered Growth. The City must provide opportunity for sewered growth to meet the expected demand in the time periods from 2020-2030 and 2031-2040. This is accomplished by identifying parcels with the potential to develop with city sewer in the given time periods. While the city cannot require development of any parcel, planning ahead for the growth is important for bolstering infrastructure, services, and schools. The proposed amendment reconciles the approved plan from 2023, to alter the time period from 2031-2040 to the 2020-2030 time period. This does not impact the overall sewered growth plans for the city. The city’s plan allows for sewered growth within environmentally sensitive areas, such as lakeshore lots, and provides additional opportunities for housing in the city’s commercial corridors, such as Wayzata Boulevard and Shoreline Drive. Figure 2: Existing Growth Table 3B-4 1334 FILE # LA25-000029 July 21, 2025 Page 3 of 3 Density. The city must develop at an overall density average of 3.0 units per acre in its sewered areas. The city wants to provide sewer access to areas adjacent to the lake to mitigate septic and other environmental impacts around sensitive areas without increasing the density in those areas. This requires higher density areas to be established around our commercial corridors and in other areas around the city. The proposed amendment does not impact the density numbers within the city. Net Area: The subject property is included within Table 3B-4 - Predicted Growth in Sewered Areas and accounted for as part of the overall density calculation for the city. The property is 9 acres in area. There are wetlands and bluff areas located throughout the parcel requiring setbacks and other development protections for these sensitive features. Subtracting these protected areas results in a net area of roughly 7.5 acres. This is estimated from the wetland delineation and bluff analysis of the site. The site will maintain the required density from Table 3B-4 of the Urban Estates Residential guidance of 0.5 - 2 units per acre. Table 3B-4 and Map 3B-3a are attached as well as an amended Proposed Land Use Map. This table identifies parcels eligible for development, their guided land use and density, anticipated growth period, Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), and Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). Public Comments To date, no written comments from the public have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan appropriate? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the changes as presented. 1335 1336 A B C D E F G H I Dumas Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (8- 15 u/a)25.1 8 200.8 200.8 32 921 Eisinger Flats Urban High (20-25 u/a)10 20 200 200 50 921 Eisinger Meadows Urban Low Density (3-8 u/a)5 3 15 15 50 921 40.1 415.8 215 200.8 St. Thomas Prop Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (8- 15 u/a)3.69 8 29.52 29.52 10 922 2060 Wayzata Urban Medium High (15-20 u/a)2.51 15 37.65 37.65 10 923 6.2 67.2 67.17 0 Area C, North Fire Station Area Hwy 12 frontage Urban low (3-8 u/a)1.7 3 5.1 5.13 34 929 Garden Prop.Urban low (3-8 u/a)3.4 3 10.2 10.23 34 929 Glendale Drive Urban low (3-8 u/a)3.8 3 11.5 11.46 34 929 8.9 26.8 0 26.82 Area D (Sewer extension into large lot areas/ Lake protection) Urban Low Density 690 Brown Rd Urban Estate (0.5-2 Units /Acre)18 0.5 9 9 40 927 740 Brown Rd Urban Estate (0.5-2 Units /Acre)3.18 0.5 1.59 1.59 40 927 3400 Fox Urban Large Lot Estate (0.125-0.5 Units /Acre)5.26 0.125 1 1 31 954 3295 Fox Urban Large Lot Estate (0.125-0.5 Units /Acre)4.23 0.125 1 1 31 931 3345 Fox Urban Large Lot Estate (0.125-0.5 Units /Acre)4.69 0.125 1 1 31 931 3350 Fox Urban Large Lot Estate (0.125-0.5 Units /Acre)7.12 0.125 1 1 31 954 3320 Fox Urban Large Lot Estate (0.125-0.5 Units /Acre)3.06 0.125 1 1 31 954 3300 Fox Urban Large Lot Estate (0.125-0.5 Units /Acre)4.55 0.125 1 1 31 954 3280 Fox Urban Large Lot Estate (0.125-0.5 Units /Acre)4.95 0.125 1 1 31 954 3250 Fox Urban Large Lot Estate (0.125-0.5 Units /Acre)5.31 0.125 1 1 31 954 3200 Fox Urban Large Lot Estate (0.125-0.5 Units /Acre)4.12 0.125 1 1 31 954 3175 Fox Urban Large Lot Estate (0.125-0.5 Units /Acre)7.49 0.125 1 1 31 954 3125 Fox Urban Large Lot Estate (0.125-0.5 Units /Acre)7.44 0.125 1 1 31 954 825 Old Crystal Bay Road Urban Estate (0.5-2 Units /Acre)17.61 0.5 8 8 31 954 1700 Shoreline Urban Estate (0.5-2 Units /Acre)20.14 0.5 10 10 37 955 1100 Millston Rd Urban Estate (0.5-2 Units /Acre)12.7 0.5 6 6 37 955 1003 Wildhurst Urban Estate (0.5-2 Units /Acre)10 0.5 4 4 0 1 953 135 Orono Orchard Urban Estate (0.5-2 Units /Acre)13 0.5 6 6 53 928 365 Old Crystal Bay Road Urban Estate (0.5-2 Units /Acre)5.85 0.5 2 2 54 931 158.7 57.59 10 47.59 Area E Navarre Area 3880 Shoreline (Hennepin County) Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)9.37 8 75.0 74.96 1 958 3890 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)0.68 8 5.4 5.44 1 958 Area D Total Area C Total Predicted Growth in Sewered Areas, Net Density Table 3B-4 (Amendments 1-7) Name Land Use Category Net Residential Acres (NRA) Lowest Guided Density Predicted # of units (C x D) 2021-2030 Growth (Househol ds) 2031- 2040 Growth (Househ MUSA Part TAZ Zone Area A Area A Total Area B Area B Total 1337 3860 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)0.64 8 5.1 5.12 1 958 3850 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)0.78 8 6.2 6.24 1 958 3800 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)0.7 8 5.6 5.6 1 958 3596 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)0.62 8 5.0 4.96 1 958 2389 Blaine Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)1.11 8 8.9 8.88 1 958 3574 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)0.47 8 3.8 3.76 1 958 3572 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)0.31 8 2.5 2.48 1 958 3542 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)0.46 8 3.7 3.68 1 958 3502 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)0.31 8 2.5 2.48 1 958 3496 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)0.31 8 2.5 2.48 1 958 3480 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)0.15 8 1.2 1.2 1 958 3472 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)0.15 8 1.2 1.2 1 958 3468 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)0.15 8 1.2 1.2 1 958 3465 Lyric Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)0.62 8 5.0 4.96 1 958 3440 Shoreline Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)0.15 8 1.2 1.2 1 958 Forfiet Land Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)0.15 8 1.2 1.2 1 958 Forfiet Land Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)0.1 8 0.8 0.8 1 958 Parking Lot Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)0.86 8 6.9 6.88 1 958 2520 Shadywood Urban Medium Density (3-10 u/a)2.02 3 6.1 6.06 1 956 3770 Shoreline (Firestation) Urban Medium High/ Mixed Use Residential (10- 20 u/a)4 8 32.0 32 1 958 24.11 182.78 38.06 144.72 85% Residential 20.5 155.4 Planned Totals 234.4 723 330 420 523 340 3.1 # of acres at 8 units per acre or greater 63.39 *Verify that the parcels are guided for 8 u/a+ Number of units 644.69 The city must provide opportunity to meet its expected demand of housing growth in two terms, 2020-2030 and 2031-2040. Required Housing totals for these terms: Surplus (Deficit) of housing opportunities Calculated Density (number of acres/ number of lots) Affordable Housing. The city must provide opportunity for affordable housing. In Orono, this is achieved by guiding acres at densities greater than 8 units per acre. Orono must provide for 154 units Area E Total 1338 Date: July 21, 2025 Item: 6.1 Presenter: Matt Karney, Planner Section: Old Business Title: LA25-000016, Charles Cudd Co LLC, 2545 Dunwoody Avenue, Conditional Use Permit (Matthew Karney) 1.Purpose: The applicant requests a conditional use permit for replacement retaining walls within the lakeshore setback. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: The application was made on April 2, 2025 and deemed complete on April 17, 2025. The 60-day review period has been extended by staff an additional 60 days, to expire on August 15, 2025. The applicant waived their review timeline on July 3, 2025. 3.Background: This application was tabled by the Planning Commission at the May 2025 meeting, to allow for the applicant to revise their plans to address concerns raised. (Video - Report) At the time, the proposed walls did not meet the conditional use criteria, as they were not the minimum size necessary, were not adequately screened, and did not appear to address any erosion control or slope stability issues. The applicant has since revised their plans with retaining walls in the location of the existing walls, only extending further towards the residence for accessibility. The walls are designed below four (4) feet in height, and will surround a new lake stair and stabilize the slope in the immediate vicinity. A landscape plan was submitted to show how the walls are screened to address concerns from the Planning Commission. 4.Public Comment: No public comments have been received. 5.Staff Recommendation: With the revised plans submitted by the applicant, Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit, conditioned upon engineering being submitted prior to the August 8, 2025 City Council meeting and landscaping to be installed as shown in Exhibit E. 6.Planning Commission Action Requested: If the commission agrees with staff's analysis; a motion should be made to approve the application following staff's recommendation. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits Exhibit A - Staff Report 1339 Exhibit B - Application Summary Exhibit C - Imagery Exhibit D - Site Plans Exhibit E - Landscape Plan 1340 Date Application Received: 04/02/2025 Date Application Considered as Complete: 04/17/2025 Review Period Waived by Applicant To: Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Matthew Karney, Planner Date: 21 July 2025 Subject: #LA25-000016, Charles Cudd Co., 2545 Dunwoody Avenue Conditional Use Permit – Public Hearing Background A public hearing for the application was originally held on May 19, 2025. During this meeting, no public comments were provided, and the Planning Commission voted to table the application to allow for the applicant to revise their plans to address concerns. The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a new retaining wall system to support a lake stair where existing walls and a lake stair are in need of repair. The initial site plan and elevations provided reflected a substantial deviation from the existing conditions. Much of the discussion during the May Planning Commission meeting was an in-kind replacement or, generally a less impactful plan, for walls was required for Planning Commission support. Additionally, it was noted that the walls should be screened more thoroughly with landscaping and that the walls should not be moved substantially from the existing conditions to accommodate a sand blanket. The applicant has submit new plans that address the changes identified by the Planning Commission and would would minimize grading and structural impacts to the site. The new proposal changes the lake stairs retaining walls to be closer to an in-kind replacement with the location and orientation of the walls. The lower wall around the sand blanket, beach, has been removed. The new plan corrects an erosion problem and the existing walls are beginning to fail with soil and sediment. Engineering was not provided for the proposed walls, and must be submitted to Staff prior to the August 8, 2025 City Council meeting to support the newly submitted plans. Conditional Use Permit Analysis: For the July Planning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted an updated 3D rendering of the lakeshore, a site plan depicting the new wall system in the location of the existing walls, and a landscape plan for how the walls will be screened. It has been clarified that the proposed walls are to follow an in- kind approach, but are extended further towards the house to assist the homeowners with accessibility. There was a tram location proposed in the previous plans, and this has been moved away from the lake stair and retaining walls. The applicant states the tram is a future project for the homeowners, and is not subject to the CUP, but is depicted on the new plans for reference. A CUP is required in instances where new walls are proposed or replacement walls are proposed that are greater than four (4) feet in height within the lakeshore setback. The walls will not exceed four (4) feet in height, but as the proposal is not an in-kind replacement; a CUP is required. Application Summary: The applicant requests a conditional use permit for new retaining walls within the 75-foot lakeshore setback. Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval. 1341 FILE # LA25-000016 21 July 2025 Page 2 of 4 Conditional Use Permit (Sections 78-1279 and 78-916) Section 78-1279(5)(c) states: “A wall in the shore setback zone, within a defined bluff and bluff setback; and/or a replacement wall 4 feet in height or greater; and/or any new walls shall require a conditional use permit. New walls and replacement walls greater than 4 feet in height must meet the following conditions. The wall must be…”: 1. Designed to correct an established erosion problem: The existing walls are in need of replacement, and sediment is passing through cracks in the walls. The walls will be replaced in a similar location in order to address slope stability for the proposed lake stair, and the applicant’s engineering must confirm this. This criterion is met. 2. Suitable given the demonstrated need: A lake stair is permitted to allow for safe access to the lake, a tram is also permitted. The proposed retaining walls around the lake stairs are suitable, as they have been redesigned in the location of the existing walls. This criterion is met. 3. Designed by a registered engineer or landscape architect, depending on the project scope: The submitted wall plans at the time of the May Planning Commission meeting were designed by a registered professional, and the wall plans requested prior to the August City Council meeting must also be designed by a registered professional. This criterion is met. 4. Designed to be the minimum size necessary to control the erosion problem: The applicant has reduced the scale of the proposed walls to be closer to an in-kind replacement. Staff believes the proposed walls have been better scaled to the existing conditions of the property. This criterion is met. In addition to the conditions listed in Section 78-1279, Section 78-916 provides a list of conditions supporting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) issuance. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a CUP as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. Based on the application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan: Retaining walls supporting a lake access stair and those that provide needed stabilization in steep slope situations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is met. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code: Retaining walls within the lakeyard are permitted where they are deemed necessary to protect the integrity of the slope. The revised plans meet the requirements outlined within the zoning code. This criterion is met. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management: The property meets this standard. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system: The property meets this standard. 1342 FILE # LA25-000016 21 July 2025 Page 3 of 4 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost: This proposal is not anticipated to impact public services. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future: The revised plans are more consistent with the existing conditions of the site, reflect landscaping proposed to screen the walls from the lake, are compatible with the surrounding area. This criterion is met. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan: The proposed walls are consistent with the character of the surrounding area, as the applicant’s plans are nearly an in-kind replacement of the existing conditions, despite a change in materials. Landscaping is proposed to screen the walls to maintain the natural character of the lakeshore. This criterion is met. 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan: The revised wall plans are compatible with the character of other lakeshore improvements in the surrounding area. This criterion is met. 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses: The improvements to the lakeshore with the proposed retaining walls and lake access should not adversely impact other properties in the neighborhood. This criterion is met. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses: The applicant has provided a landscape plan that shows a variety of ornamental shrubs and grasses to screen the walls and address the concerns raised at the May Planning Commission meeting. This criterion is met. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means: The proposal is not anticipated to create a nuisance. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access: The proposal is not anticipated to create excessive traffic burdens on the nearby road network. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact: Although the proposed walls are not a one-for-one, in-kind, replacement, they better match the existing conditions than the first wall plans for the site. The existing location is utilized and the width of the walls has been greatly reduced to fit more naturally with the existing conditions in the lakeshore. This criterion is met. 1343 FILE # LA25-000016 21 July 2025 Page 4 of 4 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of- way or neighboring residential uses or districts: The proposal does not include the installation of any exterior lighting. 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare: Staff finds the proposal does not come at a detriment to the public health, safety, or welfare of residents and landowners of the City of Orono. This criterion is met. A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally, a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. Public Comments No input from the public regarding this application has been received by staff as of the writing of this report. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff contends the applicant has provided sufficient plans to address the concerns raised prior to and at the Planning Commission meeting held on May 19, 2025. Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to complete the replacement of retaining walls within 75 feet of the OHWL, conditioned upon the engineering for the walls being submitted and deemed acceptable by Staff, prior to the August 8, 2025 City Council meeting; and the walls being screened as proposed in the landscape plan. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Staff Report Exhibit B. Application Summary Exhibit C. Imagery Exhibit D. Site Plans Exhibit E. Landscape Plan 1344 Land Use Application Summary Application Date:04/02/2025 Address:2545 Dunwoody AVE Orono, MN 55391 Parcel Number:2011723210030 Land Use Number:LA25-000016 Application Submitted By:Agent on behalf of property owner Owner:Name: S M Hentges Trust Et Al Address: 13780 OLD BRICK YARD RD Applicant:Name: Michael Shroat Company: Charles Cudd Co, LLC Address: 15050 23rd Ave N Plymouth, MN 55447 mikes@charlescudd.com Contact Information:Associated Contact: Mark Gronberg markg@gronbergassoc.com Associated Contact: John Sonnek jsonnek@charlescudd.com Associated Contact: S M Hentges Trust Et Al Associated Contact: Project Description:Redo Retaining Walls and Stairs to the Lake 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: 1345 Exhibit C – Imagery of 2545 Dunwoody Ave, Orono 1346 1347 Submitted by applicant, photo showing existing conditions of the property from Lake Minnetonka. 1348 Submitted by Applicant, rendering showing proposed conditions with new retaining walls. 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 Flower, Grass12 Grass, Shenandoah SwitchFlower, Vine13 Clematis, PurpleShrub, Deciduous4 Barberry, Cherry Bomb13 Weigela, MinuetShrub, Evergreen Broadleaf20 Boxwood, Velvet GreenTree, Evergreen6 Juniper, Wichita BlueLegendQty Common Name1/16" = 1' Scale:7/11/2025Date:NavarreRevision #:DunwoodyMike KukaHenges Res.Landscape Plan:L&K Tree & Shrub Inc.Landscape Design by:NJuniper, Wichita BlueGrass, Shenandoah SwitchWeigela, MinuetBoxwood, Velvet GreenJuniper, Wichita BlueSlope Tram (Lake Access)Walls & Steps by othersLakeMinnetonkaShoreline Rip RapClematis, Sapphire IndigoWeigela, MinuetClematis, Sapphire IndigoGrass, Shenandoah SwitchSapphire Indigo1354 Sign in., NAME 1. 5. 6. 7. 15. PLANNING COMMISSION Date: Ci%lj ADDRESS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR: ITEM # PUBLIC COMMENT 61 iy.veye, Ilve, L>eR'A assistive listening device available upon request