The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-18-2025 - Agenda Packet Planning Commission - PC packetAgenda Planning Commission Monday, August 18, 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 July 21, 2025 5. Public Hearings 5.1. LA25-000024, Boyer Building Corp o/b/o John & Suzanne Bohn, 1440 Baldur Park Road, Variances and CUP (Melanie Curtis) 5.2. LA25-000031, Warren Garrett, 650 Brown Road North, Variance (Matthew Karney) 5.3. LA25-000032, Brad Jans o/b/o Good Shepard Church, 3745 Shoreline Dr, Conditional Use Permit (Matthew Karney) 5.4. LA25-000035, Miller Dunwiddie, 880 Partenwood Rd, Variance (Matthew Karney) 5.5. LA25-000036, Brian Roath, 1200 Wildhurst Trail, After-the-Fact Variances and Conditional Use Permit (Melanie Curtis) 6. Other Items 7. 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: August 18, 2025 Item: 4.1 Presenter: Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Section: Approval of Minutes Title: Planning Commission Minutes of July 21, 2025 1.Purpose: Approve the Planning Commission Minutes 2.Planning Commission Action Requested: Approve the Planning Commission Regular Minutes of July 21, 2025 AGENDA ITEM Exhibits 07.21.2025 DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes 2 Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting Monday, July 21, 2025, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Page 1 of 4 Chair Pro Tem McCutcheon called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Orono Planning Commission members present: Alternate Planning Commissioner and Chair Pro Tem Mark McCutcheon, Commissioners Thomas Brandabur, Kelly Prchal, and Sam Tift. Chair Chris Bollis and Commissioners Jon Ressler, Andrew Jarnot, and Shane Weltzin were absent. Staff present: Community Development Director Laura Oakden, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and City Planner Matthew Karney. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Brandabur moved, Prchal seconded, to approve the Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 4. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 16, 2025 Tift moved, Prchal seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of June 16, 2025. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1. LA25-000023, DAVID CHARLEZ DESIGNS O/B/O MARK STADHEIM,1390 REST POINT ROAD, VARIANCES The Planning Commission is requested to review the Staff report, receive a presentation, and discuss and approve variances to construct an expanded second level and slightly raised deck. The lot is non- conforming, and the addition would not be higher than the existing roofline or be closer to the lake, or enlarge the footprint of the home. The Planning Commission discussed the item and was invited to ask questions of staff and the applicant, Dave Zweber of David Charlez Design. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:05 p.m. There were public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:05 p.m. Commissioners noted the plan did not expand the roofline or footprint, and is supported by the immediate neighbors. Prchal moved, Brandabur seconded, to approve LA25-000023, 1390 Rest Point Road, Variances. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 0. 3 Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting Monday, July 21, 2025, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Page 2 of 4 5.2. LA25-000025, SOUTHVIEW DESIGN, 1530 ORCHARD BEACH PLACE, VARIANCES The Planning Commission is requested to review the Staff report, receive a presentation, and discuss and deny the request for variances to construct an accessory cabana lakeward of the primary residence. The residents have permits for several other improvements, including a patio and pool, that do not impact the lakeshore setback. The Planning Commission discussed the item and asked questions of staff and the applicant, Josh Koller, Southview Designs, and the homeowner, Brett Schraber, 1530 Orchard Beach Place. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:28 p.m. There were no public comments. A letter from a neighbor supporting the project was read into the record. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:28 p.m. Commissioners noted that no structures are allowed in the average lakeshore setback, but that a road easement on one side made a unique average lakeshore setback, and that the structure would not impact the view of any neighbor. If the easement were not there, the project would not require a variance. However, past practice has been to deny accessory structures in the setback. Commissioners were not in favor of the variance to have the cabana and the primary structure less than 10 feet apart. Brandabur moved, Prchal seconded, to approve LA25-000025, 1530 Orchard Beach Place, Average Lakeshore Setback Variance with the condition that the cabana would adhere to the 10-foot separation from the principal structure and the side-yard setback. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 0. 5.3. LA25-000026, GRIFFIN DOOLING, 1080 FERNDALE RD WEST, VARIANCES. The Planning Commission is requested to review the Staff report, receive a presentation, and discuss and approve variances to setbacks and hardcover to reconstruct an existing deck with a different configuration. Since the lot has no buildable envelope, staff agreed that there is a practical difficulty, but they would recommend requiring hard cover reduction. The new deck is necessitated by structural problems with the existing home. The Planning Commission discussed the item and asked questions of staff and the applicant, Griffin Dooling, 1080 Ferndale Rd. W. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:53 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:53 p.m. Commissioners agreed there was a practical difficulty, and they could understand the recommendation that the applicant should show where they can reduce hardcover before it goes to the City Council, although they could not see a lot of places to remove hardcover, and they did not find the request egregious. 4 Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting Monday, July 21, 2025, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Page 3 of 4 Brandabur moved, Tift seconded, to approve LA25-000026, 1080 Ferndale Rd West, Variances as applied. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 0. 5.4. LA25-000028, CITY CODE RECODIFICATION, ORDINANCE UPDATE. The Planning Commission is requested to review the Staff report, receive a presentation, and discuss and approve the recodification of the City Code, which is essentially a re-numbering with State Statute references updated. The Planning Commission discussed the item and asked questions of staff. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Prchal moved, Tift seconded, to adopt LA25-000028, City Code Recodification, Ordinance Update as applied. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 0. 5.5. LA25-000029, CITY OF ORONO, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT #8 The Planning Commission is requested to review the Staff report, receive a presentation, and discuss and adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to resolve an inconsistency in the map and need to clarify projected timelines identified by the Metropolitan Council. The Planning Commission discussed the item and asked questions of staff. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. Tift moved, Brandabur seconded, to adopt LA25-000028, Comprehensive Plan Amendment #8. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 0. 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 LA25-000016, CHARLES CUDD CO LLC, 2545 DUNWOODY AVENUE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The Planning Commission is requested to review the Staff report, receive a presentation, and discuss and approve a Conditional Use Permit for retaining walls. The request was tabled in May, and the plan has been reduced and is closer to an in-kind replacement. Staff recommended making approval contingent upon providing additional engineering information prior to the City Council meeting. 5 Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting Monday, July 21, 2025, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Page 4 of 4 The Planning Commission discussed the item and asked questions of staff and the applicant, John Sonnek, Charles Cudd Co., Shorewood. Commissioners said the plan has been reduced from the original proposal and now replaces the existing wall, and the tramway has been moved so it aligns with the recommendations made by the Planning Commission in May. They indicated it is a positive improvement for the property. Tift moved, Prchal seconded, to approve LA25-000016, 2545 Dunwoody Avenue, Conditional Use Permit, contingent on an engineer’s letter being submitted. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 0. 7. ADJOURNMENT Prchal moved, Tift seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 7:31 p.m. to August 18, 2025. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: _________________________________________ Christopher Bollis, Chair 6 Date: August 18, 2025 Item: 5.1 Presenter: Melanie Curtis, Planner Section: Public Hearings Title: LA25-000024, Boyer Building Corp o/b/o John & Suzanne Bohn, 1440 Baldur Park Road, Variances and CUP (Melanie Curtis) 1.Purpose: Consider variances and a conditional use permit to redevelop the property. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: The application was submitted on June 17, 2025 and considered to be complete on August 4th. Therefore the 60-day review timing will end on October 3, 2035. 3.Background: The applicants have requested variances to construct a new home. The new home footprint is proposed to encroach into the rear/street setback, lakeward of the 75-foot lake setback, and the 2nd story balcony encroaches into the 75-foot setback and the average lakeshore setback. They request a variance to permit 31.5% hardcover overall. Lot area and lot width variances are also requested. Additionally, due to the low elevation on the property, they are proposing to elevate the home on fill, which requires a 15-foot-wide perimeter rescue-bench elevation of at least 931.5’ around the home, which cannot be met due to the narrow width; therefore, a CUP is also required. Please refer to the Planning Report attached as Exhibit A for the full project description, CUP criteria, and practical difficulty analysis. 4.Public Comment: Comments in support of the application have been received and are attached as Exhibit I. 5.Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval as applied. 6.Planning Commission Action Requested: Planning Commission should consider a motion to approve the application as applied. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Report Exhibit B - App & Narratives Exhibit C - Practical Difficulty Exhibit D - Survey_Existing Conditions Exhibit E - Survey_Proposed Exhibit F - Construction Plans Exhibit G - Hardcover Calculations Exhibit I - Neighbor Comments 7 Exhibit J - Aerial Photos Exhibit K - Map and Owner List 8 Date Application Received: 06/17/2025 Date Application Considered as Complete: 08/04/2025 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10/03/2025 To: Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 18 August 2025 Subject: #LA25-000024, Boyer Building Corp o/b/o John & Suzanne Bohn, 1440 Baldur Park Road Variances and CUP Public Hearing Background The subject property is located on the Baldur Park peninsula. The applicants have requested variances to construct a new home. The new home footprint is proposed to encroach approximately one foot into the rear/street setback, 10 feet lakeward of the 75-foot lake setback, and the 2nd story balcony encroaches 14.3 feet lakeward of the 75-foot setback and approximately 3 feet into the average lakeshore setback. On the rear, an approximate 3 square foot triangle of the home footprint is proposed to encroach into the 30-foot rear yard setback by ±one foot. Also requested are variances for hardcover to permit 31.5% hardcover overall, where the current level is 31.9% (where 25% is permitted); a 232 square foot reduction in hardcover is proposed within the 75-foot setback area. Because of the need for the above variances, lot area and lot width variances are also required. Due to the low, flat elevation on the property, they are proposing to elevate the home on fill, which requires a 15-foot-wide perimeter rescue-bench elevation of at least 931.5’ around the home. The property width limits their ability to achieve the 15-foot bench; therefore, a CUP is also required. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the substandard area and width of the lot as practical difficulties supporting the requested variances. Additionally, they have provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties Application Summary: The applicant is requesting the following variances to redevelop the property with a new home: 1. Lot area variance. 2. Lot width variance. 3. Rear yard setback variance. 4. Average lakeshore setback variance. 5. 75-foot lake setback variance. 6. Hardcover exceeding 25%, and 7. Hardcover within 75 feet of the OHWL. A conditional use permit is also required to deviate from the 15-foot perimeter rescue bench required for the home to be elevated out of the floodplain on fill. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. 9 PC Exhibit A FILE # LA25-000024 18 August 2025 Page 2 of 6 attached as Exhibit C, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds that there are several challenging issues on this site. The lot’s narrow width, the curved shoreline, and the low elevation all support granting variances. The proposed hardcover level is a 34 square foot reduction, which slightly improves the existing condition. Redevelopment of nonconforming properties can be challenging. The applicants designed a home keeping in character with the neighborhood, with as few variances as possible, and still result in a reasonable building footprint. They've received supportive feedback from their neighbors as they designed the home for the property. The narrow width and low elevation of the property present a unique challenge from a grading standpoint. The elevation eliminates the ability to incorporate a basement, which results in additional challenges relating to storage (and home square footage). The requested variances are reasonable and are supported by practical difficulties on the small, narrow property. The footprint of the home has been moved back ±8 feet farther from the lake, providing additional green space between the home and the lake to allow for better stormwater infiltration. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 6.12.1550 & 6.12.6940 – Setbacks: LR-1C Required Existing Proposed Rear/Street 30’ 57’ Home 17.4’ Detached Garage 29.1’ West Side 7.5’ * 13.6’ Home 10.9’ East Side 7.5’ * 5.5’ Home 5.8’ Detached Garage 10’ Lakeshore 75’ 56.6’ Home 46’ Deck 65’ Home 60’ Balcony Average Lakeshore The existing home is situated 16.5’ lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. The new home (and balcony) will encroach 3 feet lakeward of the ALS, improving the encroachments. *Exception: City Code Section 6.12.1550 (b)(1) Section 6.12.1550 – Lot Area/Width: LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’ Actual 7,895 s.f. (0.18 acre) ±49’ @ 75’ / ±40’ @ OHWL Section 6.12.6930 – Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 7,895 s.f. (0.18 acre) Allowed: 2,000 s.f. * Existing: 1,490 s.f. Proposed: 1,698 s.f. *City Code Section 3.12.6930(1)(b) Section 6.12.9110 and 6.12.9210 – Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 7,895 s.f. 1,973.75 s.f. (25 %) 2,526 s.f. (31.99%) 591 s.f. w/in 75’ setback 2,492 s.f. (31.56%) 359 s.f. w/in 75’ setback 10 FILE # LA25-000024 18 August 2025 Page 3 of 6 Applicable Regulations: Lot Area and Lot Width Variances (Chapter 6.12 Section 1550) Zoning Code Section 6.12.320 provides options for the redevelopment of lots that do not meet the minimum area or width requirements for the respective zoning district. Substandard properties within the Shoreland Overlay District may be redeveloped without variances from lot size and width requirements if the following standards are met: 1. All setback requirements can be met. 2. The lot is connected to a public sewer, and 3. The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square footage restrictions of this chapter, and the total square footage of hardcover does not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot area. 4. All other zoning district standards can be met. The applicant’s request for additional variances results in the property’s inability to conform to all of the standards above. Therefore, lot area and lot width variances are also required to redevelop the property. The ability to develop the property in a manner consistent with other developed properties in the neighborhood would be limited if the lot width and lot area variances are not granted. 75-foot Lake Setback and Average Lakeshore Setback Variances (Chapter 6.12 Section 6240) Although there is an improvement, the applicant’s plan results in continued encroachments into the lake and average lakeshore setback areas. Rear Yard Setback Variance (Chapter 6.12 Section 1550) An approximate 3 square foot triangle of the garage footprint encroaches 1 foot into the required 30-foot rear yard setback. The lot is slightly pie-shaped as it is narrower at the lake than at the road. Hardcover Variance (Chapter 6.12 Sections 9110 & 9210) With redevelopment, the applicants are proposing to reduce the total site hardcover amount by 34 square feet or by 0.43% (31.99% to 31.56%). A hardcover reduction of 232 square feet is proposed within the 75-foot setback. Conditional Use Permit relating to elevating the home on fill (Chapter 6.12 Section 5040) Wherever floodplain filling is proposed, DNR and MCWD regulations require the floodplain to be expanded elsewhere so there is no decrease in flood storage capacity. The home is proposed to be elevated on fill to ensure that the floodplain regulations are met and positive drainage can be achieved. The City’s floodplain regulations require a rescue bench around all buildings proposed to be elevated above the floodplain on fill. The fill material must continue around the perimeter of the building to create a 15-foot “rescue bench” at the 931.5’ elevation. The subject property is not wide enough to comply with the 15-foot perimeter fill requirement. The Code requires a conditional use permit to formally address any departure from the fill bench requirement. Where lot size constraints prevent the fill elevation from extending 15 feet beyond the structure, a reduction in the fill extension may be allowed for lots less than 65 feet wide, provided the lot was established before October 26, 1978. The City Engineer will review the proposed grades with the formal Building Permit application to ensure the grading does not adversely impact neighboring properties. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 6.12.530) 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 11 FILE # LA25-000024 18 August 2025 Page 4 of 6 energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit, as a variance, any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit, as a variance, the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed variances are in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The substandard lot has difficulties in its small size and narrow width, the lack of on-street parking, and the low elevation of the property, making development difficult. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances proposed to rebuild a new home on this nonconforming lot are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to permit the construction of a new residence on the substandard lot is reasonable. The proposed hardcover is a reduction from the existing condition. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The substandard lot size is an existing condition, and there is no available land with which to make the property more conforming. The restricted roadway, low topography, lot size and shape, and location are challenges not created by the owners. There should be consideration for variances for the property which is substandard in area and setback requirements. The project has been designed with an effort toward limiting the additional hardcover without sacrificing functionality; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances are requested to permit the construction of a new home on the residential property, which is reasonable. Additionally, City Code Section 6.12.530 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 6.12. 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 6.12 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as a single-family residence 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 substandard size, location, elevation, and unique configuration create significant difficulties that also apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. The proposed setbacks and hardcover level are not out of character. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. Other properties in the neighborhood are subject to similar difficulties. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The proposed size of the home is 302 square feet under the 2,000 square foot maximum for properties under 10,000 square feet in area. Granting of the lot area and width, setback, and hardcover variances 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 variances for lot size, hardcover, and setbacks in this situation is not contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter. 12 FILE # LA25-000024 18 August 2025 Page 5 of 6 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Without variances the property is unbuildable. The variances for lot size, setback, and hardcover are necessary and do not merely serve as a convenience to the owners. The Commission may recommend, or the Council may impose conditions in granting 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. Conditional Use Permit (Section 6.12.4090) The Planning Commission may recommend, and the Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. 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; the proposed development of the property for residential use is consistent with the community management plan. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by Article V, Division 3 of the City Code; the proposed project will conform to all other applicable zoning requirements. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; in the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; in the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; in the opinion of staff this criterion is met. 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 development of the property for residential use and the reduced rescue bench is compatible and consistent with the neighborhood and surrounding uses. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; the development of the property for residential use is compatible and consistent with the neighborhood and surrounding uses. 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; in the opinion of staff 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 request includes grading and filling within the 100-year floodplain and it shall be reviewed by Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The proposed reduction of the rescue bench will not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; The project should not result in undesirable views or sustained activity such as disturbing neighbors. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; The applicants will be required to adhere to the City’s erosion control regulations as well as the permitting requirements of the MCWD. Timely re-vegetation and stabilization will be a requirement of the permitting process. The project should not result in a nuisance condition. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; the applicant will be required to keep debris off of the public roadways; a haul route should be provided. The noise resulting from the trucks and equipment moving the material in and around the site should be minimized to the extent possible. The project will be evaluated and monitored by the City Engineer and planning staff to minimize nuisances during the project. 13 FILE # LA25-000024 18 August 2025 Page 6 of 6 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; the overall long-term effect of the project should result in minimal or no environmental impacts. 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; this project should result in no additional non-residential lighting or glare; and 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. The project should not be a detriment to public health, public safety, or general welfare. 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 Letters in support of the applicant’s request have been received and are attached as Exhibit I. Analysis To allow more room for grading on the narrow lot, the applicants have not fully utilized the building envelope by increasing the width of the home as close to the side lot lines as the 7.5-foot setbacks would permit. Rather, they’ve made minimal improvements to the encroachments on the lake and street sides, requiring variances. The applicant’s plan is sensitive to massing and open space, providing approximately 2.5 to 3 feet of additional setback (open space) on both side yards, does not maximize the allowed footprint, and does not maximize the height. Staff conducted a cursory review of the proposed building height, and the home will be approximately 22 feet in height(as defined), 8 feet lower than permitted. The applicants’ plan reflects a deviation from the 15-foot rescue bench requirement, which is reasonable considering the narrow width of the property. As part of this project, all building permits, the applicants will be required to install erosion/perimeter control to prevent impact on the neighboring properties. Additionally, they shall keep debris off the public roadways. Correction of any damage to the public roadways will be required to be completed as part of the building permit compliance. 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 approval as applied, conditioned upon any forthcoming requirements from the MCWD and City Engineer. 14 Land Use Application Summary Application Date:06/17/2025 Address:1440 Baldur Park RD Orono, MN 55391 Parcel Number:0811723430005 Land Use Number:LA25-000024 Application Submitted By:Agent on behalf of property owner Owner:Name: JOHN & SUZANNE BOHN Address: 6377 OXBOW BEND CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Applicant:Name: Company: Boyer Building Corporation Address: 3435 County Road 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 info@boyerbuilding.com Contact Information:Associated Contact: Joe Franson joe.franson@boyerbuilding.com Associated Contact: Kimberly Fletcher kimberly.fletcher@boyerbuilding.com Associated Contact: JOHN & SUZANNE BOHN Associated Contact: Project Description:New Build- Variance 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: 7/24/25, 4:17 PM Permit Details | Citizenserve https://www3.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=DisplayPermitDetail&SelectedTab=Permits&Permit_ID=52147687&WorkOrder_ID=898…1/115 PC Exhibit B 3435 County Rd. 101 | Minnetonka, MN 55345 | (952) 475-2097 | boyerbuilding.com Date: June 17, 2025 To: Orono Planning Commission & City Council Applicant: Kimberly Fletcher Owner: Jack & Suzy Bohn Address: 1440 Baldur Park Road, Orono, MN 55391 Re: Request for Variances – Rear Yard Setback & Hardcover (1440 Baldur Park Road) Dear Planning Commission Members and City Council, The current owners have owned this property for 21 years. The home was originally built in 1920. Our clients have given the current property life. Respecting the lot and cherishing the memories they have made while watching their three sons grow and learn about life on the water during their weekend getaways. The home is currently non-conforming to the city requirements and has challenges for full-time living. Our client’s hope is to make this their forever home with consideration to age in place on the bay. The Bohn’s envision a design that reflects the lake, the community and the nature of their lot as a priority with design being meaningful to the water and neighborhood. They intend to keep the home modest and create a more conforming dwelling. The current structure is non-conforming in several ways. It sits 56’ from the OHWL, doesn’t meet the side or street setback requirements, it currently encroaches on the sightlines of the adjacent homes, and it currently sits at 33.3% hardcover per as built survey dated, January 24, 2025. Apart from these non-conforming issues, the lot is restrictively small, the existing garage is detached and close to the street, the patio is uneven, and the interior has multiple floor height changes making aging in place difficult. In light of these existing conditions and difficulties we have attempted to redevelop the lot making a conscious effort to design a new home that not only respects the natural setting and surrounding neighborhood but also reduces impacts on the lake, stormwater runoff, and adjacent properties. Jack and Suzy Bohn, owners of the property at 1440 Baldur Park Road, respectfully submit this request to redevelop their property as shown on the included plans and survey. This will result in the following changes from the current situation: 1. The new house will move further from the OHWL but will still be non-complying (increase from 56’ now to 60’ as planned). 2. The new house will be brought into compliance with the side-setback requirements. 3. The new house will have zero sightline interference of the neighboring homes as it moves further back on the lot from the lake. 4. The hardcover will increase slightly from 33.3% to 34%. 5. The street-side setback will improve from 17’ currently to 30’. We respectfully request variance consideration for items #1 & #4: 1. OHWL Setback Variance: 16 3435 County Rd. 101 | Minnetonka, MN 55345 | (952) 475-2097 | boyerbuilding.com 4. Hardcover Variance: We are requesting approval to allow 34.0% total hardcover, mirroring the existing hardcover of the lot to allow the deck to be a bit larger and to widen the driveway to meet the width of the home. However, we are pushing the home further from the lake 60’ and more in line with neighboring properties and not blocking views. We have included: -A current as-built survey (showing existing setbacks and hardcover). -A modified survey indicating the proposed dwelling location on the lot (Including setbacks and hardcover). - Proposed site plan, floor plans for the new home. - Architectural elevations of the proposed home. Key points in support of our variance requests: - The proposed 34% hardcover is more compact and in a more central location on the lot to better conform with the side setback requirements that are currently noncomplying. This will improve the side yard run off. - The new home will increase the setback from the Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL), providing environmental benefit and improved consistency with current zoning goals. - Due to the narrow and substandard dimensions of the lot, particularly the limited lot width and preexisting constraints, achieving full compliance with all zoning requirements is not practically possible without rendering the lot unbuildable or the home unreasonably small. - Our design approach prioritizes the preservation of lake views for neighboring properties and maintains neighborhood character. - These variances are necessary to reasonably use and improve the property without causing negative impacts to public health, safety, or welfare. We believe the requested variances satisfy the “practical difficulties” standard under Minnesota law and are consistent with the intent of the Orono Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. We appreciate your consideration of our request and welcome any additional feedback for review or discussion. Sincerely, Kimberly Fletcher Boyer Building on Behalf of our Client Jack and Suzy Bohn 17 3435 County Rd. 101 | Minnetonka, MN 55345 | (952) 475-2097 | boyerbuilding.com Date: July 31, 2025 To: Orono Planning Commission & City Council Applicant: Kimberly Fletcher Owner: Jack & Suzy Bohn Address: 1440 Baldur Park Road, Orono, MN 55391 Re: Request for Variance Dear Planning Commission Members and City Council, The current owners (Jack & Suzy Bohn) have owned this property for 21 years. The original home was built in 1920. Our clients have given the current property life respecting the lot and cherishing the memories they’ve made while watching their three sons grow and learn about life on the water during their weekend getaways. The home is currently non- conforming to the city requirements and has challenges for full-time living. Our client’s hope is to make this their forever home with considerations toward aging in place on the bay. The Bohn’s intend to build a new home that fits well with their property, the community, and the city of Orono as a whole. They intend to keep the home modest but practical while improving its conformity to city ordinances. This site provides several hardships and challenges that must be overcome to make reasonable use of the property. • First, the lot is very small (only 7,895sft). This is well below modern sizing requirements and makes several code requirements impossible to meet and others very difficult. Because of the small size of the lot, hardcover requirements are unrealistic and in conflict with massing allowances. Per section 78-1685 of the City Code lots less than 10,000 sq ft may have a total combined footprint of all principal and accessory structures, not to exceed 2000 sq ft. If we were to build a new structure this size it would result in 2,720sft of hardcover or 34.5% just for the building. However, we are not proposing to do this, rather we are proposing a modest 1,698sft home. This hardship is shared by many of the neighboring properties along Baldur Park Rd so we know there are reasonable precedents to solve these issues. • Secondly, the property is within the flood plane and the existing home and garage are right at the flood plane level with no rescue bench considerations (as are the two adjacent properties). • Thirdly, the current structures on the property are non-conforming in several ways. o The current structures (cabin, detached garage, and associated hardcover) do not respect the average setback requirements and the existing deck sits about 15’ closer to the lake than the neighbors as shown on the as-built survey. o Doesn’t meet the 75’ lake setback requirement. Currently the home is only 56’ from the lake. o Doesn’t meet the side or street setback requirements. o Doesn’t meet hardcover standards. Hardcover currently add up to 31.99% per the surveyor’s hardcover calculations based on as-built survey dated January 24, 2025. • In addition to these challenges, the existing home has multiple floor height changes and ingress/egress hurdles making it unsafe for aging in place and the garage is detached and dilapidated. 18 3435 County Rd. 101 | Minnetonka, MN 55345 | (952) 475-2097 | boyerbuilding.com In light of these existing conditions and difficulties we have attempted to redevelop the lot making a conscious effort to design a new home that not only respects the natural setting and immediate neighbors but also reduces impacts on the lake, neighborhood, and the city at large. Jack and Suzy Bohn, owners of the property at 1440 Baldur Park Road, respectfully submit this request to redevelop their property as shown on the included plans and survey. This will result in the following changes from the current situation: 1. As proposed, the new home would be brought into compliance with the average setback requirement based on the position of the two neighboring homes. The new home would provide no sightline interference for the neighboring homes as it moves further back on the lot from the lake. 2. The new house will move further from the OHWL but will still be non-complying (increase from 56’ now to 66’ as planned). This will also reduce the hardcover within the 75’ lake setback area from 591sft now to 386sft as proposed – a 39.3% reduction from the current situation. 3. The new house will be brought completely into compliance with the side setback requirements being positioned 10’ away from both side property lines. 4. The hardcover will decrease slightly from 31.99% to 31.56%. While still non-compliant, this is a reduction of the overall hardcover and as mentioned before, this would result in a hardcover reduction in the lake setback area of 39.3% from the current scenario. 5. The streetside setback will be brought closer to compliance improving from 17’ currently to 29.1’ as proposed. 6. Regarding the rescue bench requirements, we have been informed that it is impossible for this property to comply with rescue bench requirements. However, we understand that this will be handled by a conditional use permit (CUP) rather than a variance. We have made reasonable allowances in the current plans and are raising the elevation of the home to be as compliant as reasonably possible. We respectfully request variance consideration for items #2, #4, & #5: 2. OHWL Setback Variance: The existing home sits 56’ away from the OHWL and is non-compliant with the 75’ setback requirement. Due to how small the lot is and due to the positioning of the structures on the adjacent properties. If we were required to comply with the 75’ lake setback requirement the new home would set further back then both immediate neighbors creating a tunnel and disadvantaging this property more than the neighboring properties. While the proposed home is still non-compliant this plan brings it more into compliance than the current home and gives back 205sft of hardcover in the lake setback area. 4. Hardcover Variance: We request approval to allow 31.56% total hardcover, a reduction to the existing hardcover of the lot from the current 31.99%. While this is a minor reduction in the overall hardcover, it does represent a meaningful reduction (39.3% less) of hardcover located within the lakeshore setback area. Also, this is nearer to compliance than both of the immediate neighbors which are on similar-sized, slightly larger lots (one is ~34% and the other is ~33% currently). 5. Streetside Setback: We request approval to allow for the new home to be built 29.1’ from the streetside property line instead of the code-required minimum of 30’. This is an improvement from the current garage which is only 17’ away from the property line. 19 3435 County Rd. 101 | Minnetonka, MN 55345 | (952) 475-2097 | boyerbuilding.com In support of this request, we have included: - GIS map view of the adjacent properties for context (below). - Photos of the streetview and lake view for context (below). - A current as-built survey (showing existing setbacks and hardcover). - A modified survey indicating the proposed dwelling location on the lot (Including setbacks and hardcover). - Proposed site plan, floor plans for the new home. - Architectural elevations of the proposed home. Key points in support of our variance requests: - The proposed 31.56% hardcover is more compact and located further from the lake on the lot to better conform with the side setback requirements that are currently noncomplying. This will improve the side yard run off. - Due to the narrow and substandard dimensions of the lot, particularly the limited lot width and preexisting constraints, achieving full compliance with all zoning requirements is not practically possible without rendering the lot unbuildable or the home unreasonably small and also disadvantage this property more than its immediate neighbors. - Our design approach prioritizes the preservation of lake views for neighboring properties and maintains neighborhood character. - These variances are necessary to reasonably use and improve property without causing negative impacts to public health, safety, or welfare. We believe the requested variances satisfy the “practical difficulties” standard and are consistent with the intent of the Orono Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. We appreciate your consideration of our request and welcome any additional feedback for review or discussion. Sincerely, Kimberly Fletcher Boyer Building on Behalf of our Client Jack and Suzy Bohn Overhead map of adjacent properties from GIS: 20 3435 County Rd. 101 | Minnetonka, MN 55345 | (952) 475-2097 | boyerbuilding.com 21 3435 County Rd. 101 | Minnetonka, MN 55345 | (952) 475-2097 | boyerbuilding.com View of adjacent properties from the road: View of adjacent properties from the road (alternate view): 22 3435 County Rd. 101 | Minnetonka, MN 55345 | (952) 475-2097 | boyerbuilding.com View of adjacent properties from the lake: View of adjacent properties from the lake (alternate angle): 23 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA25-000024 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: The construction of a new single family home is a reasonable use of the property. The proposed home will comply with more city zoning requirements then the current home does. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The lot is substandard in area and width. We believe it is the smallest lot in the neighborhood. The small lot size, substandard width, and existing improvements are not the result of the current homeowner’s actions. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The home is currently non-conforming to the city requirements and has challenges for full-time living. Our client’s hope is to make this their forever home with consideration to age in place on the bay. The Bohn’s envision a design that reflects the lake, the community and the nature of their lot as a priority with design being meaningful to the water and neighborhood. They intend to keep the home modest and create a more conforming dwelling. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: Economic considerations were not considered in the proposed plan. 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: N/A 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: N/A 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: N/A 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: The substandard lot width and existing conditions of the property are unique conditions to the specific property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: Surrounding properties have received hardcover variances due to similar difficulties including our neighbors at 1444 and 1448 Baldur Park Rd. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: The existing home is in a non conforming location. The proposed home will be set further back from the lake and further back from the average lake setback. The proposed home will conform to the side yard setbacks and the rear yard setback. 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: Granting the requested variances will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort or morals of the community. 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 requested variances satisfy the “practical difficulties” standard under Minnesota law and are consistent with the intent of the Orono Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan. The construction of the new home is in a better location to the existing home and improves nonconformities. 7/24/25, 4:18 PM Permit Details | Citizenserve https://www3.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=DisplayPermitDetail&SelectedTab=Permits&Permit_ID=52147687&WorkOrder_ID=898…1/124 PC Exhibit C 25 PC Exhibit D Baldur Park RoadLake Minnnetonka# 42379LICENSE NO.Thomas M. BloomDATES1JUNE 12, 2025Phone (952) 474-7964Web: www.advsur.comSHEET 1 OF 140200JANUARY 24, 2025JUNE 12, 2025LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lot 5, Block 1, BALDUR PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota.SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS:1.Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed above. Thescope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter.Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, ifnecessary, to make sure that it is correct and that any matters of record, such as easements, thatyou wish to be included on the survey have been shown.2.Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary for the survey.3.Setting survey markers or verifying existing survey markers to establish the corners of theproperty.4.This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current title commitment. There maybe existing easements or other encumbrances that would be revealed by a current titlecommitment. Therefore, this survey does not purport to show any easements or encumbrancesother than the ones shown hereon.5.Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, are takenfrom the siding and or stucco of the building.6.Showing and tabulating impervious surface coverage of the lot for your review and for thereview of such governmental agencies that may have jurisdiction over these requirements toverify they are correctly shown before proceeding with construction.7.Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topographyof the site. We have also provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations forconstruction on this site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on thissurvey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the survey whendetermining other elevations for use on this site or before beginning construction.8.While we show a proposed location for this home or addition, we are not as familiar with yourproposed plans as you, your architect, or the builder are. Review our proposed location of theimprovements and proposed yard grades carefully to verify that they match your plans beforeconstruction begins. Also, we are not as familiar with local codes and minimum requirementsas the local building and zoning officials in this community are. Be sure to show this survey tosaid officials, or any other officials that may have jurisdiction over the proposed improvementsand obtain their approvals before beginning construction or planning improvements to theproperty.9.While we show the building setback lines, we suggest you show this survey to the appropriatecity officials to be sure that the setback lines are shown correctly. Do this BEFORE you use thissurvey to design anything for this site.STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS:"●" Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted.Deephaven, Minnesota 5539118202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Suite 40126PC Exhibit E 27 PC Exhibit F 28 29 30 City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: 1440 Baldur Park Road (our survey 250039) Prepared by: Thomas M. Bloom P.L.S. No. 42379 Date:7/28/2025 Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one)Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 1: EXISTING HARDCOVER In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property. Key to Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total (Square Feet) (Example)(Garage) (24' x 30')(720)S.F. A Hardcover outside of 75' Lake Setback S.F. B House 568 S.F. C Driveway 495 S.F. D Garage 581 S.F. E Concrete Surfaces 391 S.F. F S.F. G S.F. H S.F. I S.F. J Hardcover within 75' Lake Setback S.F. K House 341 S.F. L Deck 165 S.F. M Pavers 47 S.F. N Concrete Surfaces 38 S.F. O Total within 75'=591 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 2,626 S.F. Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684) Decks with Minimum 1/4" Spacing. Field verify.100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover 100 S.F. (3) Net Existing Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)]2,526 S.F. (4) Total Lot Area 7,895 S.F. Existing Hardcover Percentage [(3) / (4)]31.99% 31 PC Exhibit G ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a licensed professional land surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Thomas M. Bloom Thomas M. Bloom P.L.S. No. 42379 Step 2: PROPOSED HARDCOVER In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property. Key to Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total (Square Feet) (Example)(Garage) (24' x 30')(720)S.F. A Hardcover outside of 75' Lake Setback S.F. B House 1,445 S.F. C Walk 111 S.F. D Driveway 604 S.F. E AC Pad 6 S.F. F Stoop 35 S.F. G S.F. H S.F. I S.F. J Hardcover within 75' Lake Setback S.F. K House 253 S.F. L 2nd Level Balcony (Deck)68 S.F. M Fire Pit 38 S.F. N Total within 75'=359 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 2,560 S.F. Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684) Decks with Minimum 1/4" Spacing. Field verify.68 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover 68 S.F. (3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)]2,492 S.F. (4) Total Lot Area 7,895 S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3) / (4)]31.56% 32 July 30, 2025 City of Orono Planning Commission 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: Support for Variance Request at 1440 Baldur Park Road, Orono, MN Dear Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing to express my strong support for the variance request submitted by Jack and Suzy Bohn for the property located at 1440 Baldur Park Road in Orono, Minnesota. As a neighboring property owner at 1444 Baldur Park Road, I am directly adjacent to the subject property and have a vested interest in developments that may affect our community. I have had the opportunity to review the proposed plans and survey associated with this variance request. Based on my examination, I fully approve of the proposed changes. I do not foresee any adverse impacts to my property, the surrounding neighborhood, o r the environment as a result of this project. In fact, I believe it will enhance the aesthetic appeal of the area. I kindly urge the Planning Commission to approve this variance request, as it appears to be a reasonable and well-considered proposal that benefits the property owner without detriment to others. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please feel free to contact me at 440-241- 2801 or bma1321@yahoo.com if you require any additional information. Sincerely, Bryan Anderson 1444 Baldur Park Road, Orono 440-241-2801 33 PC Exhibit I 34 35 PC Exhibit J 36 37 38 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 1440 Baldur 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 39 PC Exhibit K 38 08-117-23 31 0001 STEVE ELLIOTT 1400 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 31 0002 MICHAEL & KATIE SCHROEDER 1396 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0001 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FACILITIES SERVICES 300 S 6TH STREET MC 228 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55487 38 08-117-23 34 0013 R J ROHRER/D L S HUTCHINSON 1424 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0014 BRADLEY & CYNTHIA MCDONNELL 1420 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0015 JEFFREY ULKU/MARCIA PETERSON 1416 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0016 WILLIAM C ARONS 1207 PAR VIEW DRIVE SANIBEL FLA 33957 38 08-117-23 34 0017 WILLIAM L/KRISTI B ANDERSON 1408 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0018 BARBARA BRANDT JOHN RONALD ANDERSON 1404 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0019 THOMAS P LUTZ MARY LOU LUTZ 3570 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0020 KEVIN P LAWSON ELIZABETH LAWSON 3580 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0025 MICHAEL P LAUMANN 8959 SPRINGWOOD DR WOODBURY MN 55125 38 08-117-23 34 0028 RICHARD J ROHRER D L SONJA HUTCHINSON 1424 BALDUR PARK RD ORONO MN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0055 KENT D & RUTH A WARDEN 3550 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0056 STEVEN R & JANNA S SUNDBY 3587 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0059 KENT ROTH 1428 BALDUR PARK ROAD ORONO MN 55391 38 08-117-23 34 0062 CELESTA OREL FRANK S ARONE 3590 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 42 0010 MICHAEL M LOOP TRUSTEE KRISTA J LOOP TRUSTEE 1355 TONKAWA RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0001 LYNETTE K BERNARD 3470 BIRCH LA WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0002 TODD A MISCHKE LUCHIN MISCHKE 3490 BIRCH LA WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0003 RYAN W MUHLBAUER SARAH E FRAKES 1448 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0004 BRYAN ANDERSON JILL ANDERSON 1444 BALDUR PK RD ORONO MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0005 JOHN & SUZANNE BOHN 6377 OXBOW BEND CHANHASSEN MN 55317 38 08-117-23 43 0006 JEFFREY PAUL MIKKELSON 1436 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0007 JOHN G & MAUREEN R NYQUIST 1432 BALDUR PARK RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0008 MICHAEL & KIMBERLY LATTERNER 3510 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0009 JOY TUFTE & KEITH TUFTE 3520 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0010 MICHAEL P LAUMANN 3530 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0011 SETH J VICTORSEN 3540 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0012 KEVIN A BUESGENS CATHY M BUESGENS 501 LOUIS ST W COLOGNE MN 55322 40 38 08-117-23 43 0013 BRUCE A NUSBAUM 3480 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0014 WILLIAM L/LEANNE L KETELSEN 3490 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0015 MICHAEL GEELAN JENNIFER GEELAN 3498 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0020 GERALD J RAY KATHLEEN M RAY 3442 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0021 WILLIAM C ODDEN 3450 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0022 LYDIARDS PARK LLC 3440 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0023 EDWARD R & BONNIE ENGLER 3450 BIRCH LA WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0024 MARY ERLER 3448 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0025 DEAN & MARY LINDBLOOM 3458 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0026 SARA A BISSON-ELLEFSON DOUGLAS J BISSON-ELLEFSON 3460 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0027 STEVE LISLE & ANGELA LISLE 3460 BIRCH LA WAYZATA MN 55391 38 08-117-23 43 0028 CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY ORONO MN 55356 41 Date: August 18, 2025 Item: 5.2 Presenter: Matt Karney, Planner Section: Public Hearings Title: LA25-000031, Warren Garrett, 650 Brown Road North, Variance (Matthew Karney) 1.Purpose: The applicant requests approval of average lakeshore setback variance to construct a building addition to the existing residence. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: The application was made on July 10, 2025 and deemed complete on August 5, 2025. The 60-day review period expires on October 4, 2025. 3.Background: The applicant proposes a second-story addition to the existing residence, within the average lakeshore setback. The average lakeshore setback bisects the house. The addition maintains a roughly 290' setback from the OHWL, however the addition encroaches13 feet lakeward into the ALS. 4.Public Comment: No public comments have been received. 5.Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval as applied. 6.Planning Commission Action Requested: If the commission agrees with staff's analysis; a motion should be made for approval of the application. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits A - Staff Report B - Application Summary & Practical Difficulties C - Aerial Imagery D - Cover Letter E - Building Plans F - Survey G - Hardcover H - Mailing 42 Date Application Received: 07/10/2025 Date Application Deemed Complete: 08/05/2025 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10/04/2025 To: Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Matthew Karney, Planner Date: 18 August 2025 Subject: #LA25-00031, Warren Garrett, 650 Brown Road North Variance – Public Hearing Background The applicant is the owner of the property and proposes to construct an elevated, 120 square foot addition to the existing home to accommodate their future needs. The property is adjacent to the West Shore Townhome development (to the south) located within the City of Long Lake. The average lakeshore setback (ALS) over the subject property is the result of a line drawn from the property to the north (1925 Lakeside Trail, Orono) to the closest home in the West Shore Townhomes, bisecting the subject home and addition location. The existing residence is approximately 290 feet from the OHWL of Long Lake (a Recreational Development lake), where a 75-foot setback is required for sewered properties (100-foot setback is applied to properties served by private septic systems). The proposed addition is approximately 290 feet from the OHWL. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant articulates that the addition is located in a minimally impactful area of the property, hidden by the existing home from the West Shore Townhomes to the south, and within the massing of the existing home. The addition will not further encroach on the lakeshore (approximately 13 feet lakeward of the ALS) and will not create any impacts on neighbors. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Staff notes the applicant’s request is reasonable and the addition is in a location on the house that will not further impact lake views, while meeting all other applicable zoning regulations. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 6.12.1350 – Setbacks: Primary Building Application Summary: The applicant requests approval of an average lakeshore setback variance to construct an addition to the existing primary residence. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the variance. LR-1A District Required Existing Proposed Interior Side (North) 30’ 30.3’ Existing Home ~40’ Proposed Addition Lakeshore 100’ ~290’ Existing Home ~290’ Proposed Addition Average Lakeshore The ALS bisects the house, and the addition is located as much as 13 feet lakeward of then ALS line. 43 FILE #LA25-000031 18 August 2025 Page 2 of 4 Section 6.12.9000 – Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowable Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 166,287 s.f. 3.82 acres 41,571 s.f. (25%) 31,648 s.f. (19.04%) 31,793 s.f. (19.13%) Applicable Regulations: Average Lakeshore Setback Variances (Section 6.12.6240) The average lakeshore setback (ALS) line is measured from the immediately adjacent principal buildings on the adjacent properties, which cuts through the existing residence on the subject property. The proposed addition is, at most, 13 feet lakeward of the ALS line. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 6.12.500) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance: The proposed addition is in a location where lake views would not be impacted. This criterion is met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan: The variance to add to an existing single-family residential use is consistent with the 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: The ALS greatly impacts the subject property. The applicant proposes a reasonable building addition that will not impact lake views. This criterion is met. 44 FILE #LA25-000031 18 August 2025 Page 3 of 4 b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: The ALS is significantly restrictive for the site. The homes along this portion of Long Lake are situated further from the lake, creating deep lake yards. The townhomes to the south are set even further back from the lake to accommodate their commons area. This criterion is met. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality: The character of the locality will not be altered with the approval of this variance. 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: Staff does not find any economic considerations pertinent to the applicant’s request. This criterion is 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: A single-family residence is permitted within LR-1A zoning. 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: The addition is proposed in a portion of the house where the townhomes to the south will not see it, and where existing portions of the house will screen the addition from the northern property, not impacting their view. 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 land to the north of the property was developed within the last 5 years, impacting the ALS and creating a difficulty for the applicant, whose house was constructed in 1986. This condition is unique and prevents the applicant from further improving the lakeward side of their home. This criterion is met. 45 FILE #LA25-000031 18 August 2025 Page 4 of 4 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant: As the house is impacted by the ALS, limited development or improvement on the lakeward side cannot occur, despite the home’s nearly 300-foot separation from the shoreline. Approval of a variance would be necessary to preserve the property rights of the applicant. This criterion is 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: The granting of the variance would not be contrary to the intent of the ALS to protect the lake views of adjacent owners. This criterion is met. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty: The applicants have designed a reasonable building addition that is nestled in a corner of their house that happens to be lakeward of the ALS. Lake views that the ALS is designed to protect are not impacted by the proposal. 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 No public comments have been received by staff as of the writing of this report. Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval as applied. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Staff Report Exhibit B. Application Exhibit C. Imagery Exhibit D. Cover Letter Exhibit E. Building Plans Exhibit F. Survey Exhibit G. Hardcover Information Exhibit H. Mailing List & Map 46 Land Use Application Summary Application Date:07/10/2025 Address:650 Brown RD North Orono, MN 55356 Parcel Number:3411823120004 Land Use Number:LA25-000031 Application Submitted By:Property Owner Owner:Name: TANA S & WARREN P GARRETT Address: TANA S & WARREN P GARRETT Applicant:Name: Warren Garrett Company: Address: 650 N Brown Rd Long Lake, MN 55356 info@outdoorandmore.biz Contact Information:Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description:Addition of 120 sq ft 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: 47 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA25-000031 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: N/A 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The average set back has changed since our home was constructed in 1986. The southern most town home unit of the 12 town homes adjacent to the south of our property is causing the average set back issue. The TH's were built back in 1985 & earlier and were not considered lake shore property back then. Nor were they considered lake shore property in 2000 as we built a pool at our home then w/a variance and at that time the closest lake shore property to our south is the home on the other side of Long Lakes Nelson Park. Our dwelling was built in 1986 and was built closer to the lake then the TH's in 1985. Now 39 yrs later with the rule changes a variance is needed for an addition that is no closer to the lake than our eastern living room wall. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: Correct. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: OK? 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: N/A 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: OK. 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 property will remain a one family dwelling. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: N/A 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: OK 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: We are aging and want to stay in our home in the Orono community. The proposed addition will enable us to stay in our home by having our laundry room on the main floor where 95% of our living is done. 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: Correct. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: We are aging and want to stay in our home in the Orono community. The proposed addition will enable us to stay in our home by having our laundry room on the main floor where 95% of our living is done. 48 Exhibit C – Aerial Imagery of 650 Brown Road North, Orono 49 50 51 00 Project Number: Drawn By: Date of Issue: Project Architect:the GARRETTaddition + remodel2410 Dan Wallace Dan Wallace wallace ARCHITECTURE, PLLC 311 Third Street Excelsior, MN 55331 952.913.9641 These documents are instruments of service, and, as such, remain the property of wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. Use or publication of these documents requires written approval from wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. SD.1 - 12 Dec 2024650 N. Brown RoadLong Lake, MN 55356DD.1 - 18 Dec 2024 21 Jan 2025 BID.1 - 25 Jan 2025 Date: January 27, 2025 To: Wallace Architecture, PLLC 311 Third St. Excelsior, MN 55331 Attn: Dan Wallace, Architect From: Eric Bunkers Project: Garrett Residence 650 N. Brown Rd. Long Lake, MN 55356 Proj. No: 25009 Subject: Proposed Remodeling Dear Dan: As requested, we designed new structural members for the above referenced project. We have designed the new members using a roof and floor dead load of 15 psf, a roof snow load of 35 psf, a floor live load of 40 psf and a 115 mph Ultimate Design wind speed in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. Wind shear walls have been designed using IRC R301.1.3. Our work only includes designing the new members as shown at the above reference project and is based on drawings provided by you and from our conversations. We reviewed structural sheets 04, 06 and 08 based on annotated framing and foundation notes we previously sent showing the new members and connections. All framing and foundations shall be shored and temporarily braced as required by the contractor and all minimum nailing shall be in accordance with IRC Table R602.3(1). Lumber shall be minimum #2 SPF with treated lumber to be #2 S. Pine and engineered lumber to have Fb = 2850 psi with E = 2.0. Our calculations assume all lumber is of good quality and does not have large splits and checks and shall be visually inspected by the contractor at the time of construction. All fasteners in contact with treated lumber shall be G185 hot dipped galvanized or equal. Rebar shall be grade 60. Concrete used for footings shall have a 28 day compressive strength of 5000 psi. The new footings have been designed as typical spread footings based on a presumptive load-bearing value of 2000 psf in accordance with Table R401.4.1 of the IRC. Presumptive soil bearing value shall be verified by a geotechnical engineer where required by the building official per R401.4. The existing footings have been assumed to be typical spread footings on good soils that are assumed to be performing adequately. The contractor shall also verify the condition of structural members and foundations affected by the remodeling. Exterior grade shall slope away from the building and gutters with long downspouts should be used whenever possible. New finish cracks in existing walls and ceilings are likely and common in remodel construction. When installed as indicated above, the new framing members and new foundation shown on the reviewed sheets shall support the loads as required in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Bunkers and Associates, LLC Eric M. Bunkers, P.E. MN Reg. Num. 26490 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Eric M. Bunkers Date: January 27, 2025 Reg. No. 26490 Date: January 27, 2025 To: Wallace Architecture, PLLC 311 Third St. Excelsior, MN 55331 Attn: Dan Wallace, Architect From: Eric Bunkers Project: Garrett Residence 650 N. Brown Rd. Long Lake, MN 55356 Proj. No: 25009 Subject: Proposed Remodeling Dear Dan: As requested, we designed new structural members for the above referenced project. We have designed the new members using a roof and floor dead load of 15 psf, a roof snow load of 35 psf, a floor live load of 40 psf and a 115 mph Ultimate Design wind speed in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. Wind shear walls have been designed using IRC R301.1.3. Our work only includes designing the new members as shown at the above reference project and is based on drawings provided by you and from our conversations. We reviewed structural sheets 04, 06 and 08 based on annotated framing and foundation notes we previously sent showing the new members and connections. All framing and foundations shall be shored and temporarily braced as required by the contractor and all minimum nailing shall be in accordance with IRC Table R602.3(1). Lumber shall be minimum #2 SPF with treated lumber to be #2 S. Pine and engineered lumber to have Fb = 2850 psi with E = 2.0. Our calculations assume all lumber is of good quality and does not have large splits and checks and shall be visually inspected by the contractor at the time of construction. All fasteners in contact with treated lumber shall be G185 hot dipped galvanized or equal. Rebar shall be grade 60. Concrete used for footings shall have a 28 day compressive strength of 5000 psi. The new footings have been designed as typical spread footings based on a presumptive load-bearing value of 2000 psf in accordance with Table R401.4.1 of the IRC. Presumptive soil bearing value shall be verified by a geotechnical engineer where required by the building official per R401.4. The existing footings have been assumed to be typical spread footings on good soils that are assumed to be performing adequately. The contractor shall also verify the condition of structural members and foundations affected by the remodeling. Exterior grade shall slope away from the building and gutters with long downspouts should be used whenever possible. New finish cracks in existing walls and ceilings are likely and common in remodel construction. When installed as indicated above, the new framing members and new foundation shown on the reviewed sheets shall support the loads as required in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Bunkers and Associates, LLC Eric M. Bunkers, P.E. MN Reg. Num. 26490 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the state of Minnesota. Eric M. Bunkers Date: January 27, 2025 Reg. No. 26490 52 01 Project Number: Drawn By: Date of Issue: Project Architect:the GARRETTaddition + remodel2410 Dan Wallace Dan Wallace wallace ARCHITECTURE, PLLC 311 Third Street Excelsior, MN 55331 952.913.9641 These documents are instruments of service, and, as such, remain the property of wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. Use or publication of these documents requires written approval from wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. SD.1 - 12 Dec 2024650 N. Brown RoadLong Lake, MN 55356DD.1 - 18 Dec 2024 21 Jan 2025 BID.1 - 25 Jan 2025 BEDROOM MECHANICAL SUMP PITELECT.PANELEXISTING CLOSET WALLS AND HARDWARE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING DOOR TO BE REMOVED AND JAMB CUT TO APPROPRIATE DEPTH FOR REINSTALLATION GENERAL NOTES: 01. FIELD VERIFY EXISTING DIMENSIONS RELEVANT TO REMODEL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTACT ARCHITECT WITH ANY DISCREPANCIES AND/OR QUESTIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 02. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, AND/OR PLUMBING CONDITIONS RELEVANT TO REMODEL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 03. DO NOT SCALE DIMENSIONS OFF OF DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION. CONTACT ARCHITECT WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 04. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING LOAD BEARING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION. BRACE AND SUPPORT ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS TO REMAIN AS REQUIRED DURING DEMOLITION AND THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. WALL KEY EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN = EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED = EXISTING SLAB TO BE REMOVED AS REQ. FOR NEW PLUMBING EXISTING RIM AND CORNER WALLS TO BE REMOVED AS REQ. FOR NEW BEAM POCKETS AND POSTS, FIELD VERIFY SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PLAN - lower level existing + demolition 01 53 02 Project Number: Drawn By: Date of Issue: Project Architect:the GARRETTaddition + remodel2410 Dan Wallace Dan Wallace wallace ARCHITECTURE, PLLC 311 Third Street Excelsior, MN 55331 952.913.9641 These documents are instruments of service, and, as such, remain the property of wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. Use or publication of these documents requires written approval from wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. SD.1 - 12 Dec 2024650 N. Brown RoadLong Lake, MN 55356DD.1 - 18 Dec 2024 21 Jan 2025 BID.1 - 25 Jan 2025 BEDROOM GENERAL NOTES: 01. FIELD VERIFY EXISTING DIMENSIONS RELEVANT TO REMODEL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTACT ARCHITECT WITH ANY DISCREPANCIES AND/OR QUESTIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 02. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, AND/OR PLUMBING CONDITIONS RELEVANT TO REMODEL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 03. DO NOT SCALE DIMENSIONS OFF OF DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION. CONTACT ARCHITECT WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 04. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING LOAD BEARING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION. BRACE AND SUPPORT ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS TO REMAIN AS REQUIRED DURING DEMOLITION AND THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. WALL KEY EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN = EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED = EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED FOR ADDITION EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE REMOVED/RECYCLED EXISTINGWDW. TO BEREMOVEDDOORS + CLOSETHARDWARETO BE REMOVEDALL PLUMBING AND BATHROOM FINISHES TO BE REMOVED DOORS TO BE REMOVED CABINETTO BEREMOVEDEXISTING WALL TO BEREMOVED AS REQ.,FIELD VERIFY LOAD-BEARING,VERIFY w/ ARCHITECT @ DEMO.RAILING TO BE REMOVED AS REQ. FOR NEW WALLS DOORS AND CABINET HARDWARE TO BE REMOVED SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PLAN - main level existing + demolition 02 54 03 Project Number: Drawn By: Date of Issue: Project Architect:the GARRETTaddition + remodel2410 Dan Wallace Dan Wallace wallace ARCHITECTURE, PLLC 311 Third Street Excelsior, MN 55331 952.913.9641 These documents are instruments of service, and, as such, remain the property of wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. Use or publication of these documents requires written approval from wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. SD.1 - 12 Dec 2024650 N. Brown RoadLong Lake, MN 55356DD.1 - 18 Dec 2024 21 Jan 2025 BID.1 - 25 Jan 20253 1/2"2'-0 1/2"3 1/2" EQ.EQ. 3'-2 1/2" 1'-4", VERIFY 4"BEDROOM BATH 3' x 3' SHOWER UNIT FIELD VERIFY MECHANICAL/SOFFIT REQUIREMENTS 2 - 1'-6" 4'-0"SLIDINGDOORGENERAL NOTES: 01. FIELD VERIFY EXISTING DIMENSIONS RELEVANT TO REMODEL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTACT ARCHITECT WITH ANY DISCREPANCIES AND/OR QUESTIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 02. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, AND/OR PLUMBING CONDITIONS RELEVANT TO REMODEL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 03. DO NOT SCALE DIMENSIONS OFF OF DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION. CONTACT ARCHITECT WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 04. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING LOAD BEARING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION. BRACE AND SUPPORT ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS TO REMAIN AS REQUIRED DURING DEMOLITION AND THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. 05. ALL CABINETRY, COUNTERTOPS, PLUMBING FIXTURES, AND FINISHES TO BE DETERMINED. PROVIDE ALLOWANCES AS REQUIRED FOR BID. 06. NEW SLIDING DOOR HARDWARE TO BE DETERMINED. 07. NEW INTERIOR DOORS, DOOR HARDWARE, AND CASING/TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING. WALL KEY EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN = NEW WOOD STUD WALL =FIELD VERIFY MECHANICAL/SOFFITREQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITION ABOVEADDITION ABOVE EXIST. WALL FIN. VERIFY w/ SHOWER UNIT SELECTED R.O. VERIFY CLOSET STORAGE w/ OWNER 24"36"16" MOVABLE LINEN CABINET FOR MECHANICAL ROOM ACCESS, VERIFY OPTIONS w/ OWNER REINSTALLED EXISTING DOOR SUMP PITELECT.PANEL1 08 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PLAN - lower level addition + remodel 03 55 04 Project Number: Drawn By: Date of Issue: Project Architect:the GARRETTaddition + remodel2410 Dan Wallace Dan Wallace wallace ARCHITECTURE, PLLC 311 Third Street Excelsior, MN 55331 952.913.9641 These documents are instruments of service, and, as such, remain the property of wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. Use or publication of these documents requires written approval from wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. SD.1 - 12 Dec 2024650 N. Brown RoadLong Lake, MN 55356DD.1 - 18 Dec 2024 21 Jan 2025 BID.1 - 25 Jan 2025 2 x 10 FLOOR JOISTS @ 16" o.c. w/ LUS210 HANGERS E.E.3 - 1 3/4" x 9 1/4"LVL BEAM, FLUSH6 x 6 TREATED POST, LCE4Z CAP EACH FACE, MSTA18Z VERT. STRAP, ABU66Z BASE w/ 5/8" x 6" SIMPSON TITEN, 12"⍉ x 60" CONC. PIER w/ 1 - #4 VERT. REBAR, 24"⍉ BOT. BELL w/ COMPACTED GRANULAR BACKFILL AND COMPACTED BASE OF EXCAVATION GENERAL NOTES: 01. FIELD VERIFY EXISTING DIMENSIONS RELEVANT TO REMODEL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTACT ARCHITECT WITH ANY DISCREPANCIES AND/OR QUESTIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 02. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, AND/OR PLUMBING CONDITIONS RELEVANT TO REMODEL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 03. DO NOT SCALE DIMENSIONS OFF OF DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION. CONTACT ARCHITECT WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 04. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING LOAD BEARING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION. BRACE AND SUPPORT ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS TO REMAIN AS REQUIRED DURING DEMOLITION AND THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION.BLOCK SOLID BELOWPOST ABOVE,IF NEEDEDEXISTING FLOOR JOISTS ASSUMED, FIELD VERIFY AS REQ. 2 x 10 LEDGER w/ 3 - ROWS 1/4" x 3 1/2" SDS SCREWS @ 16" o.c. TO EXISTING 2 x 10 RIM, REMOVE BUILT-RITE SHEATHING IF EXISTS AND REPLACE w/ 3/4" PLY. GLUED + NAILED TO FRAMING POCKET BEAMS INTO WALL, BEAR 3" ONTO WALL PLATE ONTO 2 - 2 x 6 STUDS, ATTACH TO PLATE w/ 4 - 1/4" x 3 1/2" SDS TOE-SCREWS, ATTACH TO RIM w/ LSTA12 HORIZ. STRAP AND LSTA18 VERT. STRAP TO POST 2 x 10 LEDGER w/ 2 - ROWS 1/4" x 3 1/2" SDS SCREWS @ 16" o.c. TO EXISTING 2 x 10 RIM 3 - 1 3/4" x 9 1/4" LVL BEAM, FLUSH, HUC610 HANGER MAX w/ #10 x 2 1/2" SD SCREWS @ INT. F.O. BEAM 1 08 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PLAN - main level framing addition + remodel 04 56 05 Project Number: Drawn By: Date of Issue: Project Architect:the GARRETTaddition + remodel2410 Dan Wallace Dan Wallace wallace ARCHITECTURE, PLLC 311 Third Street Excelsior, MN 55331 952.913.9641 These documents are instruments of service, and, as such, remain the property of wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. Use or publication of these documents requires written approval from wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. SD.1 - 12 Dec 2024650 N. Brown RoadLong Lake, MN 55356DD.1 - 18 Dec 2024 21 Jan 2025 BID.1 - 25 Jan 2025 EQUAL EQUAL 7'-5"5 1/2"5 1/2"1'-0"2'-5"3 1/2"6 1/2"2'-5"13'-2 1/2"3 1/2"4'-4" 15" 3 1/2"6'-4" 3 1/2"3 1/2"3'-8"EQ.EQ.3'-8"3 1/2" EQ.EQ. EQ.EQ.5 1/4"2'-10 1/2"EQ.EQ.BEDROOM SHOWER VACUUM LINEN CABINETSHELVESLAUNDRY CLOSET DOWN2'-8"BATH 2'-8"BUILT-IN2'-8" POCKET 2'-6"POCKET2'-6"POCKETUCAP 4056 UCA2848EGRESSUAWN2820IN EXIST.OPENING,FRAME R.O.UP AS REQ.WASHERDRYERUAWN2820 UPPER CABINETDRESSERFOLDINGCOUNTER 2'-0"BENCHLINEN, CNTR.2'-6"UCA 2456 UCA 2456 UCA2848EGRESSGENERAL NOTES: 01. FIELD VERIFY EXISTING DIMENSIONS RELEVANT TO REMODEL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTACT ARCHITECT WITH ANY DISCREPANCIES AND/OR QUESTIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 02. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, AND/OR PLUMBING CONDITIONS RELEVANT TO REMODEL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 03. DO NOT SCALE DIMENSIONS OFF OF DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION. CONTACT ARCHITECT WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 04. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING LOAD BEARING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION. BRACE AND SUPPORT ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS TO REMAIN AS REQUIRED DURING DEMOLITION AND THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. 05. ALL NEW WINDOWS SPECIFIED FROM MARVIN ULTIMATE. TEMPERED GLASS AND FALL PROTECTION PER CODE REQUIREMENTS. DETAILS TO MATCH EXISTING WINDOWS. CONTACT ARCHITECT WITH QUESTIONS. 06. ALL CABINETRY, COUNTERTOPS, PLUMBING FIXTURES, AND FINISHES TO BE DETERMINED. PROVIDE ALLOWANCES AS REQUIRED FOR BID. 07. NEW INTERIOR DOORS, DOOR HARDWARE, AND CASING/TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING. WALL KEY EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN = NEW WOOD STUD WALL =INT. F.O.WALL FIN.INT. F.O.WALL FIN.CNTR.R.O. ALIGN EXT. F.O. NEW SHEATHING w/ EXT. F.O. EXISTING SHEATHING 1 08 ALIGN EXT. F.O.NEW SHEATHINGw/ EXT. F.O. EXIST.SHEATHINGR.O.16"R.O.CLOTHESHANGINGCLOTHES HANGING2'-8" VELUX RIGID SUN TUNNEL SKYLIGHT, OR APPROVED EQ., CENTER ON DOORWAYS AND WALL FILL WALL AS REQ. TO REMOVE CORNER VELUX RIGID SUN TUNNEL SKYLIGHT, OR APPROVED EQ., CENTER IN ROOM SLOPED CEILING UNDER BENCH FOR HEAD HEIGHT CLEARANCE @ STAIRWAY AS REQ., CONTACT ARCHITECT FOR DETAIL AS REQ. VELUX RIGID SUN TUNNEL SKYLIGHT, OR APPROVED EQ., CENTER ON VANITY AND DOORWAY NEW 2 x WALL AS REQ. TO ALIGN FIN. EACH SIDE VELUX RIGID SUN TUNNEL SKYLIGHT, OR APPROVED EQ., CENTER IN ROOM STUD TO STUD FIN. ALIGN ALIGN ALIGN30" FIN.24"18"16"12" STUD TO STUD FIN.20"CENTER SINK AND WINDOW CENTER DOOR 24"CENTER DOORSTUD TOSTUDR.O.12'-0"16" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PLAN - main level addition + remodel 05 57 06 Project Number: Drawn By: Date of Issue: Project Architect:the GARRETTaddition + remodel2410 Dan Wallace Dan Wallace wallace ARCHITECTURE, PLLC 311 Third Street Excelsior, MN 55331 952.913.9641 These documents are instruments of service, and, as such, remain the property of wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. Use or publication of these documents requires written approval from wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. SD.1 - 12 Dec 2024650 N. Brown RoadLong Lake, MN 55356DD.1 - 18 Dec 2024 21 Jan 2025 BID.1 - 25 Jan 2025ADDITIONNEW MONO-ROOF TRUSSES @ 24" o.c.; ROOF PITCH, HEEL HGT., OVERHANG TO MATCH EXISTING, LAP w/ EXISTING TRUSS OVERHANG AND ATTACH TRUSS TO TRUSS w/ 2 - 1/4" X 3 1/2" SDS SCREWS @ TOP CHORD, ATTACH TRUSS TO NEW WALL PLATE w/ H2.5A TIE, HANG @ LEDGER w/ LUS210 2 - 2 x 6HEADEREXISTINGHEADER2 - 2 x 6HEADER2 - 2 x 6HEADEREXISTING ROOF STRUCTURE AND EXTERIOR LOAD-BEARING WALLASSUMED AND TO REMAINNEW WALL PLATE HEIGHTTO MATCH EXISTING2 - 2 x 8 HEADER PROVIDE ROOF TRUSS RAKE WALL BRACES, SEE DETAIL 1/09 GENERAL NOTES: 01. FIELD VERIFY EXISTING DIMENSIONS RELEVANT TO REMODEL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTACT ARCHITECT WITH ANY DISCREPANCIES AND/OR QUESTIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 02. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, AND/OR PLUMBING CONDITIONS RELEVANT TO REMODEL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 03. DO NOT SCALE DIMENSIONS OFF OF DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION. CONTACT ARCHITECT WITH ANY QUESTIONS ON DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 04. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING LOAD BEARING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION. BRACE AND SUPPORT ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS TO REMAIN AS REQUIRED DURING DEMOLITION AND THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. 05. SEE ATTACHED STRUCTURAL LETTER FOR MORE INFORMATION. 06. ATTACH ALL TRUSS/RAFTER ENDS WITH SIMPSON 1/4" x 6" SDS SCREWS AT ALL TOP WALL PLATES UP INTO FRAMING. 07. USE 1/2" PLYWOOD SHEATHING. NAIL WITH 8d AT 4" ON CENTER. 08. PROVIDE MINIMUM 1 - 2 x TRIMMER STUD AND 1 - 2 x KING STUD UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 09. BLOCK SOLID BELOW ALL POSTS TO FOUNDATION. 10. BEAR FULL WIDTH OF ALL BEAMS/HEADERS/GIRDERS. 11. MEND ALL FASCIA BOARD BUTT SPLICES WITH SIMPSON LSTA24 HORIZONTAL STRAP. 12. EXTEND PLYWOOD WALL SHEATHING UP FACE OF FRAMING HEEL AND NAIL. STOP SHORT FOR VENTING AS REQUIRED. 13. EXTERIOR STUDS TO BE 2 x 6 AT 16" ON CENTER. 14. BUTT EXISTING WALL PLATES AND NAIL TO NEW WALL PLATES AT ALL INTERSECTING WALLS WITH TP39 NAIL PLATE. 15. ATTACH FIRST STUD TO EXISTING STUD/LADDER BLOCKS WITH 1/4" x 4 1/2" SDS SCREWS AT 16" ON CENTER. 16. NEW FINISH CRACKS ARE LIKELY AND CAN BE COMMON IN REMODEL CONSTRUCTION. 2 - 2 x 6 HEADER 2 - 2 x 4 POST EXISTING BEARING WALLFOR ROOF TRUSSESASSUMED, FIELD VERIFY2 x 10 LEDGER @ BOT. CHORD w/ 3 - ROWS 1/4" x 4 1/2" SDS SCREWS @ 24" o.c. TO EXIST. TRUSS HEELS, REMOVE EXIST. BUILT-RITE SHEATHING BEHIND LEDGER AND REPLACE w/ 3/4" PLY. GLUED + NAILED TO EXIST. TRUSS HEELS SEE GENERAL NOTES FORWALL ATTACHMENT, TYP.2 - 2 x 6HEADER2 - 2 x 6HEADER3 - 2 x 4 POST,IF NEEDEDIF EXISTING LOAD-BEARING WALL AND BEAM NEEDED TO REPLACE, 3 - 1 3/4" x 5 1/2" LVL BEAM, CONT., DROPPED, TOE-SCREW UP INTO EXISTING ROOF TRUSS BOT. CHORDS, FIELD VERIFY FLUSH BEAM OPTION AND COST w/ OWNER, IF LOAD-BEARING, POSSIBLE TRUSS REPAIRS REQ., CONTACT ARCHITECT 1 08 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PLAN - roof framing addition + remodel 06 58 07 Project Number: Drawn By: Date of Issue: Project Architect:the GARRETTaddition + remodel2410 Dan Wallace Dan Wallace wallace ARCHITECTURE, PLLC 311 Third Street Excelsior, MN 55331 952.913.9641 These documents are instruments of service, and, as such, remain the property of wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. Use or publication of these documents requires written approval from wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. SD.1 - 12 Dec 2024650 N. Brown RoadLong Lake, MN 55356DD.1 - 18 Dec 2024 21 Jan 2025 BID.1 - 25 Jan 2025 EXISTING WINDOWS TO BE REMOVED/RECYCLED EXISTING TRIM BOARD TO BE REMOVED AS REQ. FOR ADDITION EXISTING FASCIA TO BE REMOVED AS REQ. FOR ADDITION EXISTING OVERHANG TO BE REMOVED AS REQ. FOR ADDITION EXISTING SIDING AND TRIM TO BEREMOVED/REUSED AS REQ. FOR NEW ADDITION6'-10 1/2"NEW GABLE SHINGLES AND HORIZ. TRIM BOARD TO MATCH EXISTING AND BE EXTENDED OVER ADDITION NEW SIDING TO MATCH EXISTING, LACE INTO ORIGINAL SIDING NEW FASCIA TO MATCH AND EXTEND FROM EXISTING NEW SOFFIT DETAIL TO MATCH AND EXTEND FROM EXISTING NEW WINDOW TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING T.O. SUB-FLOOR @ ADDITION TO ALIGN w/ T.O. EXISTING SUB-FLOOR WDW. R.O. HEAD HGT.,TYP.T.O. WALL PLATE @ ADDITION TO ALIGN w/ EXISTING ROOF PITCH TO MATCH EXISTING NEW MECHANICAL TRUNK LINE UNDER NEW JOISTS AS REQ., FRAME AROUND w/ 2 x 4 AS REQ., CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAM CAVITY, WRAP w/ 1" THERMAX + 3/8" PLYWOOD TRIM AROUND TREATED POST TO MATCH EXISTING, TYP., RECESSED 1/2" FROM TRIM ABOVE FIELD VERIFY WATER TABLE DEPTH, CONTACT ARCHITECT IF HELICAL PIER FOUNDATION REQUIRED SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 EXT. EL. - lakeside existing + demolition 07SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2 EXT. EL. - lakeside addition + remodel 07 59 08 Project Number: Drawn By: Date of Issue: Project Architect:the GARRETTaddition + remodel2410 Dan Wallace Dan Wallace wallace ARCHITECTURE, PLLC 311 Third Street Excelsior, MN 55331 952.913.9641 These documents are instruments of service, and, as such, remain the property of wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. Use or publication of these documents requires written approval from wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. SD.1 - 12 Dec 2024650 N. Brown RoadLong Lake, MN 55356DD.1 - 18 Dec 2024 21 Jan 2025 BID.1 - 25 Jan 2025 BEDROOM T.O. SUB-FLOOR @ ADDITION TO ALIGN w/ T.O. EXISTING SUB-FLOOR T.O. WALL PLATE @ ADDITION TO MATCH/ALIGN w/ EXISTING ROOF PITCH TO MATCH EXISTING NEW SOFFIT DETAIL TO MATCH AND EXTEND FROM EXISTING NEW WALL STRUCTURE, TYP. SIDING TO MATCH/ALIGN w/ EXISTING 1/2" PLYWOOD WALL SHEATHING, EXT. F.O. TO ALIGN w/ EXISTING 2 x 6 STUD WALL @ 16" o.c. R-21 BATT. INSULATION 6 MIL. POLY. V.B. 1/2" DRYWALL, PAINTED 2 x 10 LEDGER @ BOT. CHORD w/ 3 - ROWS 1/4" x 4 1/2" SDS SCREWS @ 24" o.c. TO EXISTING TRUSS HEELS, REMOVE EXISTING BUILT-RITE SHEATHING BEHIND LEDGER AND REPLACE w/ 3/4" PLY. GLUED + NAILED TO EXIST. TRUSS HEELS, LUS210 HANGERS TO LEDGER, LAP EXISTING TRUSS OVERHANG AND ATTACH TRUSS TO TRUSS w/ 2 - 1/4" x 3 1/2" SDS SCREWS @ TOP CHORD, ATTACH TRUSS TO NEW WALL PLATE w/ H2.5A TIE NEW ROOF STRUCTURE, TYP. ROOF FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING ROOF SHEATHING TO MATCH/ALIGN w/ EXISTING NEW MONO-ROOF TRUSSES @ 24" o.c., ROOF PITCH, HEEL HGT., OVERHANG TO MATCH EXISTING R-49 BATT INSULATION 6 MIL. POLY. V.B. 5/8" DRYWALL CEILING NEW FLOOR STRUCTURE, TYP. VERIFY FINISH FLOOR SELECTION w/ OWNER 3/4" T&G SUB-FLOOR, GLUED AND NAILED w/ PL400 AND 8d NAILS @ 4" o.c. 2 x 10 FLOOR JOISTS @ 16" o.c. w/ LUS210 HANGERS R-30 CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAM 1 1/2" CONT. THERMAX RIGID INSUL. @ UNDERSIDE OF JOISTS 3/8" PLYWOOD 3 - 1 3/4" x 9 1/4" LVL BEAM, FLUSH POST BEHIND, SEE MAIN LEVEL FRAMING PLAN 2 x 10 LEDGER w/ 3 - ROWS 1/4" x 3 1/2" SDS SCREWS @ 16" o.c. TO EXISTING 2 x 10 RIM, REMOVE BUILT-RITE SHEATHING IF EXISTS AND REPLACE w/ 3/4" PLY. GLUED + NAILED TO FRAMING NEW MECHANICAL TRUNK LINE UNDER NEW JOISTS AS REQ., FRAME AROUND w/ 2 x 4 AS REQ., CLOSED CELL SPRAY FOAM CAVITY, WRAP w/ 1" THERMAX AND 3/8" PLYWOOD EXISTING STRUCTURE NEW DRYWALL OVER EXISTING SHEATHING SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" 1 SECTION - addition + remodel 08 60 09 Project Number: Drawn By: Date of Issue: Project Architect:the GARRETTaddition + remodel2410 Dan Wallace Dan Wallace wallace ARCHITECTURE, PLLC 311 Third Street Excelsior, MN 55331 952.913.9641 These documents are instruments of service, and, as such, remain the property of wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. Use or publication of these documents requires written approval from wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. SD.1 - 12 Dec 2024650 N. Brown RoadLong Lake, MN 55356DD.1 - 18 Dec 2024 21 Jan 2025 BID.1 - 25 Jan 2025 NOT TO SCALE 1 SECTION DETAIL - roof truss rake wall brace 09 61 10 Project Number: Drawn By: Date of Issue: Project Architect:the GARRETTaddition + remodel2410 Dan Wallace Dan Wallace wallace ARCHITECTURE, PLLC 311 Third Street Excelsior, MN 55331 952.913.9641 These documents are instruments of service, and, as such, remain the property of wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. Use or publication of these documents requires written approval from wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. SD.1 - 12 Dec 2024650 N. Brown RoadLong Lake, MN 55356DD.1 - 18 Dec 2024 21 Jan 2025 BID.1 - 25 Jan 2025SUMP PITELECT.PANELELECTRICAL KEY DUPLEX RECEPTACLE SINGLE POLE SWITCH WALL FIXTURE LED STRIP LIGHT 4" RECESSED CAN LIGHT VENTILATION FAN R GENERAL NOTES: 01. PROVIDE ALL LABOR, MATERIAL, AND EQUIPMENT NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETE INSTALLATION OF THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM, INCLUDING POWER, WIRING, AND LIGHTING AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND AS REQUIRED ON SITE. 02. REVIEW LAYOUT OF ALL LIGHTING, SWITCHES, RECEPTACLES, AND ANY OTHER ROUGH-IN BOXES WITH THE OWNER PRIOR TO THE START OF WORK. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ELECTRICAL DEVICES. 03. COORDINATE WIRING AND FIXTURE PLACEMENT WITH FRAMING, STRUCTURAL FRAMING, PLUMBING SYSTEM, MECHANICAL SYSTEM, AND EXISTING ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PRIOR TO ROUGH-IN. DO NOT CUT OR ALTER ANY STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE ARCHITECT. 04. COORDINATE ROUGH-IN BOX LOCATION WITH SPECIFIC LIGHT SELECTED FOR THAT LOCATION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 05. THERE IS TO BE AT LEAST ONE (1) INCH CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE FINISHED ELECTRICAL COVER PLATE AND ANY ADJACENT SURFACE OR TRIM UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 06. PROVIDE SMOKE DETECTORS AND CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS PER CODE. REVIEW LOCATIONS WITH THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 07. PROVIDE ELECTRICAL HOOK-UPS AS REQUIRED ON THE LOWER LEVEL FOR ANY OTHER MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT SPECIFIED BY OWNER. 08. REVIEW TELEVISION, INTERNET, AND ANY OTHER MISCELLANEOUS WIRING REQUIREMENTS WITH OWNER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. REVIEW LOCATIONS WITH THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 09. ALL DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURES TO BE PROVIDED BY OWNER. 10. PROVIDE GFCI PROTECTED OUTLETS AS REQUIRED. 11. FIELD VERIFY WITH OWNER ANY ADDITIONAL EXTERIOR LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS. R FIELD VERIFY SWITCH REQ. + PLACEMENT FIELD VERIFYIF SWITCHRELOCATION REQ.FOR SLIDING DOORSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PLAN - lower level electrical 10 62 11 Project Number: Drawn By: Date of Issue: Project Architect:the GARRETTaddition + remodel2410 Dan Wallace Dan Wallace wallace ARCHITECTURE, PLLC 311 Third Street Excelsior, MN 55331 952.913.9641 These documents are instruments of service, and, as such, remain the property of wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. Use or publication of these documents requires written approval from wallace ARCHITECTURE, pllc. SD.1 - 12 Dec 2024650 N. Brown RoadLong Lake, MN 55356DD.1 - 18 Dec 2024 21 Jan 2025 BID.1 - 25 Jan 2025 ELECTRICAL KEY DUPLEX RECEPTACLE SINGLE POLE SWITCH 3-WAY SWITCH CEILING FIXTURE WALL FIXTURE 4" RECESSED LIGHT VENTILATION FAN R GENERAL NOTES: 01. PROVIDE ALL LABOR, MATERIAL, AND EQUIPMENT NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETE INSTALLATION OF THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM, INCLUDING POWER, WIRING, AND LIGHTING AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND AS REQUIRED ON SITE. 02. REVIEW LAYOUT OF ALL LIGHTING, SWITCHES, RECEPTACLES, AND ANY OTHER ROUGH-IN BOXES WITH THE OWNER PRIOR TO THE START OF WORK. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ELECTRICAL DEVICES. 03. COORDINATE WIRING AND FIXTURE PLACEMENT WITH FRAMING, STRUCTURAL FRAMING, PLUMBING SYSTEM, MECHANICAL SYSTEM, AND EXISTING ELECTRICAL SYSTEM PRIOR TO ROUGH-IN. DO NOT CUT OR ALTER ANY STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE ARCHITECT. 04. COORDINATE ROUGH-IN BOX LOCATION WITH SPECIFIC LIGHT SELECTED FOR THAT LOCATION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 05. THERE IS TO BE AT LEAST ONE (1) INCH CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE FINISHED ELECTRICAL COVER PLATE AND ANY ADJACENT SURFACE OR TRIM UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 06. PROVIDE SMOKE DETECTORS AND CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTORS PER CODE. REVIEW LOCATIONS WITH THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 07. PROVIDE ELECTRICAL HOOK-UPS AS REQUIRED ON THE MAIN LEVEL FOR: WASHER, DRYER, AND ANY OTHER MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT SPECIFIED BY OWNER. 08. REVIEW TELEVISION, INTERNET, AND ANY OTHER MISCELLANEOUS WIRING REQUIREMENTS WITH OWNER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. REVIEW LOCATIONS WITH THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 09. ALL DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURES TO BE PROVIDED BY OWNER. 10. PROVIDE GFCI PROTECTED OUTLETS AS REQUIRED. 11. FIELD VERIFY WITH OWNER ANY ADDITIONAL EXTERIOR LIGHTING REQUIREMENTS.KINGDOWN2'-8" 2'-8" POCKET WASHERDRYER R R R R R SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 PLAN - main level electrical 11 63 64 65 66 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 650 Brown Rd N 0 200 400100 Feet Date: 7/11/2025 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 67 38 34-118-23 12 0004 TANA S & WARREN P GARRETT 650 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 12 0008 MATTHEW HOLAVES 3250 W 66TH ST UNIT# 225 EDINA MN 55435 38 34-118-23 12 0009 T & K ANDERSON LIV TRUST 9942 DELL RD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 38 34-118-23 12 0011 BJB TRUST 1825 LAKESIDE TRAIL LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 12 0012 BROCK CADWALLADER 5508 GLENGARRY PARKWAY MINNEAPOLIS MN 55436 38 34-118-23 12 0013 TARYN S REUTER VENESSA R REUTER 1925 LAKESIDE TR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 12 0014 VICTORIA A MILLER 1925 LAKESIDE TRAIL ORONO MN 55356 38 34-118-23 12 0015 WILLOW BAY SANCTUARY ASCN 690 BROWN RD N ORONO MN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0015 JOHN D AHLERS 2109 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0025 GEORGE E & MARILYN MILEUSNIC 2110 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0026 KARL AND KONNIE BERG 2112 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0027 LYNDSIE LIESCH MATTHEW LIESCH 2114 SUGARWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0028 SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC C/O FRANK PINGTENS 2007 SUGARWOODS DR ORONO MN 55356 38 34-118-23 21 0030 SUGAR WOODS HOMEOWNERS ASSOC C/O REBERS FAMILY LLC 2640 OAKLAND RD MINNETONKA MN 55305 38 34-118-23 21 0036 ORONO HSG & RDVLPT ATHY 2040 WAYZATA BLVD W LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 13 0018 GOSHGARIAN PROPERTIES LLC 500 LAKE ST #201 EXCELSIOR MN 55331 72 34-118-23 13 0066 CITY OF LONG LAKE 450 VIRGINIA AVE PO BOX 606 LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 13 0071 LAKE COMMUNITY BANK 1964 WAYZATA BLVD W LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 13 0076 AMY C ANDERSON 1012 N SHORE DR NE UNIT 45 ST PETERSBURG FL 33701 72 34-118-23 13 0078 DANIEL HARTNETT MARY CLAIRE OWEN 574 BROWN RD N #B LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 13 0080 JENNIFER NYBERG 574 BROWN RD N #C LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 13 0081 JENNIFER NYBERG 574 BROWN RD N #C LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 13 0082 JANET A KNOX 574 BROWN RD N #D LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 13 0084 TERESA LAMB 576 BROWN RD N #A LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 13 0086 HELEN SEIBOLD 576 B BROWN RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 13 0087 HELEN SEIBOLD 576 B NORTH BROWN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 13 0090 JANE M THOMPSON 576 BROWN RD N #D LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 13 0092 VIRGINIA S SEE 578 BROWN RD N #A LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 13 0094 ABBY MALONE 578 BROWN RD N #B LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 13 0096 MORGAN MCKINSEY ROGERS 578 BROWN RD N #C LONG LAKE MN 55356 68 72 34-118-23 13 0098 DANIEL J MCCARTHY DONNA J MCCARTHY 578 BROWN RD N #D LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 13 0100 C E VAN EECKHOUT 120 SOUTH BROWN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 13 0102 JUDD A ANDERSON KAREN STUART ANDERSON 576 BROWN RD N #C LONG LAKE MN 55356 72 34-118-23 13 0112 ZVAGO COOP AT LONG LAKE C/O FIRSTSERVICE RESIDENTIAL 8100 OLD CEDAR AVE S STE 300 BLOOMINGTON MN 55425-1858 72 34-118-23 24 0079 LONG LAKE TOWNHOMES LLC C/O STEVEN SCOTT MAGMT 3020 FRANCE AVE S ST LOUS PARK MN 55416 72 34-118-23 24 0081 LONG LAKE TOWNHOMES LLC C/O STEVEN SCOTT MAGMT 3020 FRANCE AVE S ST LOUS PARK MN 55416 69 Date: August 18, 2025 Item: 5.3 Presenter: Matt Karney, Planner Section: Public Hearings Title: LA25-000032, Brad Jans o/b/o Good Shepard Church, 3745 Shoreline Dr, Conditional Use Permit (Matthew Karney) 1.Purpose: The applicant requests an amendment to an existing conditional use permit for church and daycare uses for two new accessory storage buildings. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: The application was made on July 21, 2025 and deemed complete on July 25, 2025. The 60-day review period expires on September 19, 2025. 3.Background: The applicant proposes an amendment to the existing conditional use approval to allow for two additional 196 square foot sheds. The site is currently operating under a CUP for a church and daycare. Both proposed sheds will be located on the southern end of the property, with one shed serving the church and daycare respectively. An amended CUP is required when there is an intensification of the use or uses subject to the CUP , this includes an increase in building square footage. An amended CUP is required when there is an intensification of the use or uses subject to the CUP , this includes an increase in building square footage on the site. 4.Public Comment: No public comments have been received. 5.Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit as applied. 6.Planning Commission Action Requested: If the commission agrees with staff's analysis; a motion should be made for approval of the application. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits A - Staff Report B - Application C - Aerial Imagery D - Cover Letter F - Building Details E - Site Plan G - Hardcover H - Mailing 70 Date Application Received: 07/21/2025 Date Application Considered as Complete: 07/25/2025 60-Day Review Period Expires: 09/19/2025 To: Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Matthew Karney, Planner Date: 18 August 2025 Subject: #LA25-000032, Brad Jans o/b/o Good Shepard Church, 3745 Shoreline Drive Conditional Use Permit – Public Hearing Background The subject property has been operating as Good Shepard Lutheran Church since 1959, and is an allowable land use by Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The site operates as a church as well as a daycare center. An amended CUP is required when there is an intensification of the use or uses subject to the CUP, this includes an increase in building square footage. The applicant requests to amend the existing CUP to allow for two additional storage buildings, one to support the church use and the other for the daycare use. The current proposal is for two 14-foot by 14-foot sheds (392 new square feet of storage), in the southwest corner of the parking lot. In 2020, the applicant received a CUP approval for two storage sheds in a similar location (LA20-000044), however, only 1 shed was constructed from the 2020 approval. One of the sheds was not constructed within a year of the CUP approval, as conditioned, and the other, a 64 square foot garden shed, was installed following issuance of a zoning permit. The approval for the shed that was not constructed has since expired. LA20-000044 approved the addition of 512 square feet in total of storage in two accessory buildings. Conditional Use Permit Analysis: The applicant has provided a cover letter, a site plan and hardcover calculations with their submittal. The applicant is communicating with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding permitting. The 2020 approval of an amended CUP for storage sheds on the property utilized a location on the property that was identified as at least 25 feet from the estimated wetland edge on the southern portion of the property, and is measure from the site plan to be 35 feet away. An amended CUP is required when there is an intensification of the use or uses subject to the CUP, this includes an increase in building square footage. As the increase in square footage is attributed to storage and not for increases in area to the existing primary structure, many of the submittal items requested in Section 6.12.4060 are not applicable, such as aa floor plan. Per Section 6.12.1530(4), places of worship are permitted in LR-1C zoning by CUP, provided all buildings and structures are at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use. As the adjacent properties are also zoned LR-1C, the setback is applicable. The sheds are proposed to be located approximately 60 feet from the side property line, and are more than 50 feet from the other property lines. Application Summary: The applicant requests an amendment to an existing conditional use permit to construct two new accessory storage buildings. Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval of the application as applied. 71 FILE # LA25-000032 18 August 2025 Page 2 of 4 Conditional Use Permit (Section 6.12.1530) 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: The ongoing use of the property as a church and daycare are conditional uses that conform with the 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: The proposal is compliant with the zoning code and is not subject to additional conditions imposed based on the existing and proposed land uses. 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. 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: As the use of the property is not changing with the addition of two storage sheds, the conditional uses 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 sheds are minimal in size and are not anticipated to impact the character in the area. 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: Detached storage buildings are common in the area, and the sheds are proposed in the location of a previously approved storage shed (that was not constructed) following City Council approval in 2020. 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 sheds are proposed in a location on the property that is outside of the 25-foot wetland buffer and will meet all setbacks from Shoreline Drive and buildings on adjacent properties. The sheds are not expected to impair the use enjoyment of property in the area. This criterion is met. 72 FILE # LA25-000032 18 August 2025 Page 3 of 4 10. Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses: The sheds are proposed in a wooded portion of the property and at least 250 feet away from the nearest residence. 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 for additional storage is not anticipated to create a nuisance. This criterion is met. 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: As the additional buildings are to be used for storage purposes, it is not anticipated that additional traffic or burden on the road network will occur. 13. Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact: The location of the proposed sheds is intended to be away from the areas that visitors traverse to the primary building, but adjacent to the parking lot where access will not impact any natural areas. This criterion is met. 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 any exterior lighting of any kind. 15. Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare: Staff does not anticipate an amended CUP for additional storage sheds to come at a detriment to public health, safety, or welfare. 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 public comments have been submitted as of the writing of this report. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit as applied. 73 FILE # LA25-000032 18 August 2025 Page 4 of 4 List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Staff Report Exhibit B. Application Summary Exhibit C. Imagery Exhibit D. Cover Letter Exhibit E. Site Plan Exhibit F. Building Details Exhibit G. Hardcover Exhibit H. Mailing List & Map 74 Land Use Application Summary Application Date:07/21/2025 Address:3745 Shoreline Drive Orono, MN 55391 Parcel Number:2011723210025 Land Use Number:LA25-000032 Application Submitted By:Agent on behalf of property owner Owner:Name: GOOD SHEPHERD LUTH CHURCH Address: 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE WAYZATA MN 55391 Applicant:Name: Brad Jans Company: Address: 3127 BROOKS LN WAYZATA, MN 55391 bj96178@gmail.com Contact Information:Associated Contact: Derek Tronsgard pastorderek@goodshepherdmn.org Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description:2 Storage Sheds (Tenant and Renter) 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: 75 Exhibit C – Aerial Imagery of 3745 Shoreline Drive, Orono 76 77 Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 3745 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 July 21, 2025 Dear Orono Planning Commission and Council, The members of Good Shepherd Lutheran Church are looking to update the outdoor storage capabili�es on the property. We were approved in 2020 to build a 24’ X 18’ garage. We didn’t get it built and more than a year has lapsed. I have been communica�ng with Orono city planner Mathew Karney the past two months to work through the necessary guidelines that pertain to our revised plans for the fall of 2025. The previous plan to build a garage no longer fits within our budget, primarily due to the cost of concrete. Therefore, we are proposing two storage sheds – one to be used by Good Shepherd Lutheran Church (the property owner) and the other by Shoreline Daycare. The sheds are intended to clean up the property of children’s toys from the daycare, and house the yard equipment for the church property. We will be dismantling and removing the current 10’ x 10’ shed. We have an email from Veronica Sannes of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) sta�ng that one shed would be fine and not trigger any MCWD rules, so that no MCWD permi�ng would be required. I am currently wai�ng to receive confirma�on on the two-shed proposal from her, hoping to hear from her within the week. Thank you for your considera�on and approval, Brad Jans Project Manager 612-306-5268 78 79 80 81 82Staff Notes: - Proposed sheds in blue - Both are 14'x14' in size - West shed is 63' from property line - East shed is 35' from estimated wetland edge 83 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 3745 Shoreline 0 200 400100 Feet Date: 7/22/2025 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 38 17-117-23 33 0006 HOPE CHEST/BREAST CANC FOUND C/O MAUREEN FAILOR 3850 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 33 0007 DOGHAVEN LLC 3800 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 33 0151 COUNTY OF HENNEPIN 300 S 6TH STREET MC228 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55487 38 17-117-23 34 0041 CHUN GUO 3625 GETTYSBURG AVE S #30 ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426 38 17-117-23 34 0042 ROXANNE ROCKVAM PO BOX 88 SPRING PARK MN 55384 38 17-117-23 34 0043 JANE V COX 5710 VILLAGE TRAIL MOUND MN 55364 38 17-117-23 34 0044 THE MIDWEST PROJECT LLC 735 MARIE CT DELANO MN 55328 38 17-117-23 34 0045 KATHLEEN L FINE 3625 LYRIC AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 34 0046 CALLIE J ROBINSON JOHN R LANIE 3615 LYRIC AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 34 0047 ROBERT H HARDING 2394 BLAINE AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 34 0076 KARIE M TIMION 3739 LIVINGSTON CT WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 34 0077 BENJAMIN E KIEFFER 3741 LIVINGSTON CT WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 34 0078 KIMBERLY KALKBRENNER 3743 LIVINGSTON CT WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 34 0079 TIFFANY KATE WINTER 3745 LIVINGSTON CT WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 34 0080 JEFFREY A CARLSON 3747 LIVINGSTON CT WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 34 0081 PENNY MUELLER 3749 LIVINGSTON CT WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 34 0082 KATHLEEN LOEFFLER 3751 LIVINGSTON CT WAYZATA MN 55391 38 17-117-23 34 0083 LAKE MINNETONKA WOODS ASSOC C/O COMPASS MANAGEMENT GROUP 3370 ANNAPOLIS LN N SUITE C PLYMOUTH MN 55447 38 17-117-23 34 0084 LAKE MINNETONKA WOODS ASSOC C/O COMPASS MANAGEMENT GROUP 3370 ANNAPOLIS LN N SUITE C PLYMOUTH MN 55447 38 17-117-23 34 0085 LAKE MINNETONKA WOODS ASSOC C/O COMPASS MANAGEMENT GROUP 3370 ANNAPOLIS LN N SUITE C PLYMOUTH MN 55447 38 17-117-23 34 0086 CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLY PKWY ORONO MN 55356 38 20-117-23 12 0015 SHERRI STRELOW-LUNDBLAD 2455 CARMAN ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0016 MICHAEL P & JANET D MALIK PO BOX 96 MINNETONKA BEACH MN 55361 38 20-117-23 12 0019 DENISE OLSZEWSKI 3580 FREDERICK ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0020 JEREMY A STEWART MAGGIE L STEWART 2474 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0021 JANET E ROBERTS 2454 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0022 STEPHEN J SKORO 2428 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0067 JOHN T GORMAN 3585 FREDERICK ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 12 0068 JOHN DRAWZ AND JEAN DRAWZ 3565 FREDERICK ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0001 MARGARET ANN PROEHL 2464 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 85 38 20-117-23 21 0002 SCOTT B GAYLORD AMY M STEELE GAYLORD 2001 LAKESIDE LANE MOUND MN 55364 38 20-117-23 21 0003 RONALD D NELSON CECILE E NELSON 2480 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0004 DREW MICHAEL LANDON CARLY J FELDMANN 2476 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0005 PAUL W LARSON 2470 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0006 PAULA ZACHMAN 2466 DUNWOODY AVE ORONO MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0007 MARGARET ANN PROEHL 2464 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0008 MARGARET ANN PROEHL 2464 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0010 RONALD L & SUZANNE VANACORA 2500 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0014 T & D Y CHALUPSKY PO BOX 217 SPRING PARK MN 55384 38 20-117-23 21 0015 MARIE A SVANG 4140 11TH AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55407 38 20-117-23 21 0016 MICHAEL G HART KRISTIN J HART 2510 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0017 RONALD D & HOLLY S ROCCA 2520 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0018 CALVARY MEMORIAL CHURCH 2420 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0019 JACOB H ROSHOLT DEBRA A ROSHOLT 2500 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0020 LINDA K O'NEEL/ROBERT O'NEEL 2520 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0021 EMILY M DUNLAP 2540 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0022 CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY ORONO MN 55356 38 20-117-23 21 0023 KURT KENNAN KROLL JR AMY ELIZABETH KROLL 2560 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0024 CHARLES & CAROL PRICE 2813 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0025 GOOD SHEPHERD LUTH CHURCH 3745 SHORELINE DRIVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0028 LUMEN ATTN PROPERTY TAX DEPT 931 14TH STREET DENVER CO 80202 38 20-117-23 21 0029 STEVAN J & DEBRA J WAGNER 5440 MORNINGVIEW CT MOUND MN 55364 38 20-117-23 21 0033 MERZ PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 163 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 20-117-23 21 0034 MATTHEW W & SARAH J DAVIS BLAKE E & JULIA J LARSON 2590 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0036 IGOR YURCHENKO NATALYA CHERNEVSKAYA 2490 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0037 STEPHEN J RUDOLPH SUSAN RUDOLPH 2480 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0038 ALLEN J & JUDY B SCHEFERS 2540 CASCO PT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 86 Date: August 18, 2025 Item: 5.4 Presenter: Matt Karney, Planner Section: Public Hearings Title: LA25-000035, Miller Dunwiddie, 880 Partenwood Rd, Variance (Matthew Karney) 1.Purpose: The applicant requests approval of average lakeshore setback to construct an addition to the existing primary residence. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: The application was made on July 23, 2025 and deemed complete on August 5, 2025. The 60-day review period expires on October 4, 2025. 3.Background: The applicant proposes a single-story addition and an at-grade deck to the lakeside of the primary residence. the at-grade deck on conforming to the City Code. The addition encroaches approximately 8 feet into the average lakeshore setback and was design to meet the 75 foot lake setback. The ALS creates a practical difficulty for the homeowner with the limited building envelope and use of the home on the property based on the existing location of the home. 4.Public Comment: No public comments have been received, however, the applicant has provided a letter of support from the adjacent neighbor. 5.Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval as applied. 6.Planning Commission Action Requested: If the commission agrees with staff's analysis; a motion should be made for approval of the application. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits A - Staff Report B - Application & Practical Difficulties C - Aerial Imagery D - Cover Letters E - Site Plans F - Building Details G - Hardcover H - Public Comment I - Architectural Committee Letter 87 J - Mailing 88 Date Application Received: 07/23/2025 Date Application Deemed Complete: 08/05/2025 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10/04/2025 To: Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Matthew Karney, Planner Date: 18 August 2025 Subject: #LA25-000035, Miller Dunwiddie Architecture, Inc., 880 Partenwood Road Variance – Public Hearing Background The applicant proposes a single-story building addition and at grade deck on the lake side of the existing home. The addition will provide living space for the homeowners on the main level. The proposed addition encroaches approximately 8 feet into the average lakeshore setback (ALS), but does not encroach into the 75-foot lake setback. The grade-level deck is proposed to be expanded with the building addition and is permitted by City Code. The existing deck encroaches approximately 3.6 feet into the 75-foot lake setback and was an existing condition prior to the owners’ purchase of the property in 1992. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has submitted letters from both the applicant and homeowner, a survey, proposed site plan, site photos, correspondence with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, hardcover calculations, and house elevations. The applicant states that the house addition will allow for necessary and proximate access to the garage for the homeowners. The addition was designed to meet the 75’ lake setback and is proposed on a portion of the house furthest away from the OHWL. The applicant has provided a letter of support from the nearest neighbor and their homeowner’s association’s architectural committee. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: The angle of the house in relation to the lake resulted in the eastern edge of the house being situated closer to the lakeshore than the west. The applicant has made an effort to reduce the encroachment of the addition into the ALS, by proposing the addition on the west side of the house, further back from the lakeshore. The adjacent neighbor’s letter of support, combined with the existing conditions of the current home location, the existing landscape of the property provided screening, supports the intent of the ALS that lake views will not be impacted by the proposed addition. The ALS creates a practical difficulty for the homeowner with the limited building envelope and use of the home on the property based on the existing conditions of the home. Application Summary: The applicant requests approval of an average lakeshore setback variance to construct an addition to the existing primary residence. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the variance. 89 FILE #LA25-000035 18 August 2025 Page 2 of 5 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 6.12.1450 – Setbacks: Primary Buildings Section 6.12.6930 – Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 37,183 s.f. 0.85 acres Allowed: 7,436 s.f. * Existing: 3,575 s.f. (9.6%) Proposed: 4,332 s.f. (11.7%) *Maximum footprint of structures cannot exceed 20% of lot size on lots >10,000 s.f. Code Sec. 78-1403 (a)(1) Section 6.12.9000 – Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 37,183 s.f. 9,295 s.f. (25 %) 6,886 s.f. (18.5%) 296 s.f. within 75’ setback 7,652 s.f. (20.6%) 296 s.f. within 75’ setback Applicable Regulations: Average Lakeshore Setback Variances (Section 6.12.6240) The subject property has one adjacent neighbor, located at 850 Partenwood Road to the west, and a vacant outlot to the east. The setback applied to the subject property is 86.2 feet. The proposed addition encroaches as much as 8.3 feet into the ALS, but does not impact the 75-foot lake setback. The existing grade-level deck is proposed to be expanded to the west. Because the height of the deck is less than 42 inches above grade, it is not subject to the ALS. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 6.12.530) 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. LR-1B District Required Existing Proposed Interior Side (West) 10’ 16.1’ Existing House 16.1’ Proposed Addition Lakeshore 75’ 71.4’ Existing Deck 75’ Proposed Deck Average Lakeshore The ALS is 86.2’ from the OHWL, and the building addition will be located up to 77.9’ from the OHWL, resulting in an encroachment of 8.3 feet. 90 FILE #LA25-000035 18 August 2025 Page 3 of 5 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 ALS is intended to protect lake views from the homes on adjacent lakeshore properties. The proposed home addition is not expected to impact lake views, and the adjacent neighbor has indicated their views will not be impacted. This criterion is met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan: The proposed variance to add on to an existing single-family residential use is consistent with the 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: The owner’s proposal for a building addition with minimal encroachment into the average lakeshore setback is reasonable. This criterion is met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: The house is located in a unique configuration on the property, where the ALS does not leave a reasonable envelope for the home. The configuration of the current home limits the use of the site. The circumstances are unique to the property not created by the landowners. This criterion is met. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality: The character of the locality should not be altered, as the addition is designed to have a minor encroachment into the ALS and will not encroach into the 75-foot lake setback. 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: Staff does not find any economic considerations pertinent to the applicant’s request. This criterion is 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: A single-family residence is permitted within LR-1B zoning. 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. 91 FILE #LA25-000035 18 August 2025 Page 4 of 5 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property: The owners propose the addition near the garage to allow for reasonable access. All of the current bedrooms are on the second story limited the access to the garage with the stair. The irregular shape of the parcel and the location of the current home is unique to the site. The addition is proposed on the lake side of the house, furthest from the lakeshore, to minimize impacts. 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: Although the property has a unique shape and shoreline, the house has a restrictive building envelope where expansions are challenging. 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 existing house creates a limited building envelop on the property. The proposed addition is minimal to the site and has provided support that the addition should not have an impact on lake views preserving the intent of the ALS standard. This criterion is 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: The ALS is in place to protect the existing views of the lake over the subject property from the adjacent home. There has been evidence provided that indicate lake views will not be impacted, and that the addition has been sited appropriately to mitigate adverse impacts to others. This criterion is met. 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 be reasonable, and that the addition has minimal impacts on adjacent properties and lake views. 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 The applicant has submitted letters in support of the request from the adjacent neighbor (850 Partenwood Road) and the Partenwood Homeowners’ Association Architectural Committee. Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval as applied. 92 FILE #LA25-000035 18 August 2025 Page 5 of 5 List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Staff Report Exhibit B. Application & Practical Difficulties Exhibit C. Imagery Exhibit D. Cover Letters Exhibit E. Site Plans Exhibit F. Building Details Exhibit G. Hardcover Information Exhibit H. Public Comment Exhibit I. Architectural Committee Letter Exhibit J. Mailing List & Map 93 Land Use Application Summary Application Date:07/23/2025 Address:880 Partenwood Road Orono, MN 55356 Parcel Number:0511723430001 Land Use Number:LA25-000035 Application Submitted By:Agent on behalf of property owner Owner:Name: JERRY E & CYNTHIA J GRAY Address: 880 PARTENWOOD RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 Applicant:Name: Daniel Green Company: Miller Dunwiddie Architecture, Inc dba Miller Dunwiddie Address: 100 Washington Ave South Minneapolis, MN 55401 dgreen@millerdunwiddie.com Contact Information:Associated Contact: JERRY E & CYNTHIA J GRAY Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description:Addition to Gray Residence 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: 94 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA25-000035 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: Use of the property will remain as a single-family residence 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The current landowner purchased the house 1992 and is the third owner of the property. The parcel at 880 Partenwood Road is of a unique size and shape on Partenwood Road and in this part of the community. Evidence of the influence of this unique tapered trapezoid shape parcel is demonstrated by the unique design solution for the original house that is not like any other nearby residence. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The addition will not be visible from the street and will not encroach into the 75’ OHWL setback. The materials and appearance of the addition will match the design of the existing house. 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 owner does not seek this variance for economic considerations. The owner acknowledges that as the only possible location for an addition to their residence, they may undertake a greater expense to relocate the electrical service entrance and heating and cooling condenser connections at this location to do their best to comply with the ordinance. 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: Not applicable 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: The use of the property as a private residence will not change if the variance is granted. A private one-family residence is allowed as a primary use within the LR-1B zoning district. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: Not applicable 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: The parcel at 880 Partenwood Road is of a unique size and shape on Partenwood Road and in this part of the community. Evidence of the influence of this unique tapered trapezoid shape parcel is demonstrated by the unique design solution for the original house that is not like any other nearby residence. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: The parcel at 880 Partenwood Road is of a unique size and shape on Partenwood Road and in this part of the community. Evidence of the influence of this unique tapered trapezoid shape parcel is demonstrated by the unique design solution for the original house that is not like any other nearby residence. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: Mrs. Gray is presently in a wheelchair and must travel over 85’ from a stair lift to her bedroom. This distance and the challenge presented by the current two story configuration of living spaces within the house impacts her safety and enjoyment of the house, property and neighborhood. Both Mr. and Mrs. Gray’s quality of life and ability to remain living in the house are impacted by the current multi-floor living configuration. With this variance and the addition, living, bathing and sleeping spaces can be added on the main floor to allow full enjoyment of the property and increase safety by always having help near at hand if required. 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 use and occupancy of this one-family home will not change. All renovations and additions will be designed to comply with applicable codes and regulations. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: Without this variance and addition to the home, it is very likely that the Grays will not be able to continue to live in the home due to Mrs. Gray’s mobility condition. 95 Exhibit C – Aerial Imagery of 880 Partenwood Road, Orono 96 97 98 99 VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR: 880 Partenwood Road, Orono MN 55356 PID: 0511723430001 Prepared by: Miller Dunwiddie Daniel Green, AIA 100 Washington Ave S, Suite 500 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612-278-7698 dgreen@millerdunwiddie.com Project Narrative: Jerry and Cindy Gray, reside at 880 Partenwood Road in Orono MN. The house is on Maxwell Bay on Lake Minnetonka. They are considering an addition on the south-west side of the house on the flrst fioor to accommodate a bedroom, bathroom and roll-in closet. Mrs. Gray has very limited mobility and primarily uses a wheelchair. To access the existing bedroom on the second fioor she must use a lift and traverse 85 feet of hallway. Having a bedroom, bath and closets on the flrst fioor will allow the Grays to continue to reside in the home. The addition would be located above the OHWL 75’ setback but is anticipated to encroach into the average lakeshore setback. We seek a variance from the average lakeshore setback to accommodate the addition. The addition will be a single story and have a footing at the perimeter but no basement. Their neighbors at 850 Partenwood Road are in support of this variance request and do not believe their views will be impacted by the addition. Project Statistics: (UPDATED WITH 2025 SURVEY AND SITE PLAN – AUG 05, 2025) • Site Area: 37,183 sf or approximately .85 acres • Addition to existing single-family residence of 757 sf or .017 acres 100 Planning Application – Average Setback Variance - Narrative Rev August 5 - 23 July 2025 GRY2501 | 880 Partenwood Road, Gray Residence, Orono MN Page 2 • Average lakeshore setback from OWHL of neighboring parcel at 850 Partenwood Road is 86.2 feet to neighbors deck • The project seeks a setback from OHWL of 77.9 feet • Encroachment area of 218 SF into the average lakeshore setback • Stormwater Quality Overlay (SQO) District - Tier 1 Hardcover Maximum: • 25% Maximum Allowable within Tier 1 SQO District Hardcover Existing: • SF area – 6,886.6 • % Cover – 18.5 Hardcover Proposed: • SF area: - 7,652.8 • % Cover – 20.6 Attachments: 1. Jerry and Cindy Gray personal cover letter – submitted in person at Orono City Hall on July 18, 2025 2. 880 Partenwood Site Photos - airphoto and images illustrating views of the property and neighboring property. Submitted July 23, 2025 3. Neighbor (850 Partenwood Road) letter of support. Submitted July 23, 2025 4. 880 Partenwood Road Setback Exhibit - Preliminary document submitted July 23, 2025 5. MCWD Permit Requirements Communications – Submitted July 23, 2025 6. 880 Partenwood Road Site Survey – update pending. Preliminary document dated February 18, 2002 submitted on July 23, 2025 7. 880 Partenwood Road Site Survey 2025 8. 880 Partenwood Road Hardcover Calculation worksheet – submitted August 5, 2025 9. 880 Partenwood Road Site plan - Existing and Proposed including average lakeshore setback and hardcover – submitted August 5, 2025 10. 880 Partenwood Preliminary Floor Plans 11. 880 Partenwood Addition – Preliminary Elevations 12. 880 Partenwood Road – HOA Memo Approval end 101 pg.2 pg.5 pg.3 pg.4 VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR: 880 Partenwood Road INFORMATIONAL PHOTOS OF PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORS PROPERTY - VIEWS 880 Partenwood Road Gray Residence 850 Partenwood Road Humbolt Residence Prepared by: Miller Dunwiddie Daniel Green, AIA dgreen@millerdunwiddie.com 612-278-7698 Page 1Aerial photo from Hennepin County Property Map - 2022 N Lake Minnetonka Maxwell Bay 102 Existing deck and area of proposed addition at Gray Residence, 880 Partenwood Road Page 2103 POINT OF VIEW PAGE 5 View of residence of Robert and Joyce Humbolt 850 Partenwood Road, looking from property boundary area with Gray Residence at 880 Partenwood Road Page 3104 IMAGES FROM THIS POINT OF VIEW PAGE 6 Upper level deck of Robert and Joyce Humbolt 850 Partenwood Road, looking towards 880 Partenwood Road Page 4105 VIEW FROM upper level deck Robert and Joyce Humbolt 850 Partenwood Road, Orono, MN, 55356 looking towards Gray Residence 880 Partenwood Road Page 5106 EXISTING SITE PLANA-1(Example) (Garage) A B C D E F G H I J Existing Housev Wood Deck below 75' setback (built prior to 1992)Wood Deck above 75' setbackStone pavement areasPaver DrivewayRetaining WallAC Unit 1AC Unit 2Generator PadABCDDDEFGHI107 (Example) (Garage) A B C D E F G H I J K L Existing Housev Wood Deck below 75' setback (built prior to 1992)Wood Deck above 75' setback minus Removed Portionv v Stone pavement areasv Paver Drivewayv Retaining WallAC Unit 1 - relocatedAC Unit 2 - relocatedGenerator Pad - relocatedv 2 2 2 AdditionNew Wood DeckPROPOSED SITE PLANA-2ABCDDDEFGHIJKEncroachment intoAverage LakeshoreSetback - blue hatch16.1 108 FIRST FLOOR PLAN1/16" = 1'-0"SECOND FLOOR PLAN1/16" = 1'-0"109 VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR: 880 Partenwood Road, Orono MN 55356 PID: 0511723430001 Prepared by: Miller Dunwiddie Daniel Green, AIA 100 Washington Ave S, Suite 500 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612-278-7698 dgreen@millerdunwiddie.com PROPOSED FLOOR PLANAugust 05, 202516.1 ' EXISTING GARAGEPROPOSED ADDITIONSOUTH ELEVATION3/32" = 1'-0"EXISTING ENTRYBEYONDEXISTING GARAGEPROPOSED ADDITIONCEMENT SIDING & TRIM TOMATCH EXISTINGTRIM TO ALIGN AND MATCHEXISTINGHIGH WINDOWS3/32" = 1'-0"WEST ELEVATION110 VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR: 880 Partenwood Road, Orono MN 55356 PID: 0511723430001 Prepared by: Miller Dunwiddie Daniel Green, AIA 100 Washington Ave S, Suite 500 Minneapolis, MN 55401 612-278-7698 dgreen@millerdunwiddie.com PROPOSED ELEVATIONAugust 05, 2025 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) ] % 880 Partenwood Road Daniel Green, AIA - Miller Dunwiddie August 4, 2025 Existing House varies 3,575 Wood Deck below 75' setback (built prior to 1992)296 Wood Deck above 75' setback varies varies 845 Stone pavement areas varies 405 Paver Driveway varies 1,838 Retaining Wall 225 AC Unit 1 AC Unit 2 Generator Pad Retaining Wall 225 Existing Wood Deck above 75' setback (partial)100 8 8 11.6 varies 2.8x2.8 2.8x2.8 2.8x2.8 325 37,183 7,211.6 6,886.6 18.5 111 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) ] % 880 Partenwood Road Daniel Green, AIA - Miller Dunwiddie August 4, 2025 Existing House varies 3,575 Wood Deck below 75' setback (built prior to 1992)296 Wood Deck above 75' setback minus Removed Portion varies varies 464.2 Stone pavement areas varies 405 Paver Driveway varies 1,838 Retaining Wall 225 AC Unit 1 - relocated AC Unit 2 - relocated Generator Pad - relocated 8 8 varies 2.8x2.8 2.8x2.8 2.8x2.8 Addition varies New Wood Deck varies Retaining Wall 225 Existing Wood Deck above 75' setback (partial)100 325 37,183 11.6 757 390 7977.8 7,652.8 20.6 112 113 114 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 880 Partenwood 0 200 400100 Feet Date: 7/25/2025 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 115 38 05-117-23 34 0011 W J & J A KOTTEMANN 835 PARTENWOOD RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 34 0012 SHAIKH ASIM GUL 855 PARTENWOOD LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 43 0001 JERRY E & CYNTHIA J GRAY 880 PARTENWOOD RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 43 0002 865 PARTENWOOD LLC C/O MOLLY WOLF 6415 WAYZATA BLVD ST LOUIS PARK MN 55426 38 05-117-23 43 0003 ANN M THEISEN 815 PARTENWOOD RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 43 0005 FOX STREET TRUST 3400 FOX ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 21 0007 KIRK MOORE & PAMELA MOORE 930 PARTENWOOD RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 21 0008 DAVID L LAPORTE 16264 LAKESIDE AVE SE PRIOR LAKE MN 55372 38 08-117-23 21 0009 ROBERT E & JOYCE P HUMBOLDT 850 PARTENWOOD RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 21 0010 MARY JANE SAFAR 915 PARTENWOOD RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 21 0011 MARY JANE SAFAR TRUST 915 PARTENWOOD RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 116 Date: August 18, 2025 Item: 5.5 Presenter: Melanie Curtis, Planner Section: Public Hearings Title: LA25-000036, Brian Roath, 1200 Wildhurst Trail, After-the-Fact Variances and Conditional Use Permit (Melanie Curtis) 1.Purpose: This application requests after-the-fact variances and CUP approvals for retaining walls, patio, and stair improvements. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: The application was received and was considered to be complete on July 23. The 60-day application deadline will end on September 21, 2025. 3.Background: The applicant is requesting after-the-fact variance and CUP approvals for an expanded patio area with stairs and low walls on the lake side of the home within the 7.5-foot side setback and across the property line, as well as tiered retaining walls within the 75-foot setback and 5-foot side setback, and extending across the property line. The Planning Report is attached as Exhibit A and contains a full analysis of the variances and CUP. 4.Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the following; Denial of the side setback variances for the retaining walls within the lake yard and the patio improvements near the home, and approval of the CUP for the retaining walls in the lake yard with conditions. See Page 7 of Exhibit A. 5.Planning Commission Action Requested: The Planning Commission should make a motion to deny the setback variances and approve the CUP according to the staff recommendation. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Report Exhibit B - Application Exhibit C - Practical Difficulty Exhibit D - Applicant Narrative. Exhibit E - Patio Plans_pre & post Exhibit F - Staff Annotated Plans Exhibit G - Retaining Wall Plans & Engineering Exhibit H - Arborist Report Exhibit I - Historical Surveys Exhibit J - Hardcover Worksheets 117 Exhibit K - Photos Exhibit L - Aerial Photos Exhibit M - Map & Owner List 118 Date Application Received: 07/23/2025 Date Application Considered as Complete: 07/23/2025 60-Day Review Period Expires: 09/21/2025 To: Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 18 August 2025 Subject: #LA25-000036, Brian Roath, 1200 Wildhurst Trail, After-the-Fact Variances and Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing Background In the summer of 2024, the City became aware that improvements, consisting of a new patio off the home located within the 7.5-foot side setback and across the property line, and tiered retaining walls (within the side yard and 75-foot setback from the lake) and extending across the property line, had been constructed on the subject property without City approvals. As constructed, each of the new improvements require land use approvals (variances for setback and a conditional use permit) in addition to construction permits. Since that time, staff has been working with the property owner to resolve the after-the-fact land use and permit approvals for the improvements. The property owner submitted pre-and post-construction plans of the patio area, constructed plans for the retaining walls, an engineering opinion, as well as comments from an arborist about the trees surrounding the walls on the subject property. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the irregular lot lines and home orientation 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: Staff does not identify practical difficulties in the land that support granting setback variances for the new encroachments. While the lot lines are not parallel to the home as the property owner assumed, each of the improvements is subject to construction permits. Had permits been requested, the property lines and setbacks would have been identified. The property has conforming locations to support patio improvements . The engineer’s analysis of the retaining walls within the 75-foot lakeyard indicates that the walls were necessary to stabilize the slope, improve stormwater infiltration, and correct an erosion control condition. The retaining walls within the 75-foot lake setback must meet a 5 foot setback and be screened to preserve a natural shoreline view from the lake. Application Summary: The property owner is requesting after-the-fact approvals for a variance to allow a patio constructed within the required 7.5-foot side yard, and a variance and conditional use permit (“CUP”) for tiered retaining walls constructed within 75 feet of the lake and within the 5-foot setback from the side yard. Staff Recommendation: • Denial of the setback variance for the patio and improvements near the house; • Denial of the setback variance for the retaining walls; and • Approval of the CUP for retaining walls within the 75-lake setback with conditions. See Page 7. 119 PC Exhibit A FILE # LA25-000036 18 August 2025 Page 2 of 7 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 6.12.1450 & 6.12.6940 – Setbacks: LR-1B Required Existing / As-Constructed Rear / Street NA No change North Side 7.5’ Patio Area improvements 0’ Lake Yard Retaining Walls 0’ South Side 7.5’ N/A Lakeshore 75’ ±50’ Section 6.12.9210 – Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 27,859 s.f. 6,964 s.f. (25 %) 6,462 s.f. (23%) 6,829 s.f. (24 %) Applicable Regulations: Side Yard Setback Variances (Chapter 6.12 Sections 1450 & 6940) Based on the property’s width, it is eligible for the side yard setback reduction from 10 feet to 7.5 feet. The patio, stairs, and low walls near the home are required to meet a 7.5-foot setback. As constructed, they extend up to and across the property line. Retaining walls taller than 2 feet must meet a 5-foot side setback. The tiered walls in the lake yard are ±48 inches in height and extend up to and across the property line. As constructed, they must meet a 5-foot setback from the side property line. CUP for Walls within the 75-foot Lake setback (Chapter 6.12 Section 6240) The code provides for new walls within the lake yard via a CUP. The walls are approximately. According to Section 6.12.6240, new walls and replacement walls greater than four feet in height must be: 1. Designed to correct an established erosion problem; and 2. Suitable given the demonstrated need; and 3. Designed by a registered engineer or landscape architect, depending on project scope; and 4. Designed to be the minimum size necessary to control the erosion problem. GOVERNING REGULATIONS: Variance (Section 6.12.530) 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. 120 FILE # LA25-000036 18 August 2025 Page 3 of 7 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 applicant requested after-the-fact setback variances to permit patio (and associated improvements) to be allowed as constructed within the 7.5 foot side setback, and the constructed retaining walls over 2 feet in height within 5 feet of the side property line within the lake yard. Although the property lines were not clearly identified or in the assumed location, submittal of an application for permits prior to construction would have illuminated this condition. There is no practical difficulty to permit further encroachment of the patio improvements or the new retaining walls. This criterion is not met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The request to permit the as-constructed improvements within the setbacks is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. This criterion is not met. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls. The applicant’s request to permit the improvements constructed within the setbacks without permits is not reasonable. The applicant should provide a revised plan for the patio and stairs that eliminates new encroachments and utilizes the existing non-conforming footprint without impact to the 7.5-foot side yard. This criterion is not met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The new patio improvements and walls were installed by the property owner. This criterion is not met, and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The requested variances will result in limited opportunities to create or maintain drainage within the property. Approval of this request would result in the improvements being out of character with the neighborhood and impacting the view from the lake. This criterion is not met. Additionally, City Code Section 6.12.530 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 6.12. 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 6.12 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as residential improvements are allowed in the LR-B 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 slope on the property and the orientation of the property lines are conditions that are consistent with the immediate neighbors. 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 conditions of the property are not unique to the property. This criterion is not met. 121 FILE # LA25-000036 18 August 2025 Page 4 of 7 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances in this situation are not necessary and would serve as a convenience to the owners. 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. This criterion is met. 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 in this situation are not necessary and would serve as a convenience to the owners. This criterion is not met. The Commission may recommend, or the Council may impose conditions in granting 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. Conditional Use Permit (Sections 6.12.4090 & 6.12.6240) Section 6.12.6240 (5)(c) states that walls in the shore setback zone, 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 applicant provided an opinion from Kenneth W. Horns, a professional engineer, that states the retaining walls eliminated a steeply sloped eroded area that was difficult to maintain and provides some additional storm runoff retention with flatter planted areas they created. The walls were also designed to preserve mature trees. This criterion has not been met, and 2. Suitable given the demonstrated need; Mr. Horn’s letter further states that the walls provide stability to the slope, the trees, and help to reduce erosion. Mr. Horns also indicates that the construction of the walls and associated grading improves stormwater runoff and increases opportunities for infiltration. This criterion has been met, and 3. Designed by a registered engineer or landscape architect, depending on the project scope; Mr. Horn provided a cross-section of the constructed walls and an analysis of the installation based on his site observations and conversations with the contractor who installed the walls. This criterion has been met, and 4. Designed to be the minimum size necessary to control the erosion problem. The engineer’s analysis indicates that the walls were necessary to stabilize the slope, improve stormwater infiltration, and correct an erosion control condition. This criterion has been met. The Planning Commission may recommend, and the Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. 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; the protection and preservation of the natural lake shoreline is an identified priority of the Comprehensive Plan. The installation of new walls should not be the first option for slope stability. According to the applicant’s engineer, the applicant converted much of the lakeyard area from an unmaintained slope to a manicured lawn and installed the retaining walls in the steeper hillside area of the slope. Ideally, the applicant should have explored adding deep-rooted vegetation to add stability. However, responding to the existing condition, to lessen the visual impact 122 FILE # LA25-000036 18 August 2025 Page 5 of 7 resulting from walls without further disturbance, the applicant should provide an updated landscape plan to create more screening of the walls as part of the CUP. This criterion is not 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 applicant provided an opinion from a professional engineer in support of the walls as constructed, as they provide slope stability, erosion control, and a stormwater benefit. A landscape plan providing more substantial screening of the walls must be submitted. 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. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; the property meets this standard. 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 prior removal of natural, unmaintained vegetation and installation of the stone retaining walls changed the existing character of the property. However, as installed, the walls are providing stability for the slope and the mature trees, and further disturbance may adversely impact both. The applicant should submit a landscape plan providing better screening of the walls from the lake. This criterion is not met. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan, the installation of stone retaining walls without adequate vegetative screening has changed the character of the property. This criterion is not 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 retaining walls are not adequately screened from view from the lake. The retaining walls and condition of the property are similar to the other properties on Forest Lake along Wildhurst Trail. 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 lakeshore wall improvements on the subject property should not impact the neighboring property values or the enjoyment of the neighboring property owners. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; the applicant has not provided a landscape plan to provide adequate natural screening and buffering of the retaining wall improvements when viewed from the lake. This criterion is not met. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; the walls on the subject property are not anticipated to create a nuisance situation. This criterion is met. 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 retaining walls should not have any impact on residential streets or traffic. This criterion is met. 123 FILE # LA25-000036 18 August 2025 Page 6 of 7 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; the applicant has not proposed adequate landscaping to screen the walls to be compatible with the character of the improvements within the surrounding area. This criterion is not met. 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 lake yard improvements should not result in any lighting or glare being cast off the property toward the public street, the neighbors, or the lake; and 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This is true of the project. A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally, a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. Analysis The property owner provided professional opinions from an engineer and an arborist as to the necessity and appropriateness of the retaining wall improvements. Staff finds that the retaining walls within the 75-foot lake yard, although an after-the-fact condition, appear to provide a benefit regarding stormwater runoff, and may be appropriate and necessary to protect the trees and the integrity of the slope. The existing landscaping around/in front of the walls does not adequately screen the walls from the lake. Additional vegetative screening should be implemented. Refer to Exhibit F, the staff-annotated plans, to review the in-kind and new improvements. Near the home, the improvements (including the patio, landing, stairs, and walls) include both in-kind and new elements. The portions replaced in-kind, or in the area of the previously existing improvements, are able to be replaced or maintained with permits. The new elements, and those that encroach into the 7.5-foot side setback (and across the property line), should be removed or modified so they do not adversely impact the neighboring property, particularly from a drainage standpoint. Resolution of the encroachments constructed across the shared property line (with 1186 Wildhurst Trail) is a private matter between the two property owners. However, if the private resolution involves a change or removal of the retaining walls, additional City reviews and/or permit requirements may be necessary. Public Comments The patio and wall improvements encroach on 1186 Wildhurst Trail, the property to the north. The owners of 1186 have indicated that they want the encroachments removed from their property and prefer that all improvements meet setbacks and city requirements. No other comments from the public 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? 124 FILE # LA25-000036 18 August 2025 Page 7 of 7 Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff does not find practical difficulties supporting the encroachments into the side setback areas. Staff recommends denial of the setback variances and approval of the CUP for the retaining walls with conditions and modifications as noted herein. Planning Commission should consider one or more of the following motions: 1. Approval as applied. 2. Denial of the application as applied. Provide direction to the applicant. 3. Partial approval, including: a. Approval of the conditional use permit for the retaining walls within the lake yard, with conditions for screening and wall modifications to meet the 5-foot side yard setback, as necessary. b. Denial of the setback variances for the improvements near the home and the lake slope walls and the patio. To accommodate a safe landing and access to the area, it may be necessary to modify the patio and landing to meet the 7.5-foot side setback. 125 Land Use Application Summary Application Date:07/23/2025 Address:1200 Wildhurst Trail Orono, MN 55364 Parcel Number:0711723310037 Land Use Number:LA25-000036 Application Submitted By:Property Owner Owner:Name: BRIAN ROATH Address: LISA ROATH 1200 WILDHURST TR Applicant:Name: Brian Roath Company: Address: 1200 Wildhurst Trail Orono, MN 55364 b_roath@yahoo.com Contact Information:Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description:Expand patio and construct a retaining wall 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: 126 PC Exhibit B PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA25-000036 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: n/a 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: While the patio expansion is square with our house, our living area, both adjacent neighbors’ houses, and the shoreline, the property boundary is not square. As displayed in the edited satellite image from the Hennepin County Property website, while the houses at 1186 Wildhurst, 1200 Wildhurst, and 1214 Wildhurst are nearly square with each other, the property boundary is diagonal between the houses. This was a surprise to property owners (of both 1200 Wildhurst and 1214 Wildhurst) as both families have been maintaining and living as if the property line was parallel with the sides of our houses. Until recently, there were no surveys of our properties / houses. And, the only site maps on file with Orono/Hennepin were 1) an empty lot survey from 1964, and 2) an "as proposed" plan filed with the city in 1976 when our house was built. Both of these documents are attached. The approved construction site plan ("1976 Land Survey") proposed the house at 1200 Wildhurst Trail was to be built square to the property boundary, instead of square to the adjacent houses and shoreline. Instead, the builder did not follow the plan approved by City of Orono. The house was built square with the adjacent neighboring houses. The house was built within the ten foot set-back and where the boundary converges on the typical living areas at 1200 Wildhurst Trail. When we purchased the property in 2015, we did not know that our house, deck, and patio were already in violation of the side set-back requirements. Nor did we know that expanding the patio would further converge with the property boundary, reducing the property side set-back. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: This does not alter the essential character of the locality as it is an expansion of an existing amentiy. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: n/a 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: n/a 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: n/a 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: n/a 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: n/a 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: n/a 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property 127 PC Exhibit C right of the applicant. Response: We wish to expand the patio for two reasons: 1) to resolve a safety concern while walking down the deck stairs onto the patio, and 2) to create an improved outdoor patio living area that enhances our enjoyment of our property. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Response: Granting a variance resolves a safety concern. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: We ask for approval to expand the patio in order to create an improved outdoor patio living area that enhances our enjoyment of our property. Also, one of the reasons why we ask for approval is to resolve a safety concern. The safety concern is a result of the steep slope from the house to the lake. We believe the original patio configuration could be unsafe for some (especially children and elderly) when descending the deck stairs. While the original patio creates a landing at the end of the deck stairs, continuing down the patio steps onto the main patio area required an abrupt >90 degree turn. The safety concern is that the person’s momentum might continue in the same direction as the deck stairs. They might not be able to stop the momentum to make the turn required to continue down the patio stairs. Instead, they could find themselves stepping onto the hillside and continuing downhill. The patio expansion resolves this by continuing the patio, after the landing, for a few feet in the same direction as the momentum gained from descending the deck stairs. This requires a variance from the city as the new portion of the patio converges slightly closer to the property boundary (while not encroaching the boundary). As the site plan depicts, the patio would only extend enough to allow the person descending the stairs to make a more gradual turn onto the patio area. 128 1200 Wildhurst Trail Application for a CUP Let me provide context regarding our requested CUP and the construction of a retaining wall on our property at 1200 Wildhurst Trail in Orono. The decision to build the wall was driven by concerns about erosion, slope stability, and the health of mature oak trees located along the hillside. Our east-facing property sits on sloped terrain. The lower part of our property near the lake has a far steeper slope. In this lower area, we had observed gradual soil movement and erosion over time, particularly during heavy rain. On the southern half of the hillside, we did not see as much erosion because the uphill run-off is diverted away from the hillside and down an asphalt path. On that half, we were able to use natural vegetation for hillside stabilization. This is a different scenario on the northern half of the hillside where there were several areas of exposed roots caused by erosion. We were advised that leaving that northern half of the hillside unaddressed would pose risks to the long-term stability of the slope and the viability of the existing landscape. It was recommended we use a retaining wall for stabilizing the northern half of the hillside. A key factor in our decision to build the wall (and its positioning) was the preservation of three red oak trees growing on the hillside. These trees are an important natural feature of the property, and we wanted to ensure their root systems remained protected and undisturbed. A retaining wall helps stabilize the soil around these trees, reducing the likelihood of root exposure or slope failure that could jeopardize their health. The wall also helps capture uphill runoff up, which is absorbed into the soil and used by the trees. A major challenge of the project was how to construct a wall that contributes only positively to the health of the mature trees. Because these oak trees are located at the property line, we were thankful that our neighbors at 1186 Wildhurst Trail shared our concerns about the trees and supported constructing a retaining wall partially on their property. This positioning would not only avoid any disruption to both of our oak trees during construction, but would also capture run-off for the ailing oak tree on their side of the property line. (Those neighbors have since retracted their support for a retaining wall. Hence, no letter of support from those neighbors in our application.) We consulted with experts who recommend and support our efforts to address the erosion issues, contribute to slope stability, and improve the health of the trees. These professionals have confirmed that the retaining wall was constructed using appropriate materials and methods to meet common engineering standards and to ensure long-term 129 PC Exhibit D effectiveness. Other professionals have, over time, observed the improving health of the oak trees. These details will be included in our CUP application. If additional documentation or site visits are needed, I would be happy to help coordinate. Thank you for considering our CUP application. Please feel free to reach out with any questions. 130 1200 Wildhurst Trail Application for Variance for Patio Expansion Much of the narrative for this project is contained within the Practical Difficulties section of the application. But again, this project is a simple patio expansion extending the patio towards the lake, enhancing our enjoyment and use of the patio. The project was completed in 2022 without the required city permit. Our application requests an after-the-fact corrective permit and side setback variance to accommodate for a recognized practical difficulty. In 2024, after the patio expansion was completed, we discovered a small (3 sq ft) encroachment into our neighbor’s property. Our plans are to modify the patio expansion to remove the encroachment and to comply with city ordinances. This is why the application contains site designs showing 1) the pre-existing patio, 2) the current expanded patio, and 3) the proposed modified expanded patio. A variance is requested to allow a small area of the expanded patio to remain in the setback. Although this area of the expanded patio is near the property boundary, the area is clearly in our natural living space and does not interfere with the neighboring property. Our application also contains some history of the lot and possible explanations as to why the location of the property line between 1200 Wildhurst Trail and 1186 Wildhurst Trail properties recently surprised both property owners. Other documents, diagrams, and maps will be included in our application. If additional documentation or site visits are needed, I would be happy to help coordinate. Thank you for considering our variance application. Please feel free to reach out with any questions. 131 FEET 100 16.96'24.83'6'1200 WILDHURST TRAIL PRE-2022 PATIO DECKSTAIRSSHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH LAWN LAWN BUILDING APPROX. FOOTPRINT OF DECK ABOVE PATIO SEGMENTAL BLOCK RETAINING WALLS APPROXIMATE/ASSERTEDPROPERTY LINE132 PC Exhibit E FEET 100 24.83' 9' PATIO EXTENSION25.96'R 6 . 8 3 '6'6.83'1200 WILDHURST TRAIL 2022 PATIO EXTENSION DECKSTAIRSSHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH LAWN LAWN BUILDING APPROX. FOOTPRINT OF DECK ABOVE PATIO STEPS ROCK MULCH APPROXIMATE/ASSERTEDPROPERTY LINESEGMENTAL BLOCK RETAINING WALL 133 PATIODECK STAIRSLANDINGLAWNSTEP #1STEP #2PATIOEND WALLPATIOPATIO SECTION VIEW134 FEET 100 24.83' 9' PATIO EXTENSION25.96'R 6 . 8 3 '6'6.83'1200 WILDHURST TRAIL 2022 PATIO EXTENSION DECKSTAIRSSHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH LAWN LAWN BUILDING APPROX. FOOTPRINT OF DECK ABOVE PATIO STEPS ROCK MULCH APPROXIMATE/ASSERTEDPROPERTY LINESEGMENTAL BLOCK RETAINING WALL 135 Previous/Existing Condition 7.5' NEW PC Exhibit F 136 ROATH - Subject Property Rasmussen Property Approximate 7.5 foot setback - Exception City Code Section 6.12.1450(b)(1) approximate 75 foot setback line Walls w/in 75 foot setback New setback encroachments (approximate) SEGMENTAL CONCRETE UNIT RETAINING WALL NOTES:16" THICK x 24" WIDE COMPACTED CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE LEVELING PAD(COMPACTED IN 2" LIFTS)WINSTON STRAIGHT RETAINING WALL SYSTEM, MANUFACTURED BY COUNTYMATERIALS, 205 NORTH ST. MARATHON CITY, WI 54448PERFORATED DRAIN TILE PIPECLEAR ROCK BACKFILL, 18"-24" WIDTH FROM BACK OF WALLFILTER FABRIC GEOTEXTILE PLACED ON BACK SIDE OF BLOCKSMAXIMUM WALL HEIGHT=46"ONE BLOCK COURSE BURIED AT BASE OF WALLCAPSTONE WALL HEIGH T FEET 1500 RETAINING WALL TOP/WEST TIER RETAINING WALL BOTTOM/EAST TIER BOULDERS (TYP.)PROPERTY LINE (APPROX.)ASPHALT PATH FIRE PIT OAK TREE (25"Ø) OAK TREE (18"Ø) OAK TREE (22"Ø) DRAWING BASED ON FIELD MEASUREMENTS FIGURE 1 RETAINING WALL PLAN VIEW137 PC Exhibit G Site Plan SEGMENTAL CONCRETE UNIT RETAINING WALL1 NOTES: SECTION IS APPROXIMATE BASED ON LANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTALLATION 16" THICK x 24" WIDE COMPACTED CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE LEVELING PAD (COMPACTED IN 2" LIFTS) WINSTON STRAIGHT RETAINING WALL SYSTEM, MANUFACTURED BY COUNTY MATERIALS, 205 NORTH ST. MARATHON CITY, WI 54448 PERFORATED DRAIN TILE PIPE CLEAR ROCK BACKFILL, 18"-24" WIDTH FROM BACK OF WALL FILTER FABRIC GEOTEXTILE PLACED ON BACK SIDE OF BLOCKS MAXIMUM WALL HEIGHT = 43" ONE BLOCK COURSE BURIED AT BASE OF WALL CAPSTONE WALL HEIGHT7 6 5 4 3 2 1 5 3 1 6 NOTE: WALL IS TYPICAL OF 2 WALL TIERS, SET 7'-2" AND 11'-1" APART. 24"16" 2 8 7 4 TOP OF WALL 8 FINISHED GRADE FINISHED G R A D E FIGURE 2 RETAINING WALL SECTION VIEW138 Cross- Section To: City Staff From: Kenneth W. Horns, P.E. Date: August 6, 2025 Re: Retaining Wall at 1200 Wildhurst Trail I’ve been asked to review the retaining wall constructed at 1200 Wildhurst Trail. My analysis below is based on over 40 years of civil engineering experience on a variety of site development and infrastructure projects. The existing retaining wall at 1200 Wildhurst Trail in Orono, Minnesota is a two-tiered segmental block retaining wall system that uses stacked dry cast blocks and a drainage system to resist earth pressures behind the wall. The wall system is a Winston Straight Retaining Wall System manufactured by County Materials, and is commonly used in residential landscape applications. The wall is situated near the bottom of a turfgrass slope in the back yard of a residential property, approximately 58 feet from Forest Lake Bay of Lake Minnetonka. The area immediately above the top wall tier, as well as the area between the walls, is covered by rock mulch, shrubs, and small trees. The turfgrass slope above the retaining wall is approximately 3.5H:1V (Horizontal : Vertical), and the turfgrass area below the wall generally flat. See Figure 1. Both walls are composed of five block courses (8-inch height each), plus a partial reveal of the buried base block (about 3-inches at most), resulting in a maximum wall height of 43 inches for both walls, excluding the cap block which does not provide support or earth retention. The wall heights taper to shorter heights at both ends. The top/west wall ranges in height from less than 12 inches at the south end, to a maximum height of 43 inches near the center, then again less than 12 inches at the north end. The bottom/east wall ranges in height from 17 inches at the south end, to a maximum height of 43 inches near the center, then less than 12 inches at the north end. The distance between the bottom/east wall to the top/west wall varies from 6.5 feet to 11.0 feet. I have reviewed the landscape contractor’s description of the installation, which includes details regarding the wall product used, the aggregate materials installed for the base below the wall and the drainage section behind the wall including drain tile and geotextile, and the compaction procedures performed on the base materials. A section drawing has been created based on the description provided by the landscape contractor. See Figure 2. In my professional opinion, the materials and installation procedures employed during construction of this retaining wall system are consistent with industry standards for construction of gravity (unreinforced) segmental block retaining walls. of this height and size. When the homeowner purchased the property in 2015, the backyard consisted of approximately 110 feet of a 3.5H:1V slope that slopes from the patio near the house to the east, then approximately 30 feet of a 139 Engineer's Report steeper 2.5H:1V slope that flattens out in a lawn area between the slope and the lake (approximately 50 feet), based on 2-foot LiDAR contour data provided by the Minnesota Geospatial Information Office. Following purchase of the property and prior to installation of the retaining wall, the homeowner converted much of the unmaintained area (natural vegetation/weeds) of the backyard to manicured lawn. This area was located in the flatter portion of the backyard slope, leading up to the grade break where the slope steepened. The steeper hillside area remained unmaintained with natural vegetation at that time. The retaining wall, which was installed in 2021, provides multiple benefits related to slope stabilization, tree protection, and erosion control. ▪ The retaining wall stabilizes the pre-existing 2.5H:1V slope, which is steeper than the maximum slope typically recognized as a maintainable slope, 3H:1V. Steep slopes are more difficult to maintain and are vulnerable to erosion. ▪ Installation of the retaining walls helps stabilize the existing slope around the three mature large oak trees located near the north end of the walls. These trees, which range in size from 18 inches to 25 inches DBH (Diameter at Breast Height), are important to help maintain the overall stability of the slope due to their large root systems in comparison to grasses and weeds. ▪ The areas immediately upgradient from the top wall tier and between the two walls are now much flatter than they were prior to the retaining wall installation. This has the effect of slowing down stormwater runoff that helps to reduce erosion and increase infiltration, resulting in a reduced volume of stormwater (and potential sediment and nutrients) from reaching Lake Minnetonka, contributing to enhanced water quality. ▪ The location of the wall on the north side was intended to minimize the excavation impacts to the three mature trees and the roots that help stabilize the slope near the trees. The retaining walls eliminated a steeply sloped eroded area that was difficult to maintain and provides some additional storm runoff retention with flatter planted areas they created. The walls were also located to preserve mature trees. Kenneth W. Horns, P.E. 140 1 ________________________________________________________________________ 6347 Minnewashta Woods Dr., Excelsior MN 55331• 763-717-9366 • heritageshadetree.com August 8, 2025 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: Support for Variance Request – Retaining Wall Placement to Protect Mature Trees To Whom It May Concern, As a certified arborist with 39 years of experience in tree preservation and urban forestry, I am writing in support of the variance request for the existing location of the retaining wall located at 1200 Wildhurst Trail. After evaluating the site, I believe that granting this variance is in the best interest of the city’s urban forest and the health of several mature trees on the property. The retaining wall was carefully planned and constructed to minimize disruption within the critical root zones of 4 mature trees, including two northern red oak on Mr. Roath’s property (approximately 14 inches and 18 inches in diameter) and a red oak (approx. 24 inch diameter) and silver maple (approx. 28 inch diameter) on the adjacent property. These mature trees are both ecologically and aesthetically significant. They provide shade, sequester carbon, stabilize soil, provide wildlife habitat, and contribute to the character and property values of the neighborhood. Importantly, the retaining wall serves a crucial role in preventing soil erosion on the sloped site. The terraces reduce the velocity of water traveling down the hill toward the lake. Preventing erosion maintains the stability of the entire slope and protects the trees as well as water quality. In addition to controlling erosion, the retaining wall and terraces are designed to capture rainwater runoff, allowing it to percolate deeper into the soil profile rather than being lost to surface flow. Water retention is especially important in dry seasons when mature trees rely heavily on stored soil moisture. The wall helps to maintain a more consistent and supportive moisture environment for the trees, reducing stress and promoting overall health. 141 PC Exhibit H 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 6347 Minnewashta Woods Dr., Excelsior MN 55331• 763-717-9366 • heritageshadetree.com During my site visit on August 7, 2025, I observed that the mature trees are healthy and thriving. There is no sign of branch dieback, a common sign of root damage and declining condition. The foliage on all four trees is healthy, and the trees appear to be growing vigorously. I spoke to an arborist who works for the landscape contractor that built the wall, and he stated that the oaks were exhibiting signs of stress prior to construction of the retaining wall. At this point, disassembling the retaining wall to comply with standard setback requirements would require excavation and grading within the trees' critical root zone. This would remove the roots that have colonized the new soil within the terraces and incur the risk of dieback and decline for these mature specimens. In my professional opinion, the proposed variance reflects a responsible and environmentally sound approach to development. The applicant has shown a commitment to maintaining healthy, mature trees, consistent with arboricultural best practices and the city’s broader goals for sustainable land use and preservation of green infrastructure. I respectfully support approval of this variance in recognition of the ecological value and protective function this retaining wall provides. I am available if additional information or clarification is needed. Sincerely, Don Mueller Partner/Consulting Arborist Heritage Shade Tree Consultants ISA Certified Arborist MN-4640A, TRAQ, TPAQ don@heritageshadetree.com 651.269.3701 142 c Do cd; la it .cr- 4- y I ORDER NO. 8923 271.3 WILLIAM D. SCHOELL SCHOELL til. MAOSON, INC. CARLISLE MADSON REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR MINN.NO.2265 ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS MINN.NO.4374 SO.OAK.755 5O NINTH AVENUE SOUTH SO.OAK.791 WIS.NO.E-8176 HOPKINS. MINNESOTA 55343 WIS.NO.S-874 FLORIOA NO.6271 IOWA NO.3705 Ilk NO.OAK.623 PHONE 930-7601 NO.OAK.1106 MONT.NO.1616-E t ' t .',,MONT.NO.1742-S TEXAS NO.35659 t' :.I 'I° j 94 i .CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY , I, Xr , NP. FOgs ! M. C . Bu/LDERS • Op.NsO. Gifi a \ C Ho Toot/ or found! 983.6 Sg R 9 tib' d y .lq EU 6. • I 6 /(10\* s k i 9 AI8, i mor.S rti 7 `9j 38----- 6J .''--(q16. k730 t'3s . )' ', 3 (Zi0' m, SPSCc$ ii; N! r oorar' 'c9 S, ar f ii f EO g " Cam/ 1 63t/— 4 Al' •';n 0 Toto of /Gund 979.o—•--"r a• !•., r9>s J 7..7 41 4 4 t r.. BENCHMA2k: s ‘' To D of iron OlO OOS/TE' NW corner S(/r of q araq e as shown. E/e v =985.5 tee, ' /nom a NOVO-1929)i• S40,. i7e S N°/// 6 312/- 7n/- , 76 l Deno/es 05, Deno/es Iron monumeni se/ V q;`/ o-Deno/es iron monumeni {Ounc/ 14.0 c, // q I\ y L r f CO x(977.7)-Deno/es ex/si spo/ e/et/.1 A// AProp. garage floor - 985.5 c (. 4 o iq.1.- It/ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF: Tact 5, ,Peg/s/ered Land Survey No. ///6, //ennepin Coonfy, /linnesoto. AND OF THE LOCATION OF ALL BUILDINGS. IF ANY, THEREON. AND ALL VISIBLE ENCROACHMENTS. IF ANY. FROM OR ON SAID LAND. 27 /AS SURVEYED BY ME.OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION,THIS T1n DAY OF _ January 19 76 f a/so shows /he /oca/ion of the slakes as set for o A, pr'O/OOSec/ bLUIo'/n9. REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR 143 PC Exhibit I Prior to the current conditions - adjustment of the lot lines 60 V REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. i HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA BEARINGS SHOWN ARE ASSUMED. 1 O” DENOTES IRON MONUMENT. M APRIL, 1964 SCALE: 111 = 501 EGAN, FIELD & NO'NAK SURVEYORS y sf lPds r1.y F,.J S, a•J•f jNS7 Pa M9 IIS r L Co O 1 hereby certify that in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 508, trAnnesota Statutes of 1949, as amended, I have surveyed the following described tract of land in the County of Hennepin and State of Mirnesota, towit: Lots 27, 28 and 29, Tonkaview Gardens Hennepir County Minn, according to the plat thereofon file or of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for said county. That the survey shown hereon is a correct delineation of said survey. Dated this 2b` day of PRIL- A.D. 1964, Surveyor -Minnesota Registration No.6122 This regist red land survey was approved and accepted by the Village of Orono, Minnesota, this 2 Z t -f day o f„oi,- f' A.D. 1964. by Mayor by r clerk by Chairman zoning & planning Commission 144 Prior to the current conditions - adjustment of the lot lines Last Updated: January 2024 Note: This is an information sheet only, every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein; however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. Page 7 of 8 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 the 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) ] % (Proposed Hardcover next page) 27,859 House see drawing for dimensions 2,813 Decks, excl over patio (821 sq ft total)547 Patio 430 Retaining wall (under deck) Retaining wall (NE corner)6' x 8"4 12' x 8"8 Retaining wall (SW corner) Driveway see drawing for dimensions 1,746 Retaining wall (south) 33' x 8" 48' x 8" Side path see drawing for dimensions see drawing for dimensions see drawing for dimensions Lake path, fire pit (w/i 75' setback) 6' diameter 253 1200 Wildhurst Trail Brian Roath (owner)07/23/25 C First 100 sq feet of pervious paver patio 100 166 653 6,628 6,462 23 22 32 D - G Retaining Walls 66 Storage shed 10' x 12'120 145 PC Exhibit J Last Updated: January 2024 Note: This is an information sheet only, every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein; however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. Page 8 of 8 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 the 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 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 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) ] % 27,859 1200 Wildhurst Trail Brian Roath (owner)07/23/2025 24 House see drawing for dimensions 2,813 Decks, excl over patio (821 sq ft total)547 Patio 430 Retaining wall (under deck) Retaining wall (NE corner) removed 12' x 8"8 Retaining wall (SW corner) Driveway see drawing for dimensions 1,746 Retaining wall (south) 33' x 8" 48' x 8" Side path see drawing for dimensions see drawing for dimensions see drawing for dimensions Lake path, fire pit (w/i 75' setback) 6' diameter 253 653 22 32 Patio extension 367see drawing for dimensions 6,991 C First 100 sq feet of pervious paver patio 100 D - G Retaining Walls 62 162 6,829 6' x 8"4 Storage shed 10' x 12'120 146 FEET 400 B3. DECK (STAIR)=39 SF B4. DECK=160 SF TOTAL DECK (B1, B2, B3, B4)=821 SF NET DECK=821-274(B2)=547 SF (WITHOUT DECK AREA OVERLAPPING PATIO) A. HOUSE=2813 SF H. DRIVEWAY=1746 SF J. LAKE PATH=653 SF B2. DECK=274 SF (OVER PATIO)B1. DECK=348 SF C. PATIO=430 SF D & E. RETAINING WALLS=12 SF F. RETAINING WALL=22 SF G. RETAINING WALL=32 SF I. SIDE PATH 50% OF 506 SF=253 SF K. SHED=120 SF SHORELINE 1200 WILDHURST TRAIL PRE-2022 PATIO HARD COVER CALCULATION 147 FEET 400 K. SHED=120 SF I. SIDE PATH 50% OF 506 SF=253 SF G. RETAINING WALL=32 SF F. RETAINING WALL=22 SF D. RETAINING WALL=8 SFC. PATIO=430 SF B1. DECK=348 SF B2. DECK=274 SF (OVER PATIO) J. LAKE PATH=653 SF H. DRIVEWAY=1746 SF A. HOUSE=2813 SF TOTAL DECK (B1, B2, B3, B4)=821 SF NET DECK=821-274(B2)=547 SF (WITHOUT DECK AREA OVERLAPPING PATIO) B4. DECK=160 SF B3. DECK (STAIR)=39 SF L. PATIO EXTENSION=367 SF SHORELINE 1200 WILDHURST TRAIL 2022 PATIO EXTENSION HARD COVER CALCULATION 148 149PC Exhibit K2021 Photo 150 Applicant's Aerial photo/ Lot lines 151 PC Exhibit L Pre-Construction Conditions 152 Pre-Construction Conditions 153 Pre-Construction Conditions 154 Pre-Construction Conditions 155 Post-Construction Conditions 156 Post-Construction Conditions 157 Post-Construction Conditions 158 Post-Construction Conditions 159 Post-Construction Conditions 38 07-117-23 23 0031 NEEL KASHKARI MARY CHRISTINE KASHKARI 1180 GARDEN CT MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 23 0040 RICHARD M MARTINEZ 1150 GARDEN CT MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0005 SUSAN JACOBSON 4445 FOREST LAKE LANDING ORONO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0007 BRIAN D RASMUSSEN SANDRA J RASMUSSEN 1186 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0027 PAUL GRAVES & LAURA GRAVES 1146 WILDHURST TRL MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0037 SANFORD & MARGARET ERIKSON 4455 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0038 BENJAMIN P LEONARD YVONNE K LEONARD 4465 FOREST LAKE LANDING ORONO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0044 MICHAEL S WEAR 1134 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0047 TIMOTHY & LORIE LINE 4415 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0048 THOMAS A SUTTON 1170 GARDEN CT N MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0049 BRIAN H & VALERIE A KEETS 1160 GARDEN CT MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0050 NATHAN JOHNSON 4475 FOREST LAKE LANDING MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0051 PAUL WEISZ CAROLYN WEISZ 1131 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0015 TRAVIS DEJONG JULIE DEJONG 1270 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0026 KELLY KAHLERT 1284 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0029 ZBIGNIEW P SAWICKI KATHERYN M SAWICKI 4510 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0030 BETH E BESSESEN 4500 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0036 BRADLEY J CLOSE 1214 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0037 BLACK DIAMOND FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 3 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 07-117-23 31 0038 ASIM MAJEED 1261 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0040 ANDREW & HITOMI ZABILLA 1297 WILDHURST TRAIL ORONO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0042 DEREK ZAUGG & JENNIFER ZAUGG 1298 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 31 0043 MARK HONG & SUSANNA WONG 1300 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0043 KENNETH J HICKEY 4640 TONKAVIEW LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0045 JEFFREY P PRUITT KATHERINE A PRUITT 1220 GARDEN CT MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0046 CHELSEA MARIE GROSS KENNETH C MURPHY JR 1240 GARDEN CT MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0063 AMANDA M ERICKSON RYAN B FLATEN 4620 TONKAVIEW LA MOUND MN 55364 160 PC Exhibit M Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 1200 Wildhurst 0 200 400100 Feet Date: 7/25/2025 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 161 From:Lynne Gerlicher To:Melanie Curtis Subject:Rasmussen wall Date:Sunday, August 17, 2025 4:53:20 PM Melanie: We are residents in Orono on Rest Point Road and have had our own issues and know how important building permits are. It was always understood we had to follow survey and 75 foot setback rules. If you allow these rules to not be enforced it will send a message to any new residents they can do the same. Please hear our many voices.Sincerely, Mike and Lynne Gerlicher. Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone From:Joseph Loma To:Melanie Curtis Subject:Brian and Lisa Roath retaining wall Date:Friday, August 15, 2025 9:28:26 AM Melanie I am opposed to the conditional use permit for Brian and Lisa Roath retaining wall since it is an eyesore, no permits were acquired to build the wall, it is within the 75 foot setback from the lake, and many other issues as well. I am unable to attend the meeting Monday to verbally share my concerns in person due to a previous commitment. Please take my opposition to this retaining wall as vehement. From:Daniel MacAoda To:Melanie Curtis Subject:1200 Wildhurst Trail encroachment Date:Friday, August 15, 2025 3:29:09 PM I understand there ia a Planning Commission meeting being held Monday evening at 6PM to address the long overdue issue regarding the encroachment on the property of Brian and Sandy Rasmussen. I will be traveling out of state on business and unable to attending the meeting in person but felt it important to weigh in on what I think is a pretty cut and dried issue. As I understand it, the wall is on the Rasmussen property by more than 10'; exceeds code restrictions in terms of height and apparently is closer to the lake than current lakefront setback requirements of 75'. IF all or part of that is correct then there can be no forgiveness when going about a project of this scope without a permit or having a survey done is not an excuse. Needless to say, lakeside property values are highly dependent on lakefront footage so any perceived reduction in lakefront as the wall would imply has the potential to cause financial damage to the Rasmussen's. As it is, the Rasmussens have already incurred financial costs as among other things they paid for the survey which properly identified and delineated the property line between the 2 houses and defined the actual scale of the encroachment. Applying for and getting a permit long after the wall was built and the encroachment was brought to attention, does not establish any cover or mitigation of the faults. I might suggest that The Planning Commission really has no choice in this matter - you either uphold long standing requirements regarding permits and set backs or abrogate your collective responsibility and open up the floodgates to anyone inclined to break rules whether intentional or not. Always very much a shame to see neighbors at odds like this, but the offending party must be required to remedy the situation - at their cost - to get the wall removed or scaled back to meet all legal requirements or setbacks currently in place. Respectfully, Daniel J. McHugh Brian and Sandy Rasmussen 1186 Wildhurst Trail Since 1991 Planning Commission Public Comment on 1200 Wildhurst Trail side set back variance request on paver patio expansion; and conditional use permit request and side set back variance request on retaining wall in the 75 -foot set back zone of Lake Minnetonka, both constructed without permit or use of a valid survey. August 18, 2025 Setback zoning requirements matter – many non-conforming additions since property first developed. •In 1976 the 1200 Wildhurst build plan was reviewed by the Commission approving rotation of the house to the north, with a 6” variance for the NE foundation corner into 10’ side setback. •Asphalt walkway and fire pit seating area at shoreline, and deck & screen porch added shortly thereafter by Kruskopf’s up to the property line. •Riprap added to shoreline by Hollenhorsts. •10x12 shed approximately 8’tall added in the average lakeshore setback zone by the Roath’s after acquiring the property in 2015. •Patio extension and retaining wall also added by the Roath’s within side setback zone. Deck and screened porch, built by prior owners up to property line. 1976 Planning Commission recommends rotating house to north and approves foundation 6 inches into side setback Non-conforming shed added by current owners within the average lakeshore setback zone in addition to existing asphalt path and firepit seating area on shoreline. This “Plan” submitted by Roath’s for the patio extension shows the proposed house before it was built. Our 2025 Survey shows the actual house, porch, deck, and new paver patio expansion in the 10’ setback. Survey marker shows property line New pavers and stones forward of steps in the 10’ side setback. Original pavers stopped inside porch. 2015 Aerial view shows rotation and no pavers beyond porch. We request all pavers within the 10-foot setback be excluded from any plan Setback intrusions compounded by retaining wall built in 2022 •Without benefit of a permit or survey intrusions on neighboring property now extend to the lake. •Prior to the wall the lakefront area contained brush, trees, grasses, with no visible erosion, & no maintenance. •Property on either side of wall have similar slope with no erosion. Before: Brush, trees and grasses define shoreline. After: Natural quality lost. No need for wall on south side despite far less density of cover? Notice how the base of the tree is buried inside the wall Implied property line from house to lake, perpendicular to the house with visual line to wall. Actual Property Line Arbs added spring 2025 to bring clarity to property line that didn’t matter for over 30 years. Roots cut to 31” from trunk Roots cut to 42” from trunk Encroachment to be removed. Revised wall must be fully set back and step down to address danger of a fall. 51” Same or greater slope on adjacent lot with no erosion. Lake shore 100% natural. We respectfully request the retaining wall be revised to the 9 foot standard side set back, with step downs to prevent danger from falls onto 1186 Wildhurst property. If a CUP is approved we further request wall be screened with more plantings in front of the stone to restore the natural character of the lakeshore. Encroachment to be removed Structure under review subject to CUP Property Line Red box designates newly added pavers within 10-foot setback we request be removed in any approved plan. Area to be restored to the adjacent slope We request the wall is set back from this zone and steps down to prevent any potential falls onto our property by lowering its height. (10% of 90’ lot width). Logic behind 9’ set-back •Landscape Walls & Retaining Walls •Tiered walls are considered as one wall unless they are separated by a horizontal distance twice the height of the lower wall. Separation will be measured from the back of the lower wall to the face of the upper wall. •Structures exceeding the allowed height of a fence shall be located so as to meet the required accessory structure setbacks established for that yard. •Fence Regulations: Lakeshore Properties •Fences within the average lakeshore fence setback shall not exceed 42 inches in height for any portion located lakeward the average lakeshore setback line. •S 6.12.1440 Accessory Uses within R-1B (Sec 6.12.1450 …setback…) •Side yard setback. For lots that are non comforming as to their width the interior side yard setback for the principal building and accessory buildings less than 1000 square feet, shall be the lesser of ten feet, or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case less than 75 feet. Asphalt fire pit seating Red designates cumulative non- conforming structures within setback areas. We request grandfathered variances be considered before expanding upon this precedence, most of which involved no permits. 10’ Side Setback Line Pictures around Forest Lake Bay show that steep slopes are the norm, and natural plantings is the solution. What precedent do you create by approving this CUP where there was previously no evidence of erosion. Can the lakeshore be restored? To: City of Orono Planning Commission From: E&R Landscaping Re: Public Comment on 1200 Wildhurst Trail Unfortunately, I am not available to attend tonight's Planning Commission meeting. But please consider these comments for your review. I performed the landscaping work for the owners at 1200 Wildhurst Trail. The primary purpose of the retaining wall construction was to prevent hillside erosion. However, during design we also had to consider how the retaining wall would impact the oak trees. Our challenge was to terminate the retaining wall at a place that did not interfere with the root structures. We accomplished this by curving the wall around the root structures. This meant that the walls went onto the neighbor's property. I was part of a discussion (at the site) with the homeowner and neighbors about the exact proposed location of the wall. First, I asked where the property line was. The homeowner and neighbors seemed to agree on where the property line likely was located. Based on this, I explained to them that the wall would end slightly on the neighbor's property. At the time, the neighbors understood the plans and agreed the placement of the wall made sense. We also discussed one specific oak tree on their property. The neighbors expressed concern about the health of this tree. The tree was browning and showed signs of dying. I explained that the retaining wall would likely help the trees by holding the water instead of the water passing down the steep hill. They understood this benefit and we moved forward with their permission. Thankyou. Rufino Mendoza From:eddy Mendoza To:Melanie Curtis Subject:Roath Case Date:Monday, August 18, 2025 3:01:36 PM My name is Eddy Mendoza. I was part of the crew that constructed the retaining wall at 1200 Wildhurst Trail. I have over 15 years of landscaping experience, with a focus on tree health. I graduated from Hennepin Technical College with a degree in Urban Forestry. I have been studying plant health care since then, and have partnered up with the schools professors to continue to service our large woody plants. I climb, cut, care, and plant trees all around the Twin Cities. I’m writing in support of the letter from Don Mueller, Certified Arborist. And, I can attest to the health of the oak trees today and that these same trees were not healthy at the time of construction. They showed signs of stress and I expressed my concerns with the homeowner. Since then, I have personally witnessed a vast improvement of their health due to the location of the retaining wall. If the wall had to be modified, it would remove the same benefits that likely saved these trees from dying. The tree WILL have to be removed if the wall is taken away. It would be a shame to remove an old growth Oak tree in a world where they’re declining in. I suggest that we split the plant landscape and personalize to the neighbors liking (without removing or modifying the wall). Thank you, Eddy Mendoza. Sign I n ! NAME LFOLX V PLANNING COMMISSION ADDRESS 3q'3 S 0 PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR: ITEM# PUBLICCOMMENT assistive listening device available upon request