The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-15-2026 Planning Commission - Agenda PacketAgenda Planning Commission Monday, June 15, 2026, 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 May 18, 2026 5. Public Hearings 5.1. LA26-000015, Brian Roath, 1200 Wildhurst Trail, Waiver of the 6-month waiting period, After-the-Fact Variance and Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 5.2. LA26-000016, Nam Pham, 4755 North Shore Drive, Variance (Matthew Karney) 5.3. LA26-000018, Mom's Design Build, 1080 Heritage Lane, Variance (Matthew Karney) 5.4. LA26-000019, Marc Gensler, 1101 Ferndale Road West, Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 5.5. LA26-000020, HTG Architects o/b/o Orono Public School District 278 + Orono Hockey Association, 795 Old Crystal Bay Road North, Site Plan Review and Variances (Staff: 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: June 15, 2026 Item: 4.1 Presenter: Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Section: Approval of Minutes Title: Planning Commission Minutes of May 18, 2026 1.Purpose: Approve the Planning Commission Minutes 2.Planning Commission Action Requested: Approve the Planning Commission Regular Minutes of May 18, 2026. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits 05.18.2026 Planning Commission Minutes.docx 2 Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting Monday, May 18, 2026, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Page 1 of 2 Chair Ressler called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Orono Planning Commission members present: Chair Jon Ressler, Commissioners Thomas Brandabur, Andrew Jarnot, Kelly Prchal, Sam Tift, Stacey Royal, and Shane Weltzin. 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 7, Nays 0. 4. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 20, 2026 Tift moved, Jarnot seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of April 20, 2026. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1. LA26-000017, Travis Van Liere Studio, 1520 Bohns Point Road, Variance The Planning Commission is requested to review the Staff report, receive a presentation, and discuss and deny an after-the-fact variance to sideyard setback for a patio in a similar location as a preexisting patio. The preexisting patio also extended into the side yard setback, but not quite as far. The patio as built differs from a plan that had earlier received a City permit. Staff agrees that the shape of the house and lot presents a practical difficulty; there is adequate screening, and the affected neighbor supports the application. A retaining wall at the edge of the patio is not closer than allowed. However, the staff recommends denial as the patio extension is not necessary for the enjoyment of the property. The Planning Commission discussed the item and asked questions of staff and the applicant, Travis Van Liere, the landscape architect, representing the property owners, Joe and Stacy McConnell. He explained that some existing conditions affected the design process and caused the change in the submitted plan, which would have been closer to the lake. They were under the impression that since they were bringing the plan back to the original patio site and also removing other existing items on the site that were not in compliance, they did not need a variance. The patio was made slightly wider to accommodate a table and chairs, and for safety. He stated there had been a misunderstanding concerning City requirements. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. There were no Public Comments. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. 3 Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting Monday, May 18, 2026, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Page 2 of 2 Planning Commissioners discussed the variance request and pointed out that making the patio conforming would not be a significant improvement and that the patio as built is less impactful to the neighbors than the patio design as shown when the permit was requested. The build resulted in a smaller retaining wall, a greater distance from the lake, and a reduction of other non-conforming uses. The screening and support of the neighbor were also noted. Commissioners saw the situation as an honest mistake and a plan that would likely have been approved if it had been submitted for a variance. On the other hand, the change in design and location of the patio from what was permitted is significant, and the Commission did not want to see a precedent set for after-the-fact variances. Prchal moved, Royal seconded, to approve LA26-000017, 1520 Bohns Point Road, Variance. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1 (Weltzin). 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Average Lakeshore Setback Discussion Community Development Director Oakden explained the City Council had directed staff to look at the City’s Average Lakeshore Setback code, as it has the most variance requests. The City Council has had several work sessions on the topic and asked to have it brought to the Planning Commission. City Council members identified two main goals in the code – protecting the lake views of neighbors and preventing “lake creep” for buildings, but recognized some challenges. She outlined changes in the code since its original adoption in 1992 and how it is affected by the Ordinary High Water Level and hardcover. She explained that the setback changes every time an adjacent property redevelops or changes. Commissioners asked questions of staff and discussed possible changes to the code. Measurement from the lakeshore was suggested as a possible alternative, along with discarding lots that are “outliers” in having structures very far back from the shore or being vacant. Eliminating the code and using state and DNR regulations was also discussed. Commissioners suggested looking at past variances approved to see if the suggestions would make a difference. Commissioners also asked for more information on what other lake cities do. 7. OTHER ITEMS Community Development Director Oakden discussed possible work session dates and updated the commission on the upcoming Comprehensive Plan process, including a community survey and open house on June 10. 8. ADJOURNMENT Brandabur moved, Prchal seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 7:52 p.m. to June 15, 2026. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. ATTEST: _________________________________________ Jon Ressler, Chair 4 Date: June 15, 2026 Item: 5.1 Presenter: Melanie Curtis, Planner Section: Public Hearings Title: LA26-000015, Brian Roath, 1200 Wildhurst Trail, Waiver of the 6-month waiting period, After-the-Fact Variance and Conditional Use Permit (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 1.Purpose: This application contemplates waiver of a 6-month waiting period for resubmittal of a denied conditional use permit application, a conditional use permit for retaining walls and after-the-fact variance for a lake yard shed. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: The application was submitted on April 13, 2026, and considered to be complete on May 7th. A 60-day extension of the review period was applied, and the review period will expire on September 4, 2026. 3.Background: In 2025, under application LA25-000036, the applicant sought after-the-fact variance and CUP approvals for a patio area and lakeside retaining walls. Application LA25-000036 was denied. The applicant is now proposing modifications to the retaining walls to comply with the required side-yard setback and is requesting a waiver of the six-month waiting period (pursuant to City Code Section 6.12.4100) so the City may consider the revised CUP request. After-the-fact, variances are also requested for a shed constructed in the lake yard within the average lakeshore setback and side yard setback. A detailed summary of the requests, and conditional use permit and practical difficulty analysis is included in the Planning Report attached as Exhibit A. 4.Public Comment: Public comments were received and are attached as Exhibit N. 5.Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission allow the waiver of the 6-month waiting period, approve the CUP for the retaining walls, and deny the variances for the shed in its current location. 6.Planning Commission Action Requested: Planning Commission should consider one or more of the following motions: Act on each of the requests and grant partial approval, as follows: Approval of the request to waive the 6-month waiting period for the CUP application. Approval of the conditional use permit for the retaining walls within the lake yard, with conditions for screening, as necessary, and Denial of the setback variances for the shed; OR AGENDA ITEM 5 Approval as applied: Waiver of the waiting period, setback variances for the shed, and CUP for the retaining walls; OR Denial of the application as applied. Provide direction to the applicant. Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Report Exhibit B - Application, Waiver Request, CUP Narrative Exhibit C - Practical Difficulty Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Retaining Wall plans Exhibit F - EngineerLetter Exhibit G - Existing Slope Plan & Profile Exhibit H - Shed Information Exhibit I - Hardcover Exhibit J - wall screening Exhibit K - Photos Exhibit L - Aerial Photo Exhibit M - Resolution 7670 Exhibit N - Rasmussen Comment Exhibit O - Map & List 6 Date Application Received: 04/13/2026 Date Application Considered as Complete: 05/07/2026 60-Day Review Period Extension Expires: 09/04/2026 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 15 June 2026 Subject: #LA26-000015, Brian Roath, 1200 Wildhurst Trail Waiver of the 6-month application resubmittal waiting period After-the-Fact Variance and Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing History In 2025, under application LA25-000036, the applicant sought after-the-fact variance and CUP approvals for a patio area and lakeside retaining walls that had been constructed without the required City permits and did not comply with City Code requirements. Following review by the Planning Commission and City Council, the request was denied. The denial resolution (Resolution 7670) is attached as Exhibit M. Under City Code Section 6.12.4100, when a CUP request has been denied, a new application for the same or substantially similar request may not be submitted for six months from the date of denial unless the applicant demonstrates that new evidence has been provided or conditions related to the request have materially changed. The applicant is now proposing modifications to the retaining walls so they comply with the required side yard setback and is requesting a waiver of the six-month waiting period so the City may consider the revised CUP request. Project Summary/Update Retaining Walls. Retaining walls located within the 75-foot shore setback from the lake require a CUP. The required CUP findings for this type of wall include justification from a licensed professional, which may include documentation addressing slope stability, erosion concerns, or the need for grade correction. Retaining walls greater than 2 feet in height must also maintain a 5-foot setback from the side property line. As constructed, the tiered walls are approximately 48 inches in height and therefore are subject to this setback requirement. The walls were originally constructed up to and across the neighboring property line. After the denial of application LA25-000036, the neighboring property owners removed the portions of the walls that encroached onto their property. The applicant’s revised plan now shows the retaining walls terminating at the required 5-foot side yard setback. Application Summary: allow a lakeyard shed to remain as constructed within the required 7.5-foot side yard and average lakeshore setback (“ALS”); and after-the-fact approval of a conditional use permit (“CUP”) for tiered retaining walls Staff Recommendation: • Approve a waiver of the 6 month waiting period; • Denial of the variances for the shed; and • Approval of the CUP for retaining walls within the 75-foot lake setback, with conditions. 7 FILE # LA26-000015 15 June 2026 Page 2 of 8 Shed. During the public hearing for application LA25-000036, public comments identified a shed that had been constructed 3.7 feet from the side property line, where a 9-foot setback is required. The shed is also located within the ALS area. The applicant is requesting after-the-fact approval of setback variances for the shed in its current location. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the narrow lot width, irregular lot lines, a rather large area impacted by the ALS, 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 find that practical difficulties exist that would justify granting the requested setback variances for the shed. Although the ALS affects the entirety of the lakeside yard, the property contains a conforming area within the rear (street) yard where a shed could be located in compliance with setback requirements. The identified constraints do not appear to preclude reasonable use of the property or the construction of a shed in a compliant location. As such, staff does not find that the applicant has demonstrated a practical difficulty arising from the land itself that necessitates the requested variances. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 6.12.1450 & 6.12.6240 – Shed Setbacks: Rear / Street 10’ +200’ North Side 9.2’ * 75’ South Side 9.2’ * 3.7’ Lakeshore 75’ 80’ Average Lakeshore Setback The shed encroaches approximately 100 feet lakeward of the ALS line. *Sec. 6.12.1450(b) Exceptions: (1) Side yard setback. The lot measures 90 feet in width; therefore, a 9.2-foot side yard setback is applied. Section 6.12.9210 – Hardcover Calculations: Overlay District Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 27,313 s.f. Applicable Regulations: Determination on the request for waiver of the waiting period for the previously denied CUP (Section 6.12.4100) The applicant’s original request for CUP approval was denied on March 9, 2026. According to City Code (Section 6.12.4100. Denial of permit). “No application for a conditional use permit which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six months from the date of denial, except on grounds of new evidence or proof of changes of conditions found to be valid by the planning commission”. As part of the revised request for after- the-fact CUP approval for the retaining walls, the applicant requests a waiver of the 6-month waiting period. They would like the revised retaining wall design reviewed at this time. Side Yard Setback Variance (Section 6.12.1450) Based on the property’s 92-foot width, it is eligible for the side yard setback reduction from 10 feet to 9.2 feet. A 8 FILE # LA26-000015 15 June 2026 Page 3 of 8 9.2-foot setback is required for the shed. The shed as constructed, is located 3.7 feet from the side property line, a 5.5-foot encroachment. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 6.12.6240) The shed is located 80 feet from the shore, encroaching approximately 100 feet into the ALS. It is situated in a treed area where the shed is screened from the view of the neighbor to the north. CUP for Walls within the 75-foot Lake setback (Section 6.12.6240) The Code provides for new walls within the lake yard via a CUP. The walls are located approximately 45 to 50 feet from the lake. 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. 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 for the shed to be allowed as constructed within the 9.2-foot side setback and within the ALS. Submittal of an application for permits before construction would have illuminated this condition. There is no practical difficulty to permit the encroachment of the shed in the side yard or ALS. This criterion is not met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The request to permit the as-constructed improvement 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 allow the shed to remain as constructed within the setbacks is not reasonable. There is a conforming building footprint for the shed on the property. This criterion is not met. 9 FILE # LA26-000015 15 June 2026 Page 4 of 8 b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The shed was installed by the property owner. This criterion is not met, and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Approval of the requested variances would result in the shed being out of character with the neighborhood. 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 large ALS area and the slope of the property are conditions that are consistent with those of 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. 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 new walls in the shore setback zone 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: 10 FILE # LA26-000015 15 June 2026 Page 5 of 8 1. The walls are used only to correct an existing erosion or slope stability problem documented by a licensed professional engineer, and not for aesthetic reasons; According to the applicant’s engineer, Kenneth W. Horns, a professional engineer, who states that 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 been met, and 2. The walls must be screened by deep-rooted, native vegetation so as not to be visible from the waterbody in year-round conditions; The applicant planted screening vegetation when the walls were constructed (Exhibit K). Additional screening is proposed, which should screen the walls at maturity. This criterion has been met, and 3. The number, height, and length of the walls are the minimum necessary to control the erosion or slope stability problem and are not taller than four feet or longer than ten feet, unless the licensed professional engineer determines that a larger wall is necessary to correct the documented erosion or slope stability problem; 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 and indicates the size of the walls are appropriate. This criterion has been met, and 4. A landscape plan is required to identify vegetative removals in the location of the new/replacement walls to ensure removals are limited to the minimum necessary to support the installation of the walls, subject to section 6.12.6300. Replacement plantings must consist of deep-rooted native vegetation to provide necessary support for the slope. The existing and proposed plantings include varieties of hydrangea and Karl Forester grasses. Karl Forester grass (a variety of “feather reed grass”) is not native but is well-suited to Minnesota’s climate, grows up to 4-5 feet tall, and provides year-round screening. The hydrangeas, while not specifically native to Minnesota, are cold-hardy and, despite being relatively shallow-rooted (12-24 inches), are effective at controlling surface erosion. While the plantings are not native, they are well suited for the climate and screen the improvements from the lake view. 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. In order to lessen the visual impact resulting from walls without further disturbance, the applicant provided an updated landscape plan, which provides more screening of the walls as part of the CUP. This criterion is met. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by Article V, Division 3 of the City Code; retaining walls within the lakeyard are permitted where they are deemed necessary to protect the integrity of the slope. The 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 has been submitted. This criterion is met. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; the property meets this standard. 11 FILE # LA26-000015 15 June 2026 Page 6 of 8 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 submitted a landscape plan providing better screening of the walls from the lake. 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 stone retaining walls will be screened from the lake by adequate vegetative screening. 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; with the implementation of the additional plantings, the retaining walls will be adequately screened from view from the lake. 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 provided a revised landscape plan that should provide adequate natural screening and buffering of the retaining wall improvements when viewed from the lake. 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 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. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact, the applicant has proposed a revised landscaping plan to screen the walls to be more compatible with the character of the improvements within the surrounding area. 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 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. 12 FILE # LA26-000015 15 June 2026 Page 7 of 8 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. City Engineer Comments Comments from the City Engineer will be applied at the time of the after-the-fact building permit for the walls, and are as follows: 1. The proposed work may not redirect surface runoff onto the neighboring property. 2. Before any land disturbing activities, sediment/erosion control measures must be in place downslope for the proposed work. 3. The grading plan depicts grading on their neighboring property. The applicant must gain permission from the neighbor for any work on their property. Approval of the grading plan by the city does not constitute approval to trespass on the neighboring property. Public Comments No comments from the public have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. The Planning should discuss the requirements for native vegetative plantings and determine if amendments to the proposed landscaping plan are necessary. 2. 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? 3. Does the Planning Commission find that the variances, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 4. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Planning Commission allow the waiver of the 6-month waiting period, approve the CUP for the retaining walls, and deny the variances for the shed in its current location. 6-month Waiting Period: The Commission should consider approving the applicant’s request to waive the 6-month waiting period in order to resolve the after-the-fact permits in a timely manner. The applicant has amended the retaining walls to meet the side yard setback and supplied information from an engineer and arborist providing additional feedback and analysis on the project. Conditional Use Permit: The property owner submitted professional opinions from both a licensed engineer and a certified arborist regarding the necessity and appropriateness of the retaining wall improvements. Based on the information provided, staff finds that the retaining walls located within the 75-foot lake setback, while constructed without prior approval, appear to provide benefits related to stormwater management and erosion control. The submitted materials indicate that the walls are appropriate and necessary to protect existing mature trees and maintain the stability and integrity of the slope. The applicant's revised landscape plan includes additional plantings around and in front of the retaining walls. Staff finds that, once established, the proposed landscaping should provide adequate screening of the walls when viewed from the lake, consistent with the intent of the shoreland regulations. However, staff notes that while the existing and proposed plant materials appear to be well-suited to the site's growing conditions and climate, they are not specifically native to Minnesota. As a result, the proposal does not 13 FILE # LA26-000015 15 June 2026 Page 8 of 8 fully align with the City's preference for the use of native vegetation in slope restoration and screening efforts. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider whether additional native plantings should be incorporated as a condition of approval. Variances: Planning Staff does not find practical difficulties supporting the encroachments into the side yard and ALS areas as there are conforming locations on the property where the shed can be located and meet the City Code. Staff recommends denial of the setback variances relating to the shed. Planning Commission should consider one or more of the following motions: 1. Act on each of the requests and grant partial approval, as follows: a. Approval of the request to waive the 6-month waiting period for the CUP application. b. Approval of the conditional use permit for the retaining walls within the lake yard, with conditions for screening, as necessary, and c. Denial of the setback variances for the shed. 2. Approval as applied: Waiver of the waiting period, setback variances for the shed, and CUP for the retaining walls. 3. Denial of the application as applied. Provide direction to the applicant. 14 Land Use Application Summary Application Date:04/13/2026 Address:1200 Wildhurst TRL Orono, MN 55364 Parcel Number:0711723310037 Land Use Number:LA26-000015 Application Submitted By:Agent on behalf of property owner Owner:Name: BLACK DIAMOND FAMILY TRUST Address: PO BOX 3 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 Applicant:Name: Brian Roath Company: Address: 1200 Wildhurst Trail Orono, MN 55364 Contact Information: Associated Contact: Brian Roath Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description:ATF Retaining Wall and Storage Shed 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: 15 Request to waive the six month waiting period after denial My revised application for the retaining wall CUP reﬂects a materially diAerent proposal from the previously submitted request. The previous application situated the wall across the property line and was proposed as a shared element with my neighbor. There were certain beneﬁts to doing this. And, at the time of construction, the neighbors supported the shared wall concept. But, in response to updated feedback from the neighbor, who no longer support a shared wall, the updated design relocates the wall entirely within my property boundaries and eliminates any encroachment onto the neighboring property. In addition, the proposed retaining wall has been repositioned so that it no longer lies within the required property line setback area. This adjustment brings the project into greater alignment with applicable ordinance requirements and addresses key concerns raised during the prior review. These changes represent a meaningful modiﬁcation to the original proposal and constitute new evidence and changed conditions. The revised plan reduces potential impacts to neighboring properties and reﬂects a good-faith eAort to respond to prior feedback and comply with local regulations. 16 CUP Request for a retaining wall Let me provide context regarding our requested after-the-fact 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 and slope stability. 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 observed gradual soil movement and erosion over time, particularly during heavy rain. There were several areas of exposed roots caused by erosion. (See pictures below.) Part of the southern half of the hillside does not experience the same erosion issues because much of the uphill run-oA is diverted away from the hillside and down an asphalt path. 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 by landscapers and an engineer that we use a retaining wall for stabilizing the northern half of the hillside. We consulted with an expert who recommended and supported our eAorts to address the erosion issues and prevent slope instability. The engineer conﬁrmed that the retaining wall was constructed using appropriate materials and methods to meet common engineering standards and to ensure long-term eAectiveness. See “Engineer Letter” in the application. Also in our application, you will ﬁnd the design document for the proposed modiﬁed location of the wall. Again, this removes any portion of the wall that is within a ﬁve-foot side setback. The design returns both tiers of the retaining wall back into the hillside. And, for our neighbors to the north, the new design adds vegetation to screen the new part of the wall. Lastly, maintaining a visually appealing wall design, which matches the community, is important. When the wall was installed, we invested in plants, grasses, and trees to 17 beautify area and screen the wall. Those plans have grown nicely. Still, we plan on adding to the gardens additional taller vegetation that ﬁlls in spaces and complements shorter ﬂowers. See picture below. This will further screen much of the wall brick, especially at the lower wall. EXISTING EXAMPLE OF ADDED SCREENING 18 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA26-000015 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 configuration, characteristics, and layout of the lot, along with average lakeshore setback requirements, significantly limits reasonable locations for a small shed. The placement of existing homes, narrow lot, the steep grade towards the lake, and average lakeshore setback requirements leaves very few practical options that fully comply with the requirements while also allowing the shed to be placed in a manner that minimizes visibility and impact on neighboring properties. Other options are either further into the average lakeshore setback or are near the road (Wildhurst Trail), a location that is significantly exposed to neighbors and others. These two other options considered are on “Shed Location”. The existing location represents the most reasonable placement because it reduces visual and avoids adverse effects on adjacent properties. These limitations are inherent to the property and were not created by the current landowner. Therefore, the need for the variance arises from unique circumstances of the lot rather than personal preference. Based on a verbal discussion with our neighbor at 1214 Wildhurst, the confirmed the shed placement is ideally hidden from their view of the lake. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: If approved, the character of the locality is not impacted. 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: While there are challenges unique to this property (like narrow lot width, steeper slope near lake), generally the conditions of the property are common with immediately adjacent properties. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: While there are challenges unique to this property, generally the conditions of the property are common with other properties in the district. 19 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: The small storage shed serves as a convenience to the property owner, but is also a common convenience of most neighbors. 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: True 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 retaining wall serves an important purpose of avoiding slope failure and minimizing erosion, which continues to exist today to the south of the wall. 20 21 FEET 50 PR O P E R T Y L I N E 5' S E T B A C K 941.17 PROPOSED RETAINING WALL EXISTING RETAINING WALL EXISTING RETAINING WALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALL REMOVE PORTION OF EX. RETAINING WALL REMOVE PORTION OF EX. RETAINING WALL PROPOSED PLANTINGS, TYP. 75' LAKESHORE SETBACK OAK (25") EXISTING ROCK MULCH EXISTING ROCK MULCH EXISTING ROCK MULCH LAWN 941.36 941.20 945.53 939.20 935.23 935.82 942.00 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 933 934 935 940 941 946 947 948 946.42946.46 5' S E T B A C K MATCH EX. SLOPE GRADES (SURVEY CONTOURS ARE INACCURATE AT EDGES) 945 940 ROATH RESIDENCE 1200 WILDHURST TRAIL RETAINING WALL PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS 22 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 WA L L H E I G H T 7 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 VIEW23 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 24 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. 25 WI L D H U R S T T R A I L TRA C T B 1 2 3+00.00 SCALE IN FEET 0 10 20 1214 WILDHURST TRAIL 1200 WILDHURST TRAIL EXISTING SHED EL E V A T I O N 930 935 940 945 950 955 960 965 970 975 980 985 990 995 1000 930 935 940 945 950 955 960 965 970 975 980 985 990 995 1000 1+00 2+00 3+00 SCALE: HORIZONTAL: 1" = 10' VERTICAL: 1" = 10' 1200 WILDHURST TR (BEHIND) 1214 WILDHURST TR (BEYOND) AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE (PER SURVEY) 106.17' 13 . 8 ' EXISTING GRADE EXISTING SHED EXIST. SHED ROATH RESIDENCE 1200 WILDHURST TRAIL EXISTING SLOPE PLAN & PROFILE 26 This image highlights the actual shed location on the survey. Due to the narrow lot and the slope, the only other possible locations for a small shed are identiﬁed in by circles. Both of these options are inferior to the current location. 27 This image identiﬁes the location of the shed, well hidden in the wooded area. 28 29 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 (Example) (Garage) (24’ x 30’) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z (1) Total Existing Hardcover 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) 27,313 House see drawing for dimensions 2,878 Decks, excl over patio (821 sq ft total)533 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 1,566 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 6' diameter 253 1200 Wildhurst Trail Brian Roath (owner)4/1/2026 C First 100 sq feet of pervious paver patio 100 166 653 6,499 6,333 23 Storage shed 10' x 12'120 22 32 D - G Retaining Walls 66 Total (Square Feet) (720 S.F.) S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 30 FEET 400 TOTAL DECK (B1, B2, B3)=837 SF NET DECK=837-304(B2)=533 SF (WITHOUT DECK AREA OVERLAPPING PATIO) A. HOUSE=2 8 7 8 S F H. DRIVEWAY =1566 SF J. LAKE PATH=653 SF B2. DECK=304 SF (OVER PATIO) B1. DECK=378 SF C. PATIO=430 SF D & E. RETAINING WALLS=12 SFF. RETAINING WALL=22 SF G. RETAINING WALL=32 SF I. SIDE PATH 50% OF 506 SF=253 SF K. SHED=120 SF 75' LAKE SETBACK B3. DECK AND STAIR=155 SF 1200 WILDHURST TRAIL PRE-2022 PATIO HARD COVER CALCULATION 31 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 (Example) (Garage) (24’ x 30’) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z (1) Total Proposed Hardcover 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) ] % 27,313 1200 Wildhurst Trail Brian Roath (owner)4/1/2026 24 House see drawing for dimensions 2,878 Decks, excl over patio (821 sq ft total)533 Patio 430 Retaining wall (under deck) Retaining wall (NE corner) removed 12' x 8"8 Retaining wall (SW corner) Driveway see drawing for dimensions 1,566 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 6' diameter 253 653 Storage shed 10' x 12'120 22 32 Patio extension 286see drawing for dimensions 6,781 C First 100 sq feet of pervious paver patio 100 D - G Retaining Walls 62 162 6,619 6' x 8"4 Total (Square Feet) (720 S.F.) S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. 32 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 SF C. PATIO=430 SF B1. DECK=378 SF B2. DECK=304 SF (OVER PATIO) J. LAKE PATH=653 SF H. DRIVEWAY= 1566 SF A. HOUSE=2 8 7 8 S F L. PATIO EXTENSION=286 SF SHORELINE B3. DECK AND STAIR=155 SF TOTAL DECK (B1, B2, B3)=837 SF NET DECK=837-304(B2)=533 SF (WITHOUT DECK AREA OVERLAPPING PATIO) 75' LAKE SETBACK 1200 WILDHURST TRAIL 2026 PROPOSED PATIO MODIFICATIONS HARD COVER CALCULATION 33 Illustration of wall screening. Labels indicate new plants and species names 34 35 36 37 Council ` Exhibit A sOiv- CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL e c, NO. 7670 tikES H O'2:" A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE CHAPTER 6.12 SECTIONS 1450, 6240 & 6940 FILE NO. LA25-000036 WHEREAS, Brian Roath (hereinafter the"Applicant"), applied for after-the-fact approval of variances and a conditional use permit("CUP") pursuant to the City Code for the property addressed 1200 Wildhurst Trail and legally described as: Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1450, Hennepin County, Minnesota; Torrens- Certificate of Title No. 1585718 (hereinafter the"Property"); WHEREAS, in July of 2024, the City received a complaint regarding retaining walls and patio improvements constructed without permits and located within required setback areas on the Property; and WHEREAS, on July 23, 2025, the Applicant submitted an application to the City of Orono for an after-the-fact variance from Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 6.12.1450 to allow a patio, landing, and associated improvements constructed within the required side yard setback; and WHEREAS, the Applicant also applied for an after-the-fact variance from Section 6.12.6940 to permit new and replacement retaining walls exceeding two (2)feet in height to be located up to the side property line, where a minimum five (5)foot setback is required; and WHEREAS, the Applicant further applied for after-the-fact consideration of a CUP pursuant to Zoning Code Section 6.12.6240 to allow new and replacement retaining walls within the shore setback zone, located less than 75-feet from the ordinary high-water level ("OHWL"); and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2025, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were allowed to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, during the public hearing, a member of the public identified the presence of a lake yard shed constructed on the Property within required setback areas without prior City approvals; and 38 g0N- CITY NO. 7 OF 670 ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL tiF G kESHOQF WHEREAS, on August 18, 2025, the Planning Commission tabled the application and directed the Applicant to submit additional materials necessary for review, including a current certificate of survey, updated hardcover calculations, and detailed construction plans; and WHEREAS, the application was received and deemed complete on July 23. Pursuant to the 60-day statutory review timeline, the initial review period was set to expire on September 21, 2025. Staff exercised the option to extend the review period an additional 60 days, establishing a revised deadline of November 20, 2025. Additional time was required to process the application, and a further extension was requested by the Applicant. The current extension period is set to expire on March 20, 2026, and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2026, following such review and deliberation, the City Council voted unanimously (5-0)to direct staff to prepare written findings supporting denial of the after-the-fact variance and Conditional Use Permit applications; and WHEREAS, if granted, the after-the-fact zoning applications would have remedied the zoning violations; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, that the requested Conditional Use Permit and variances described above are hereby denied based upon the following Findings of Fact relating to the Property, the applicable provisions of the Orono Municipal Zoning Code, and the record established before the Planning Commission and City Council: FINDINGS OF FACT: Al. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above-mentioned meetings, and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. A2. The Property is located in the LR-1 B One-Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. A3. The Property contains 0.63 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 93 feet. A4. The Property is within Tier 1, and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. A5. The Applicant has applied for after-the-fact approval of the following: a. Side Yard Setback Variances b. Conditional use permit for retaining walls within the shore setback zone 2 39 0 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL y NO. 7670 t-i''EsH&-(" A6. In considering this application for after-the-fact variances and CUP, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed application 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. VARIANCE ANALYSIS: B1."Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . ."The Property is subject to the dimensional and shoreland performance standards of the Orono Municipal Zoning Code, including minimum side yard setbacks and shore setback requirements applicable to retaining walls, patios, landings, and accessory structures. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate how the variances are in harmony with the code or necessary for the enjoyment of the Property. B2."Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The requested variances would permit structural improvements directly up to the side property line and within required shore and yard setbacks, thereby reducing open space and separation between properties in a manner inconsistent with the goals outlined within the Comprehensive Plan. B3."Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties,' as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The Applicant has not demonstrated that strict enforcement of the ordinance would preclude a reasonable use of the Property. The Property is capable of reasonable residential use in conformity with the Zoning Code. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The Applicant constructed or caused to be constructed the patio, landing, retaining walls, and associated improvements without required permits and within required setback areas prior to seeking relief. Any difficulty in complying with the setback requirements is self-created, as the improvements were installed without first obtaining zoning approval or building permits. The property in question shares similar characteristics to surrounding properties and does not possess any unique qualities. 3 40 icL.OAO CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL tiF L NO. 7670 t- 1kESHO3-- c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality." Granting the requested variances would undermine the purpose of setback requirements, which include protection of neighboring properties, preservation of light and air, stormwater management, and maintenance of neighborhood character. B4."Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties."The Applicant has not cited economic considerations in support of the request. B5."Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78."This criterion is not applicable. B6."The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located."The requested relief pertains to structural encroachments (patio, landing, retaining walls) within the required setback and shoreland areas. A variance may authorize deviation from dimensional standards but may not authorize a use otherwise prohibited in the zoning district. To the extent the improvements constitute structural encroachments rather than a change in land use, this criterion does not independently support approval. Because the Applicant has not provided sufficient documentation demonstrating full conformity with permitted use provisions, the City cannot make an affirmative finding under this criterion. B7."The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling."The request does not involve such a request. Accordingly, this provision does not apply to the request before the Council and provides no independent basis for approval of the requested variances. B8."The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property."The Applicant has not demonstrated that special conditions peculiar to the Property necessitate the requested setback encroachments. No topographic survey, grading plan, or engineering documentation has been submitted to establish unique physical constraints such as extreme slopes, irregular lot configuration, or other site-specific limitations. The record instead reflects that the improvements were constructed without prior approval and located within setback areas by choice. Self-created circumstances do not constitute special conditions peculiar to the land. Therefore, this criterion is not satisfied. 4 41 7LO,A1O CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ti G NO. 7670 I kESHO¢0 B9."The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located." Setback and shoreland restrictions apply uniformly to properties within the same zoning district. The Applicant has not demonstrated that the Property is subject to constraints materially different from other similarly situated residential lots. Absent evidence of unique physical limitations, the circumstances underlying the variance request appear common to properties in the district. Granting relief in this instance would therefore risk establishing a precedent inconsistent with the uniform application of the Code. This criterion is not met. B10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." The Property is capable of reasonable residential use in compliance with applicable setback and shoreland standards. The requested variances relate to patio placement, retaining wall location, and accessory improvements, none of which are necessary to preserve the fundamental residential use of the Property. The Applicant has not demonstrated that denial would deprive them of a substantial property right enjoyed by others in the district. Rather, the request seeks to preserve specific constructed improvements in their current nonconforming locations. This criterion is not satisfied. B11. "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."Shoreland setback and structural setback standards are intended to protect water quality, prevent erosion, preserve drainage patterns, maintain separation between structures, and safeguard neighborhood character. The Applicant has not provided sufficient engineering data, drainage analysis, or slope stability documentation for the City to determine that the retaining walls and related improvements within the shore setback area do not adversely affect erosion control or stormwater management. Without the requested supporting materials, the Council cannot affirmatively conclude that granting the variance would not impair health, safety, or the regulatory intent of the Chapter. Accordingly, this finding cannot be made in support of approval. B12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty."The record reflects that the improvements were installed without required approvals and that no additional materials were submitted to the Planning Commission after they requested further documentation. The Applicant has not demonstrated a practical difficulty arising from the land itself that necessitates the encroachments. Instead, the requested variances would allow retention of improvements constructed in noncompliance with the Code. Relief under these circumstances would function primarily as a convenience to the Applicant rather than as a remedy for demonstrable land-based hardship. This criterion is therefore not satisfied. 5 42 BOAT CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7670 4k£sxo " CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: Section 6.12.6240 (5)(c) states that walls in the shore setback zone 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: B13. Designed to correct an established erosion problem; the Applicant provided a professional opinion from a professional engineer, which stated that the retaining walls eliminated a steeply sloped eroded area that was difficult to maintain and provided additional storm runoff retention over the flatter planted areas they created. The walls were also designed to preserve mature trees. While this narrative supports a functional and aesthetic benefit, the ordinance standard is evidentiary and retrospective in nature. The term "established erosion problem" implies the presence of documented, pre- existing erosion conditions prior to construction activity. The record does not contain objective documentation demonstrating that a documented erosion condition existed prior to the Applicant's intervention. Instead, the engineer's statement characterizes the area as "steeply sloped" and "difficult to maintain,"which does not, in itself, establish active or ongoing erosion as contemplated by the ordinance. Accordingly, because the evidentiary record does not substantiate that the walls were constructed to correct a previously existing and demonstrable erosion problem, this criterion has not been met, and B14. Suitable given the demonstrated need; the engineer's letter further states that the walls provide stability to the slope, the trees, and help to reduce erosion. The engineer 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 B15. Designed by a registered engineer or landscape architect, depending on the project scope; Based on the professional engineering opinion that the slope required stabilization and that the wall system functions to control runoff and improve infiltration, the design appears proportionate and technically responsive to the site's topographic constraints. This criterion has been met, and B16. Designed to be the minimum size necessary to control the erosion problem. The documentation demonstrates professional involvement in evaluating the wall design and construction relative to slope stability and drainage considerations. The requirement that the wall be designed by a registered engineer or landscape architect has therefore been satisfied. 6 43 v.O.41O CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL y G• NO. 7670 kESHo°- CONCLUSIONS, ORDER, AND CONDITIONS: Conditional uses may be approved only upon demonstrating that the proposed use meets the standards and criteria outlined in the Orono Municipal Zoning Code, including compatibility with the surrounding area, protection of natural resources, and consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and shoreland management objectives. Shore setback requirements are intended to protect water quality, prevent erosion, preserve natural topography and vegetation, and minimize adverse impacts to lakes and adjacent properties. The Applicant has not provided sufficient engineering, grading, drainage, or erosion control information to demonstrate that the retaining walls within the shore setback area meet applicable performance standards. Because the improvements were installed without prior review, the City lacks adequate documentation to determine whether the structures adversely impact drainage patterns, slope stability, or shoreline protection. The Applicant has failed to provide the information necessary to demonstrate that the requested CUP satisfies all applicable standards and conditions required for approval. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the Applicant has not met the burden of proof required to justify approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Based on the foregoing, the City Council finds that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate practical difficulties as required by Minnesota law and the Orono Municipal Zoning Code. Therefore, the Orono City Council hereby denies the Applicant's request for after-the-fact variance approvals, which include a patio, landing, and associated improvements constructed within the required side yard setback; retaining walls constructed to the side property line, where a minimum five (5)foot setback is required. Further, the City Council hereby denies the Applicant's request for an after-the-fact conditional use permit for retaining walls to remain, as constructed within the shore setback zone, less than 75 feet from the ordinary high-water level. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 9th day of March 2026. ATTEST:CITY OF ORONO: q‘----L.- Chri usi , City Clerk Bob Tunheim, Mayor 7 44 From:Brian D Rasmussen To:Melanie Curtis Subject:LA26-000015 / Wildhurst Trail Date:Thursday, June 11, 2026 11:07:08 AM Melanie, I would like to submit a video clip from the 8/18/25 planning commission meeting. It starts at 1:53:48. Ends 1:55:00. I have the video but I’m having a problem sending it because it is too larger. Do you have any suggestions. Also I would like to suggest all commissioners watch the video of the meeting 8/18/25 00:49:49 - 3:03:26. I believe it is worth your time. Make good choices! <(©¿©)> Sent from my iPhone 45 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 46 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 47 1 Katie Fitzsimmons From:Melanie Curtis Sent:Monday, June 15, 2026 11:09 AM To:Planning Commission; Planning Commission Alternates Cc:Laura Oakden; Matthew Karney; Christine Lusian; Katie Fitzsimmons Subject:Public Comment for Item 5.1. LA26-000015 / 1200 Wildhurst Trail Commissioners Please see the public comment received for Item 5.1 on tonight’s agenda. Also, there is a typo on page 3 of Exhibit A (page 5 of the entire application packet). I will correct this in my presentation tonight. It should read “south,” not north, as written. See below: Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 6.12.6240) The shed is located 80 feet from the shore, encroaching approximately 100 feet into the ALS. It is situated in a treed area where the shed is screened from the view of the neighbor to the south north. Melanie Curtis Direct: 952.249.4627 mcurtis@oronomn.gov From: J PoClo <juliepclose@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, June 15, 2026 9:56 AM To: Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@oronomn.gov> Subject: 1200 Wildhurst Trail To Orono Planning Commission We live at 1214 Wildhurst Trail, located next door to 1200 Wildhurst Trail. The shed at issue in the Roaths' application for an after the fact variance was built within the required setback from our property line, but based on professional surveys, is not on our property. We do not object to the City of Orono granting the after the fact variance for the shed if, after investigation, the City decides to allow it to stay as built within the side setback.area. Thank you, Brad and Julie Close Sent from my iPhone Date: June 15, 2026 Item: 5.2 Presenter: Matt Karney, Planner Section: Public Hearings Title: LA26-000016, Nam Pham, 4755 North Shore Drive, Variance (Matthew Karney) 1.Purpose: The applicant requests approval of a bluff setback variance to construct two (2) decks attached to the existing primary residence. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: The application was made on April 21, 2026, and deemed complete on May 4, 2026. The 60-day review period expires on July 3, 2026. 3.Background: The applicant proposes new 475 s.f. of deck space (two separate decks), including a stair attached to the existing home, where the existing 475 s.f. deck is deteriorating and posing a safety risk to the owners. The house is situated against the 30-foot bluff setback line, and the existing deck is mostly located within the setback (30 feet from top of bluee) and further into the bluff impact zone (within 20 feet of the top of bluff). The proposed decks and stair still encroach within the bluff setback, but are no longer within the bluff impact zone. The 100 s.f. proposed deck on the side of the house serves as the primary access to the house, and the 375 s.f. proposed deck and stair between the house and lake will provide the privacy and functionality of a deck the existing deck was unable to provide. 4.Public Comment: No public comments have been received. 5.Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval as applied. 6.Planning Commission Action Requested: Motion to recommend approval the application. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits A. Staff Report B. Application & Practical Difficulties C. Aerial Imagery D. Narrative E. Proposed Survey F. Hardcover Information G. Supporting Images H. Adjacent Owner Acknowledgments I. Mailing Map & List 48 Date Application Received: 04/21/2026 Date Application Deemed Complete: 05/04/2026 60-Day Review Period Expires: 07/03/2026 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Matthew Karney, Planner Date: 15 June 2026 Subject: LA26-000016 | Nam Pham, Owner | 4755 North Shore Drive Variance – Public Hearing Background The applicant/owner proposes new 475 square feet (s.f.) of deck space (with a stair) attached to the existing home, where the existing 475 s.f. deck is deteriorating and posing a safety risk to the owners. The property is located off North Shore Drive, and receives considerable runoff through the property and under the existing deck to the lake. The proposed deck will be shifted away from the west property line to avoid the historical drainage course adjacent to the western property boundary. The primary entrance to the home is located on the existing deck, but the applicant proposes to create additional deck space to allow for better use and enjoyment of the property. The house is situated up against the 30-foot bluff setback line, and the existing deck encroaches up to 15 feet into the bluff setback and further into the bluff impact zone (within 20 feet of the top of bluff). The proposed decks and stair will be located within the bluff setback, roughly 20.5 feet from the top of the bluff and outside of the bluff impact zone. The applicant is proposing the same deck square footage, with a majority of the proposed deck located within the setback. The applicant has indicated they will landscape the area adjacent to the proposed deck that is the drainage course to slow stormwater runoff to the lake and reduce erosion. Note; the applicant has been made aware the right-of-way of Lake Street bisects the property and the lakeshore. The applicant has submitted an application for vacation of this right-of-way that will be heard by the Planning Commission in August. Given the condition of the deck impacting the access to the home, the applicant has requested the variance application be heard as soon as possible. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant/owner has submitted a narrative, practical difficulty responses, adjacent property owner acknowledgements, and a number of graphics depicting the proposal and their justification. The materials note the existing deck is deteriorating due to age and damage from stormwater runoff coming from North Shore Drive, and the proposal to break the deck project into two parts will allow for more private deck space for the owners in addition to repairing the unsafe access to the home. To maintain hardcover, the proposed deck will not increase in size from what is existing, nor encroach substantially further into the bluff setback. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Although the proposed decks are located within the bluff setback, the proposed locations are an improvement from the existing conditions. The deck on the north or west side of the house has Application Summary: Staff Recommendation: 49 LA26-000016 15 June 2026 Page 2 of 5 been minimized to allow for drainage improvements that can benefit the stability of the bluff. The proposal for a separate deck and stair not exceeding the total deck area of the existing deck appears to be reasonable, as it is located further from the bluff setback and outside of the bluff impact zone altogether. When applying the bluff setbacks in addition to the rear and side setbacks, the property has, at its widest, a 27-foot-deep building envelope. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 6.12.1450 – Setbacks: Principal Buildings Section 6.12.9000 – Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 Upon the vacation of the Lake Street right-of-way, the lot area is anticipated to increase to 19,866 s.f. (0.46 acres) in size, where the existing/proposed hardcover would be 22.1% of lot area. Applicable Regulations: Setback from Top of Bluff Variance | Code Section 6.12.6240(2) All buildings and structures must be located at least 30 feet from the top of bluff. Buildings and structures should not be placed within the bluff impact zone or within 20 feet of the top of bluff. The existing deck encroaches up to 15 feet from the top of bluff and 5 feet into the bluff impact zone. The proposed deck will improve the setback from the top of bluff by 5.5 feet and will fall outside of the bluff impact zone. Given the size and location of the building envelope, there is limited ability for the applicant to make improvements immediately around the house. 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 50 LA26-000016 15 June 2026 Page 3 of 5 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 purpose of the bluff setback as a protective function of the shoreland overlay district is to provide for careful development of sensitive land that can impact Lake Minnetonka. The proposal reduces the encroachment into the bluff setback and eliminates the encroachment into the bluff impact zone, better harmonizing with the intent of the ordinance. This criterion is met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan: The proposed variance to rebuild and reorient deck space attached to an existing principal residence in LR-1B zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This criterion is met. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls: The proposal to rework the existing 475 square feet of deck space to allow for a safe ingress/egress to the house, and a separate deck for private use away from the drainage course is reasonable. This criterion is met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: The bluff setback, in addition to the rear setback, significantly reduce or eliminate the buildable envelope of the site. Further, the primary entrance to the home is accessed from the existing deck, where decking or stairs is necessary to access the home in the future. This criterion is met. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality: Decks lakeward of the house are common in the area. As a deck was existing on the property and the size is not proposed to increase, a change in character is not expected. This criterion is met. Additionally, City Code 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 are not a practical difficulty supporting the variance 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: 51 LA26-000016 15 June 2026 Page 4 of 5 Decks attached to single-family residences are permitted within the LR-1B zoning district. This criterion is met. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling: This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property: The primary access to the home is located on a nonconforming deck in the bluff setback. Given a portion of the house is within the bluff setback, and other portions of the house are within the rear setback, there is limited ability for the improvement and modification of the home while meeting zoning requirements. The proposed decks reduce the encroachment of the existing deck, while maintaining the access to the house and allowing for safer stormwater runoff in the place of the existing deck. 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 property, as well as many lakeshore properties in the area, contain steep slopes or bluffs. The impacts of the bluff setback on this property are extreme, as the existing, narrow home cannot meet both the rear and bluff setbacks. Relocating the existing deck while reducing the encroachment into the bluff setback is a net positive, especially as this property has little-to-no building envelope remaining. 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 applicant has limited ability to improve the primary access to their home given the minimal building envelope, and have a functional, private deck space in comparison to the existing conditions. 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 a variance will not impact the health, safety or welfare of residents and owners in the area. The proposal reduces nonconformities within the bluff setback, and improves drainage to the lake, better meeting the intent of the code. 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 granting of a variance will alleviate the difficulties placed on the applicant, and allow for the rebuilding of deck space on the property in a more sensible and safe location. 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 as of the submittal of this report. 52 LA26-000016 15 June 2026 Page 5 of 5 Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval as applied. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Staff Report Exhibit B. Application & Practical Difficulties Exhibit C. Aerial Imagery Exhibit D. Narrative Exhibit E. Proposed Survey Exhibit F. Hardcover Information Exhibit G. Supporting Images Exhibit H. Adjacent Owner Acknowledgments Exhibit I. Mailing Map & List 53 Land Use Application Summary Application Date:04/21/2026 Address:4755 North Shore Drive Orono, MN 55364 Parcel Number:0711723320021 Land Use Number:LA26-000016 Application Submitted By:Property Owner Owner:Name: NAM PHAM Address: THU PHAN 8812 138TH ST W Applicant:Name: Nam Pham Company: Address: 4755 North Shore Drive Orono, MN 55364 Contact Information: Associated Contact: Nam Pham Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description:Deck 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: 4/24/26, 1:48 PM Permit Details | Citizenserve https://www3.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=DisplayPermitDetail&SelectedTab=Permits&Permit_ID=53207013&WorkOrder_ID=912…1/154 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA26-000016 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: Constructing a functional, private deck is a reasonable and typical residential use. The proposed location is the only practical placement that allows for safe and usable outdoor space. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The hardship is due to: - Proximity to North Shore Drive - Shared driveway placement - Existing drainage patterns directing water toward the current deck - Limited viable placement options for a functional deck These are not conditions created by the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The variance will not alter the essential character of the area. Similar setback variances already exist on adjacent properties, and the proposed deck will be less visible and more integrated into the rear yard. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: This request is not based on cost or convenience, but on safety, drainage, and functional limitations of the existing structure. 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: Practical difficulties include: - Inadequate privacy and usability of the current deck - Unsafe and inefficient drainage conditions - Lack of reasonable alternative placement outside the setback 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 request does not seek to introduce a prohibited use. A residential deck is an allowed use. 4/24/26, 1:49 PM Permit Details | Citizenserve https://www3.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=DisplayPermitDetail&SelectedTab=Permits&Permit_ID=53207013&WorkOrder_ID=912…1/255 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: No request is being made to convert a single-family dwelling into a two-family dwelling. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: Special conditions include roadway exposure, drainage flow patterns, and shared driveway proximity unique to this parcel and immediate neighboring properties. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: These constraints do not apply broadly across the district; they are specific to this lot’s configuration and location. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: Granting the variance allows the applicant to enjoy a standard residential amenity (a usable deck), which is otherwise not feasible due to site constraints. 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 proposal improves safety by: - Relocating the deck away from traffic and driveway activity - Addressing drainage concerns - Providing a more structurally sound design while still meeting the 25% hard-area requirement. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: This is not a convenience request. The variance is necessary to resolve real, demonstrable issues related to safety, drainage, and lack of usable outdoor space. 4/24/26, 1:49 PM Permit Details | Citizenserve https://www3.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=DisplayPermitDetail&SelectedTab=Permits&Permit_ID=53207013&WorkOrder_ID=912…2/256 Exhibit C – Aerial Imagery of 4755 North Shore Drive, Orono 57 58 Variance Narrative We are requesting a variance to allow construction of an 11.5-foot-deep deck within the 30-foot rear setback due to unique site constraints and to improve the safety, functionality, privacy, and drainage of the property. The proposed deck has been reduced to approximately 475 square feet to match the existing deck size and will lessen the degree of setback encroachment compared to the current condition. The existing deck is outdated, structurally limited, and poorly located adjacent to North Shore Drive, the shared driveway, and the main parking area, resulting in limited privacy and usability. It also contributes to drainage and erosion concerns from roadway runoff. The proposed project will relocate the deck closer to the home and toward the rear yard in order to: •Improve privacy and usability •Improve structural safety •Reduce exposure to roadway and driveway activity •Replace hard surfaces with permeable landscaping and native plantings •Improve stormwater management •Reduce setback encroachment Due to the site layout, driveway conﬁguration, roadway proximity, and drainage conditions, this is the only practical location for a functional and private deck. Similar variances have been granted on neighboring properties. The proposed variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood and will improve drainage, safety, and overall property functionality. Hard Surface Calculation •Without the Lake Street vacation: 27.91% hard surface coverage •With the Lake Street vacation: 22.05% hard surface coverage 59 60 4755 North Shore Drive Nam Pham May 20 House with attached garage 1,719 sq ft Concrete 97 sq ft Bit. Driveway 2,047 sq ft Deck 475 sq ft Woof Stair 143 sq ft 15,69615,696 100 sq ft Retaining walls 4,677 sq ft Retaining Walls 100 sf of decking with 1/4” spacing 196 sq ft 196 sq ft 296 sq ft 4,381 sq ft 27.91 61 4755 North Shore Drive Nam Pham May 20 House with attached garage 1,719 sq ft Concrete 97 sq ft Bit. Driveway 2,047 sq ft Deck 475 sq ft Woof Stair 143 sq ft 15,696 100 sq ft Retaining walls 4,677 sq ft Retaining Walls 100 sf of decking with 1/4” spacing 196 sq ft 196 sq ft 296 sq ft 4,381 sq ft 27.91 62 Front Deck Renderings & Dimensions 63 Side Deck Renderings & Dimensions 64 Existing Deck facing North – Showing limited privacy 65 Relationship to Decks on Adjacent Properties 66 Adjacent Property Owner' Acknowledgement Project Address: 3535 North Shore Drive, Orono MN 55364 Applicant: Nam Pham Description of Request: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow construction of a 12-foot-deep deck extending into the 30- foot rear setback. The proposed deck will be located toward the rear of the home to improve privacy, safety, and drainage conditions. I acknowledge that I have been informed of the proposed variance request and have had the opportunity to review the plans. Adjacent Property Owner Name:Thomas eKaren Comelissa Property Address:4753 N. Shore Dr. Signature: _Date:414/24 Comments (optional): _ Existing Deck uth 1/2 of Lot u n g m i n n e s o t a 120 0994 NO. 19 (PLAT 50)(NORTH SHORE DRIVE Proposed Deck with Landscaping u t h 1 / 2 o f L o t W O R L U N D S NORTH SHORE 1999. 986 986.7 - 2 8 0 2 984 PROPOSED DECK TOP OF BLUFF.975.9 L O T 107.0 L O T 67 68 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 4755 North Shore Dr 0 100 20050 Feet Date: 4/22/2026 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 69 36 12-117-24 14 0011 FAIRVIEW COVENANT CHURCH 1175 COUNTY RD 19 MOUND MN 55364 36 12-117-24 41 0001 JOSEPH GARRITANO JILL TOKARCZYK 4801 MINNEAPOLIS AVE MOUND MN 55364 36 12-117-24 41 0011 MAGGIE MORLEY HENJUM ALISON MORLEY HENJUM 4825 MINNEAPOLIS AVE MOUND MN 55364 36 12-117-24 41 0013 STEPHEN J KAMINSKI KAY G KAMINSKI 4821 MINNEAPOLIS AVE MINNETRISTA MN 55364 36 12-117-24 41 0014 STEPHEN J KAMINSKI KAY G KAMINSKI 4821 MINNEAPOLIS AVE MINNETRISTA MN 55364 38 07-117-23 23 0013 FAIRVIEW COVENANT CHURCH 1175 CO RD 19 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 23 0027 DWIGHT A AFFELDT PATRICIA E AFFELDT 4765 TONKAVIEW LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 23 0035 NICHOLAS SCHMITT 4740 TONKAVIEW LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 23 0036 STEVEN F & JOAN VALEK 4720 TONKAVIEW LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 23 0037 STEVEN F & JOAN VALEK 4720 TONKAVIEW LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0003 TERRY CHRISTIANSON 4641 TONKA VIEW LANE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0004 ALLEN BREDESON 4735 TONKAVIEW LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0009 VIKTORYIA BANCHUK 6627 TESSMAN LN BROOKLYN PARK MN 55445 38 07-117-23 32 0010 RYAN P TURNER 4745 TONKAVIEW CT MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0011 JAMES & MARTHA HARTFIEL 4749 TONKAVIEW CT MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0012 S A SCHAUER & F E KOUBSKY 4751 TONKAVIEW CT MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0013 CORY GERBER JANICE GERBER 4753 TONKAVIEW CT MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0014 L GREENHAGEN & V GREENHAGEN 4739 TONKAVIEW CT MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0019 MATTHEW MICHAEL JASPER 4745 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0020 THOMAS J CORNELISSEN KAREN PRESTON 4753 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0021 NAM PHAM THU PHAN 8812 138TH ST W SAVAGE MN 55378 38 07-117-23 32 0022 BEN A WASSCHER TRUST KATRINA WASSCHER TRUST 4775 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0023 CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY ORONO MN 55356 38 07-117-23 32 0050 AARON COHODES GOLDSTEEN 4680 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0057 KIM G & HONI L MARONDE 4755 TONKAVIEW LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0058 ANDREW H & TRACY K RASCHER 4705 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0059 YASMINA AHMED 4695 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0065 DAVID DARROW JENNIFER ZICK 4685 TONKAVIEW LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0066 BRADLEY K ARENDS TEMPEST A ARENDS 4725 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 32 0067 JUSTIN B HOUSTON ALLISON J HOUSTON 4731 NORTH SHORE DR MOUND MN 55364 70 71 Date: June 15, 2026 Item: 5.3 Presenter: Matt Karney, Planner Section: Public Hearings Title: LA26-000018, Mom's Design Build, 1080 Heritage Lane, Variance (Matthew Karney) 1.Purpose: The applicant requests approval of a rear setback variance for a proposed deck. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: The application was made on May 19, 2026, and deemed complete on May 26, 2026. The 60-day review period expires on July 25, 2026. 3.Background: The applicant proposes a replacement of the existing deck, attached to the southwest corner of the primary residence. The proposed deck is larger than the existing, and extends 10.2 feet into the 50 foot rear setback. The deck replacement is a part of a larger project on the property that includes patio space, a pool, retaining walls, and landscaping. These aspects are not a part of the variance request and can be approved administratively. 4.Public Comment: No public comments have been received. 5.Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends denial as applied. 6.Planning Commission Action Requested: If the commission agrees with the staff analysis, a motion should be made for denial of the application. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits A. Staff Report B. Application & Practical Difficulties C. Aerial Imagery D. Applicant Narrative E. Proposed Survey F. Plans & Renderings G. Hardcover Information H. Mailing Map & List 72 Date Application Received: 05/19/2026 Date Application Deemed Complete: 05/26/2026 60-Day Review Period Expires: 07/25/2026 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Matthew Karney, Planner Date: 15 June 2026 Subject: LA26-000018 |Mom’s Design Build | 1080 Heritage Lane Variance – Public Hearing Background The applicant proposes an enlarged deck in the place of an existing deck, attached to the southwest corner of the home. In addition to the deck, the applicant is looking to complete a larger project on the property, including a pool, patio and landscaping, which conforms with zoning requirements. The proposed deck extends 10.2 feet into the rear setback of 50 feet, with a stair being provided to connect the deck access to the house with the patio proposed below. Generally, the property is wider than it is deep, and the property slopes heavily from the rear property line to the house. The house is located up to the front and rear setbacks, and the existing deck is approximately 54 feet from the rear property line. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has submitted a narrative, practical difficulty responses, and renderings of the proposed project. The layout of the house is difficult, as the only exterior door to the yard is on the existing deck in the rear of the house, and the main level of the house facing the southeast where a conforming deck could be built does not have doors or windows. The applicant articulates the proposal will minimally impact the neighborhood or others, as the encroachment would be mostly screened by the slope in the rear yard, sufficient separation exists between the deck location and other buildings, and active areas of adjacent properties. The zoning requirements of a 2-acre property being applied to a nonconforming lot for the district (1-acre) makes it challenging to provide a conforming deck, especially when setback exceptions are only for side yards. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: The proposed project involves near full utilization of the property’s conforming building envelope, although many aspects of the project such as the retaining walls, pool and patio meet zoning requirements and can be approved administratively. Despite the property being challenging, and the house being located up against the front and rear setbacks, the applicant did not provide any justification for why the deck is increasing in size into the setback instead of into a conforming location. Application Summary: Staff Recommendation: 73 LA26-000018 15 June 2026 Page 2 of 5 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 6.12.1350 – Setbacks: Principal Buildings Section 6.12.6930(1)a – Structural Building Coverage: Section 6.12.9000 – Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 3 15,387 s.f. (35 %) 8,470 s.f. (19.3%) 12,587 s.f. (28.6%) Applicable Regulations LR-1A Rear Setback Variances (Section 6.12.1350) The property has a conforming lot width, but a nonconforming lot area, with half of the required acreage. The existing deck is conforming, and the proposed deck will be 14.2 feet closer to the rear property line, for an encroachment into the setback of 10.2 feet. Other proposed improvements such as a pool or patio are considered accessory structures and are subject to lesser setbacks than the primary residence and features like decks that are attached to it. 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. Rear (SE) 50’ 39.8’ Deck Interior Side (SW) 30’ 81.7’ Deck 1.01 acres Existing: 4,888 s.f. (11.1%) 74 LA26-000018 15 June 2026 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 purpose of the setback is to create separation between the rear sides of buildings and to limit the massing of larger buildings surrounding rear yards. The rear setback applied to this property is appropriate for a property of twice its size, and the existing topography and proposed landscaping meet the intent of the applied setback. This criterion is met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan: The proposed variance to improve and enlarge a deck attached to an existing principal residence in LR-1A zoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This criterion is met. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls: The proposal of a deck is reasonable, however, enlarging the deck into the rear setback is not reasonable when conforming areas of expansion exist. This criterion is not met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: The property does not conform with the lot area requirements and the house was located firmly between the front and rear setbacks. There is not a door on the main level of the house where the deck could be sited over the conforming side yard, but this ingress/egress exists in the rear of the house where setbacks can be impacted. This criterion is met. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality: The proposed deck should not alter the character of the area. The deck would be adequately screened by the site’s topography and the proposed landscaping. This criterion is met. Additionally, City Code 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 are not a practical difficulty supporting the variance 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: Decks attached to single-family residences are permitted within LR-1A zoning district. This criterion is met. 75 LA26-000018 15 June 2026 Page 4 of 5 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 and its two adjacent neighbors have a significant increase in slope moving south or east from the existing houses. Any improvements that are desired to be better screened from the street, or tucked into the existing topography are impacted by the rear setback. 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: Most of the properties in the Foxhill neighborhood are substandard in terms of lot size, and are subject to the same setbacks as this property. Homes on Heritage Lane appear to have been either constructed in the early 1970s before the zoning code was implemented or redeveloped within the last 10 years, including the home on this property. The home on this property conforms with zoning requirements, but uses most of the existing building envelope, much like many of the other redeveloped properties in the vicinity. Improvements such as decks on other similar properties have been able to meet setback requirements, much like the existing deck on this property. This criterion is not met. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant: The granting of a variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the owners’ property rights. The house has an existing, conforming deck, which provides for reasonable outdoor use. The size increase does not impact the findings of reasonable use of the property. 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: The approval of the variance can impact the health, safety, and welfare of others, as extending the deck into a setback when conforming locations for this deck exist is contrary to the intent of the zoning code. This criterion is not 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 granting of a variance for the proposed project will serve as a convenience to the applicant. No justification has been provided articulating why a smaller deck, or a deck favoring the yard to the side of house in a conforming location, are not possible. Despite the site constraints, the tight building envelope does not eliminate the possibility of conformity for a larger deck. This criterion is not met. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. 76 LA26-000018 15 June 2026 Page 5 of 5 Public Comments No public comments have been received as of the submittal of this report. Discussion 1. Can a conforming deck be constructed on the property? 2. Is the proposed deck the minimum size necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends denial as applied. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Staff Report Exhibit B. Application & Practical Difficulties Exhibit C. Aerial Imagery Exhibit D. Narrative Exhibit E. Proposed Survey Exhibit F. Plans & Renderings Exhibit G. Hardcover Information Exhibit H. Mailing List & Map 77 Land Use Application Summary Application Date:05/19/2026 Address:1080 Heritage LN Orono, MN 55391 Parcel Number:1011723130007 Land Use Number:LA26-000018 Application Submitted By:Agent on behalf of property owner Owner:Name: MICHAEL D KELLY & ANNE KELLY Address: 1080 HERITAGE LA WAYZATA MN 55391 Applicant:Name: Craig Weckman Company: Mom's Design Build Address: 12275 Weckman Rd Shakopee, MN 55379 Contact Information: Associated Contact: Owen Sweeney Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description:Landscape / Deck 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: 5/26/26, 3:38 PM Permit Details | Citizenserve https://www3.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=DisplayPermitDetail&SelectedTab=Permits&Permit_ID=53324874&WorkOrder_ID=914…1/178 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA26-000018 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: The property owner proposes to construct a deck as part of a comprehensive landscape project that will provide usable outdoor living space for 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 lot features a steep, approximately 20-foot hill/slope in the backyard that drops sharply down to the house foundation. This natural topographic condition renders the entire rear yard unusable for any practical outdoor activity, landscaping, or recreation — there is effectively no functional backyard space. One of the main reasons for the request is the homeowners would like to be able to see their young children play in the pool while on or under the deck. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The 10-foot deck encroachment will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, which consists of single-family residential properties with varied landscaping, decks, patios, and accessory structures. The deck will be designed as a low-impact, high-quality landscape element that blends seamlessly with the surrounding environment and maintains substantial open space and privacy for neighboring properties. Similar minor setback accommodations for decks and landscape features have been approved in comparable Orono residential settings where site-specific constraints exist. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: Economic considerations are not the basis for this request. The driving factor is the demonstrable physical impracticality created by the steep 20-foot topographic drop in the rear yard, which eliminates any usable backyard space. The variance is required to achieve a reasonable residential use of the property regardless of project cost. 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: NA 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: NA 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. 5/26/26, 3:38 PM Permit Details | Citizenserve https://www3.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=DisplayPermitDetail&SelectedTab=Permits&Permit_ID=53324874&WorkOrder_ID=914…1/279 Response: NA 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: The special conditions are a large slope taking up the entire backyard as well as the lot having set backs / zoning conducive to 2 acre lots when they are 1.09 acres 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: The steep rear-yard topography that eliminates usable backyard space does not apply generally to other land or structures in the zoning district. Most homes do not get developed into hills in such a manner. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: We believe granting of this variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right — the reasonable use and enjoyment of outdoor living space on a single- family residential lot. 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 proposed deck will fully comply with all applicable building codes, structural requirements, and stormwater management standards. It will not impair health, safety, or comfort of the applicant or neighbors, nor will it be contrary to the intent of Chapter 78. The design will actually improve the site’s appearance and functionality through professional landscaping. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: If possible the homeowner would use their rear yard for functional space. Due to the hill and irregular lot size this is not possible. 5/26/26, 3:38 PM Permit Details | Citizenserve https://www3.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=DisplayPermitDetail&SelectedTab=Permits&Permit_ID=53324874&WorkOrder_ID=914…2/280 Exhibit C – Aerial Imagery of 1080 Heritage Lane, Orono 81 82 Variance Application Narrative — 1080 Heritage Lane Applicant: Kelly Residence Property: 1080 Heritage Lane, Orono, MN 55391 We bought 1080 Heritage Lane six years ago and have raised our three young children here. As we look ahead we are planning for teenage kids, and would like to make an environment that makes them want to spend time at home. We want their friends here - And we want a space that pulls our family outside together. The plan, designed by Mom's Design Build, centers on a swimming pool in the side yard, a stone patio surrounding it, and — the subject of this variance — a deck off the kitchen of our house overlooking the pool. The deck would sit 39 feet 10 inches from the rear property line, requiring a variance of approximately 10 feet from the 50-foot rear yard setback. Our lot is a legally non-conforming parcel of 1.009 acres in the LR-1A district, which has a minimum lot area of 2.0 acres. The lot pre-existed the current standard, but every dimensional requirement in the district — including the 50-foot rear yard setback — was calibrated for parcels at least twice our size. The code itself recognizes that non-conforming lots need dimensional relief: Sec. 78-230(b) provides automatic exceptions for front and side setbacks on non-conforming lots, but offers no comparable relief for the rear setback. The variance process is the mechanism the ordinance leaves available for situations like ours. Layered on top of the undersized parcel is a topographical reality the survey shows clearly: a steep hill rises directly behind the home, climbing roughly 17 feet from the back wall of the house to the rear property line. There is very little useable rear yard. The hill dives straight into the foundation. Because of this grade, the home's walk-out basement door does not exit to the rear — it exits to the side, onto the only ﬂat, useable outdoor ground we have. That side yard is also the only place a pool can reasonably be located. Everything our family does outside happens there. What we don't have is any outdoor connection to our main living level. The kitchen and family room sit upstairs with no real way out. The proposed deck and outdoor room solve this — they give our main ﬂoor a door to step out of, shelter a gathering space underneath, and orient the family toward the pool below. The pool, patio, hot tub, and all other improvements comply with the accessory setback line. We are asking for the minimum we need to make the main-level connection work. 83 The nearest neighboring home sits on the other side of the hill behind us, approximately 160 feet from the proposed deck. The topography and existing tree canopy completely block any line of sight between the properties. From the neighbors, from anywhere off our property, the deck will not be visible. We did not subdivide the lot at half the district minimum, did not site the home, and did not create the 17-foot rear grade. These conditions exist independent of anything we have done. The Three Practical Difficulty Criteria 1. Reasonable use not permitted by the ordinance. A deck and outdoor living room off the main level of a single-family home is among the most ordinary improvements a family can make. The LR-1A setback standards, designed for 2-acre lots, leave no room to do it on our 1-acre parcel. 2. Circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner. A legally non- conforming lot at half the district's minimum area, a 17-foot rear grade eliminating any useable rear yard, a home footprint maximized at original construction, and a walk-out that exits to the side rather than the rear — none of these were created by us. 3. No alteration to the essential character of the locality. The proposed structure cannot be seen from the neighboring property, sits 160 feet from the nearest home, and is screened by the rear hill and existing mature trees. In Closing We are aware we are asking the City of Orono to make an exception, and we are grateful the variance process exists for exactly the kind of unique situation our property presents. Our hope is that the Planning Commission sees this project for what it is: a family trying to build a backyard that will keep their kids close through the years ahead, on a lot whose physical realities don't ﬁt the standard the ordinance was written for. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, The Kelly Family 1080 Heritage Lane 84 BLOCK 1 LOT 7 HER I T A G E L A N E Δ A B C D J H H H G E F F F I H Bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System (NAD 83 - 1986 adj.) V I C I N I T Y M A P N O S C A L E NO R TH 0 SCALE IN FEET 20 10 10 20 40 SR R GN NE ENIG E DESI E NN SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. 150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 55391 (952) 476-6000 S US S Y R S O ER EVR P LA CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PREPARED FOR: MOM'S DESIGN BUILD NO.BY DATE REVISION 1 JPR 1/5/2026 REF. JOB # 95325-013 2 JPR 5/12/2026 PROPOSED POOL AND WALLS FIELD CREW CL DR TS DRAWN JPR CHECKED DLS DATE 1/5/26 USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.'s EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USE WITHOUT SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY INDEMNIFY SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE. WWW.SATHRE.COM Hennepin County 1 FILE NO. 1 95325-013 ORONO, MINNESOTA TWP:117-RGE.23-SEC.10 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED Lot 7, Block 1, FOXHILL, according to the record plat thereon, Hennepin County, Minnesota. STANDARD NOTES 1)Site Address: 1080 Heritage Lane, Orono, MN, 55391 2)A title opinion was not furnished to the surveyor as part of this survey. Only easements per the recorded plat are shown unless otherwise denoted hereon. 3)Flood Zone Information: X (area determined to be outside of the 0.2% annual chance floodplain) per Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 27053C0304F, effective date of 11/4/2016. 4)Parcel Area Information: Gross Area:43,964 s.f.~ 1.009 acres 5)Benchmark: Elevations are based on MN/DOT Geodetic Station Name: ELWELL which has an elevation of: 980.36 feet (NAVD88). 6)Zoning Information: The current Zoning for the subject property is LR - 1A (One Family Lakeshore Residential - 2 Acres) per the City of Orono's zoning map dated September 2016. The setback, height, and floor space area restrictions for said zoning designation are as follows: Principal Structure Setbacks - Street(s): 50 feet Side: 30 feet Rear: 50 feet Height: 30 feet Hardcover: 35 percent of lot area Accessory Structure Setbacks - Front: 50 feet Side: 15 feet Interior; 30 feet Street Rear: 15 feet Please note that the zoning information shown hereon may have been amended through a city process. We recommend that a zoning letter be obtained from the Zoning Administrator for the current restrictions for this site. All setback information and hardcover data for planning and design must be verified by all parties involved in the design and planning process. We have not received the current zoning classification and building setback requirements from the insurer. 7)Utilities: We have shown the location of utilities on the surveyed property by observed evidence only. There may be underground utilities encumbering the subject property we are unaware. Please note that we have not placed a Gopher State One Call for this survey. There may or may not be underground utilities in the mapped area, therefore extreme caution must be exercise before any excavation takes place on or near this site. Also, please note that seasonal conditions may inhibit our ability to visibly observe all the utilities located on the subject property. Before digging, you are required by law to notify Gopher State One Call at least 48 hours in advance at 651/454-0002. 8)Grading must maintain a minimum 2% slope gradient to accommodate positive drainage. 9)All set offset irons are measured to hundredths of a foot and can be used as benchmarks for construction. 10)The proposed driveway shown is conceptual only and does not purport to show exactly how the driveway shall be built. 11)Proposed grades shown adjacent to building foundation refers to top of black dirt. 12)Verify sanitary service invert prior to any concrete work. Proposed Elevations Proposed Garage Floor Elevation = 953.2 (5' Drop) Proposed Top of Foundation Elevation = 958.5 Proposed Basement Floor Elevation = 949.8 Asbuilt Elevations Asbuilt Garage Floor Elevation = 953.2 Asbuilt Top of Foundation Elevation = 958.5 Asbuilt Basement Floor Elevation = 949.8 Asbuilt Lookout Floor Elevation = 953.4 Asbuilt First Floor Elevation = 960.5 SURVEY LEGEND X X WB I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 5th day of January, 2026. ________________________________________________________ Daniel L. Schmidt, PLS Minnesota License No. 26147 schmidt@sathre.com TREE LIST 85 OWEN SWEENEY CARA ANDERSON 10 8 0 H E R I T A G E L A N E , O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 Variance 2D 4.22.2026 5.0 KE L L Y R E S I D E N C E Landscape.Remodel.Maintain. 12275 Weckman Rd Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 momsdesignbuild.com 952.277.6667 De s i g n e d f o r t h e DISCLAIMER: All ideas, designs, arrangements, plans and specifications indicated or respected by the drawings are owned by and the property of Mom’s Design Build and were created, evolved or developed for the use on and in connection with the specific project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements, plants, and specifications shall by used or disclosed to any person, firm or corporation for any purpose what so ever without the written permission of Moms Design Build. Contact with these plans or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidence of acceptance of these restrictions. Written dimensions on all drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions; contractors shall verify, and be responsible for all dimensions and conditions on the job. This office must be notified for any variations from dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Renderings are artistic and conceptual representations and do not necessarily accurately represent material finishes; plant material shown at mature size, not size when planted. © 2026 Mom’s Design Build. All rights reserved. Contractor License: BC#638384 Version:Date: Document Title: Sheet Number: Designed by: Drawn by: PAGE SIZE: ARCH D Building Setback Deck Layout Boulder Walls Stone/Paver Patio Pool Hot tub Stone Retaining Walls < 3 feet in height Property Line Accessory Setback 10 ' Mulch Beds 39 ' 1 0 " PLAN VIEW scale: 1“=10’ A -1 N 86 OWEN SWEENEY CARA ANDERSON 10 8 0 H E R I T A G E L A N E , O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 Variance 2D 4.22.2026 5.0 KE L L Y R E S I D E N C E Landscape.Remodel.Maintain. 12275 Weckman Rd Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 momsdesignbuild.com 952.277.6667 De s i g n e d f o r t h e DISCLAIMER: All ideas, designs, arrangements, plans and specifications indicated or respected by the drawings are owned by and the property of Mom’s Design Build and were created, evolved or developed for the use on and in connection with the specific project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements, plants, and specifications shall by used or disclosed to any person, firm or corporation for any purpose what so ever without the written permission of Moms Design Build. Contact with these plans or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidence of acceptance of these restrictions. Written dimensions on all drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions; contractors shall verify, and be responsible for all dimensions and conditions on the job. This office must be notified for any variations from dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Renderings are artistic and conceptual representations and do not necessarily accurately represent material finishes; plant material shown at mature size, not size when planted. © 2026 Mom’s Design Build. All rights reserved. Contractor License: BC#638384 Version:Date: Document Title: Sheet Number: Designed by: Drawn by: PAGE SIZE: ARCH D A -2 N 87 OWEN SWEENEY CARA ANDERSON 10 8 0 H E R I T A G E L A N E , O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 Variance 2D 4.22.2026 5.0 KE L L Y R E S I D E N C E Landscape.Remodel.Maintain. 12275 Weckman Rd Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 momsdesignbuild.com 952.277.6667 De s i g n e d f o r t h e DISCLAIMER: All ideas, designs, arrangements, plans and specifications indicated or respected by the drawings are owned by and the property of Mom’s Design Build and were created, evolved or developed for the use on and in connection with the specific project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements, plants, and specifications shall by used or disclosed to any person, firm or corporation for any purpose what so ever without the written permission of Moms Design Build. Contact with these plans or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidence of acceptance of these restrictions. Written dimensions on all drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions; contractors shall verify, and be responsible for all dimensions and conditions on the job. This office must be notified for any variations from dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Renderings are artistic and conceptual representations and do not necessarily accurately represent material finishes; plant material shown at mature size, not size when planted. © 2026 Mom’s Design Build. All rights reserved. Contractor License: BC#638384 Version:Date: Document Title: Sheet Number: Designed by: Drawn by: PAGE SIZE: ARCH D A -3 N 88 OWEN SWEENEY CARA ANDERSON 10 8 0 H E R I T A G E L A N E , O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 Variance 2D 4.22.2026 5.0 KE L L Y R E S I D E N C E Landscape.Remodel.Maintain. 12275 Weckman Rd Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 momsdesignbuild.com 952.277.6667 De s i g n e d f o r t h e DISCLAIMER: All ideas, designs, arrangements, plans and specifications indicated or respected by the drawings are owned by and the property of Mom’s Design Build and were created, evolved or developed for the use on and in connection with the specific project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements, plants, and specifications shall by used or disclosed to any person, firm or corporation for any purpose what so ever without the written permission of Moms Design Build. Contact with these plans or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidence of acceptance of these restrictions. Written dimensions on all drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions; contractors shall verify, and be responsible for all dimensions and conditions on the job. This office must be notified for any variations from dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Renderings are artistic and conceptual representations and do not necessarily accurately represent material finishes; plant material shown at mature size, not size when planted. © 2026 Mom’s Design Build. All rights reserved. Contractor License: BC#638384 Version:Date: Document Title: Sheet Number: Designed by: Drawn by: PAGE SIZE: ARCH D A -4 N 89 OWEN SWEENEY CARA ANDERSON 10 8 0 H E R I T A G E L A N E , O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 Variance 2D 4.22.2026 5.0 KE L L Y R E S I D E N C E Landscape.Remodel.Maintain. 12275 Weckman Rd Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 momsdesignbuild.com 952.277.6667 De s i g n e d f o r t h e DISCLAIMER: All ideas, designs, arrangements, plans and specifications indicated or respected by the drawings are owned by and the property of Mom’s Design Build and were created, evolved or developed for the use on and in connection with the specific project. None of the ideas, designs, arrangements, plants, and specifications shall by used or disclosed to any person, firm or corporation for any purpose what so ever without the written permission of Moms Design Build. Contact with these plans or specifications shall constitute conclusive evidence of acceptance of these restrictions. Written dimensions on all drawings shall have precedence over scaled dimensions; contractors shall verify, and be responsible for all dimensions and conditions on the job. This office must be notified for any variations from dimensions and conditions shown by these drawings. Renderings are artistic and conceptual representations and do not necessarily accurately represent material finishes; plant material shown at mature size, not size when planted. © 2026 Mom’s Design Build. All rights reserved. Contractor License: BC#638384 Version:Date: Document Title: Sheet Number: Designed by: Drawn by: PAGE SIZE: ARCH D Existing Conditions A -4 90 Date: Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle One) SB Job Number: 59980-013 Prepared By: jpr Asbuilt Hardcover Percentage [(3)+(4)]19.27% This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contrained herein; however, if any information is not consistent with City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. (3) Net Asbuilt Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)]8,470 (4) Total Lot Area 43,964 (2) Total Excludable Hardcover 100 (1) Total Asbuilt Hardcover 8,570 Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684): E Y Z 100Deck W X U V S T P Q R O M N K L I Concrete Pad 27 J G Concrete Pad 23 H Concrete Pad 16 F Retaining Walls 1,007 1,641 D Sidewalk 196 4,888 B Stoop 340 (720 S.F.) E Deck 432 % Step 1: Asbuilt HARDCOVER City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet 1080 Heritage Lane 1/5/2026 In the following table, identify all items of Asbuilt hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all Asbuilt hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict Asbuilt hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75’ setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Total (Square Feet) Property Address: Prepared By: Sathre - Bergquist, Inc. Key to Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width (Example) (Garage) (24' x 30') C Driveway A House 91 Date: Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle One) SB Job Number: 59980-013 Prepared By: JPR Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)+(4)]28.63% This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contrained herein; however, if any information is not consistent with City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. (3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)]12587 (4) Total Lot Area 43,964 (2) Total Excludable Hardcover 100 (1) Total Proposed Hardcover 12687 Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684): J Y Z 100Deck W X U V S T P Q R O M N K conc. and ret. walls below deck -135 L I Proposed Stairs 4' x 5' 20 J Proposed Deck 1,190 G Proposed Pool 20' x 37' 740 H Ret. Walls 1,693 F Proposed Concrete 2,087 1,641 D Existing Sidewalk 196 4,888 B Existing Stoop 340 (720 S.F.) E Existing Conc Pad 4.6' x 5.9' 27 % Step 1: PROPOSED HARDCOVER City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet 1080 Heritage Lane 5/12/2026 In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75’ setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Total (Square Feet) Property Address: Prepared By: Sathre-Bergquist Key to Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width (Example) (Garage) (24' x 30') C Existing Driveway A Existing House 92 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 1080 Heritage 0 410 820205 Feet Date: 5/20/2026 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 93 38 10-117-23 11 0002 HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY 300 S 6TH STREET MC679B MINNEAPOLIS MN 55487 38 10-117-23 11 0003 MARK J SCHINDELE ROSARIO M DELAGANA SCHINDELE 975 HERITAGE LANE ORONO MN 55391 38 10-117-23 11 0004 MICHELE L JACKSON WAYNE DEVEYDT 9910 CUMBERLAND ROAD FISHERS IN 46037 38 10-117-23 12 0004 JEFFREY A & LUCY T FOSTER 940 BROWN RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 12 0005 KELLY B KROMER 1005 HERITAGE LA WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 13 0001 SHANE THOMAS FAWCETT REBEKAH LYNN FAWCETT 1000 BROWN RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 13 0004 MATTHEW J INSINGA MARITA INSINGA 1150 HERITAGE LA ORONO MN 55391 38 10-117-23 13 0005 ROSS D BURNHAM JENNIFER BURNHAM 1100 HERITAGE LA ORONO MN 55391 38 10-117-23 13 0007 MICHAEL D KELLY & ANNE KELLY 1080 HERITAGE LA WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 13 0008 PAMELA & STEPHEN L BYRNES JR 1025 HERITAGE LA WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 13 0009 ELLEN M FRITZ 1035 HERITAGE LA WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 13 0010 GARY JAMES BISCHEL KATHRYN EILEEN BISCHEL 1085 HERITAGE LA ORONO MN 55391 38 10-117-23 13 0016 FOXHILL ASSN ATTN: JENNIFER BURNHAM 1100 HERITAGE LA WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 13 0021 WBS2 TRUST 2200 MISTY HAVEN LA PLANO TX 75093 38 10-117-23 13 0023 DAVID HOLDEN & SARAH KIES 1800 SHORELINE DRIVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 13 0024 DAVID HOLDEN & SARAH KIES 1800 SHORELINE DRIVE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 13 0025 THOMAS R GERGUSON JULIE L FERGUSON 1090 HERITAGE LA WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 14 0005 DENNIS L LIBBY 1000 HERITAGE LA WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 14 0017 MEREDITH M KUHLMANN MICHAEL D KUHLMANN 1760 SHORELINE DR ORONO MN 55391 38 10-117-23 14 0021 NAME UNAVAILABLE 50 SOUTH SIXTH ST STE 2600 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 38 10-117-23 14 0024 ROBERT & CAROLYN NELSON 1780 SHORELINE DR ORONO MN 55391 38 10-117-23 14 0027 FEZZIWIG LLC 701 CARLSON PKWY STE 1400 MINNETONKA MN 55305 38 10-117-23 14 0028 FEZZIWIG LLC 701 CARLSON PARKWAY # 1400 MINNETONKA MN 55305 38 10-117-23 14 0029 FEZZIWIG LLC 701 CARLSON PKWY #1400 MINNETONKA MN 55305 38 10-117-23 14 0031 SHORELINE ESTATES ASSOC 701 CARLSON PRWY #1010 MINNETONKA MN 55305 94 Date: June 15, 2026 Item: 5.4 Presenter: Melanie Curtis, Planner Section: Public Hearings Title: LA26-000019, Marc Gensler, 1101 Ferndale Road West, Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 1.Purpose: This application requests variances for hardcover, lake setback, rear setback, and structural coverage to construct an addition to the existing home. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: The application was submitted and deemed complete on May 20, 2026. The 60-day review period ends on July 19. 3.Background: The applicants request several variances to construct a 22' x 22' addition to their existing home to add garage space with living space above. Variances for hardcover, 75-foot lake setback, rear setback, and structural coverage are requested. No new hardcover is proposed, however, because the property has a nonconforming hardcover level, the change in nature from non-structural hardcover to structural/building hardcover requires a variance. For a detailed description and analysis of the requested variances, please refer to the Planning Report attached as Exhibit A. 4.Public Comment: Public comment was submitted and is attached as Exhibit I. 5.Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial of the application as applied. 6.Planning Commission Action Requested: Planning Commission should review the application and make a motion to approve or deny the variances. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Report Exhibit B - Application and Narrative Exhibit C - Practical Difficulty Exhibit D - Survey Exhibit E - Hardcover Exhibit F - Plans Exhibit G - 3D Renderings Exhibit H - Parking Manuverability 95 Exhibit I - Truwit Comments Exhibit J - 1956 aerial Exhibit K - Resolutions 3540 & 3691 Exhibit L - Map &List Exhibit M - aerials 96 Date Application Received: 05/20/2026 Date Application Considered as Complete: 05/20/2026 60-Day Review Period Expires: 07/19/2026 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 15 June 2026 Subject: #LA26-000019, Marc Gensler, 1101 Ferndale Road West Variances Public Hearing Background The applicants are continuing their family ownership of the home, which was originally constructed in the early 1950s and can be seen in the 1956 aerial photo, Exhibit J, and reconstructed with a similar footprint through variances in 1996 (Exhibit K). They wish to make some adjustments to the existing home, resulting in a minor increase in the living space square footage and garage storage. The home does not have a basement due to the low elevation of the property. The subject property is a landlocked, nonconforming lakeshore lot with an existing ~2,200 square foot (footprint) home. Access to the property is accomplished by an easement over 1105 Ferndale Road West. After applying the setbacks, the property has an approximate 450 square foot legal building envelope. The applicants request several variances in order to construct a 22-foot by 22-foot addition that will add garage space and living space above. Variances for hardcover, 75-foot lake setback, rear setback, and structural coverage are requested. No new hardcover is proposed, however, because the property has a nonconforming hardcover level, the change in nature from non-structural hardcover to structural/building hardcover requires a variance. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified site characteristics such as the existing conditions, lack of street frontage, lot size (width and depth), low elevation of the property, and its proximity to the lakeshore on two sides as practical difficulties supporting the requested variances. Additionally, they have provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit C, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff agrees with the applicant’s assessment of the practical difficulties impacting the property. The physical constraints combined with the existing developed conditions result in difficulties for expanding the home in any manner. While the property exhibits practical difficulties associated with its substandard size, lack of street frontage, low elevation, and proximity to the lake, the proposed increase in structural coverage beyond the allowance is not necessary to establish a reasonable use of the property and is inconsistent with the intent of the structural coverage, lakeshore setback and rear setback regulations. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variances for hardcover, lake setback, rear setback, and structural coverage to construct an addition to the existing home. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial of the application as applied, see page 6. 97 FILE #LA26-000019 15 June 2026 Page 2 of 6 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Sections 6.12.1350 & 6.12.6240 – Setbacks: Lakeshore Lagoon (Ferndale Road) 75’ 80’ 60’ Lakeshore (Lake side) 75’ 23.7’ 23.7’ Rear 50’ 45’ West Side 10’ * 4.5’ 4.5’ East Side 10’* 11.7’ 11.7’ Average Lakeshore is established by the 28-foot setback from the lake on the property to the west (1105 Ferndale Rd W). The applicant’s home is 23.7 feet from the lake, and situated 4.3 feet lakeward of 1105. No changes or expansions are *Sec. 6.12.1350(b) Exceptions: (1) Side yard setback. The lot measures 60 feet in width at the 75-foot setback; therefore, a 10-foot side yard setback is applied. Section 6.12.1350 – Lot Area/Width: LR-1A DISTRICT Lot Area Lot Width Section 6.12.6930 – Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage Existing: 2,234 s.f. *Sec. 6.12.6930 permits up to 2,000 total square feet of building footprints on properties < 10,000 s.f. in area Section 6.12.9110 and 6.12.9210 – Hardcover Calculations: Overlay District Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 8,618 s.f. 3,350 w/in 75’ 3,350 w/in 75’ Applicable Regulations: Hardcover Variances (Chapter 6.12 Sections 310(c)(a); 9110; and 9210) The plan does not result in additional hardcover above the existing nonconforming level of 48.79%. The applicant’s plan maintains the existing, non-conforming hardcover level as the addition is proposed over the existing driveway hardcover. However, the change in nature or expansion of the nonconforming hardcover from non-structural hardcover to structural (or building) hardcover, as proposed, requires a variance. While the addition will occupy space where exterior on-site parking was provided, the existing driveway parking areas on the sides of the driveway are proposed to remain to provide additional parking and maneuverability options. 98 FILE #LA26-000019 15 June 2026 Page 3 of 6 Structural/Building Coverage Variance (Section 6.12.6930) The Code limits structural/building coverage on properties under 2.0 acres to 20% of the lot area; additionally, for small lots (<10,000 square feet), the Code allows up to 2,000 square feet of building coverage. The existing home exceeds the structural coverage allowance by 234 square feet. The applicant’s proposal results in an additional 490 square feet of building footprint (22’ x 22.25’). The majority of the property is at or below 932 feet in elevation, one-half foot above the 1% annual chance of flooding (formerly the “100-year floodplain” at 931.5’). The property’s low elevation precludes the ability to construct a basement. Rear Setback Variance (Section 6.12.1350) The existing rear yard setback is also nonconforming at 45 feet, where 50 feet is required. The proposal contemplates further reduction of the rear yard, resulting in a rear setback of 23 feet. The applicant’s plan provides for a 23-foot-long driveway within the property. Refer to Exhibit H for the applicant’s vehicle maneuverability analysis. Lake Setback Variances (Section 6.12.6940) The project will increase the size of the footprint and the mass of the home on the lagoon side of the property within the lakeshore setback. The existing home currently conforms to this setback at 80’ from the OHWL on the lagoon side. The proposed addition results in a 60’ setback from the OHWL creating a new building encroachment within the lakeshore setback on the property. An overlay of the existing home elevation over the proposed addition is provided on pages 3, 5, and 11 of Exhibit F. Additionally, Exhibit H illustrates that the extent of the proposed addition will not project closer to Ferndale Road than the existing home at 1105 Ferndale. 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. According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The requested variances for setbacks and hardcover are generally consistent with the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The property is significantly constrained by its substandard size, narrow width, low elevation, and location between the lake and adjacent development. The proposed project seeks to improve and modestly expand an existing residential structure without increasing the overall amount of hardcover on the property. The requested structural coverage variance is less consistent with the purpose of the Ordinance. Structural coverage limitations are intended to preserve open space, maintain development intensity consistent with lot size, and reduce impacts associated with building massing on properties. The proposed increase in 99 FILE #LA26-000019 15 June 2026 Page 4 of 6 building footprint would further exceed the structural coverage allowance established by the Code as well as create a new lakeshore setback encroachment on the side where the home currently conforms. The project does not meet this criterion. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed residential use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's designation of the property. The requested setback and hardcover variances are generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan because they facilitate continued residential use of an existing developed property while maintaining the existing level of impervious surface coverage. The proposed structural coverage variance is less consistent with Comp Plan goals supporting the preservation of rural character, open space, and development patterns that reflect the physical limitations of lakeshore properties. The requested increase in structural coverage/building footprint would further intensify development on an already substantially limited lot. 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 proposes to continue the residential use of the property and construct an addition to an existing residence. Expansion and improvement of an existing home is generally a reasonable residential use. The requested setback and hardcover variances facilitate a reasonable use of the property, given the property's unique physical limitations. However, staff finds that the applicant has not demonstrated that the full extent of the requested structural coverage variance is necessary to establish a reasonable use of the property. The existing residence already exceeds the structural coverage allowance by approximately 234 square feet. The criterion is not met. 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 property has several characteristics that are unique: the lack of direct road frontage, low topography, substandard lot size and shape, and proximity to the lake on multiple sides, which limit expansion opportunities. These circumstances are unique to the property and were not created by the applicant. This criterion is met.; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances are requested to permit the construction of a home addition on the residential property, which is reasonable. This criterion is 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 expansion of a principal building is an allowed use in the LR-1A Zoning District. 100 FILE #LA26-000019 15 June 2026 Page 5 of 6 7. The board or council may permit, as a variance, the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two- family dwelling. No use variance is requested; 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 difficulties that do not apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. 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 property’s substandard area and width create difficulties that do not apply to other properties in the neighborhood. Most properties in the vicinity possess substantially greater lot area, width, and development flexibility. 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 proposed size of the home exceeds the building coverage allowance. The proposed expansion of the footprint further reduces the usable driveway and available open space on the property and creates massing encroachments into the rear and lakeshore setback areas, intensifying the use of the site. Due to the existing conditions of the site the hardcover variances may be reasonable. The project does not meet this criterion. 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 variances are not anticipated to adversely affect public health, safety, comfort, or welfare. The proposed improvements will remain in an area that is currently being used as a driveway. 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 hardcover variances are necessary to alleviate practical difficulties arising from the property's unique characteristics and existing development limitations. Staff finds that the applicant has not demonstrated that the requested structural coverage and setback variances, to the extent requested, is necessary to alleviate practical difficulties. The project does not meet this criterion. 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. Engineer Comments The City Engineer recommends that the owners adjust the easement for their neighbors' sewer service line to cover the actual alignment of the sewer line. This would also remove the easement from under the corner of their proposed addition. Public Comments Comments from the owner of 1105 Ferndale Road West are attached as Exhibit I. Issues for Consideration 1. Planning Commission should discuss the questions raised by the neighbor. 2. 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? 3. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 101 FILE #LA26-000019 15 June 2026 Page 6 of 6 4. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 5. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Although Planning Department Staff can support the requested hardcover variance, the requested structural coverage and setback variances should be denied as applied. While the property exhibits practical difficulties associated with its substandard size, lack of street frontage, low elevation, and proximity to the lake, the proposed increase in structural coverage beyond the ordinance allowance is not necessary to establish a reasonable use of the property and is inconsistent with the intent of the structural coverage regulations. 102 Land Use Application Summary Application Date:05/20/2026 Address:1101 Ferndale Road West Orono, MN 55391 Parcel Number:0211723430020 Land Use Number:LA26-000019 Application Submitted By:Agent on behalf of property owner Owner:Name: NAME UNAVAILABLE Address: 1101 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 Applicant:Name: Marc Gensler Company: n/a Address: , Contact Information: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Tom Rauscher Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description:Garage addition 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: 6/10/26, 12:57 PM Permit Details | Citizenserve https://www3.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=DisplayPermitDetail&SelectedTab=Permits&Permit_ID=53326580&WorkOrder_ID=911…1/1103 Project Narrative for 1101 Ferndale Rd W We are requesting variances for Hardcover, building coverage & rear yard (street side) setback to allow a garage expansion and second story living space addition at the existing single-family lakeshore residence of 1101 Ferndale Rd W. The proposed addition extends approximately 22 feet outward from the existing house toward the road (Ferndale Rd W), while maintaining the same width as the current structure. This creates an expanded garage on the ﬁrst level and adds usable livable space above it on the second story. The design integrates seamlessly with the existing home’s architecture and does not increase the overall building footprint’s width, only its depth. The total impervious/hardcover surface area on the lot will not be increased, due to the additions proposed location on the existing driveway. All lakeside setbacks remain fully compliant and unchanged, preserving the shoreline buﬀer, views, and water quality protections. The proposal modernizes and modestly enlarges the home to better meet contemporary family needs (additional garage storage and living space) while directing all new construction exclusively to the road side of the property. This variance request aligns with the general intent and purpose of the Orono Zoning Ordinance, particularly for lakeshore properties. The ordinance prioritizes protection of lakeshore character, maintenance of open space along the shoreline, water quality, and control of impervious surfaces. By expanding exclusively toward the road and maintaining total lot coverage, the project avoids any increase in stormwater runoﬀ and fully protects the sensitive lakeside buﬀer and natural shoreline as no changes are proposed to the lakeside elevation or setbacks, just a refresh of materials & exterior details. The request is also consistent with the City of Orono Comprehensive Plan, which supports thoughtful residential improvements that preserve the community’s rural/lakeside character while allowing reasonable use and enjoyment of private property. Road-side expansion enables eﬃcient use of the lot without compromising environmental protections or neighboring views from the lake. Our lot is a typical Orono lakeshore parcel with constraints common to such properties and has its share of practical diﬃculties: its conﬁguration, the existing placement of the home and driveway relative to the road and lake, and the strict lakeshore overlay regulations. These unique physical characteristics— combined with the home’s current positioning—severely limit expansion options. Adding space on the lakeside would reduce the protective shoreline buﬀer, potentially impact water quality, and diminish scenic views, contrary to the core purposes of the shoreland regulations. Strict application of the relevant setback, building coverage, or lot coverage requirements would prevent this reasonable expansion while forcing undesirable lakeside encroachment or forgoing functional improvements altogether. The proposed road-side expansion (22 feet outward, existing width) represents the minimum necessary relief. It is a reasonable use of the property for a single-family dwelling (a permitted use) and alleviates a genuine practical diﬃculty created by the lot’s unique features and location, not by the landowner. The surrounding area consists of similar single-family lakeshore homes. The addition maintains the overall scale, massing, and residential character of the neighborhood, particularly when viewed from the lake (where no changes occur). It will not alter the essential character of the locality, impair health, safety, or comfort, or increase traﬃc, parking demands, or impervious surfaces. There is adequate parking in front 104 of the proposed garage addition inside the property owner’s lot lines on the shared driveway. Also, there is adequate space to back out and turn your vehicle to exit the shared driveway with the adjacent property. The project is compatible with neighboring properties and supports the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right—reasonable use and modernization of our home while prioritizing lake protection. This variance is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable diﬃculty rather than merely serving as convenience. It is the only practical way to add needed space while best protecting the lakeside setback, shoreline character, and environmental values that the ordinance seeks to uphold. We appreciate the Board’s consideration of this request and are happy to provide additional plans, surveys, or details as needed. Thank you and upon approval we would look forward to bringing this exciting project to life and remain and also become a beautiful lakeside property for generations to come! 105 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA26-000019 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: We propose a reasonable expansion of the existing single-family home to better accommodate modern family needs (e.g., additional living space & garage space). Strict application of the setback or coverage requirements would prevent this reasonable use while forcing any addition toward the lakeside, which would be undesirable. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The lot has unique physical characteristics typical of lakeshore properties in Orono, including its depth, proximity to the lake, and the existing placement of the home and driveway. These features limit reasonable expansion options without impacting the lakeside buffer or requiring removal of significant existing structures/landscaping. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The surrounding neighborhood consists of similar single-family lakeshore homes. The proposed expansion maintains the overall scale and appearance from the lake and will not change the residential character of the area. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: We are not requesting this variance based on economic hardship alone. The practical difficulties stem from the unique configuration and constraints of the lot itself. 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: This criterion does not apply to the requested variance 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 proposed use remains a single-family dwelling, which is permitted in the zoning district. This is a dimensional variance only of the lot coverage, building coverage & setbacks. 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 is not a request to add a dwelling unit. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such 6/10/26, 12:58 PM Permit List | Citizenserve https://www3.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=ListPermits&WorkOrder_ID=91125325&ciDisplay=null&getPrint=true&skipLoading=true 1/2106 property or immediately adjoining property. Response: The peculiar conditions include the lot’s shape, the location of the existing home relative to the lake and road, and the presence of the lakeshore overlay district. These constraints are common to lakeside parcels in this area but make road-side expansion the only practical way to add space without compromising the shoreline. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: While many lakeshore lots face similar challenges, the specific combination of our home’s current placement, driveway location creates a unique limitation on this particular parcel that does not affect every property in the same way. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: Granting the variance is necessary to allow reasonable enjoyment and use of our property as a single-family home. Without it, we would be unable to expand the living space in a manner that protects the lakeside setback and views, which is a substantial right enjoyed by neighboring properties. 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 proposal will not impair health, safety, or comfort. It maintains the same (or reduced) impervious surface area, so there is no increase in runoff or impact on the lake. The lakeside setback is preserved, protecting water quality and scenic views. The addition is compatible with surrounding homes and will not affect traffic, parking, or neighborhood character. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: This is not merely a convenience. The unique physical constraints of the lot create a genuine practical difficulty in expanding the home reasonably without either (a) encroaching on the protected lakeside area or (b) forgoing functional improvements entirely. Expanding on the road side is the minimum necessary relief to alleviate this difficulty while best protecting the lake. 6/10/26, 12:58 PM Permit List | Citizenserve https://www3.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=ListPermits&WorkOrder_ID=91125325&ciDisplay=null&getPrint=true&skipLoading=true 2/2107 108 ALS Addition 109 &/* + * 7 &/* + * 7 &/* + * 7 16'-0 " x 8 ' - 0 " O . H . D R . 1(: &/* + * 7 &/* + * 7 &/* + * 7 36" R . D.W. M. WIND O W (EX I S T I N G ) DOO R S (EXI S T I N G ) WIND O W (EXI S T I N G ) WIND O W (EXI S T I N G ) DOO R S (EXI S T I N G ) WIND O W (EXI S T I N G ) WIND O W (EXI S T I N G ) WIND O W 1( : DOO R 1(: DOOR 1(: DOO R 1(: WIND O W (EX I S T I N G ) BEN C H / L O C K E R S BEN C H LINE N [1( : PANT R Y 22'-0 " 53'-0 " WIND O W 1(: 22'-0 " 6&$/( LINE OF THE FRONT OF ADJACENT LOT'S HOUSE PROPOSED GARAGE EXTENSION EXISTING DRIVEWAY/WALK EXISTING DRIVEWAY EXISTING FOOTPRINT TOTAL LOT S.F. PROPOSED HARDCOVER 4205 S.F. (48.79%) EXISTING HARDCOVER BREAKDOWN 2068 HOUSE FRONT PATIO & WALK 213 REAR PATIO 1255 DRIVEWAY (INSIDE LOT LINE) 5 FRONT PILLARS A/C PAD 490 ADDITION 5H V L G H Q F H I R U ) ( 5 1 ' $ / ( 5 ' : 9 $ 5 , $ 1 & ( 6 ( 7 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W , W A Y Z A T A , M N 5 5 3 9 1 Plans prepared by Wade S.110 111 112 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - EXISTING1.0AB 1.1 2.1AB PROJECT DRAFTSMAN: INTERIOR DESIGN ASSISTANT: RAUSCHER & ASSOCITES: GENERAL CONTRACTOR: MAIN LEVEL PLAN - EXISTING ROOF PLAN - PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL -0- UPPER LEVEL -0- FINISHED LOWER LEVEL -0- -0-GARAGE TOTAL FINISHED SQ. FT.-0- SHERRY MELROE 612-886-3417 sherrym@trauscher.com 1. THESE DRAWINGS ARE THE INSTRUMENT OF SERVICE AND REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RAUSCHER & ASSOCIATES. THEY ARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED OR ALTERED IN AN WAY, NOR DISCLOSED OR ASSIGNED TO ANY THIRD PARTY WITHOUT THE EXPRESSED WRITTEN CONSENT OF RAUSCHER & ASSOCIATES. 2. VERIFY AND COORDINATE ALL CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. REPORT AND/OR REVIEW ALL QUESTIONS, DISCREPANCIES AND CONDITIONS W/ OWNER AND/OR A RAUSCHER & ASSOCIATES REPRESENTATIVE FOR DIRECTION OR APPROVAL PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH WORK. 3. MATERIAL SELECTIONS AND CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES SHALL COMPLY WITH 'STANDARD OF THE INDUSTRY' FOR CUSTOM FABRICATED RESIDENCES. 4. GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK CONFORMS TO ALL APPLICABLE CODES, COVENANTS, ORDINANCES, MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS AND BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE ENERGY CODE. 5. SEE ALSO BUILDING SECTIONS AND DETAILS NOTED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 6. WINDOW MANUFACTURER TO SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS FOR ALL CUSTOM ARCHTOP WINDOW UNITS SHOWN (IF APPLICABLE) TO CONTRACTOR AND/OR RAUSCHER & ASSOCIATES PRIOR TO FRAMING ROUGH OPENINGS OF SAME. 7. ALL SOILS, MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, FOUNDATION, FLOOR/ROOF TRUSS, GIRDER AND LVL BEAM DESIGN AND THE ENGINEERING OF SYSTEM, SIZES AND ANY LAYOUTS SHALL BE BY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE RESPECTIVE SUB-CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUPPLIER OF THOSE SYSTEMS OR BY OTHER NECESSARY CONSULTANTS AND SHALL BE COORDINATED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. INFORMATION SHOWN IN REGARD TO THESE CONCERNS IS ONLY SCHEMATIC AND IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE DESIGN INTENT ONLY. ANY MAJOR ALTERATIONS THAT AFFECT THE OVERALL DESIGN SHALL BE REVIEWED W/ RAUSCHER & ASSOCIATES FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH WORK. 8. ROOF, FLOOR AND GIRDER TRUSS CONFIGURATIONS AND LOCATIONS TO BE VERIFIED WITH TRUSS MANUFACTURER AND COORDINATED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AS TO PROVIDE PROPER BEARING AS REQUIRED. PLANS INDICATE ASSUMED LOCATIONS ONLY AND ARE TO BE VERIFIED WITH THE RESPECTIVE SUB-CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUPPLIER OF THOSE SYSTEMS. 9. RAUSCHER & ASSOCIATES ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE STRUCTURAL INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHERS AND MUST BE VERIFIED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 10. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, DIMENSIONS ARE FROM FACE OF OR CENTER OF WALL STUDS, CENTERLINE OF BEAM MEMBERS, FACE OF ROUGH CONCRETE SURFACES, I.C.F. FORMS OR MASONRY. EXTERIOR FACE DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE EXTERIOR FACE OF WALL STUDS, NOT TO FACE OF SHEATHING. DO NOT SCALE OFF DRAWINGS. IF DIMENSIONAL INFO IS MISSING OR UNCLEAR CONTACT PROJECT DRAFTSMAN FOR CLARIFICATION. 11. ALL POTENTIAL CONTRACTORS SHALL THOROUGHLY FAMILIARIZE THEMSELVES WITH THE PROJECT AND JOB CONDITIONS PRIOR TO BIDDING TO INSURE THEY UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE OF WORK. ANY CONDITIONS THAT ARE NOT CLEAR OR THAT ARE DIFFERENT THAN REQUIRED BY CODE SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF RAUSCHER & ASSOCIATES PRIOR TO BIDDING THE WORK. 12. NOTIFY RAUSCHER & ASSOCIATES BEFORE ANY CHANGES IN CONSTRUCTION. TITLE SHEETT1 2.3WADE SCHMIDT 612-208-0454 wade@trauscher.com @ AT ABV. ABOVE A/C AIR CONDITIONER A.F.F. ABOVE FINISHED FLOOR A.S.F. ABOVE SUB-FLOOR ALUM. ALUMINUM AL. TH. ALUMINUM THRESHOLD BLDG. BUILDING BLKG. BLOCKING BM. BEAM B.O. BOTTOM OF BRG. BEARING ℄CENTERLINE C.J. CONTROL JOINT CLG. CEILING C.M.U. CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT C.O. CASED OPENING CONC. CONCRETE CONT. CONTINUOUS C.T. CERAMIC TILE C.T.O. CERAMIC TILE OPENING D.DEEP / DEPTH DN.DOWN DR.DOOR D.S. DOWNSPOUT DWG. DRAWING E.I.F.S. EXTERIOR INSULATION FINISHING SYSTEM ELEV. ELEVATION E.P.S. EXPANDED POLY-STYRENE FOAM EQ.EQUAL EXIST. EXISTING EXT. EXTERIOR F.D. FLOOR DRAIN FIN. FL. FINISHED FLOOR FLR. FLOOR FTG. FOOTING GA.GAUGE GALV. GALVANIZED G.O. GYPSUM OPENING GYP. BD. GYPSUM BOARD H.HIGH / HEIGHT H.B. HOSE BIB HDR. HEADER HORIZ. HORIZONTAL INSUL. INSULATION INT. INTERIOR L.LONG / LENGTH LAV. LAVATORY LNTL. LINTEL L.O. LOOK-OUT MAX. MAXIMUM M.C. MEDICINE CABINET MIN. MINIMUM M.O. MASONRY OPENING M.R. MOISTURE RESISTANT M.R.O. MASONRY ROUGH OPENING MTL. METAL N.I.C. NOT IN CONTRACT N.T.S. NOT TO SCALE O.C. ON CENTER O.H. OVERHEAD OPG. OPENING PCT. PERCENT PLYWD. PLYWOOD PR.PAIR P.S.P. POWER SHADE POCKET P.T. PRESSURE TREATED PTD. PAINTED RAD. RADIUS R.C.H. ROUGH CEILING HEIGHT REINF. REINFORCING REQ. REQUIRED R.M.O. ROUGH MASONRY OPENING R.O. ROUGH OPENING S&R SHELF & ROD S.C. SOLID CORE S.D. SMOKE DETECTOR S.F. SQUARE FEET SH.SHELVES SIM. SIMILAR S.S. STAINLESS STEEL STL. STEEL STR. STRUCTURAL S.V.A. SOIL VENT PIPE T&B TOP & BOTTOM T&G TONGUE & GROOVE THK. THICK TMPRD. TEMPERED T.O. TOP OF T.O.R.O. TOP OF ROUGH OPENING TYP. TYPICAL U.N.O. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE U.R. UNDER-COUNTER REFRIGERATOR VAC. VACUUM SYSTEM V.B. VAPOR BARRIER V.T.R. VENT THROUGH ROOF W.WIDE / WIDTH W.C. WATER CLOSET WD. WOOD W.H. WATER HEATER W.O. WALK-OUT WP. WALLPAPER W.R.B. WATER RESISTIVE BARRIER W.W.F. WELDED WIRE FABRIC TOTAL LOT SF 8618 TOTAL HARDCOVER 4205 TOTAL HARDCOVER %48.79% HOUSE 2068 FRONT CONCRETE PATIO 166 REAR CONCRETE PATIO 213 BUILDING COVERAGE 2460 EXTERIOR ELEVATION - PROPOSED1.0 1.1AB EXTERIOR ELEVATION - EXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATION - PROPOSED 2.1 MAIN LEVEL PLAN - PROPOSED 2.2AB UPPER LEVEL PLAN - EXISTING 2.2 UPPER LEVEL PLAN - PROPOSED ROOF PLAN - EXISTING2.3AB EXISTING SURVEYSITE1 PROPOSED SURVEYSITE2 SURVEY - COLOR & PARKING DIAGRAMSITE3 EXTERIOR SKETCHUP VIEWSR1 GOOGLE EARTH OVERLAY VIEWSR2 DRIVEWAY PILLARS 1745 5 A/C PAD 8 TOTAL LOT SF 8618 TOTAL HARDCOVER 4205 TOTAL HARDCOVER %48.79% HOUSE 2068 FRONT CONCRETE PATIO 166 REAR CONCRETE PATIO 213 TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE 2950 DRIVEWAY PILLARS 1745 5 A/C PAD 8 PROPOSED ADDITION 490 BUILDING COVERAGE % (EXISTING)28.54% BUILDING COVERAGE % (EXISTING)28.54% *LOTS UNDER 10000 SF ALLOWED 2000 SF BUILDING COVERAGE Re s i d e n c e f o r : 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W - V A R I A N C E S E T 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W , W A Y Z A T A , M N 5 5 3 9 1 Plans prepared by Wade S. 11 3 7' 0 " UPPER LEVEL PLATE HGT. (9'-4 1/2") UPPER LEVEL WINDOW HDR. UPPER LEVEL SUB-FLOOR (11 7/8" FLOOR JOISTS) MAIN LEVEL PLATE HGT. (10'-4 1/2") MAIN LEVEL WINDOW HDR. T.O. MAIN LEVEL SLAB T.O. GARAGE SLAB (100.00) T.O. GARAGE FTG. (96.00) 10 ' 1 1 / 8 " 1' 5 / 8 " 7' 0 " 8' 1 1 / 8 " 8 1 / 8 " 4' 0 " T.O. HIGHEST EXISTING RIDGE HGT. 1.0AB 1 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING ELEVATION - FRONT (STREET SIDE) 1.0AB 2 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING ELEVATION - RIGHT (ADJACENT PROPERTY SIDE) MAIN LEVEL WINDOW HDR. 9' 0 " 7' 0 " UPPER LEVEL PLATE HGT. (9'-4 1/2") UPPER LEVEL WINDOW HDR. UPPER LEVEL SUB-FLOOR (11 7/8" FLOOR JOISTS) MAIN LEVEL PLATE HGT. (10'-4 1/2") MAIN LEVEL WINDOW HDR. T.O. MAIN LEVEL SLAB T.O. GARAGE SLAB (100.00) T.O. GARAGE FTG. (96.00) 10 ' 1 1 / 8 " 1' 5 / 8 " 7' 0 " 8' 1 1 / 8 " 8 1 / 8 " 4' 0 " T.O. HIGHEST EXISTING RIDGE HGT. MAIN LEVEL WINDOW HDR. 9' 0 " May 20, 2026 Plans Prepared by Wade S. 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W - V A R I A N C E S E T Re s i d e n c e f o r : 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W . W A Y Z A T A , M N 5 5 3 9 1 IS S U E D F O R : 3- 3 1 - 2 0 2 6 PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A N S RAU S C H E R & ASS O C I A T E S FI N E H O M E D E S I G N A N D I N T E R I O R S 27 5 M A R K E T S T R E E T • S T E 5 0 1 MI N N E A P O L I S • M N • 5 5 4 0 5 61 2 . 3 5 3 . 6 9 4 0 • F A X 6 1 2 . 3 5 4 . 3 4 1 3 RA U S C H E R & A S S O C I A T E S © 2 0 2 6 Th e s e p l a n s o r d r a w i n g s , t h e o v e r a l l f o r m , a r r a n g e m e n t a n d co m p o s i t i o n o f s p a c e s a n d t h e e l e m e n t s i n t h e d e s i g n , a r e t h e ex c l u s i v e c o p y r i g h t e d p r o p e r t y o f R a u s c h e r & A s s o c i a t e s , L t d pr o t e c t e d b y u n i t e d s t a t e s c o p y r i g h t l a w . A l l r i g h t s a r e r e s e r v e d . An y u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e o f t h e s e p l a n s i s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . D o n o t co p y , o r a l l o w t h e s e p l a n s t o b e c o p i e d . T h e s e p l a n s o r d r a w i n g s co n t a i n c o n f i d e n t i a l , p r o p r i e t a r y a n d t r a d e s e c r e t i n f o r m a t i o n . Vi o l a t o r s w i l l b e s u b j e c t t o l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s t o r e c o v e r a l l d a m a g e s . 1.0AB PAGE DATE PR E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 5- 2 0 - 2 0 2 6 VA R I A N C E P A C K A G E 114 1.0 1 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" PROPOSED ELEVATION - FRONT (STREET SIDE) 1.0 2 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" PROPOSED ELEVATION - RIGHT (ADJACENT PROPERTY SIDE) 7' 0 " UPPER LEVEL PLATE HGT. (9'-4 1/2") UPPER LEVEL WINDOW HDR. UPPER LEVEL SUB-FLOOR (11 7/8" FLOOR JOISTS) MAIN LEVEL PLATE HGT. (10'-4 1/2") MAIN LEVEL WINDOW HDR. T.O. MAIN LEVEL SLAB T.O. GARAGE SLAB (100.00) T.O. GARAGE FTG. (96.00) 10 ' 1 1 / 8 " 1' 5 / 8 " 7' 0 " 8' 1 1 / 8 " 8 1 / 8 " 4' 0 " T.O. HIGHEST EXISTING RIDGE HGT. MAIN LEVEL WINDOW HDR. 9' 0 " 7' 0 " UPPER LEVEL PLATE HGT. (9'-4 1/2") UPPER LEVEL WINDOW HDR. UPPER LEVEL SUB-FLOOR (11 7/8" FLOOR JOISTS) MAIN LEVEL PLATE HGT. (10'-4 1/2") MAIN LEVEL WINDOW HDR. T.O. MAIN LEVEL SLAB T.O. GARAGE SLAB (100.00) T.O. GARAGE FTG. (96.00) 10 ' 1 1 / 8 " 1' 5 / 8 " 7' 0 " 8' 1 1 / 8 " 8 1 / 8 " 4' 0 " T.O. HIGHEST EXISTING RIDGE HGT. MAIN LEVEL WINDOW HDR. 9' 0 " May 20, 2026 Plans Prepared by Wade S. 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W - V A R I A N C E S E T Re s i d e n c e f o r : 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W . W A Y Z A T A , M N 5 5 3 9 1 IS S U E D F O R : 3- 3 1 - 2 0 2 6 PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A N S RAU S C H E R & ASS O C I A T E S FI N E H O M E D E S I G N A N D I N T E R I O R S 27 5 M A R K E T S T R E E T • S T E 5 0 1 MI N N E A P O L I S • M N • 5 5 4 0 5 61 2 . 3 5 3 . 6 9 4 0 • F A X 6 1 2 . 3 5 4 . 3 4 1 3 RA U S C H E R & A S S O C I A T E S © 2 0 2 6 Th e s e p l a n s o r d r a w i n g s , t h e o v e r a l l f o r m , a r r a n g e m e n t a n d co m p o s i t i o n o f s p a c e s a n d t h e e l e m e n t s i n t h e d e s i g n , a r e t h e ex c l u s i v e c o p y r i g h t e d p r o p e r t y o f R a u s c h e r & A s s o c i a t e s , L t d pr o t e c t e d b y u n i t e d s t a t e s c o p y r i g h t l a w . A l l r i g h t s a r e r e s e r v e d . An y u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e o f t h e s e p l a n s i s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . D o n o t co p y , o r a l l o w t h e s e p l a n s t o b e c o p i e d . T h e s e p l a n s o r d r a w i n g s co n t a i n c o n f i d e n t i a l , p r o p r i e t a r y a n d t r a d e s e c r e t i n f o r m a t i o n . Vi o l a t o r s w i l l b e s u b j e c t t o l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s t o r e c o v e r a l l d a m a g e s . 1.0 PAGE DATE PR E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 5- 2 0 - 2 0 2 6 VA R I A N C E P A C K A G E LINE OF EXISTING FRONT PROFILE OF HOUSE PROPOSED GARAGE ADDITION AREA 115 1.1AB 1 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING ELEVATION - REAR (LAKESIDE) 1.1AB 2 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING ELEVATION - LEFT (EMPTY LOT SIDE) 7' 0 " UPPER LEVEL PLATE HGT. (9'-4 1/2") UPPER LEVEL WINDOW HDR. UPPER LEVEL SUB-FLOOR (11 7/8" FLOOR JOISTS) MAIN LEVEL PLATE HGT. (10'-4 1/2") MAIN LEVEL WINDOW HDR. T.O. MAIN LEVEL SLAB T.O. GARAGE SLAB (100.00) T.O. GARAGE FTG. (96.00) 10 ' 1 1 / 8 " 1' 5 / 8 " 7' 0 " 8' 1 1 / 8 " 8 1 / 8 " 4' 0 " T.O. HIGHEST EXISTING RIDGE HGT. MAIN LEVEL WINDOW HDR. 9' 0 " 7' 0 " UPPER LEVEL PLATE HGT. (9'-4 1/2") UPPER LEVEL WINDOW HDR. UPPER LEVEL SUB-FLOOR (11 7/8" FLOOR JOISTS) MAIN LEVEL PLATE HGT. (10'-4 1/2") MAIN LEVEL WINDOW HDR. T.O. MAIN LEVEL SLAB T.O. GARAGE SLAB (100.00) T.O. GARAGE FTG. (96.00) 10 ' 1 1 / 8 " 1' 5 / 8 " 7' 0 " 8' 1 1 / 8 " 8 1 / 8 " 4' 0 " T.O. HIGHEST EXISTING RIDGE HGT. MAIN LEVEL WINDOW HDR. 9' 0 " May 20, 2026 Plans Prepared by Wade S. 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W - V A R I A N C E S E T Re s i d e n c e f o r : 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W . W A Y Z A T A , M N 5 5 3 9 1 IS S U E D F O R : 3- 3 1 - 2 0 2 6 PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A N S RAU S C H E R & ASS O C I A T E S FI N E H O M E D E S I G N A N D I N T E R I O R S 27 5 M A R K E T S T R E E T • S T E 5 0 1 MI N N E A P O L I S • M N • 5 5 4 0 5 61 2 . 3 5 3 . 6 9 4 0 • F A X 6 1 2 . 3 5 4 . 3 4 1 3 RA U S C H E R & A S S O C I A T E S © 2 0 2 6 Th e s e p l a n s o r d r a w i n g s , t h e o v e r a l l f o r m , a r r a n g e m e n t a n d co m p o s i t i o n o f s p a c e s a n d t h e e l e m e n t s i n t h e d e s i g n , a r e t h e ex c l u s i v e c o p y r i g h t e d p r o p e r t y o f R a u s c h e r & A s s o c i a t e s , L t d pr o t e c t e d b y u n i t e d s t a t e s c o p y r i g h t l a w . A l l r i g h t s a r e r e s e r v e d . An y u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e o f t h e s e p l a n s i s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . D o n o t co p y , o r a l l o w t h e s e p l a n s t o b e c o p i e d . T h e s e p l a n s o r d r a w i n g s co n t a i n c o n f i d e n t i a l , p r o p r i e t a r y a n d t r a d e s e c r e t i n f o r m a t i o n . Vi o l a t o r s w i l l b e s u b j e c t t o l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s t o r e c o v e r a l l d a m a g e s . 1.1AB PAGE DATE PR E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 5- 2 0 - 2 0 2 6 VA R I A N C E P A C K A G E 116 1.1 1 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" PROPOSED ELEVATION - REAR (LAKESIDE) 1.1 2 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" PROPOSED ELEVATION - LEFT (EMPTY LOT SIDE) 7' 0 " UPPER LEVEL PLATE HGT. (9'-4 1/2") UPPER LEVEL WINDOW HDR. UPPER LEVEL SUB-FLOOR (11 7/8" FLOOR JOISTS) MAIN LEVEL PLATE HGT. (10'-4 1/2") MAIN LEVEL WINDOW HDR. T.O. MAIN LEVEL SLAB T.O. GARAGE SLAB (100.00) T.O. GARAGE FTG. (96.00) 10 ' 1 1 / 8 " 1' 5 / 8 " 7' 0 " 8' 1 1 / 8 " 8 1 / 8 " 4' 0 " T.O. HIGHEST EXISTING RIDGE HGT. MAIN LEVEL WINDOW HDR. 9' 0 " 7' 0 " UPPER LEVEL PLATE HGT. (9'-4 1/2") UPPER LEVEL WINDOW HDR. UPPER LEVEL SUB-FLOOR (11 7/8" FLOOR JOISTS) MAIN LEVEL PLATE HGT. (10'-4 1/2") MAIN LEVEL WINDOW HDR. T.O. MAIN LEVEL SLAB T.O. GARAGE SLAB (100.00) T.O. GARAGE FTG. (96.00) 10 ' 1 1 / 8 " 1' 5 / 8 " 7' 0 " 8' 1 1 / 8 " 8 1 / 8 " 4' 0 " T.O. HIGHEST EXISTING RIDGE HGT. MAIN LEVEL WINDOW HDR. 9' 0 " May 20, 2026 Plans Prepared by Wade S. 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W - V A R I A N C E S E T Re s i d e n c e f o r : 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W . W A Y Z A T A , M N 5 5 3 9 1 IS S U E D F O R : 3- 3 1 - 2 0 2 6 PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A N S RAU S C H E R & ASS O C I A T E S FI N E H O M E D E S I G N A N D I N T E R I O R S 27 5 M A R K E T S T R E E T • S T E 5 0 1 MI N N E A P O L I S • M N • 5 5 4 0 5 61 2 . 3 5 3 . 6 9 4 0 • F A X 6 1 2 . 3 5 4 . 3 4 1 3 RA U S C H E R & A S S O C I A T E S © 2 0 2 6 Th e s e p l a n s o r d r a w i n g s , t h e o v e r a l l f o r m , a r r a n g e m e n t a n d co m p o s i t i o n o f s p a c e s a n d t h e e l e m e n t s i n t h e d e s i g n , a r e t h e ex c l u s i v e c o p y r i g h t e d p r o p e r t y o f R a u s c h e r & A s s o c i a t e s , L t d pr o t e c t e d b y u n i t e d s t a t e s c o p y r i g h t l a w . A l l r i g h t s a r e r e s e r v e d . An y u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e o f t h e s e p l a n s i s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . D o n o t co p y , o r a l l o w t h e s e p l a n s t o b e c o p i e d . T h e s e p l a n s o r d r a w i n g s co n t a i n c o n f i d e n t i a l , p r o p r i e t a r y a n d t r a d e s e c r e t i n f o r m a t i o n . Vi o l a t o r s w i l l b e s u b j e c t t o l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s t o r e c o v e r a l l d a m a g e s . 1.1 PAGE DATE PR E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 5- 2 0 - 2 0 2 6 VA R I A N C E P A C K A G E LINE OF EXISTING FRONT PROFILE OF HOUSE PROPOSED GARAGE ADDITION AREA 117 ### CLG. HGT. 10'-0" ### CLG. HGT. 10'-0" ### CLG. HGT. 10'-0" ### CLG. HGT. 10'-0" 16 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " . H . . ###### CLG. HGT. 8'-6" ### CLG. HGT. 10'-0" ###### CLG. HGT. 10'-0" 6" . SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" Re s i d e n c e f o r : 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W - V A R I A N C E S E T 11 0 1 E A L E A A T A 1 S. 11 8 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" ### CLG. HGT. 10'-0" ### CLG. HGT. 10'-0" ### CLG. HGT. 10'-0" 16 ' - 0 " x 8 ' - 0 " . H . . (N E W ) ###### CLG. HGT. 8'-6" ### CLG. HGT. 10'-0" ###### CLG. HGT. 10'-0" 36 " . .W.. ..... WN W (E S T N G ) S (E S T N G ) WN W (E S T N G ) WNW (ESTNG) S (E S T N G ) WN W (E S T N G ) WN W (E S T N G ) WNW (NEW)(NEW)(NEW)(NEW) WN W (E S T N G ) ###EN C H / L C E S EN C H LNEN x36 8 0 (NEW) ANT '-0"61'-8" 83'-8" 38 ' - 8 " 3'-0"30'-8" 83'-8" 38 ' - 8 " WNW (NEW) 1.TCAL WNW/ HEAE T E () 10'S NLESS NTE THEWSE - GH HEAE HGT. T E 8'- 3/4". ASSE (1) TE HEAE LENGTHS LESS THAN '-0" () TES HEAE LENGTHS '-0" GEATE NLESS NTE THEWSE. . NLESS NTE THEWSE ENSNS AE CENTE ACE ANG. ETE ACE ENSNS AE T ETE ACE ST NT T ACE SHEATHNG. NT SCALE THE AWNGS. ENSNAL NATN S SSNG NCLEA CNTACT ECT ATSAN CLACATN. NCATES NEW AE LA EANG WALLS NCATES NEW AE NN-LA EANG WALLS NCATES ESTNG AE WALLS T EAN NCATES ESTNG CNST. T E EE Re s i d e n c e f o r : 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W - V A R I A N C E S E T 11 0 1 E N A L E W W A A T A N 3 1 W S. 11 9 30"x60" 30"x60" D W ... SALE 1"10" Re s i d e n c e f o r : 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W - V A R I A N C E S E T 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W , W A Y Z A T A , M N 5 5 3 9 1 Plans prepared by Wade S. 12 0 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" . W ### ### ### ### ###### ### ### ###### x30 7 0 PKT. (NEW) SE A T ( N E W ) WNW (ESTN) WNW (ESTN) WNW (ESTN) WNW (ESTN) WNW (ESTN) WNW (ESTN T E EE) WNW (NEW) WN W (N E W ) WN W (N E W ) WNW (NEW) WNW (NEW) WNW (ESTN) WNW (ESTN E) WN W (N E W ) WNW (NEW) WN W (N E W ) WN W (N E W ) WN W (N E W ) ### LNEN (NEW) EC. (NEW)KS (NEW) ### WN W (E S T N ) WN W (E S T N ) WN W (E S T N ) WN W (E S T N ) S (ESTN) WN W (E S T N ) WN W (E S T N ) WN W (E S T N T E E E ) ### S (E S T N ) WN W (E S T N ) WNW (NEW) WNW (NEW) 3"x0" 1.TPCAL WNW/ EAE T E () 10'S NLESS NTE TEWSE - EAE T. T E '-11 3/". ASSE (1) TE EAE LENTS LESS TAN '-0" () TES EAE LENTS '-0" EATE NLESS NTE TEWSE. . NLESS NTE TEWSE ENSNS AE CENTE ACE AN. ETE ACE ENSNS AE T ETE ACE ST NT T ACE SEATN. NT SCALE TE AWNS. ENSNAL NATN S SSN NCLEA CNTACT PECT ATSAN CLACATN. NCATES NEW AE LA EAN WALLS NCATES NEW AE NN-LA EAN WALLS NCATES ESTN AE WALLS T EAN NCATES ESTN CNST. T E EE Re s i d e n c e f o r : 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W - V A R I A N C E S E T 11 0 1 E N A L E W W A A T A N 3 1 P W S. 12 1 2.3AB 1 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" EXISTING ROOF PLAN May 20, 2026 Plans Prepared by Wade S. 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W - V A R I A N C E S E T Re s i d e n c e f o r : 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W . W A Y Z A T A , M N 5 5 3 9 1 IS S U E D F O R : 3- 3 1 - 2 0 2 6 PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A N S RAU S C H E R & ASS O C I A T E S FI N E H O M E D E S I G N A N D I N T E R I O R S 27 5 M A R K E T S T R E E T • S T E 5 0 1 MI N N E A P O L I S • M N • 5 5 4 0 5 61 2 . 3 5 3 . 6 9 4 0 • F A X 6 1 2 . 3 5 4 . 3 4 1 3 RA U S C H E R & A S S O C I A T E S © 2 0 2 6 Th e s e p l a n s o r d r a w i n g s , t h e o v e r a l l f o r m , a r r a n g e m e n t a n d co m p o s i t i o n o f s p a c e s a n d t h e e l e m e n t s i n t h e d e s i g n , a r e t h e ex c l u s i v e c o p y r i g h t e d p r o p e r t y o f R a u s c h e r & A s s o c i a t e s , L t d pr o t e c t e d b y u n i t e d s t a t e s c o p y r i g h t l a w . A l l r i g h t s a r e r e s e r v e d . An y u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e o f t h e s e p l a n s i s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . D o n o t co p y , o r a l l o w t h e s e p l a n s t o b e c o p i e d . T h e s e p l a n s o r d r a w i n g s co n t a i n c o n f i d e n t i a l , p r o p r i e t a r y a n d t r a d e s e c r e t i n f o r m a t i o n . Vi o l a t o r s w i l l b e s u b j e c t t o l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s t o r e c o v e r a l l d a m a g e s . 2.3AB PAGE DATE PR E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 5- 2 0 - 2 0 2 6 VA R I A N C E P A C K A G E 6/12 6/12 6/12 6/12 6/12 12 / 1 2 12 / 1 2 12 / 1 2 12 / 1 2 12 / 1 2 12 / 1 2 DE C K 122 2.3 1 SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" PROPOSED ROOF PLAN May 20, 2026 Plans Prepared by Wade S. 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W - V A R I A N C E S E T Re s i d e n c e f o r : 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W . W A Y Z A T A , M N 5 5 3 9 1 IS S U E D F O R : 3- 3 1 - 2 0 2 6 PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A N S RAU S C H E R & ASS O C I A T E S FI N E H O M E D E S I G N A N D I N T E R I O R S 27 5 M A R K E T S T R E E T • S T E 5 0 1 MI N N E A P O L I S • M N • 5 5 4 0 5 61 2 . 3 5 3 . 6 9 4 0 • F A X 6 1 2 . 3 5 4 . 3 4 1 3 RA U S C H E R & A S S O C I A T E S © 2 0 2 6 Th e s e p l a n s o r d r a w i n g s , t h e o v e r a l l f o r m , a r r a n g e m e n t a n d co m p o s i t i o n o f s p a c e s a n d t h e e l e m e n t s i n t h e d e s i g n , a r e t h e ex c l u s i v e c o p y r i g h t e d p r o p e r t y o f R a u s c h e r & A s s o c i a t e s , L t d pr o t e c t e d b y u n i t e d s t a t e s c o p y r i g h t l a w . A l l r i g h t s a r e r e s e r v e d . An y u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e o f t h e s e p l a n s i s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . D o n o t co p y , o r a l l o w t h e s e p l a n s t o b e c o p i e d . T h e s e p l a n s o r d r a w i n g s co n t a i n c o n f i d e n t i a l , p r o p r i e t a r y a n d t r a d e s e c r e t i n f o r m a t i o n . Vi o l a t o r s w i l l b e s u b j e c t t o l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s t o r e c o v e r a l l d a m a g e s . 2.3 PAGE DATE PR E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 5- 2 0 - 2 0 2 6 VA R I A N C E P A C K A G E 6/12 6/12 6/12 6/12 6/12 12 / 1 2 12 / 1 2 12 / 1 2 12 / 1 2 12 / 1 2 12 / 1 2 DE C K 4/ 1 2 4/ 1 2 6/12 6/12 6/12 6/12 LINE OF EXISTING FRONT PROFILE OF HOUSE 123 May 20, 2026 Plans Prepared by Wade S. 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W - V A R I A N C E S E T Re s i d e n c e f o r : 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W . W A Y Z A T A , M N 5 5 3 9 1 IS S U E D F O R : 3- 3 1 - 2 0 2 6 PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A N S RAU S C H E R & ASS O C I A T E S FI N E H O M E D E S I G N A N D I N T E R I O R S 27 5 M A R K E T S T R E E T • S T E 5 0 1 MI N N E A P O L I S • M N • 5 5 4 0 5 61 2 . 3 5 3 . 6 9 4 0 • F A X 6 1 2 . 3 5 4 . 3 4 1 3 RA U S C H E R & A S S O C I A T E S © 2 0 2 6 Th e s e p l a n s o r d r a w i n g s , t h e o v e r a l l f o r m , a r r a n g e m e n t a n d co m p o s i t i o n o f s p a c e s a n d t h e e l e m e n t s i n t h e d e s i g n , a r e t h e ex c l u s i v e c o p y r i g h t e d p r o p e r t y o f R a u s c h e r & A s s o c i a t e s , L t d pr o t e c t e d b y u n i t e d s t a t e s c o p y r i g h t l a w . A l l r i g h t s a r e r e s e r v e d . An y u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e o f t h e s e p l a n s i s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . D o n o t co p y , o r a l l o w t h e s e p l a n s t o b e c o p i e d . T h e s e p l a n s o r d r a w i n g s co n t a i n c o n f i d e n t i a l , p r o p r i e t a r y a n d t r a d e s e c r e t i n f o r m a t i o n . Vi o l a t o r s w i l l b e s u b j e c t t o l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s t o r e c o v e r a l l d a m a g e s . R1 PAGE DATE PR E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 5- 2 0 - 2 0 2 6 VA R I A N C E P A C K A G E R1 1 NOT TO SCALE FRONT PERSPECTIVE - EXISTING R1 2 NOT TO SCALE FRONT PERSPECTIVE - OVERLAY R1 3 NOT TO SCALE FRONT PERSPECTIVE - PROPOSED R1 4 NOT TO SCALE FRONT PERSPECTIVE - EXISTING R1 5 NOT TO SCALE FRONT PERSPECTIVE - OVERLAY R1 6 NOT TO SCALE FRONT PERSPECTIVE - PROPOSED 124 May 20, 2026 Plans Prepared by Wade S. 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W - V A R I A N C E S E T Re s i d e n c e f o r : 11 0 1 F E R N D A L E R D W . W A Y Z A T A , M N 5 5 3 9 1 IS S U E D F O R : 3- 3 1 - 2 0 2 6 PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A N S RAU S C H E R & ASS O C I A T E S FI N E H O M E D E S I G N A N D I N T E R I O R S 27 5 M A R K E T S T R E E T • S T E 5 0 1 MI N N E A P O L I S • M N • 5 5 4 0 5 61 2 . 3 5 3 . 6 9 4 0 • F A X 6 1 2 . 3 5 4 . 3 4 1 3 RA U S C H E R & A S S O C I A T E S © 2 0 2 6 Th e s e p l a n s o r d r a w i n g s , t h e o v e r a l l f o r m , a r r a n g e m e n t a n d co m p o s i t i o n o f s p a c e s a n d t h e e l e m e n t s i n t h e d e s i g n , a r e t h e ex c l u s i v e c o p y r i g h t e d p r o p e r t y o f R a u s c h e r & A s s o c i a t e s , L t d pr o t e c t e d b y u n i t e d s t a t e s c o p y r i g h t l a w . A l l r i g h t s a r e r e s e r v e d . An y u n a u t h o r i z e d u s e o f t h e s e p l a n s i s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . D o n o t co p y , o r a l l o w t h e s e p l a n s t o b e c o p i e d . T h e s e p l a n s o r d r a w i n g s co n t a i n c o n f i d e n t i a l , p r o p r i e t a r y a n d t r a d e s e c r e t i n f o r m a t i o n . Vi o l a t o r s w i l l b e s u b j e c t t o l e g a l p r o c e e d i n g s t o r e c o v e r a l l d a m a g e s . R2 PAGE DATE PR E L I M I N A R Y - N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 5- 2 0 - 2 0 2 6 VA R I A N C E P A C K A G E R2 1 NOT TO SCALE GOOGLE EARTH - COMPOSITE ILLUSTRATION - EXISTING R2 2 NOT TO SCALE GOOGLE EARTH - COMPOSITE ILLUSTRATION - PROPOSED 125 126 1 Melanie Curtis From:Chip Truwit <truwit@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 8, 2026 11:58 AM To:Melanie Curtis Subject:Re: easements Hi Melanie, Thanks for your email. Unfortunately, we are going to be out of town for the meeting. I think my email conveyed our concerns. I did share that email with Annie Lebedoff and her husband Mark Gensler. They're going to have to deal with a lot of utilities, and hopefully that won't be too disruptive for us, although I am sure it will be. I also know that there have been sinkholes in the past in front of the current garage; I imagine a new foundation will solve that. I still don't exactly see how this is going to work all that well. I really don't see how anyone is going to be able to back out of the new garage without backing into our driveway. The easement isn't really the issue. If someone is parked in our overflow spots, there's no chance to turn around there. Moreover, even if no one is parked there, I don't see how backing into that area really helps. There is not really enough room to back into that area and then pull a U turn to get out, especially with the large SUVs that Mark likes to drive.. The only option is to back into our driveway towards our garage. If someone is backing out of that part of the driveway, there is a good opportunity for two cars to back into each other. (Needless to say, this all would have been avoided had we been able to complete the circle when we were building. While I am not complaining about that, the point I should have made at the time was that the neighbors' concerns about headlights actually should have been supportive of the turnaround, as the headlights would only be seen once, when someone was arriving. When leaving, only the taillights would have been seen. Alas, it wasn't meant to be. You're welcome to add this to the previous email. Good luck. Chip Truwit Chip Truwit, MD 1-612-325-5956 On Mon, Jun 8, 2026 at 10:51 AM Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@oronomn.gov> wrote: Chip I apologize. I don’t see a record of my response to this email. Do you plan to submit official public comment on the Genslers’ variance application for 1101 Ferndale Road W, or would you like the email below included in the public record for the application? 127 2 Melanie Curtis Direct: 952.249.4627 mcurtis@oronomn.gov From: Chip Truwit <truwit@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 9:37 AM To: Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@oronomn.gov> Subject: easements Melanie, In searching for documents pertaining to 1105 and 1101 Ferndale Rd W, I have discovered that there are at least 2 easements, one pertaining to the use of the 1105 driveway to access 1101 (and perhaps crossing the NW corner of 1101 to access 1105) and another regarding utilities for 1105 (gas, sewer and cable, I think) that cross under the 1101 property, and specifically cross under the corner of the new garage, not to mention the overall construction/foundation envelope. I don't have copies of these that I can find. Do you know if Orono would have copies of these easements? I haven't heard back from Annie Lebedoff, so I still don't even know exactly what they are proposing: 1. are they planning on moving the utilities and if so, will the easement(s) need to be amended? 2. where are they planning to stage the construction materials? 3. where are the construction vehicles going to be parked? 4. if the owners are planning to use the house during construction, where are they going to be parking? 5. will they be repairing any damage to the driveway? 6. once completed, how are they expecting to get their cars out of the garage and turn around? 7. if they need to back out one car to access the car that is further into the garage, where are they planning to park the first car in order to back out the other car? 8. if they are planning to back any cars into the 1105 driveway (facing east at that point) in order to turn around and drive out of the driveway (facing the road) what are they proposing to mitigate any car from 1105 (either parked or driving) being hit by a car from 1101. One solution that I proposed when we were applying for the variance was to 128 3 create a turnaround on the lawn. You may recall that Mimi and Ben Rae raised concerns about headlights, which I found a bit confusing as the headlights would be less if the car went around the circle during the inbound and therefore was already turned around when leaving, as opposed to having to back up in order to turn around. Are the Gensler's proposing 1105 install that turnaround after all? I'm not clear that Orono would support that, let alone who would pay for that. We want to be good neighbors and are trying to be supportive, but as you can see, there are just a few questions for starters. Thanks. Chip Chip Truwit, MD 1-612-325-5956 129 130 0 l CIT"I't" Of ORONO RESOLLTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. .3540 A RESOLUTION GIU%NTING A VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C), SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISIONS 1 (B) AND 2 AND SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) FILE NO. 1997 IIEREAS, Jon Lebedoff and Sally Mitchell Lebedoff (hereinafter "the applicants") have an interest in the property located at 1101 Ferndale Road West within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: Tract 13, Registered Land Survey No. 902, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County of Hennepin, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"), and WHEREAS, the applicants have applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C), Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 (B) and 2 and Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit construction of a new principal structure on a property that is 8,481 s.f. in area where 87,120 s.f. or two acres is required, on a lot that measures 58' at the 75' setback and 72' measured in a straight line at the lakeshore where a 200' setback would be required. The structure is to be !ocated I' from the west side lot line where a 10' setback is required and structure will be located 42.5' from the street lot line where a 50' setback is required. Per Section 10.22, Subdivisions 1 (B), the residence structure will be located 20' from the main lake and 75' from the lagoon at the north side where a 75' se;',ack is required; per Section 10.22, Subdivision 2, hardcover within the 0-75' setback area is proposed at 3.800.2 s.f. or 52.6% where none is allowed and within the 75-250' setback area, hardcover is proposed at 861.3 s.f. or 67.8% where 25% is allowed and where 100 a exists; and per Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C) the new construction will require a structural coverage variance proposed at 2,345 s.f. or 27.6ro where 1,500 s.f. is allowed. Minnesota: NO%V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. FINDINGS Phis application was reviewed as Zoning File #1997. Page 1 of 6 131 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AO. 5 2. Tile property is located in the LR-lA Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring two acres in area. The property consists of 8.481 s. f of .19-1 acres. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on I:ebruary 22 199-3 and recommended approval of the variances as amended, based upon the following unique findings and hardships: A. Th • property is .19 acres and subject to 2 acre setbacl: standards. 13. The substandard parcel is subject to restrictive lakeshore setbacks at both the north and south sides. C. The property has been approved for sewer and assessed one sewer unit. I). The building/structural footprint has been reduced 168.8 s.1'. and total hardcover on the property has been reduced from 6V(" to 521" 1;. The structure cannot be moved closer to east lot line because of the 931.5 flood plain contour. The Orono Code does not allow excavations or filling within the flood plain. I:. The proposed improvement would be consistent with the recent improvements of older properties within the Nest Ferndale neighborhood. G. Per. Ceil Strauss' letter of Nlarch 20, 1995. the DNR will allow a 20, setback from the ma;.i lake for new construction because of the drainage pattern of the property. 4. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adversely af'I'ect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property: would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. Page2of6 132 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Y xE8HO4 5. The Cit} Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicant and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to the Municipal Zoning Code Sections listed above to permit the construction of 38.6' x 60' two story residence and granting approval of a 78.639 s.f. or 90.2% area variance, a lot width variance of both 71 c and 64%, west side lot line variance of 9' or 90°l0, a street setback variance of 7.5' or 15%a, lakeshore setback variance at the main lake of 55' or 73.3%. hardcover variance within the 0-75' setback area of 3,800.2 s.f. or 52.6% where none is allowed a hardcover variance within the 75-250' setback area of 544 s.f. or 42.8% and a structural coverage variance of 84.5 s.f. or 9.9%, subject to the following conditions: Upon application for a building permit. applicant shall provide detailed erading and drainage plans to ensure there is no impact upon the flood plain of Lake Minnetonka located at the 931.5 elevation. Erosion control shall be maintained on the property until all disturbed areas are restored to natural grottndcover. 2. All hardcover scheduled for removal as shown on page 6 of this resolution shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. 3. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property not with the applicants, but are permissive only and must he exercised by applicant presenting a complete application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council approval. or this variance will expire on that date (March 13, 1996).. 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constilule a violation of the Toning code. shall autontaticafly lerininate any authority granted herein, and shall he punishable as a ntisdeineanor. Page 3 of 6 133 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 S40 5. The undersigned applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the teens of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of March, 1995. n' -rEsT: Uorothy m. Ial ut, City Clerk ttt C.E I Iln ,e (y 0 ner (s) STATE OI' INIINNI--so-'A ) SS. COUNTY OI: HENNEPIN ) Personal Representative The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 13th day of March. 1995 by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. LINDA S. VEE NOTARY PIIBlIG1A1NNEW NENNERN COUNTY My Commission EMAS Jan. 31. 2= Notary Public Page 4 of G rw SM! DO C 134 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL S'1'A'1'I: OF 1VIINNESO'I'A sS. COUNTY OF IIENNEPIN ) On this S clay of . 199 S before me a Notary Public withinandfor said county,personally *eared Jon I,ebedoff and saitY ;ram si Lebedoff known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument. and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. oil frnal u.FL M 4 ir sa r.soao STATE 01: NlINNESOTA ) SS. COUNTY OF IIENNEPIN ) NOTARY PUBLIC On this jry" day of 1995 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared Robert G. Mitchell, ijr,, * known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument. and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert G. Mitchell, deceased, on behalf of the Estate, IMARY S. WIIw NO'CA B IC NOTARYNBUC - MINNESOTA IHENNEPIN COUNTY MCo wino-Eam an ».= Page 5 of Y.4%*006 Y 135 0 soTq VO7, ItA ro a a s 136 0 0 kE8H04/ CITYof ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 14 (C). SECTION 10.22, SUBDri'ISIONS I (B) AND 2 AND SECTION 10.23, SUBDIVISION 6 (B) FILE NO.2105 WHEREAS, Jon Lebedoff and Sally Mitchell Lebedoff (hereinafter "the applicants") have an interest in the property located at 1 101 Ferndale Road West within the City of Orono and legally described as follows: Tract B. Registered Land Survey No. 902. Files of the Registrar of Titles. County of Hennepin, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicants 1 ave applied to the City for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.03, Subdivision 14 (C). Section 10.22. Subdivision 1 (B) and'_' and Section 10.23, Subdivision 6 (B) to permit construction of a new residence on a property that is 8.481 sAr in area where 87.120 s.f. or two acres is required, on a lot that nteasur-s 58' at the 75' setback and 72' measured in a straight line at the shoreline %, here a 20' width is required. The structure is to be located F from the west side lot line where a 30' setback is required and 117 from the east side lot line wh.-re a 30' setback is required. The str.::ture %%il! be located 42.5' from the street lot line where a 50' setback is required. Per Section 10.22. Subdivision 1 (B), the residence structure will be located 20' from the main lake where a 75' setback is required but will maintain a 75' setback from the lagoon at the north side of the property. Per Section 10.22. Subdivision 2, hardcover within the 0-75' setback area is proposed at 3.800.2 s.f. or 516°10 where none is allowed and within the 75-2=0' setback area, hardcover is proposed at 861.3 s.f. or 67.8% «here 250r0" is allowed and where 1005b exists. Per Section 10.03. Subdivision 14 (C), the new construction will require a structural coverage variance proposed at 2.345 s.f. or 27.60io where 1.500 s.f. or 17.6% would be allowed. Minnesota: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono. FINDINGS Page 1 of 6 137 CITY of 4RON0 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6 1 This rene%%al %arias : application %%as reviewed as Zoning File -`? 105. 2. The Cite approved variances noted above in an earlier variance application revie%l based on the unique findings and hardships set forth in Resolution x= 5 40 of the City of Orono. The property is located in the LR-1 A Lakeshore Residential Zoning District requiring two acres in area. The property consists of 8,481 s.f. or .194 acres. 4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this renewal variance application on February 20. 1996 and recommended unanimous approval of the: -variances as proposed. based upon the followin'; unique findings and hardships: A. The property is .19 acres and subject to 2 acre setback standards. B. The substandard parcel is subject to restrictive lake shore setbacks at both the north and south sides of the property. C. The property is served and connected to municipal sewer. D. The building/structural footprint has been reduced by 168.8 s.f. or 2% and total hardcover on the property has been reduced from 690io to 54.9%. E. The structure cannot be moved closer to east lot line because of the location and impact of the 931.5 flood plain contour. The Orono Code does not allow excavations or filling within the flood plain. F. The proposed improvement would be consistent with the recent improvements of older properties within the West Ferndale neighborhood. G. Per Cell Strauss' letter of March 20, 1995, the DNR will allow a 20' setback from the main lake for new construction because of the drainage pattern of the property that drains over the grassed gravel yard area to the rear or lagoon area. Ms. Strauss has reconfirmed via the phone that she will not change her position with the renewal variance application. Paue 2 of 6 138 0 0 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL kE81Et04 NO. 3 60 1 4. The Cite Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district: that granting the variances would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty: is necessary t, •eserve a substantial property right of the applicants; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 5. The City Council has considered this application including the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, reports by City staff, comments by the applicants and the effect of the proposed variance on the health, safety and welfare of the community. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to the Municipal Zoning Code Sections listed above to permit the construction of a 38.6' x 60' two story residence and grants approval of a 78.639 s.f. or 90.2% area variance, a lot width variance of 14=' or 71% and 128' or 64%, west side lot line variance of 9' or 90%, an east side lot line variance of 18.3' or 61%, lakeshore setback variance at the main lake of 55' or 73.3%, hardcover variance within the 0-75' setback area of 3.800.2 s.f. or 52.6%. a hardcover variance within the 75- 250' setback area of 544 s.f. or 42.8% and a structural coverage variance of 845 s.f. or 9.9% subject to the following conditions: Upon application for a building permit. applicant shall provide final survey locating the approved structure at approved setbacks. Plans shall include a detailed grading and drainage plan to ensure no impact upon the flood plain of Lake IN-4innetonka 931.5 elevation). Erosion control shall be maintained on the property until all disturbed areas are restored to natural groundcover. 2. All hardcover improvements scheduled for removal as shw'%m on page 6 of this resolution shall be completed prior to the footing inspection for the new construction. This shall include the 1 areas that extend from the lake side of the existing residence and gravel do eas located within both the 0-75' and 75-250' setback areas. Page 3 of 6 139 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 0" Authorities cranted by this \ariance run \+ith the property not %\ith the applicants. but are permissive only and must be exercised by applicants presenting a complct. application for a building_ permit \ithin one year of the date of Council appro%al. or this \-ariance will expire on that date (;\larch 11, 1997). 4. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zonin!_ cc .. shall automaticall-, terminate am - authority uranted herein. and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 5. The undersiened applicants have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of thcroselyes. their heirs. suc-_essors and a.:siens. hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Nlinnesota at a regular meeting held on the I 1 th day of March. 1996. AT(EST: orothy M. al in. City Clerk Gab iel Jabbour. Aeti Mayor 6 LC r erty O•ner I s 1 Estate of Robert G. Mitchell STATE OF MI\1ESOTA ) SS. by: COL'1Tl' OF HE\-\EPI1 NZ&t G. Mitchell, Jr. Personal Representative The foregoing instrument \vas acknowledged before me on this i l th day of March. 1996 by G ibriel Jabbu::- and Doroth%. M. Hallin. ztim, Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Orono. a ;Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument gas executed nn behalf of the City. H TA Notary Publicj:CA1W,'L m nissim Ewa jr M. rw Pale 4 of 6 140 CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 3 6 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIti ) On this _K day of ,,, 199 6 before the a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared Jonathan G. Lebedoff and sarah M. Lebedof_f_ known to me to he the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknuwlzdged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF 14ENNEPIN ) On this &j day of 1994 before me a Notary Public within and forsaidcounty,personallyappeared Robert G. Mitchell, Jr.* known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free a:t and deed. Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert G. Mitchell, deceased, on behalf of the Estate, NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199 before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 5 of 6 141 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 1101 Ferndale 0 410 820205 Feet Date: 5/20/2026 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 142 38 02-117-23 34 0002 MARK ALLEN SALITERMAN BETH DENISE SALITERMAN 3059 JOPPA AVE ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 38 02-117-23 43 0007 GRIFFIN ALEXANDER DOOLING 1080 FERNDALE RD W ORONO MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0011 GRIFFIN ALEXANDER DOOLING 1080 FERNDALE RD W ORONO MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0015 SHORES FOR THREE LLC 275 BERGAMOT DRIVE MEDINA MN 55340 38 02-117-23 43 0020 NAME UNAVAILABLE 1101 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0021 LUCAS DETOR ELIZABETH DETOR 1065 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0023 WILLIAM F WANNER JR KATHLEEN A WANNER 1204 CHESTNUT AVE MINNEAPOLIS MN 55403 38 02-117-23 43 0025 JAMES C WYMAN KATHLYN R WYMAN 1185 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0026 ROBERT BROOK & SHARON QUINN 1165 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0029 CLSC LLC 8547 E ARAPAHOE RD UNIT # J366 GREENWOOD VILLAGE CO 80112 38 02-117-23 43 0031 DEAN & LAURA GESME 1070 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 43 0033 CHARLES L TRUWIT PAULA J PICARD 1105 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 44 0028 NATURE CONSERVANCY 1101 RIVER PKWY W STE 200 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 38 02-117-23 44 0029 EDWARD FEIWEN WANG 980 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 143 144 Adjacent Property Owner Form – January 2024 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we) _______________________________ of ____________________________________________ [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at _____________________ also referred to as Land Use Application No. ___________________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgment, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. ___________________________________________________________________________ Property Owner Date ___________________________________________________________________________ Property Owner Date ********************************************************************************************************************************* ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS’ ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we) _______________________________ of ____________________________________________ [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at _____________________ also referred to as Land Use Application No. ___________________. I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgment, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. ___________________________________________________________________________ Property Owner Date ___________________________________________________________________________ Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. 145 146 147 148 149 150 Date: June 15, 2026 Item: 5.5 Presenter: Melanie Curtis, Planner Section: Public Hearings Title: LA26-000020, HTG Architects o/b/o Orono Public School District 278 + Orono Hockey Association, 795 Old Crystal Bay Road North, Site Plan Review and Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 1.Purpose: This application contemplates site plan review for a 48,000 square foot building addition to the existing Morrison Arena. The application includes variances for hardcover, signage size, building height, number of parking spaces, and parking lot setback. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: This application was submitted on May 20 and deemed complete on May 21. The 60-day review timing will expire on July 20, 2026. 3.Background: The applicant proposes to construct a 48,000 square foot building addition to the existing Arena, which will contain a new 800-seat arena, new varsity locker rooms, and hockey training space. New parking areas will be created on site, and the available parking to serve the arena will be expanded through a shared parking agreement with the school district. A full site plan review and variance analysis is provided in the attached Planning Report (Exhibit A). 4.Public Comment: Public comment was received and is attached as Exhibit N. 5.Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Site Plan Review and associated Variances for building height, hardcover, signage, parking deficiency, and parking setback, subject to the following conditions: 1. All comments of the City Engineer shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. The applicant shall obtain all required approvals and permits from Hennepin County for the proposed CSAH 6 access connection. Any redesign of the parking or access may require additional study or supplemental analysis. 3. The applicant shall obtain all required approvals and permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding wetlands, stormwater, and erosion control. 4. A revised landscape plan, demonstrating enhanced year-round screening along the western property line. 5. A decorative fence, subject to staff approval, shall be installed along portions of the western property line as necessary to supplement landscape screening and protect the adjacent residential property. 6. Exterior lighting shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the submitted photometric plan. Lighting shall be shielded and directed away from adjacent residential properties. 7. The retaining wall located along the western property line shall be designed by a licensed AGENDA ITEM 151 professional engineer and incorporate architectural treatments acceptable to the City, if appropriate. 8. The applicant shall provide a sanitary sewer capacity analysis and complete any required sanitary sewer improvements identified by the City Engineer. 9. Final sign details shall substantially conform to the plans submitted with the application. Separate sign permits will be required. 6.Planning Commission Action Requested: Planning Commission should review and make a motion with a recommendation for approval with conditions for the site plan and variances. Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Report Exhibit B - Application Exhibit C - Project Narrative Exhibit D - Practical Difficulty Analysis Exhibit E - SURVEY Exhibit F - Hardcover Calcs staff annotated Exhibit G - ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN Exhibit H - SITE PLAN Exhibit I - GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN Exhibit J - LANDSCAPE PLAN Exhibit K - Building Plans Exhibit L - Lighting Exhibit M - SIGN PLAN Exhibit N - Neighbor Comments Exhibit O - OronoSchoolsCampusMap Exhibit P - Aerial Photos Exhibit Q - Arena Approval History Exhibit R - Map and List 152 Date Application Received: 05/20/2026 Date Application Considered as Complete: 05/21/2026 60-Day Review Period Expires: 07/20/2026 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 15 June 2026 Subject: #LA26-000020, HTG Architects o/b/o Orono Public School District 278 + Orono Hockey Association 795 Old Crystal Bay Road North Site Plan Review Variances: Hardcover, Building Height, Signage, Parking, and Parking Lot Setback Public Hearing About/History The Morrison Arena (“Arena”) was constructed in 1997. It sits on land owned by the Orono School District and leased to the Orono Ice Arena, Inc. on a long-term lease. The Orono Ice Arena was renamed in 2018 to the Morrison Arena after renovations. According to their website, the Arena offers one NHL-sized ice sheet, heated viewing areas, a pro shop, concessions, and community meeting spaces. There are six locker rooms, an officials’ room, and dryland facilities in the existing building. The Arena hosts a variety of programs, including the Orono Youth Hockey Association (OYHA), Orono Boys and Girls High School Hockey, 89ers AAA Hockey, and numerous hockey camps, schools, and clinics. Background Schools (on 15 or more acres) and structures accessory to a school, including indoor ice arenas, are permitted uses in the RR-1B zoning district. The OYHA purchased the abutting residential lot (the existing home and other improvements have been removed, which will be combined with the school campus to support the proposed expansion of the ice arena. According to the applicant’s narrative, they propose to construct a 48,000 square foot building addition to the existing Arena, which will contain a new 800-seat arena, new varsity locker rooms, as well as hockey training space. New parking areas will be created on site, and the available parking to serve the arena will be expanded through a shared parking agreement with the school district. This agreement provides additional parking for the high school during the day, as well as evening and weekend parking for the rinks. This site plan review application also includes variances for hardcover, signage size, building height, number of parking spaces, and parking lot setback. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the residential zoning requirements imposed on a nonresidential use, the topography, and size of the property 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 finds that practical difficulties exist due to circumstances unique to the property and the proposed use. The proposed addition must be physically connected to the existing arena while accommodating significant grade changes across the site, contributing to the need for the building height variance Application Summary: Staff Recommendation: building height, hardcover, signage, number of parking spaces, and parking setback, subject to the conditions 153 FILE # LA26-000020 15 June 2026 Page 2 of 10 and influencing the placement of parking and supporting improvements. In addition, the existing built environment of the school campus limits design flexibility. Applicable Regulations; Identified Variances: Building Height Variance (Section 6.12.1850) In all districts (with a few exceptions), the City limits building height to 30 feet, as defined in the Code. As proposed, the new building addition will bring the overall building height to 45.5 feet, defined height. The existing Arena is 25 feet tall (defined height), and the addition (when measured independently) is defined as 35.4 feet tall. Due to the grade differential between the existing site and the newly acquired land, a height variance is required. Hardcover Variance (Section 6.12.9210) The applicant’s plan for the new arena and parking areas will add 89,771 square feet of new hardcover to the site, resulting in a total site hardcover level of 43.9%. A hardcover variance is required. Setback Variance (Section 6.12.1820(7)(c)) “Sec. 6.12.1820(7)(c) 4: Schools/Indoor ice arenas - All structures are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use”. Additionally, the City Code outlines that off-street parking lots must meet a 10- foot setback. The project generally complies with the RR-1B district standards. The additional zoning requirements for “indoor ice arenas” are met, except for the west parking area on the shared lot line with the abutting residential neighbor, where a 10-foot setback is proposed following the off- street parking guidance. A setback variance is required. Sign Variance (Section 6.12.7320) The Arena is located within the RR-1B Rural Residential District, where signage provisions applicable to this type of facility are not contemplated. Signage in residential districts, or District 1 (within the sign code), is limited to six (6) square feet per wall sign, and six (6) square feet for monument signs. The applicant’s plan reflects signage sizes from 32 square feet on the small end to 128 square feet for the largest wall sign on the south elevation of the building. The total square footage of signage proposed is 619 square feet, which does not exceed the frontage-based limitation for the property; however, each of the individual signs exceeds the (District 1) allowance of six (6) square feet per sign. A signage variance is required. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Structural Building Coverage: Section 6.12.6930 The property is larger than 2.0 acres, and structural coverage limits do not apply. Setbacks: Sections 6.12.1820 & 6.12.1850 Front (Old Crystal Bay Rd N) 50’ Rear (West) 50’ ±240’ Parking ±245’ Existing Arena 10’ New Parking 62’ New Building 144’ West Trash Enclosure & Loading Zone Side Street (CSAH 6) 50’ 187’ Parking 48’ Existing Arena 50’ New Building 32’ West Trash Enclosure & Loading Zone 163’ East Trash Enclosure South Side 50’ 190’ Existing Arena 21’ New Parking 154 FILE # LA26-000020 15 June 2026 Page 3 of 10 BUILDING HEIGHT The applicant’s project narrative (Exhibit C) describes their justification for the height variance as: “to accommodate the new 800-seat arena and keep the building footprint to an efficient size, we are proposing a tiered concrete seating system above some of the locker rooms and restrooms in this building. Due to the tiered seating design, along with the size of the rink and the required depth of the structure for the roof above, the maximum height of the building would need to be approximately 40 feet high”. Existing Arena Peak Height: 29’ Main Level Elevation: 106.98’ 10’ above lowest elevation: 1013.3’ Defined height of Building: 25’ Proposed Addition Peak Height: 42’ Main Level Elevation: 1015.5’ 10’ above lowest elevation: 1022’ Defined height of Building: 34.5 Overall Project – Entire Building Peak Height: 50.5’ Main Level Elevation: 106.98’ 10’ above lowest elevation: 1013.3’ Defined height of Building: 45.5’ Hardcover Calculations: Section 6.12.9210 Overlay District Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 3 865,065 s.f. (43.9%) *not including 93,400 square feet of synthetic turf The school campus is divided between different tax parcels/properties. The majority of the campus (the properties on the west side of Old Crystal Bay Road North or “OCB RD N”) is located within the City’s Stormwater Quality Overlay District. The subject property (795 OCB RD N) is classified as Tier 3, which limits hardcover to 35% maximum. Hardcover calculations have been provided for 795 OCB RD N, which encompasses the High School, Activities Center, Personen Stadium, Baseball Stadium, the Arena, tennis courts, grass fields, and several parking areas, and the land area of the newly acquired property: 2885 6th Avenue North. The existing hardcover level of 39.4% exceeds the Tier 3 maximum; the synthetic turf areas (93,400 s.f.) are not included in the hardcover calculation. The project will add 89,771 square feet of additional hardcover, bringing the level of the site to 43.9%. PARKING The applicant’s parking analysis is based on “skating rinks” under Section 6.12.7560(19). Including the existing Arena, the proposed building's total square footage will be 85,965 square feet. Based on the “skating rink” standard, 298 parking stalls are required. According to the applicant’s narrative, the available parking will be expanded through an existing shared parking agreement with the school district. This shared parking agreement provides additional parking during off-peak times for each user. Currently, there is a walking path connecting the two areas of the property. The plans show a “future” driveway connection between the two areas. A total of 299 stalls are provided between the two parking areas; the stalls are 9’ x 20’ with 23’ – 25’ drive aisles provided. Overflow parking for the high school during the day can be accommodated on the arena property (176 stalls), as well as evening and weekend parking for the rinks provided on the school’s northern lot, which accommodates 123 stalls. Sec. 6.12.7510. - Setbacks for parking. Required off-street parking in all districts shall meet the following setback requirements: 1) R districts. Within all R districts, all vehicles must have a garage stall or open parking space on the same lot as the principal use served. Open parking spaces on lots must have a location other than a required yard, except that such parking may be located in a rear yard to within ten feet of an interior 155 FILE # LA26-000020 15 June 2026 Page 4 of 10 side lot line and to within five feet of a rear lot line. All vehicle parking must be on an approved hard surface. 2) B districts. Within the B-2 district parking shall not be allowed in a required yard or landscaping area. Within the B-1, B-3 and B-4 districts, parking spaces and/or garages shall be located in areas other than a required yard; except that open, off-street parking spaces may be located in a rear yard to within three feet of the rear or side lot line unless the rear or side lot line is in common with an R district; in which case the setback distance shall be the same as required for the R district. All vehicle parking must be on an approved hard surface. Sec. 6.12.7560. Required off-street parking: Except within the I Industrial District [. . .], the minimum parking facilities (open or enclosed) shall be as shown. (4) School, high school through college, at least one for each seven students based on design capacity, plus one for each three classrooms. (6) Theater, athletic field, at least one for each six seats of design capacity. (7) Community center, post office, YMCA, YWCA, physical cultural studio, pool halls, libraries, private clubs, lodges, museums, ten, plus one for each 300 square feet of floor area in excess of 2,000 square feet of floor space in the principal structure. (19) Skating rinks, ski areas, dance halls, public auction houses, and similar recreational uses, at least 15, plus one for each 300 square feet of floor area over 1,000 square feet. SIGNAGE The total sign area on a property is limited by its street frontage: in Sign District 1, one (1) linear foot of street frontage equals one (1) square foot of sign area. The applicant’s proposal includes eight (8) signs: one (1) monument sign, located at the corner of OCB RS N and CSAH 6, and seven (7) wall signs. Refer to Exhibit M for signage details. The applicant’s plan reflects signage sizes from 32 square feet on the small end to 128 square feet for the largest wall sign on the south elevation of the building. The total square footage of signage proposed is 619 square feet. The applicant’s narrative addresses the proposed signage, which has been designed to respect and respond to the surrounding properties. According to the applicant, illuminated signage is essential to support safe wayfinding and daily operations, given the facility’s commercial nature and substantial evening use. The illuminated signage will not face the neighbor directly to the west. LANDSCAPING and TRASH ENCLOSURE LOCATIONS The applicant has provided a landscape plan to promote green space and create buffers from the neighboring property. The proposed landscape plan includes a combination of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs around the new building entrances, as well as within and around the new parking areas. The Code does not provide landscaping standards specific to this use or this District. Staff finds additional buffering is necessary along the western property line to protect the adjacent residential property from activity spillover and headlights. The Planning Commission should discuss the proposed landscaping plan and determine if it is appropriate. Two trash enclosure locations are identified on the Site Plan (Exhibit G): one (1) on the east side of the Arena and another adjacent to the new loading dock area on the north side of the new addition. The loading dock location faces the only adjacent neighbor who has identified being adversely impacted by the existing noise spillover from the weekly trash pickup occurring at the high school dumpster location. The plan does not clarify the location of the existing trash enclosure or provide reasoning for the second location. The Commission should discuss the location and orientation of the trash enclosure area on the property and whether the landscape plan should be adjusted to mitigate noise, odor, or access that may impact the western residential neighbor. 156 FILE # LA26-000020 15 June 2026 Page 5 of 10 LIGHTING City Code Section 6.12.7780 stipulates that “any use requiring an operation producing an intense heat or light transmission shall be performed with the necessary shielding to prevent such heat or light from being detectable at the lot line of the site on which the use is located. Lighting in all instances shall be diffused or directed away from R districts and public streets”. A lighting plan has been provided depicting the proposed lighting levels across the property. It appears that levels at the western property line abutting the residential neighbors range between 0.1 and 0.8 footcandles (FC). There are three (3) 25-foot-tall poles proposed on or near the western property line and seven (7) within the parking lot, in addition to the three (3) wall packs on the west side. The lighting plan (Exhibit L) depicts fixtures, which appear to be downward-facing. The applicant should provide additional testimony regarding their lighting plan, specifically how they propose to mitigate lighting spillover, impacts on neighbors, timing, and the amount of lightning visible at the property line. CSAH 6 CONNECTION The current parking serving the Arena has one full access connection to Old Crystal Bay Road North. The plan suggests the creation of a new, right-in/right-out access connection to CSAH 6. This connection is subject to review and approval by Hennepin County. As of this writing, comments from Hennepin County have not been provided. Staff recommends that final approval be conditioned on obtaining all required County approvals and permits for the proposed access. Governing Regulation: VARIANCE REVIEW (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. 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 subject property is developed as part of the Orono School District campus and contains existing educational, recreational, and athletic facilities. The proposed arena addition and associated site improvements are consistent with the institutional use of the property and represent an expansion of an existing use rather than the introduction of a new or incompatible use. The requested variances for building height, parking setback, hardcover, and signage facilitate the continued operation and expansion of the existing campus while maintaining the overall intent of the zoning ordinance to protect neighboring properties and promote orderly development. Staff finds this criterion is met. This criterion is met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The property is guided and used for public and institutional purposes associated with the Orono School District. The proposed improvements expand existing 157 FILE # LA26-000020 15 June 2026 Page 6 of 10 recreational and educational facilities serving students and the community. The requested variances do not conflict with any goals or policies of the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is met. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The proposed arena addition represents a reasonable expansion of an existing institutional facility. The configuration of the existing arena, the need to physically connect the addition to the existing structure, the existing topography, and the established circulation and parking patterns limit the ability to fully comply with all dimensional requirements. The requested variances allow the property to continue functioning as an integrated educational and recreational campus. This criterion is met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The property is unique because it forms part of a large institutional campus within a zoning district otherwise intended primarily for low-density residential development. The proposed addition must connect to an existing arena facility and accommodate established grades, circulation systems, parking areas, and other campus improvements. These site-specific conditions create constraints that are not generally present on residential properties within the district. This criterion is met; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The property has long been developed and used as a school campus with associated athletic and recreational facilities. The proposed addition is compatible with the existing development pattern and institutional character of the site. Although the project includes variances from certain dimensional standards, the use of the property will remain unchanged. Staff finds the requested variances will not alter the essential character of the locality, and this criterion is 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. The property is used for school and recreational purposes, which are permitted within the zoning district, subject to applicable approvals. The requested variances relate only to dimensional and development standards and do not authorize a prohibited use. 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 property is part of a large institutional campus containing multiple buildings, athletic facilities, parking areas, and supporting infrastructure. The scale, configuration, and operational demands of the campus differ substantially from the surrounding residential properties within 158 FILE # LA26-000020 15 June 2026 Page 7 of 10 the district. The circumstances giving rise to the variance requests are therefore peculiar to the property. This criterion is met. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. Most properties within the RR-1B District are developed with single-family residential uses and are not subject to the operational and physical requirements associated with a large school campus and arena facility. The circumstances supporting the requested variances are unique to this institutional property and do not generally apply throughout the district. This condition is met. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The requested variances allow the continued use and expansion of an existing arena facility serving the school campus. Without the requested relief, the property owner's ability to reasonably improve and utilize the existing institutional facilities would be significantly constrained. 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 proposed improvements will be subject to review of site design, stormwater management, landscaping, lighting, drainage, and other applicable development standards. Staff finds the requested variances will not create adverse impacts to public health or safety and will not be contrary to the intent of the zoning ordinance. To further mitigate potential impacts to the adjacent residential property to the west, the applicant shall install additional screening and fencing along the western property boundary. 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 requested variances result from the need to expand and integrate the arena facility within an established campus setting while accommodating existing site constraints and development patterns. Staff finds the requests are not based solely on convenience and represent the minimum relief necessary to reasonably accommodate the proposed improvements. This criterion is 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. SITE PLAN REVIEW (Section 6.12.750) Before approving the site plan review, the City Council shall determine that the proposal: 1. Is compatible with surrounding land uses; The proposed arena addition is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project expands an existing institutional and recreational facility located within the established Orono school campus. The use itself is not changing, and the addition is designed to support existing school and community programming. While adjacent residential properties may experience increased activity associated with the expanded facility, staff finds these impacts can be mitigated through appropriate screening, lighting controls, and site design measures. 2. Preserves existing unique and natural features of the site and minimizes impacts to wetlands, floodplains, and shoreland areas; The project generally preserves existing natural features to the extent practical, given the previously developed nature of the site. The addition is proposed within an area already associated with existing institutional development and athletic facilities. The applicant is working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to ensure all regulations relating to the wetlands and stormwater management on the site are met. Stormwater management and grading plans will require further review during the engineering 159 FILE # LA26-000020 15 June 2026 Page 8 of 10 and permitting process to ensure compliance with applicable standards. 3. Creates harmonious relationships between buildings and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship of the development; The proposed building maintains a balanced relationship with the existing Arena and broader school campus. The addition is designed as an extension of the existing facility and continues the institutional character of the site. Although the proposed building exceeds the City's height limitation, the increased height is primarily attributable to the arena function, spectator seating requirements, and grade changes across the site. 4. Achieves a safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation system; The project generally provides safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation. The proposed parking layout accommodates internal circulation and pedestrian connections between the Arena and school parking areas. However, the proposed access connection to CSAH 6 remains subject to review and approval by Hennepin County. Staff recommends that final approval be conditioned upon obtaining all required County approvals and permits associated with the proposed access. 5. Places no excessive demands on services and infrastructure, including local streets; The project can be served by existing public infrastructure, provided that utility improvements identified by the City Engineer are addressed. Particular attention should be given to sanitary sewer capacity and any required upgrades to the existing lift station. 6. Conforms to the city's plans for parks, streets, and walkways; The project is consistent with the transportation and recreational objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Community Management Plan. 7. Conforms to the Orono Community Management Plan; The project is consistent with the recreational, educational, and community-serving objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and Community Management Plan. 8. Achieves a maximum of safety and convenience of vehicular and pedestrian movement; The project generally provides safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation. The proposed parking layout accommodates internal circulation and pedestrian connections between the Arena and school parking areas. Staff recommends that final approval be conditioned upon obtaining all required County approvals and permits associated with the proposed access. 9. Incorporates sufficient landscaping to reasonably screen undesirable features and to enhance the image of the development; The proposal includes a reasonable landscape plan to promote green space and create buffers from the neighboring property. Staff finds additional buffering is necessary along the western property line to protect the adjacent residential property. The proposed landscape plan should include a combination of evergreen plantings, supplemental screening vegetation, and fencing where necessary to provide year-round screening of parking areas, retaining walls, lighting, and building features. Additionally, the planning commission should discuss the location and orientation of the dumpsters on the property and whether any noise, odor, or access may impact the western residential neighbor. 10. Protects abutting properties and does not create detrimental disturbances to surrounding properties; Staff finds protection of adjacent residential properties represents the most significant site planning issue associated with the project. The west property line abuts the closest residential neighbor and warrants enhanced buffering. Staff recommends additional conditions addressing: 160 FILE # LA26-000020 15 June 2026 Page 9 of 10 a. Lighting spillover. b. Landscape screening. c. Retaining wall appearance. d. Parking lot screening. e. Noise-generating activities. f. Fence installation along portions of the western property line. With these measures, staff finds impacts can be reduced to acceptable levels. 11. Conforms to all requirements of this chapter unless a variance has been granted. The project, except for the listed variances, conforms to the requirements of the Zoning chapter. 12. Incorporates efforts to conserve energy whenever practical. The project incorporates modern building design and construction techniques that should improve energy efficiency compared to older facility infrastructure. Engineer Comments The City Engineer reviewed the plans and provided the following preliminary comments on the application. Note that a comprehensive grading review will be performed at the time of the building permit. 1. CS101 Site Plan - The access to County Road 6 will require permitting from the County. This entrance creates a new access to the school campus. There could be potential conflicts with traffic on the county road, particularly during peak school drop-off periods. Also, it could create issues if used as a cut-through during those high-traffic periods. 2. CG101 Grading and Erosion Control- Retaining wall along the west boundary will require an engineered design. 3. CU101 Utility Plan – Sanitary lift station at OCB only serves the existing ice arena. It has been overwhelmed on multiple occasions in the past. The applicant will need to perform a capacity analysis to determine what upgrades will be required. The new facility will also be subject to MCES rules and will require a SAC determination. The lift station ownership should be transferred to the facility owner. 4. CU101 Utility Plan -The fire chief will need to review and approve the utility plan for hydrant locations. Public Comments Comments from two of the residential neighbors have been submitted. Each of the letters identifies concerns to be addressed through this review (Exhibit N). 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? Analysis Staff finds that the proposed arena expansion represents a reasonable and appropriate institutional improvement within the existing Orono school campus. The project will expand recreational opportunities for students and the community while remaining consistent with the long-established school and arena use of the property. Although the project requires several variances, staff finds that the circumstances of the property—including the unique nature of the use, the existing development pattern of the school campus, the topography of the site, and 161 FILE # LA26-000020 15 June 2026 Page 10 of 10 the need to physically connect the addition to the existing arena—create practical difficulties not generally applicable to residentially zoned properties. Staff further finds that the requested variances are generally the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed expansion and will not alter the essential character of the area, provided appropriate buffering, lighting controls, and operational safeguards are incorporated into the project. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Site Plan Review and associated variances for building height, hardcover, signage, parking deficiency, and parking setback, subject to the following conditions: 1. All comments of the City Engineer shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 2. The applicant shall obtain all required approvals and permits from Hennepin County for the proposed CSAH 6 access connection. Any redesign of the parking or accessed may require additional study or supplemental analysis. 3. The applicant shall obtain all required approvals and permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding wetlands, stormwater, and erosion control. 4. A revised landscape plan, demonstrating enhanced year-round screening along the western property line. 5. A decorative fence, subject to staff approval, shall be installed along portions of the western property line as necessary to supplement landscape screening and protect the adjacent residential property. 6. Exterior lighting shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the submitted photometric plan. Lighting shall be shielded and directed away from adjacent residential properties. 7. The retaining wall located along the western property line shall be designed by a licensed professional engineer and incorporate architectural treatments acceptable to the City, if appropriate. 8. The applicant shall provide a sanitary sewer capacity analysis and complete any required sanitary sewer improvements identified by the City Engineer. 9. Final sign details shall substantially conform to the plans submitted with the application. Separate sign permits will be required. 162 Land Use Application Summary Application Date:05/20/2026 Address:795 Old Crystal Bay Road North Orono, MN 55356 Parcel Number:2811823340003 Land Use Number:LA26-000020 Application Submitted By:Agent on behalf of property owner Owner:Name: ORONO IND SCHOOL DIST NO 278 Address: Orono Public School District - Nick Taintor Applicant:Name: Jessica Johnson Company: HTG Architects Address: 1010 Mainstreet Hopkins, MN 55343 Contact Information: Associated Contact: Ryan Meier Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description:Ice Arena Expansion 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: 6/9/26, 3:24 PM Permit List | Citizenserve https://www8.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=ListPermits&WorkOrder_ID=91547760&ciDisplay=null&getPrint=true&skipLoading=true 1/1163 HTG ARCHITECTS PARTNERSHIPS BEYOND BUILDINGS htg-architects.com 1010 Mainstreet, Suite 100, Hopkins MN 55343 (952)-278-8880 Page 1 / 2 Background: A Unique Partnership The Morrison Ice Arena was built in 1997 with private contributions from local residents. The arena sits on land owned by the Orono School District and that land is leased to the Orono Ice Arena, Inc. on a long- term lease for $1 per year. Orono Ice Arena, Inc. is unique. Only about 2% of arenas in Minnesota are set up as a private non-profit. Most rinks are owned by a municipality or school district. Because of this arrangement, we rely completely on the revenues from the rink and private donations to sustain the Morrison Ice Arena. Orono Ice Arena, Inc., a 501(d)(3) nonprofit organization, is led by a board of directors. The board is comprised of three members appointed by the Orono Youth Hockey Association, a member appointed by the Orono School Board, and a member appointed by the city council. Project Description and Purpose: The Orono Youth Hockey Association has grown from its origin in 1997 to 625 skaters today. Teams share ice time at Morrison Ice Arena and at The Pond in Mound – however these two rinks do not provide adequate access to ice time. Our families now play all scrimmages at University of Minnesota in order for the association to find enough ice. Not only are they traveling further, but they also are getting ice times that are later into the evenings. This combination makes it difficult for families as well as for the student athletes. Following extensive negotiations with the owner, Orono Youth Hockey has acquired the property immediately west of the existing Morrison Ice Arena. The proposal is to turn the land over to the Orono School District and negotiate a lease similar to what exists today with the Morrison Ice Arena. The properties will be combined as part of this project. The addition will provide a new 800-seat arena, new varsity locker rooms, as well as hockey training space. The parking will be expanded through an agreement with the school district. This agreement provides additional parking for the high school during the day, as well as evening and weekend parking for the rinks. The addition is designed to take advantage of the hillside location by creating a two-story connection between the existing lobby and the new upper lobby space. The floor level of the new building will match the top of the bleacher seating in the existing building. The new building will be designed to blend with the existing building’s exterior materials and will incorporate changes in color and height to help reduce the mass of the building. Project Narrative May 20, 2026 Morrison Ice Arena Addition | Orono, MN 164 HTG ARCHITECTS PARTNERSHIPS BEYOND BUILDINGS htg-architects.com 1010 Mainstreet, Suite 100, Hopkins MN 55343 (952)-278-8880 Page 2 / 2 Morrison Ice Arena Addition | Orono, MN Project Narrative The following variances are being requested from the City’s Zoning Ordinance for the property located at 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road North. 1. Sec. 6.12.7240 of the zoning ordinance limits wall signage to a maximum of 6 square feet per sign, however, we are proposing 128 square feet for a single sign. 2. Sec. 6.12.7240 of the zoning ordinance does not allow lighted signage, but we are proposing illuminated signage. 3. Sec. 6.12.1850 of the zoning ordinance allows a maximum of 30 feet defined height, we are proposing approximately 40 feet. Signage – Variance request The Morrison Ice Arena is currently located within the RR-1B Rural Residential District, where the City Code does not include signage provisions applicable to this type of facility. The proposed redevelopment has been thoughtfully designed to respect and respond to the surrounding properties. Given the facility’s commercial nature and substantial evening use, illuminated signage is essential to support safe wayfinding and daily operations. The illuminated signage will not face the neighbor directly to the west. Height of Building – Variance request To accommodate the new 800-seat arena and keep the building footprint to an efficient size, we are proposing a tiered concrete seating system above some of the locker rooms and restrooms in this building. Due to the tiered seating design, along with the size of the rink and the required depth of the structure for the roof above, the maximum height of the building would need to be approximately 40 feet high. 165 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA26-000020 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: N/A 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: N/A 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: The following variances are being requested from the City’s Zoning Ordinance for the property located at 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road North. 1. Sec. 6.12.7240 of the zoning ordinance limits wall signage to a maximum of 6 square feet per sign, however, we are proposing 128 square feet for a single sign. 2. Sec. 6.12.7240 of the zoning ordinance does not allow lighted signage, but we are proposing illuminated signage. 3. Sec. 6.12.1850 of the zoning ordinance allows a maximum of 30 feet defined height, we are proposing approximately 40 feet. Signage – Variance request The Morrison Ice Arena is currently located within the RR-1B Rural Residential District, where the City Code does not include signage provisions applicable to this type of facility. The proposed redevelopment has been thoughtfully designed to respect and respond to the surrounding properties. Given the facility’s commercial nature and substantial evening use, illuminated signage is essential to support safe wayfinding and daily operations. The illuminated signage will not face the neighbor directly to the west. Height of Building – Variance request To accommodate the new 800-seat arena and keep the building footprint to an efficient size, we are proposing a tiered concrete seating system above some of the locker rooms and restrooms in this building. Due to the tiered seating design, along with the size of the rink and the required depth of the structure for the roof above, the maximum height of the building would need to be approximately 40 feet high. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: N/A 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: N/A 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: N/A 6/9/26, 3:23 PM Permit List | Citizenserve https://www8.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=ListPermits&WorkOrder_ID=91547760&ciDisplay=null&getPrint=true&skipLoading=true 1/1166 of www.sunde.com BOUNDARY,LOCATION,TOPOGRAPHIC andUTILITYSURVEYFOR: ISD#278 ORONOSCHOOLS 1 1 167 16 8 SITE PLAN SUMMARY: LOT ZONING: RR-1B EXISTING BUILDING SQ. FT. 37,205 S.F. NEW ADDITION 48,760 S.F. BUILDING SETBACKS FRONT- 50'; SIDE- 50'; REAR- 50' PARKING SETBACKS FRONT- 10'; SIDE- 10'; REAR- 10' PARKING REQUIRED: SKATING RINKS - 15 + 1 FOR EVERY 300 SF OF FLOOR AREA OVER 1,000 SF TOTAL SQ FEET = 85,965 FIRST 1,000 SF = 15 STALLS 84,965 / 300 = 283 STALLS TOTAL REQUIRED 298 STALLS PARKING PROVIDED: EAST LOT 35 STALLS CENTRAL LOT 48 STALLS WEST LOT 93 STALLS HIGH SCHOOL LOT 123 STALLS TOTAL PROVIDED 299 STALLS RINK ADDITION: 48,760 SF EXISTING BUILDING 37,205 SF 10'-0" 50'-0" LOADING ZONE EXISTING STORM WATER POND EXISTING WETLAND EXISTING STORM WATER POND EXISTING CITY UTILITIES PROPERTY LINE10'-0" PARKING SETBACK COUNTY ROAD 6 OL D C R Y S T A L B A Y R O A D PR O P E R T Y L I N E PA R K I N G S E T B A C K 10'-0" PROPERTY LINE PARKING SETBACK10'-0" PROPERTY LINE PARKING SETBACK 10'-0" UPPER ENTRANCE LOWER ENTRANCE EXIST MECH EXIST MECH EXISTING TRANSFORMER PR O P E R T Y L I N E PA R K I N G S E T B A C K BU I L D I N G S E T B A C K 10'-0" 50'-0" BUILDING SETBACK 50'-0" EXISTING DRIVEWAY 50'-0"BU I L D I N G S E T B A C K 17 15 41 8 8 6 4 14 10 10 12 5 5 13 EAST PARKING LOT TOTAL = 35 SPACES 53 EAST PARKING LOT TOTAL = 35 SPACES CENTRAL PARKING LOT TOTAL = 48 SPACESWEST PARKING LOT TOTAL = 93 SPACES ONLY EXISTING WETLAND EX I S T I N G W E T L A N D EXISTING WETLAND DRIVEWAY ISLAND FOR RIGHT-IN, RIGHT-OUT 4 A5 2 A5 3 A5 1 A5 EXISTING ORONO HIGH SCHOOL PARKING LOT TOTAL = 123 SPACES 2 A1 MONUMENT SIGN, SEE SHEET A2 FUTURE BITUMINOUS CONNECTION w/ CURB & GUTTER EXIST MECH Sim 2 A1 RETAINING WALL TRASH ENCLOSURE EXISTING PATH TRASH ENCLOSURE 3 A1 4 A1 5 A1 6 A1 16 ' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 6" 8'-0" 14 ' - 8 " PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS w/ EXPOSED AGGREGATE FINISH PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP PREFINISHED STEEL GATE BOLLARDS, PAINTED 6' - 9 " BASE EL. = VARIES PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS w/ EXPOSED AGGREGATE FINISH PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP 6' - 9 " BASE EL. = VARIES PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS w/ EXPOSED AGGREGATE FINISH PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP 6' - 9 " BASE EL. = VARIES PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS w/ EXPOSED AGGREGATE FINISH PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP 6' - 9 " BASE EL. = VARIES 1010 Mainstreet, Suite 100 Hopkins, MN 55343 Tel: 952.278.8880 Reg No. C O P Y R I G H T © H T G A R C H I T E C T S SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL Date PROJECT REVISIONS DATE NO BismarckMinneapolis www.htg-architects.com Minnesota C: \ U s e r s \ j j o h n s o n . H T G \ D o c u m e n t s \ A R C H _ 2 3 1 1 6 8 _ C e n t r a l _R 2 5 _ j j o h n s o n C M T A J . r v t 5/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 6 2 : 0 9 : 2 9 P M MORRISON ICE ARENA A1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN Drawn By: KMH Checked By: JAJ 231168 05/20/2026 Name 123456 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road North Orono, MN 55356 ADDITION / REMODEL ORONO, MN 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 Architect under the laws of the State of NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL ONLY TRUE NORTH SURVEY DATA WAS TAKEN FROM SUNDE LAND SURVEYING 2011-118-G2 CERT. DATE 04/02/2026 BY ARLEE J. CARLSON, P.L.S. REG. # 44900. HTG ARCHITECTS IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ACCURACY OR OMMISIONS, IF ANY. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS. 1" = 30'-0"A1 1 SITE PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0"A1 2 FLOOR PLAN - TRASH ENCLOSURE 1/4" = 1'-0"A1 3 ELEVATION - TRASH ENCLOSURE TYP. 1/4" = 1'-0"A1 4 ELEVATION - TRASH ENCLOSURE TYP. 1/4" = 1'-0"A1 5 ELEVATION - TRASH ENCLOSURE TYP. 1/4" = 1'-0"A1 6 ELEVATION - TRASH ENCLOSURE TYP. 169 R5' R5' R5.0 0 ' R5. 0 0 ' R4. 0 0 ' R5. 0 0 ' TY P . R20 . 0 0 ' R20 . 0 0 ' R5.0 0 ' R5.0 0 ' R5.0 0 ' 9' 18'24'18' 24' 20 ' 5' 24 ' 18 ' 24 ' 28 ' 24' 24' R3. 7 5 ' R3. 7 5 ' 6' 12' TYP. 48 . 9 ' 59.7' 52 . 8 ' 58.5' 22' 3' 5.0' 7.0' 6.2' 10 . 0 0 ' 10 . 0 0 ' 10.00' N 0 20'40' KEYNOTES: PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT PROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENT PROPOSED TRASH ENCLOSURE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL W/ GUARD RAIL PROPOSED BITUMINOUS TRAIL PROVIDE THREE FOOT TAPER TO FLUSH AT END OF CURB PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALLS ADA SIGNAGE TIE INTO EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER TIE INTO EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT TIE INTO EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK TIE INTO EXISTING BITUMINOUS TRAIL FUTURE ROAD CONNECTION INSTALL CURB CUT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.DIMENSIONS TO FACE OF CURB UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. GENERAL NOTES LEGEND PROPERTY LIMITS CONSTRUCTION LIMITS EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING DELINEATED WETLAND EXISTING FORCE MAIN EXISTING FIBER-OPTIC LINE EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EXISTING UNDERGROUND COMMUNCATIONS EXISTING HYDRANT AND GV EXISTING SANITARY / STORM STRUCTURE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT PROPOSED CONCRETE C&G BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT LIGHT DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENT ADA ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGN SITE PLAN CS101 EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED ICE ARENA BUILDING ADDITION 17 41 16 15 4 EXISTING STORMWATER BASIN EXISTING STORMWATER BASIN EXISTING WETLAND 8 PROPOSED HARDCOVER QUANTITIES ACRES SQUARE FEET PERCENTAGE LOT AREA DEVELOPED 2.67 116,305 100.00% LANDSCAPE AREA (GREEN SPACE)0.61 26,534 22.81% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE 2.06 89,771 77.19% FUTURE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE (FUTURE ROAD) 0.11 4,581 1010 Mainstreet, Suite 100 Hopkins, MN 55343 Tel:952.278.8880 Reg No. C O P Y R I G H T © H T G A R C H I T E C T S SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL Date PROJECT REVISIONS DATE NO BismarckMinneapolis www.htg-architects.com 1 3 6 0 5 1 s t A v e . N . #1 0 0 P l y m o u t h , M N 5 5 4 4 1 P 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 0 0 | F 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 9 0 | a e -m n .c o m AEMN Professional Services, INC | Proj #18098 MORRISON ICE ARENA Drawn By: BMH Checked By: KJS 231168 05/20/2026 Name 61855 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road North Orono, MN 55356 ADDITION / REMODEL ORONO, MN 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 Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY Fi l e P a t h : y: \ 1 7 9 0 0 \ 1 7 9 2 5 h t g - m o r r i s o n i c e a r e n a - o r o n o \ _ 0 7 c i v i l \ _ 0 1 c a d f i l e s \ _ 0 1 s h e e t s \ 1 7 9 2 5 _ s i t e s h e e t s . d w g | e d i t : ks t e b b i n g | s a v e d : 5/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 6 1 2 : 2 2 P M | p l o t : 5/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 6 1 2 : 2 3 P M KYLE J. STEBBING, PE 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 13 13 9 9 10 10 12 11 11 12 3 2 NOTE: AREAS REFLECT PARCEL ID 2811823340003 AND HOCKEY RINK IMPROVEMENTS ONLY. NUMBERS FOR COMBINED PARCEL/OVERALL SITE ARE FORTHCOMING. 14 14 6 6 17 0 100 9 101 0 101 1 101 2 101 3 1014 1015 1015 101 5 10 1 6 10 1 7 10 1 8 10 1 9 10 2 0 10 1 2 101 3 10 1 4 1015 10 0 8 10 0 9 10 1 0 10 1 1 10 1 2 10 1 3 1011 1012 101 3 TW 1016.11 TW 1020.10 TW 1022.76 TW 1022.50 TW 1018.86 TW 1015.30 FL 1014.95 FL 1015.41 FL 1014.10 FL 1011.81 FL 1013.80 FL 1012.77 FL 1012.07 FL 1011.81 FL 1013.23 FL 1014.19 FL 1014.73 FL 1014.85 FL 1014.83 FL 1014.75 BW 1016.07 BW 1016.30 BW 1015.35 BW 1015.14 BW 1014.59 BW 1014.18 28.8% 14.6% 25.4% 15.4% 23.4% 2.2% 2.0 % 2.2 % 1.8% 5.8% 12.7% 3.0% 12.9% 10 . 6 % 16.0% 9.2 % 6.5 % 13.5% 22.3% 1. 4 % 2. 4 % N 0 20'40' GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN CG101 PROPERTY LIMITS CONSTRUCTION LIMITS PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MINOR CONTOURS EXISTING MAJOR CONTOURS EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING DELINEATED WETLAND EXISTING FORCE MAIN EXISTING FIBER OPTIC LINE EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EXISTING UNDERGROUND COMMUNICATIONS EXISTING HYDRANT AND GV EXISTING SANITARY / STORM STRUCTURE PROPOSED STORM STRUCTURES PROPOSED SANITARY STRUCTURES PROPOSED WATERMAIN FITTINGS PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED WATERMAIN PROPOSED ASPHALT PAVEMENT PROPOSED LIGHT DUTY CONCRETE PROPOSED SILT FENCE INLET SEDIMENT PROTECTION SEE DETAIL 1/CU501 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG SPOT ELEVATION HIGH POINT LOW POINT FLOW LINE RIM ELEVATION INVERT ELEVATION TOP BACK OF CURB MATCH EXISTING PROPOSED GRADE EMERGENCY OVERFLOW TOP OF WALL ELEVATION BOTTOM OF WALL ELEVATION SLOPE ARROW LEGEND 1005 1004 1005 CO HP 800.1 R 800.1 800.1 TC 800.1 ME 800.1 PG 800.1 INV 800 EOF 800 FL 800.1 LP 800.1 1004 1.ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE TOPSOIL AND SOD. SPECIFICATION SECTION XX XX XX. 2.EROSION CONTROL SHALL BE INSTALLED PER PLAN, LOCAL REQUIREMENTS, & SHEET XXXX. EROSION CONTROL IS TO BE ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION WORK, MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION, AND CHECKED PERIODICALLY TO ENSURE PROPER FUNCTION. GENERAL NOTES EXISTING BUILDING FFE: 1006.90 PROPOSED ICE ARENA BUILDING ADDITION FFE: 1015.57 EXISTING STORMWATER BASIN EXISTING STORMWATER BASIN EXISTING WETLAND 1010 Mainstreet, Suite 100 Hopkins, MN 55343 Tel:952.278.8880 Reg No. C O P Y R I G H T © H T G A R C H I T E C T S SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL Date PROJECT REVISIONS DATE NO BismarckMinneapolis www.htg-architects.com 1 3 6 0 5 1 s t A v e . N . #1 0 0 P l y m o u t h , M N 5 5 4 4 1 P 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 0 0 | F 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 9 0 | a e -m n .c o m AEMN Professional Services, INC | Proj #18098 MORRISON ICE ARENA Drawn By: BMH Checked By: KJS 231168 05/20/2026 Name 61855 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road North Orono, MN 55356 ADDITION / REMODEL ORONO, MN 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 Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY Fi l e P a t h : y: \ 1 7 9 0 0 \ 1 7 9 2 5 h t g - m o r r i s o n i c e a r e n a - o r o n o \ _ 0 7 c i v i l \ _ 0 1 c a d f i l e s \ _ 0 1 s h e e t s \ 1 7 9 2 5 _ g r a d i n g s h e e t s . d w g | e d i t : ks t e b b i n g | s a v e d : 5/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 6 1 1 : 5 0 A M | p l o t : 5/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 6 1 2 : 0 3 P M KYLE J. STEBBING, PE TW 800 BW 800 12.7% 17 1 1015 101 5 1014 1013 1014 101 3 10 1 3 10 1 2 10 1 1 10 1 0 10 0 9 10 0 8 10 0 7 10 0 8 1015 1006 10 1 3 1012 1011 1012 10 1 2 10 1 4 10 1 5 10 1 6 10 1 8 10 2 1 10 2 0 1019 1018 1017 1016 1015 1014 1013 101 2 1012 1011 101 0 100 9Ps 2 Gi 1 Pp 3 Cs 75 Gi 1 Tm 5 Tm 5 Tm 5 Tm 5 Tm 5 Tm 5 Tm 5 Aa 3 Pp 3 Gi 2 2 Aa 3 Pn Aa 2 1 Ag 1 Gd Ck 5 Ck 5 Tw 5 6 Nw 3 Nw 5 Ck 5 Tw 5 Ck Nw 6 Nw 8 Ck 5 Ha 5 Ck 5 Ha 5 Ck 3 Ha 5 Rg 18 Ag 1 3 Ck 17 Ck 3 Ha Ha 3 Ck 3 Ha 5 3 Ck 101 1 101 0 100 9 100 9 1011101 210 1 3 1014 1015 1007 4' - 0 " T Y P . 2'-0" MIN. R5.0' R5.0' R5.0' R10.0' R5.0' R3.0' R5.0' 5'-0" MIN. Pp 3 Tw 3 1010 Mainstreet, Suite 100 Hopkins, MN 55343 Tel:952.278.8880 Reg No. C O P Y R I G H T © H T G A R C H I T E C T S SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL Date PROJECT REVISIONS DATE NO BismarckMinneapolis www.htg-architects.com 1 3 6 0 5 1 s t A v e . N . #1 0 0 P l y m o u t h , M N 5 5 4 4 1 P 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 0 0 | F 7 6 3 .4 1 2 .4 0 9 0 | a e -m n .c o m AEMN Professional Services, INC | Proj #18098 MORRISON ICE ARENA Drawn By: BMH Checked By: KJS 231168 05/20/2026 Name 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road North Orono, MN 55356 ADDITION / REMODEL ORONO, MN 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 Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY y: \ 1 7 9 0 0 \ 1 7 9 2 5 h t g - m o r r i s o n i c e a r e n a - o r o n o \ _ 0 6 l a \ _ 0 1 c a d f i l e s \ _ 0 1 s h e e t s \ 1 7 9 2 5 _ l a n d s c a p e s h e e t s . d w g JEFFREY W. DEITNER, PLA 51899 PROPERTY LIMITS CONSTRUCTION LIMITS PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURS PROPOSED MINOR CONTOURS EXISTING MAJOR CONTOURS EXISTING MINOR CONTOURS POLY LANDSCAPE EDGER (SEE DETAIL 1/LP501) 3" DEEP ROCK MULCH W/ LANDSCAPE WEED BARRIER, AS SPECIFIED 3" DEEP SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH RING (6' DIA.) TURF GRASS (SOD) NATIVE AREA SEED MnDOT MIX: SOUTHERN TALLGRASS ROADSIDE (STR) LEGEND 1005 1004 1005 1004 SIXTH AVENUE N GENERAL NOTES 1.IF A DISCREPANCY IS FOUND, THE PLANTING PLAN SHALL OVERRIDE THE PLANT SCHEDULE. 2.ALL PLANTINGS SHALL RECEIVE TEMPORARY IRRIGATION (SEE SHEET LP600 FOR TEMPORARY IRRIGATION NOTES) 3.REFER TO SHEET LP600 FOR PLANTING, PLANT ESTABLISHMENT, AND TOPSOIL NOTES 4.SEE CIVIL FOR EROSION CONTROLS KEY NOTES NATIVE SEED AREA - SEED TO LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE TURF GRASS AREA - SOD TO LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE RETAINING WALL, SEE CIVIL DECORATIVE LANDSCAPE BOULDER (X3 SALVAGED) (SEE DETAIL 1/LP501) PROTECT EXISTING TREE (SEE DETAIL 2/LP502) SPADE EDGE ALONG PROPERTY LINE (SEE DETAIL 3/LP501) TRASH ENCLOSURE, SEE CIVIL 1 3 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 4 44 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 7 N 0 20'40' LANDSCAPE PLAN LP101 EXISTING BUILDING PROPOSED ICE ARENA BUILDING ADDITION EXISTING STORMWATER BASIN EXISTING STORMWATER BASIN EXISTING WETLAND 17 2 1010 Mainstreet, Suite 100 Hopkins, MN 55343 Tel: 952.278.8880 Reg No. C O P Y R I G H T © H T G A R C H I T E C T S SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL Date PROJECT REVISIONS DATE NO BismarckMinneapolis www.htg-architects.com 1 3 6 0 5 1 s t A v e . N . # 1 0 0 P l y m o u t h , M N 5 5 4 4 1 P 7 6 3 . 4 1 2 . 4 0 0 0 | F 7 6 3 . 4 1 2 . 4 0 9 0 | a e - m n . c o m AEMN Professional Services, INC | Proj #18098 MORRISON ICE ARENA Drawn By: BMH Checked By: KJS 231168 05/20/2026 Name 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road North Orono, MN 55356 ADDITION / REMODEL ORONO, MN 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 Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION PRELIMINARY y: \ 1 7 9 0 0 \ 1 7 9 2 5 h t g - m o r r i s o n i c e a r e n a - o r o n o \ _ 0 6 l a \ _ 0 1 c a d f i l e s \ _ 0 1 s h e e t s \ 1 7 9 2 5 _ l a n d s c a p e s h e e t s . d w g JEFFREY W. DEITNER, PLA 51899 1. ALL PLANT MATERIAL INCLUDING TREES, SHRUBS, PERENNIALS AND SODDED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE TEMPORARY IRRIGATION. PLANTED, SEEDED AND SODDED AREAS ARE NOT TO RECEIVE PERMANENT IRRIGATION SYSTEM. 2. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY WATERINGS TO KEEP ALL SEEDED AREAS GROWING IN A HEALTHY CONDITION FOR THE EXTENTS OF TWO (2) YEARS AFTER INSTALLATION AND APPROVAL BY OWNER. ANY SEEDED AREAS THAT DIE OR SHOW FATIGUE DUE TO INSUFFICIENT CARE WITHIN TWO (2) YEARS AFTER INSTALLATION SHALL BE OVERSEEDED BY THE CONTRACTOR AT NO ADDITIONAL COSTS TO THE OWNER. OVERSEEDING, IF APPLICABLE, SHALL BE THE SAME MIX AND RATE AS ORIGINALLY INSTALLED. 3. A WATERING SCHEDULE FOR THE SEEDED AREAS FOR THE LENGTH OF THE ONE (1) YEAR AFTER THE INSTALLATION SHALL BE SUBMITTED WITH BID. 1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE PROJECT SITE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A BID TO BECOME COMPLETELY FAMILIAR WITH SITE CONDITIONS. 2. ALL ROUGH AND FINISH GRADING TO BE DONE BY OTHERS. 3. NO PLANTING SHALL BE INSTALLED UNTIL ALL GRADING, BUILDING, CONSTRUCTION, UTILITY WORK & IRRIGATION (IF APPLICABLE) HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE AREAS TO BE PLANTED. 4. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO IDENTIFY ALL UNDERGROUND CABLES, CONDUITS, WIRES, ETC., ON THE PROPERTY. 5. IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE NUMBER OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND THE NUMBER OF PLANTS SHOWN IN THE PLANT LIST, THE NUMBER OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE PLAN WILL TAKE PRECEDENCE. 6. ALL PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE LOCATED CAREFULLY AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. IF THE CONTRACTOR BELIEVES AN ERROR HAS BEEN MADE REGARDING SPACING OR LOCATION OF THE PLANT MATERIAL INDICATED ON THE PLAN, NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 7. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETE MAINTENANCE OF THE PLANT MATERIAL (WATERING, SPRAYING, FERTILIZING, MOWING, ETC.) UNTIL THE WORK HAS BEEN ACCEPTED, BY THE OWNER. 8. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL REPAIRS TO PROPERTY DAMAGE FROM PLANTING OPERATIONS AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. 9. ALL NEWLY PLANTED PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE GUARANTEED THROUGH TWO CALENDAR YEARS STARTING FROM THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE ESTABLISHED BY THE OWNER. 10. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MEET WITH THE OWNER OR OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE ON SITE WHEN THEY FEEL THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. IF ALL WORK IS SATISFACTORY AND COMPLETE ACCORDING TO THE CONDITIONS OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, THEN THE OWNER MUST DECLARE THE PROJECT COMPLETE. THIS DECLARATION WILL CONSTITUTE AS THE BEGINNING OF THE TWO (2) YEAR WARRANTEE PERIOD FOR ALL PLANT MATERIAL. THE OWNER SHALL PROVIDE A LETTER WITH SIGNATURE STATING THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE. 11. WIND BURN OR OTHERWISE DAMAGED PLANT MATERIAL WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. 12. THE PRACTICE OF STAKING SHOULD NOT ALLOW NAILS, SCREWS, WIRES, ETC. TO PENETRATE THE OUTER SURFACE OF THE TREES. 13. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REMOVAL OF ALL TREE STAKES, GUYS, STRAPS AND TRUNK PROTECTION MEASURES FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF THE WARRANTEE PERIOD OR AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER. 14. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH MAINTENANCE INFORMATION DURING THE GUARANTEE PERIOD RELATING TO WATERING, FERTILIZING, PRUNING, PEST CONTROL, AND RELATED ITEMS. THIS WILL BE PREPARED AND DELIVERED TO THE OWNER AFTER PROVISIONAL INSPECTION APPROVAL HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE OWNER AND/OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 15. INSTALL CORRUGATED PLASTIC TREE GUARDS, WHITE IN COLOR, WITH THE SIZE OF TUBE 1" DIA. (MIN.) LARGER THAN THE CALIPER OF THE TREE TO BE PROTECTED. 16. CONTRACTOR TO FURNISH & STALL POLY EDGING AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS & DETAILS. POLY EDGING SHALL BE MEDIUM DENSITY POLYETHYLENE WITH U.V. INHIBITOR, BLACK IN COLOR, WITH A TOTAL DEPTH OF 5” (1” DIA. TOP AND 4” SHAFT WITH 1.5” V EVERY 3-1/2 FEET OF EDGING. 17. LANDSCAPE FABRIC (FILTER MAT) TO HAVE A COMBINED WEIGHT OF 4.5-5.5 OZ. PER S.Y. FABRIC SHOULD BE U.V. STABILIZED AND HAVE A FIVE YEAR MINIMUM WEATHERABILITY FACTOR IN FULL SUNLIGHT. FABRIC TO BE PHILLIPS DUON R OR EQUIVALENT. SAMPLE REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL. 18. 3" DEPTH SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH SHALL BE INSTALLED UNDER ALL TREES. 19. 3” DEPTH 1”TO 1-1/2” WASHED RIVER ROCK (MATCH EXISTING) SHALL BE INSTALLED OVER LANDSCAPED FABRIC AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS & DETAILS. 20. CALIPER OF TREES UP TO AND INCLUDING 4" SHALL BE MEASURED AT 6" ABOVE GROUND LEVEL, AND 12" ABOVE GROUND LEVEL FOR LARGER SIZES. 21. FOR BALLED & BURLAP PLANT MATERIAL, REMOVE THE TOP HALF OF THE BURLAP FROM THE ROOT BALL. WIRE CAGES, STRAPS, ETC. SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE TOP HALF OF THE ROOTBALL BEFORE INSTALLATION. 22. ALL CONTAINER MATERIAL SHALL HAVE BEEN GROWN IN CONTAINER FOR A MINIMUM OF 6 MONTHS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 23. SHRUBS AND GROUNDCOVER SHALL BE PLANTED A MINIMUM OF ONE HALF THEIR ON-CENTER SPACING FROM PAVING EDGE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 24. DECIDUOUS SHRUBS SHALL HAVE MINIMUM OF FIVE (5) CANES AT SPECIFIED HEIGHT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN PLANT SCHEDULE. 25. ALL PERENNIAL BEDS TO RECEIVE ROCK MULCH SHALL HAVE LANDSCAPE FABRIC INSTALLED WITH HOLES FOR PLANTS CUT 2.5 TIMES THE DIAMETER OF THE CONTAINER. 26. ALL LANDSCAPE BOULDERS SHOWN ON PLAN SHALL BE INSTALLED SO APPROXIMATELY 1/3 OF THE VERTICAL HEIGHT OF THE BOULDER WILL BE BELOW GRADE. NO BOULDER SHALL BE SET ON END UNLESS SPECIFIED. 27. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND INSTALL NURSERY GROWN PLANT MATERIAL CONFORMING TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LATEST EDITION OF ANSI Z60.1 STANDARDS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE PLANS OR SPECIFICATIONS. 1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT NEW TREES MOVED ONTO THE SITE ARE DUG FROM SIMILAR SITES WITH SIMILAR SOILS TO THE SOILS OF THIS PROJECT (HEAVY TO HEAVY, LIGHT TO LIGHT. HEAVY TO LIGHT SOILS). CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW SOIL CONDITIONS/TYPES WITH OWNER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 2. ALL NEWLY INSTALLED PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE PLANTED IN WELL-DRAINED AREAS. NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION IF ANY PLANT MATERIAL IS LOCATED IN DRAINAGE SWALES OR WET & POORLY DRAINED AREAS. 3. ALL PLANTINGS SHALL RECEIVE FERTILIZER AS FOLLOWS: 3.1. SUMMER AND FALL PLANTING: 0-20-20 GRANULAR (IN SAUCER AROUND PLANT AT THE RATE OF 12 OZ. PER 2-3" CAL. TREE & 6 OZ. PER SHRUB). 3.2. SPRING PLANTING: 10-10-10 GRANULAR (APPLY ABOVE REFERENCED FERTILIZER AT A RATE OF 12 OZ. PER 1-1/2” CAL. TREE OR LARGER & 6 OZ. PER SHRUB & PERENNIAL. 4. ALL PLANTINGS SHALL RECEIVE AN AMENDED SOIL MIX CONSISTING OF THREE (3) PARTS: 4.1. 45% APPROVED TOPSOIL (ONE SITE PREFERRED) 4.2. 45% ORGANIC MATTER (TYPE 1 SPHAGNUM PEAT MOSS FINELY DIVIDED WITH A PH OF 3.1 - 5.0.) 4.3. 10% SAND (FINE CLEAN MASONRY SAND) 5. AREAS CONFINED TO A MASS PLANTING AREA (PLANTING BED) SHALL RECEIVE THE AMENDED SOIL MIX AT MIN. 12" DEPTH THROUGHOUT THE PLANTING AREA. AMENDED SOIL MIX SHALL BE MIXED THOROUGHLY AND INSTALLED IN 6” LIFTS. 6. AREAS TO RECEIVE SOD OR SEED SHALL HAVE A 6” MINIMUM DEPTH OF TOPSOIL. TOPSOIL SHALL PROVIDE FERTILE, FRIABLE, NATURAL LOAM, SURFACE SOIL, REASONABLY FREE OF SUBSOIL, CLAY CLUMPS, BRUSH WEEDS AND OTHER LITTER, AND FREE OF ROOTS, STUMPS, STONE LARGER THAN 1” IN ANY DIMENSION, AND OTHER EXTRANEOUS OR TOXIC MATTER HARMFUL TO PLANT GROWTH. 7. SOD SHALL BE HIGHLAND SOD, 30" X 100' ROLLS PREFERRED WHERE APPLICABLE, TO BE LAID PARALLEL WITH THE CONTOURS AND HAVE STAGGERED JOINTS. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 OR DRAINAGE SWALES, THE SOD SHALL BE STAKED INTO THE GROUND. SCARIFY THE EXISTING GRADES WITH FIELD CULTIVATOR PRIOR TO PLACING OF TOPSOIL AND FINISH GRADING FOR SOD. IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO PLACING SOD, CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY 10-6-4 FERTILIZER AT THE RATE OF 10 POUNDS PER 1000 SQ. FT. 9. ALL AREAS SPECIFIED AS 'NATIVE SEED' TO BE SEEDED WITH MNDOT MIX '2575.608 SOUTHERN TALLGRASS ROADSIDE'. BROAD CAST, DRILL AND/OR HYDROSEED AT A RATE OF 26 LBS./AC. WITH 2 TONS SHREDDED AND PUNCHED IN PLACE STRAW PER ACRE. SEED MIX SHALL BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND PERIODIC FLOODING. GENERAL LANDSCAPE NOTES 1. THE REQUIRED WORK SHALL CONSIST OF CONTINUOUSLY CONDUCTING OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FOR A WARRANTY PERIOD ESTABLISHED FOR TWO (2) YEARS AFTER THE INSTALLATION HAS BEEN ACCEPTANCE BY THE OWNER. THE WORK INCLUDES: 1.1. ESTABLISHMENT OF BALLED AND BURLAPPED AND CONTAINER PLANT MATERIAL, SODDED AND SEEDED AREAS 1.1.1. INCLUDING PEST CONTROL, FERTILIZING AND FUNGICIDAL TREATMENTS 1.2. REGULAR WATERING SCHEDULINGS FOR ALL PLANT MATERIAL, SOD AND SEEDING 1.3. IRRIGATION SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 1.4. REMOVAL OF ALL WEEDS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA BY METHODS AGREED BY THE OWNER (POST/PRE HERBICIDE TREATMENT, HAND OR MECHANICAL REMOVAL) 1.5. MAINTENANCE OF MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (EROSION CONTROL PRODUCTS, REPAIRS FROM EROSION) 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ON-SITE REVIEW MEETINGS WITH THE OWNER DURING THE PLANT ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD TO IDENTIFY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE TO BE EXECUTED MONTHLY. 3. PLANT MATERIAL DEEMED TO BE REPLACED AT THE END OF PLANT ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD SHALL BE EXECUTED WITHIN 2 WEEKS (14 DAYS) PRESENTING LESS THE FOLLOWING SURVIVORSHIP: 3.1. BALLED AND BURLAPPED AND CONTAINER PLANT MATERIAL: 75% 3.2. SODDED AREAS: 100% (0% BARE SOIL) 3.3. SEEDED AREAS: 90% (<10% BARE SOIL) 4. REPLACEMENT PLANTS, SOD AND/OR SEED SHALL BE OF THE SAME SPECIES AND SIZE AS ORIGINALLY SPECIFIED ON THE DRAWINGS, UNLESS THE OWNER DETERMINES THAT SUBSTITUTIONS OF ANOTHER SPECIES OR SIZE SHALL BE MADE. GENERAL PLANT ESTABLISHMENT NOTES GENERAL SODDING, SEEDING & TOPSOIL NOTES GENERAL TEMPORARY IRRIGATION NOTES (MULTI-STEM) SYMBOL QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT.SIZE DECIDUOUS TREES 7 AUTUMN BLAZE® FREEMAN MAPLE ACER X FREEMANII 'JEFFERSRED'B&B 1 - 1/2" CAL. 4 SKYLINE® HONEY LOCUST GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS 'SKYCOLE'B&B 1 - 1/2" CAL. 1 KENTUCKY COFFEETREE GYMNOCLADUS DIOICUS 'ESPRESSO'B&B 1 - 1/2" CAL. 21 KINDRED SPIRIT® OAK QUERCUS X WAREI 'NADLER'B&B 1 - 1/2" CAL. EVERGREEN TREES 3 AUSTRIAN PINE PINUS NIGRA B&B 6` HT. 6 PONDEROSA PINE PINUS PONDEROSA B&B 6` HT. 2 SCOTCH PINE PINUS SYLVESTRIS B&B 6` HT. 35 GOLDEN DUKE® EASTERN HEMLOCK TSUGA CANADENSIS 'MONJERS'B&B 4` HT. ORNAMENTAL TREES 2 AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY AMELANCHIER X GRANDIFLORA 'AUTUMN BRILLIANCE'B&B 1 - 1/2" CAL. SYMBOL QTY COMMON / BOTANICAL NAME CONT SIZE DECIDUOUS SHRUBS 75 RED TWIG DOGWOOD CORNUS STOLONIFERA CONT. 5 GAL. 26 ANNABELLE HYDRANGEA HYDRANGEA ARBORESCENS 'ANNABELLE'CONT. 5 GAL. 18 GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC RHUS AROMATICA 'GRO-LOW'CONT. 5 GAL. EVERGREEN SHRUBS 13 TAUNTON JAPANESE YEW TAXUS X MEDIA 'TAUNTON'CONT. 5 GAL. PERENNIALS 59 KARL FOERSTER FEATHER REED GRASS CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA 'KARL FOERSTER'CONT. 3 GAL. 23 WALKER'S LOW CATMINT NEPETA X FAASSENII 'WALKER'S LOW'CONT. 1 GAL. PLANT SCHEDULE LANDSCAPE CODE REQUIREMENTS PLANT SCHEDULE (SEE DETAIL 4/LP500) (SEE DETAIL 4/LP501) (SEE DETAIL 2/LP500) (SEE DETAIL 3/LP500) (SEE DETAIL 2/LP500) (SEE DETAIL 5/LP500 & 1/LP502) 6' HT. (3-5 STEMS)REQUIREMENT PROPOSED DESIGN: INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS SHALL CONTAIN, AT A MINIMUM THE GREATER OF TWO TREES PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OR TWO TREES PER 40 LINEAL FEET OF SITE PERIMETER WHICHEVER IS GREATER. 48,760 SF (ADDITION) = 97 TREES 1,316 LF (PROPERTY LINE) = 33 TREES INCLUDED TREES ACROSS THE SITE TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE. PROPOSED: 74 TREES A MINIMUM OF ONE LANDSCAPED PARKING ISLAND PER 20 PARKING STALLS SHALL BE REQUIRED WITHIN ANY INDUSTRIAL USE. 93 PARKING SPACES = 5 LANDSCAPED PARKING ISLANDS 6 LANDSCAPED PARKING ISLANDS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN MUST SHOW SOME FORM OF DESIGNED SITE AMENITIES (I.E., COMPOSITION OF PLANT MATERIALS, AND/OR CREATIVE GRADING, DECORATIVE LIGHTING, EXTERIOR SCULPTURE, ETC., WHICH ARE LARGELY INTENDED FOR AESTHETIC PURPOSES). ALL AREAS WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINES (OR BEYOND, IF SIDE GRADING EXTENDS BEYOND) SHALL BE TREATED. ALL EXTERIOR AREAS NOT PAVED OR DESIGNATED AS DRIVES, PARKING OR STORAGE, MUST BE PLANTED WITH ORNAMENTAL VEGETATION (LAWNS, GROUND COVERS OR SHRUBS) UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. INCLUDED ORNAMENTAL TREES, SHRUBS, AND SALVAGED LANDSCAPE BOULDERS AT MAIN ENTRANCES TO PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION. ALL GROUND AREAS UNDER THE BUILDING ROOF OVERHANG MUST BE TREATED WITH A DECORATIVE MULCH AND/OR FOUNDATION PLANTING. GROUND AREAS ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING ADDITION ARE IMPROVED WITH FOUNDATION PLANTINGS. PLANT SPACING & SIZING: ALL LANDSCAPING INCORPORATED IN SAID PLAN SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS AND CRITERIA. ALL PLANTS MUST AT LEAST EQUAL THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM SIZE: (1) SHADE TREES: 1.5 TO TWO INCHES. (2) ORNAMENTAL TREES: ONE INCH. (3) CONIFEROUS TREES: FOUR TO SIX FEET. (4) LARGE DECIDUOUS TREE: TWO TO FOUR FEET. (5) LARGE CONIFEROUS SHRUBS: TWO TO FOUR FEET. (6) SMALL DECIDUOUS SHRUBS: 18 TO 24 INCHES. (7) SMALL CONIFEROUS SHRUBS: 18 TO 24 INCHES. ALL PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL MEETS THE MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS, SEE PLANTING SCHEDULE THIS SHEET. ALL TREES SHALL BE BALLED AND BURLAPPED (B&B) AND SHRUBS SHALL BE CONTAINER GROWN UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY CITY STAFF. ALL PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL IS B&B OR CONTAINER GROWN, SEE PLANTING SCHEDULE THIS SHEET. PLANT MATERIAL CENTERS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED CLOSER THAN THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND SHALL NOT BE PLANTED TO CONFLICT WITH PUBLIC PLANTINGS BASED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. ALL PROPOSED PLANTINGS ALONG THE EDGES OF THE SITE MAINTAIN A MIN. OF 3'-0" FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. WHERE PLANT MATERIALS ARE PLANTED IN TWO OR MORE ROWS, PLANTINGS SHALL BE STAGGERED IN ROWS UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. SCREENING PLANTS ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE ARE STAGGERED. SCREENING: ALL OPEN OFF-STREET PARKING AREAS OF FIVE OR MORE SPACES SHALL BE SCREENED WITH LANDSCAPING AND/OR OTHER MATERIALS FROM ABUTTING OR SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE IS SCREENED WITH A COMBINATION OF DECIDUOUS AND CONIFEROUS TREES AND SHRUBS. WHERE PLANTS OR SCREENING IS INTENDED, LARGE DECIDUOUS AND CONIFEROUS SHRUBS SHALL NOT BE PLANTED MORE THAN FOUR FEET ON CENTER. SCREENING PLANTS ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE ARE SPACE 4'-0" O.C. LP600 LANDSCAPE NOTES 17 3 LOWER LEVEL (EXTG.) EL.= 100'-0" EXTG. MEZZANINE EL.= 112'-0" T.O. HIGH EXTG. PARAPET EL.= 129'-0" MAIN LEVEL EL.= 108'-8" T.O. PARAPET EL.= 124'-4" T.O. PRECAST @ RINK BOX EL.= 147'-0" TRAINING PLATFORM EL.= 120'-0" METAL PANELS PREFINISHED METAL FASCIA PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS w/ EXPOSED AGGREGATE FINISH INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGNAGE PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWS, BLACK FINISH OR SIMILAR -TYP. FIBER CEMENT COMPOSITE PANELS INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGNAGE INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGNAGE PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS w/ EXPOSED AGGREGATE FINISH PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP METAL PANELS ALUMINUM CURTAINWALL SYSTEM, BLACK FINISH OR SIMILAR -TYP. INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGNAGE EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS TO REMAIN EXISTING PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS TO REMAIN EXISTING PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP FIBER CEMENT COMPOSITE PANELS ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWS, BLACK FINISH OR SIMILAR - TYP. MAIN LEVEL EL.= 108'-8" T.O. PRECAST @ RINK BOX EL.= 147'-0" TRAINING PLATFORM EL.= 120'-0" ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWS, BLACK FINISH OR SIMILAR -TYP. PREFINISHED METAL FASCIAINSULATED METAL DOORS, PAINTED PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS w/ EXPOSED AGGREGATE FINISH PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP METAL PANELS ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWS, BLACK FINISH OR SIMILAR -TYP. PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS w/ EXPOSED AGGREGATE FINISH JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS w/ EXPOSED AGGREGATE FINISH JT JT JT JT PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP LOUVERED SCREENING AROUND MECH. EQUIPMENT, MATCH METAL PANEL COLOR ROOF PEAK EL. = 133'-5" MAIN LEVEL EL.= 108'-8" T.O. PARAPET EL.= 124'-4" T.O. PRECAST @ RINK BOX EL.= 147'-0" EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS TO REMAIN EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS TO REMAIN EXISTING PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP EXISTING PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP EXISTING INSULATED METAL DOORS TO REMAIN PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS w/ EXPOSED AGGREGATE FINISH PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JTBACKLIT SIGNAGE INSULATED OVERHEAD DOOR PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS w/ EXPOSED AGGREGATE FINISH PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP INSULATED METAL DOORS, TYP. METAL PANELS LOUVERED SCREENING AROUND MECH. EQUIPMENT, MATCH METAL PANEL COLOR EL. = 150'-6" ROOF HIGH POINT T.O. SCREENING EL. = 134'-1" LOWER LEVEL (EXTG.) EL.= 100'-0" T.O. HIGH EXTG. PARAPET EL.= 129'-0" EXTG. RINK LEVEL EL.= 97'-4" MAIN LEVEL EL.= 108'-8" T.O. PRECAST @ RINK BOX EL.= 147'-0" EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS TO REMAIN EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS TO REMAIN PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS w/ EXPOSED AGGREGATE FINISH PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAPTYP. 8'-0" EXISTING OVERHEAD DOOR EXISTING HOLLOW METAL DOORS & FRAME EXISTING CONCRETE STAIR ALUMINUM CURTAINWALL SYSTEM, BLACK FINISH OR SIMILAR -TYP. METAL PANELS EXISTING PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP EXISTING PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP MEMBRANE ROOF PREFINISHED ALUMINUM FASCIA PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS w/ EXPOSED AGGREGATE FINISH PREFINISHED METAL WALL CAP EXISTING PRECAST CONCRETE PANELS TO REMAIN ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WINDOWS, BLACK FINISH OR SIMILAR 1010 Mainstreet, Suite 100 Hopkins, MN 55343 Tel: 952.278.8880 Reg No. C O P Y R I G H T © H T G A R C H I T E C T S SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL Date PROJECT REVISIONS DATE NO BismarckMinneapolis www.htg-architects.com Minnesota C: \ U s e r s \ j j o h n s o n . H T G \ D o c u m e n t s \ A R C H _ 2 3 1 1 6 8 _ C e n t r a l _R 2 5 _ j j o h n s o n C M T A J . r v t 5/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 6 2 : 0 9 : 3 7 P M MORRISON ICE ARENA A5 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS Drawn By: KMH Checked By: JAJ 231168 05/20/2026 Name 123456 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road North Orono, MN 55356 ADDITION / REMODEL ORONO, MN 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 Architect under the laws of the State of NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL ONLY 3/32" = 1'-0"A5 4 SOUTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"A5 2 WEST ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"A5 3 NORTH ELEVATION 3/32" = 1'-0"A5 1 EAST ELEVATION 174 UP UP FLOOR PLAN LEGEND LOCKER ROOM 2 GIRLS COACH LOCKER ROOM 3 LOCKER ROOM 4 REF ROOM STORAGE TURF STORAGE REFRIGERATION PLANT ICE RESURFACER TRAINING VESTIBULE WOMEN'S RESTROOM CONCESSIONS RINK MANAGER OFFICE UPPER LOBBY MEN'S RESTROOM LOCKER ROOM 1 BOYS RESTROOM GIRLS RESTROOM HALLWAY BOYS COACH HS BOYS LOCKER ROOM HS GIRLS LOCKER ROOM HALLWAY JANITOR ICE RINK EL.= 100'-0" EL.= 97'-4" EL.= 108'-8" EL.= 111'-2" EL.= 111'-2" MEN'S RESTROOM WOMEN'S RESTROOM LOWER LOBBY KITCHENETTE BOARD ROOM STORAGE UP LOCKER RM #1 GIRLS JV & VARSITYGIRLS COACH LOCKER RM #2 GIRLS RESTROOM BOYS RESTROOM BOY'S JV BOYS VARSITY LOCKER RM #4 BOYS COACH LOCKER RM #3 ICE RINK ICE RESURFACER REFRIGERATION / ELEC. MECH. STORAGE REFEREES CORRIDOR VIEWING AREA MECH. EL.= 108'-8" EL.= 108'-8" 4 A5 2 A5 3 A5 1 A5 25'-0" 55 ' - 1 1 " 1 5 4 ' - 3 " 1 2 ' - 0 7 / 8 " 4 5 ' - 8 1 / 4 " EQ E Q (38 LOCKERS) (38 LOCKERS) DRY LOCKERS DRY LOCKERS (38 LOCKERS) (38 LOCKERS) STICKS STICKS 163'-10" 25'-9 3/8" 82'-3 5/8" 24'-1 5/8" 111'-7 7/8" 44'-4 5/8"49'-2 5/8" 337'-5 7/8" 26 7 ' - 1 1 1 / 8 " 188'-10" UP ELEVATOR UP DOOR SWING & CLEARANCE AREA, SEE ACCESSIBILITY DETAILS EXISTING DOOR NEW PROPOSED WALL EXISTING WALL AREA OF PLAN NOT IN SCOPE OR NOT VISIBLE ON CURRENT LEVEL 1010 Mainstreet, Suite 100 Hopkins, MN 55343 Tel: 952.278.8880 Reg No. C O P Y R I G H T © H T G A R C H I T E C T S SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL Date PROJECT REVISIONS DATE NO BismarckMinneapolis www.htg-architects.com Minnesota C: \ U s e r s \ j j o h n s o n . H T G \ D o c u m e n t s \ A R C H _ 2 3 1 1 6 8 _ C e n t r a l _R 2 5 _ j j o h n s o n C M T A J . r v t 5/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 6 2 : 0 9 : 3 4 P M MORRISON ICE ARENA A3 FLOOR PLAN - MAIN LEVEL & LOWER LEVEL Drawn By: KMH Checked By: JAJ 231168 05/20/2026 Name 123456 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road North Orono, MN 55356 ADDITION / REMODEL ORONO, MN 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 Architect under the laws of the State of NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL ONLY TRUE NORTH 1/16" = 1'-0"A3 1 FLOOR PLAN - MAIN LEVEL & LOWER LEVEL 175 FLOOR PLAN LEGEND TRAINING PLATFORM OPEN TO BELOW ICE RINK BELOW PRESS BALCONY 4 A5 2 A5 3 A5 1 A5 17'-10" 146'-0" 25'-0" 21 0 ' - 2 " 1 2 ' - 0 7 / 8 " 4 5 ' - 8 1 / 4 " 3 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 39'-6 1/4" 68'-6 3/4" 229'-5 1/8" WARM VIEWING SHOOTING LANES DRY LAND TRAINING ICE RINK BELOW 27 0 ' - 1 1 5 / 8 " 188'-9 3/4" 337'-6 5/8" DOOR SWING & CLEARANCE AREA, SEE ACCESSIBILITY DETAILS EXISTING DOOR NEW PROPOSED WALL EXISTING WALL AREA OF PLAN NOT IN SCOPE OR NOT VISIBLE ON CURRENT LEVEL 1010 Mainstreet, Suite 100 Hopkins, MN 55343 Tel: 952.278.8880 Reg No. C O P Y R I G H T © H T G A R C H I T E C T S SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL Date PROJECT REVISIONS DATE NO BismarckMinneapolis www.htg-architects.com Minnesota C: \ U s e r s \ j j o h n s o n . H T G \ D o c u m e n t s \ A R C H _ 2 3 1 1 6 8 _ C e n t r a l _R 2 5 _ j j o h n s o n C M T A J . r v t 5/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 6 2 : 0 9 : 3 5 P M MORRISON ICE ARENA A4 FLOOR PLAN - MEZZANINES Drawn By: KMH Checked By: JAJ 231168 05/20/2026 Name 123456 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road North Orono, MN 55356 ADDITION / REMODEL ORONO, MN 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 Architect under the laws of the State of NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL ONLY TRUE NORTH 1/16" = 1'-0"A4 1 FLOOR PLAN - MEZZANINES 176 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.6 1.9 2.3 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.6 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.3 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.5 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 2.5 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.7 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.7 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.2 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.1 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.8 1.7 1.3 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 3.4 3.2 1.9 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.6 2.4 3.4 2.9 1.9 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.1 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 0.8 1.0 2.8 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 0.9 1.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.5 5.5 3.0 1.6 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.6 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.0 5.4 4.2 2.2 1.3 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.9 1.3 1.7 0.3 0.4 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.3 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.6 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.7 2.7 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.2 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.8 3.3 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.7 2.5 0.1 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.7 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.7 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.1 1.9 3.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.9 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.7 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.4 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.0 2.4 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.7 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.2 0.9 2.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.4 2.2 2.9 2.2 1.3 0.8 1.1 1.9 2.8 2.4 1.4 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.8 1.7 2.8 2.4 1.8 1.4 1.9 2.8 2.4 1.6 0.9 0.9 1.4 2.4 3.9 0.9 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.8 1.4 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.4 1.0 1.1 1.6 2.6 3.5 2.5 2.7 1.7 1.3 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.7 1.4 1.2 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Matthew W. Fults 40887 05/20/26 P1 P1 P4 P5 P5 P5 P3P3 P2 P2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N2 N1X N1X10'-0'' 10'-0'' N1 N1 N1X 10'-0'' 10'-0'' 10'-0'' N1X 10'-0'' N1X 10'-0'' RINK ADDITION: 48,760 SF EXISTING BUILDING: 37,205 SF CALCULATION SUMMARY AREA SITE PROPERTY LINE AVG (FC)MAX (FC)MIN (FC) 5.5 0.0 0.00.4 0.38 0.11 1010 Mainstreet, Suite 100 Hopkins, MN 55343 Tel: 952.278.8880 Reg No. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL Date PROJECT REVISIONS Minneapolis www.htg-architects.com DATE NO C O P Y R I G H T © H T G A R C H I T E C T S Bismarck 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 Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 5 3 8 0 . 0 0 0 0 M o r r i s o n I c e A r e n a A d d i t i on O r o n o - M N / M o r r i s o n I c e A r e n a A d d i t i o n O r o n o - M N _ M EP _ R v t 2 5 . r v t 5/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 6 1 1 : 3 3 : 1 7 A M MORRISON ICE ARENA E0.3 SITE PLAN - PHOTOMETRICS 5380.0000 05/20/26 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road North Orono, MN 55356 ADDITION / REMODEL Drawn By: FSB Checked By: KDM ORONO, MN PROPERTY LINE SCALE:1" = 30'-0" SITE PLAN - PHOTOMETRICS1 177 Matthew W. Fults 40887 05/20/26 GRADE LUMINAIRELUMINAIRE (IF APPLICABLE) (3) #3 REBAR, 2" O.C. #4 B.C. TYPICAL BOND TO GROUND LUG BOND TO REBAR #3 WRAP AROUND TIES, 12" O.C. (4) #4 REBAR 2" MINIMUM COVER 3500 PSI CONCRETE BASE 36" ELECTRICAL CONDUIT(S) 60" HAND HOLE RECEPTACLE (IF APPLICABLE) 2'-0" MIN. 1010 Mainstreet, Suite 100 Hopkins, MN 55343 Tel: 952.278.8880 Reg No. SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL Date PROJECT REVISIONS Minneapolis www.htg-architects.com DATE NO C O P Y R I G H T © H T G A R C H I T E C T S Bismarck 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 Au t o d e s k D o c s : / / 5 3 8 0 . 0 0 0 0 M o r r i s o n I c e A r e n a A d d i t i on O r o n o - M N / M o r r i s o n I c e A r e n a A d d i t i o n O r o n o - M N _ M EP _ R v t 2 5 . r v t 5/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 6 1 1 : 3 3 : 2 0 A M MORRISON ICE ARENA E0.4 ELECTRICAL LIGHT FIXTURE DESCRIPTIONS 5380.0000 05/20/26 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road North Orono, MN 55356 ADDITION / REMODEL Drawn By: FSB Checked By: KDM ORONO, MN 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE POLE, BASE AND ANY OPTIONAL COMPONENTS NECESSARY FOR A COMPLETE AND CODE COMPLIANT FIXTURE ASSEMBLY ACCEPTABLE TO THE ARCHITECT AND AHJ. 1. PROVIDE SPECIFIED FIXTURE MODEL. INCLUDE AN ALLOWANCE PRICE IN BID. ALLOWANCE INCLUDES FIXTURE ONLY. PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COST FOR FREIGHT, INSTALL AND ADDITIONAL MARK-UP. PROVIDE CUT-SHEETS DURING SHOP DRAWING REVIEW. FIXTURE NOTES: F. NO SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER. E. COORDINATE THE COMPATIBILITY OF DIMMING WITH SPECIFIED CONTROLS. DIMMING SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH NO VISIBLE FLICKER. D. SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR EXTRA MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR LIGHT FIXTURES. C. ALL FINISHES SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDERING FIXTURES. FINISH SELECTION TO BE FROM MANUFACTURER'S STANDARD FINISHES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. FINISHES SHALL BE VERIFIED AT THE TIME OF SHOP DRAWING SUBMITTAL. B. ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING FIXTURE LOCATIONS, MOUNTING, AND REQUIREMENTS WITH ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, SECTIONS, ELEVATIONS, AND REFLECTED CEILING PLANS PRIOR TO ORDERING FIXTURES. A. CATALOG NUMBER INDICATES BASIC FIXTURE TYPE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT AND MAY NOT BE COMPLETE. VERIFY WITH MANUFACTURER TO INCLUDE ALL OPTIONS AND ACCESSORIES REQUIRED FOR THIS INSTALLATION. GENERAL NOTES: LIGHT FIXTURE SCHEDULE TYPE DESCRIPTION VOLT LAMPS VA / FIXT.MANUFACTURER CATALOG NUMBER EQUAL MANUFACTURERS L.L.F.NOTES TYPETYPE QTY / FIXT. N1 LED WALL PACK. TYPE II DISTRIBUTION. 2700 NOMINAL DELIVERED LUMENS. DARK BRONZE IN COLOR. MVOLT LED 3500K N/A 21 LITHONIA DSXW1 LED-P3-30K-80CRI-T2M-MVOLT HE WILLIAMS, INVUE, VISIONAIRE 0.9 N1 N1X SAME AS TYPE N1. "X" DENOTES EMERGENCY BATTERY BACKUP. MVOLT LED 3500K N/A 21 LIHOTNIA DSXW1 LED-P3-30K-80CRI-T2M-MVOLT-E10WH HE WILLIAMS, INVUE, VISIONAIRE 0.9 N1X N2 EXISTING WALL SCONCE. 277 N/A 0 0.9 N2 P1 TYPE V DISTRIBUTION W/ BACKLIGHT CONTROL LED POLE MOUNTED FIXTURE. 25' SQUARE STEEL POLE. DARK BRONZE IN COLOR. HEAD AND POLE SHALL HAVE MATCHING FINISH. 11,500 NOMINAL DELIVERED LUMENS. PROVIDE CONCRETE BASE PER DETAIL. PROVIDE BASE COVER. PROVIDE POLE MOUNTED OCCUCANCY SENSOR FOR 50% LEVEL CONTROL. MVOLT LED 3500K N/A 90 LITHONIA DSX0LED-P5-30K-80CRI-T2M-MVOLT-SPA-PIR-HS GARDCO, MCGRAW EDISON, BEACON 0.9 2 P1 P2 TYPE V DISTRIBUTION W/ BACKLIGHT CONTROL LED POLE MOUNTED FIXTURE. 25' SQUARE STEEL POLE. DARK BRONZE IN COLOR. HEAD AND POLE SHALL HAVE MATCHING FINISH. 11,200 NOMINAL DELIVERED LUMENS. PROVIDE CONCRETE BASE PER DETAIL. PROVIDE BASE COVER. MVOLT LED 3500K N/A 90 LITHONIA DSX0LED-P5-30K-80CRI-T4M-MVOLT-SPA-PIR-HS GARDCO, MCGRAW EDISON, BEACON 0.9 2 P2 P3 SAME AS P1 EXCEPT DUAL HEAD 180 DEGREE ROTATED OPTICS. MVOLT LED 3500K N/A 180 LITHONIA DSX0LED-P5-30K-80CRI-T2M-MVOLT-SPA-PIR-HS GARDCO, MCGRAW EDISON, BEACON 0.9 2 P3 P4 EXISITNG SITE POLE. 277 N/A 0 P4 P5 EXISITNG SITE POLE. 277 N/A 0 P5 NO SCALE POLE BASE DETAIL B11 178 RINK ADDITION: 48,760 SF EXISTING BUILDING 37,205 SF COUNTY ROAD 6 OL D C R Y S T A L B A Y R O A D EXISTING STORM WATER POND EXISTING WETLAND EXISTING STORM WATER POND EXISTING WETLAND EXISTING WETLAND EXISTING WETLAND 4 A2 3 A2 5 A2 SIGN F SIGN E SIGN D SIGN CSIGN B SIGN A SIGN G 2 A2 SIGN H LOWER LEVEL (EXTG.) EL.= 100'-0" EXTG. MEZZANINE EL.= 112'-0" T.O. HIGH EXTG. PARAPET EL.= 129'-0" EXTG. RINK LEVEL EL.= 97'-4" MAIN LEVEL EL.= 108'-8" T.O. PARAPET EL.= 124'-4" T.O. PRECAST @ RINK BOX EL.= 147'-0" TRAINING PLATFORM EL.= 120'-0" SIGN A SIGN B SIGN C SIGN D SIGN E MAIN LEVEL EL.= 108'-8" T.O. PARAPET EL.= 124'-4" T.O. PRECAST @ RINK BOX EL.= 147'-0" SIGN G T.O. SCREENING EL. = 134'-1" 10'-0" CONCRETE BASE STONE 18"H. STEEL LETTERING, MOUNTED ON STANDOFFS 8' - 6 " 1 ' - 6 " 9'-0" 6 A2 3'-0" 3'-0" PARKING SETBACK PA R K I N G S E T B A C K FLAGPOLES 5'-0" 9'-0" 5' - 0 " 9 ' - 0 " MONUMENT SIGN, SEE ELEVATION R 10'-0" ROCK MULCH BED LOWER LEVEL (EXTG.) EL.= 100'-0" EXTG. MEZZANINE EL.= 112'-0" T.O. HIGH EXTG. PARAPET EL.= 129'-0" EXTG. RINK LEVEL EL.= 97'-4" MAIN LEVEL EL.= 108'-8" T.O. PRECAST @ RINK BOX EL.= 147'-0" SIGN H SIGNAGE SCHEDULE SIGN A BACKLIT 30" LETTERS WITH SPARTAN LOGO AND SPONSOR'S LOGO 128 SF SIGN B BACKLIT 24" LETTERS WITH SPONSOR LOGO SIGN C BACKLIT 42" LETTERS SIGN D BACKLIT 24" LETTERS WITH SPONSOR LOGO SIGN E BACKLIT 18" LETTERS WITH SPONSOR LOGO 52 SF 87 SF 60 SF 32 SF SIGN F MONUMENT SIGN WITH UPLIGHTING 86 SF SIGN G BACKLIT 42" LETTERS 87 SF SIGN H BACKLIT 42" LETTERS 87 SF TOTAL SIGNAGE AREA:619 SF 1010 Mainstreet, Suite 100 Hopkins, MN 55343 Tel: 952.278.8880 Reg No. C O P Y R I G H T © H T G A R C H I T E C T S SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL Date PROJECT REVISIONS DATE NO BismarckMinneapolis www.htg-architects.com Minnesota C: \ U s e r s \ j j o h n s o n . H T G \ D o c u m e n t s \ A R C H _ 2 3 1 1 6 8 _ C e n t r a l _R 2 5 _ j j o h n s o n C M T A J . r v t 5/ 2 0 / 2 0 2 6 2 : 0 9 : 3 1 P M MORRISON ICE ARENA A2 SIGN PLAN Drawn By: KMH Checked By: JAJ 231168 05/20/2026 Name 123456 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road North Orono, MN 55356 ADDITION / REMODEL ORONO, MN 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 Architect under the laws of the State of NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL ONLY 1" = 50'-0"A2 1 SITE PLAN - SIGNAGE TRUE NORTH 3/32" = 1'-0"A2 4 SOUTH ELEVATION - SIGNAGE 3/32" = 1'-0"A2 3 NORTH ELEVATION - SIGNAGE 1/2" = 1'-0"A2 6 MONUMENT SIGN - SIGN F 1/4" = 1'-0"A2 5 ENLARGED SIGNAGE PLAN - MONUMENT SIGN 3/32" = 1'-0"A2 2 EAST ELEVATION - SIGNAGE 179 June 9, 2026 Planning Commission City of Orono Re: Case No. LA26-000020 – Proposed Ice Arena Project – Adjacent Residential Property Owner Comments Dear Members of the Planning Commission, We are writing as owners of the residential property directly adjacent to the proposed ice arena development referenced in the above case number. We share approximately 450 linear feet of common property line with the proposed facility and therefore have a direct and material interest in the Commission’s review of this application. We wish to state clearly at the outset that we are supportive of the ice arena project and its benefit to the community. However, given the proximity of our property to the proposed facility, we respectfully ask that the Planning Commission carefully consider the following concerns and the specific variances being requested before rendering a decision. I. Operational Concerns The scale of commercial activity associated with an ice arena represents a significant change in the character of the land use adjacent to our property. We respectfully ask the Commission to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are incorporated into any approval to address the following: • Security and Privacy: The shared 450-foot property line will border a commercial facility with regular public traffic. We request that appropriate screening, fencing, and access controls be incorporated into the site plan to protect the security and privacy of our residential property, especially given the proposed parking lot will have only a 10- foot setback (variance of 40-foot per code requiring 50-foot setback) from the shared 450-foot property line. • Light Pollution: Parking lot lighting, building exterior lighting, and vehicle headlights from the adjacent facility have the potential to significantly impact our property, particularly during evening and nighttime hours. We request that the site plan incorporate full-cutoff, downward-directed lighting and that maximum illumination levels be established, as well as mitigations for vehicle headlights parking along the shared 450-foot property line. • Noise Pollution: Commercial ice facilities generate continuous mechanical noise from HVAC systems and ice sheet refrigeration equipment, as well as routine commercial garbage dumpster pickup. As a point of reference, the refrigeration system at the existing Morrison arena is already audible from our property, and we can hear the garbage trucks (e.g., beeping and dumpster crashing noise) picking up the high school cafeteria dumpsters on a weekly basis at approx. 5:30AM. We request that the proposed locations of this external equipment and trash enclosure be considered in approval conditions to ensure noise levels at our property remain within residential standards. 180 II. Concerns Regarding Requested Variances We understand the applicant has requested several variances in connection with this project. We ask the Commission to give particular scrutiny to the following: • Parking Lot Setback: A reduced setback from our shared property line would place vehicle traffic, headlights, and associated activity and noise in closer proximity to our home. We respectfully ask that meaningful landscaped buffering be required, in addition to the proposed mitigations, as a condition if any variance is approved. For example, as mentioned above appropriate screening, fencing, and access controls be incorporated into the site plan to protect the security and privacy of our residential property. • Building Height: A variance allowing a structure taller than permitted under standard zoning would increase the visual impact on our residential property and may affect natural light. We request that the Commission assess line-of-sight impacts on our adjacent residential property before granting any height variance. III. Applicable Regulatory Standard We respectfully direct the Commission’s attention to Chapter 6.12 of the Orono Zoning Regulations, Article II, Page 7, Section (7), which provides that schools and similar facilities “shall be developed and utilized consistent with the intent of the community management plan… and not adversely affect adjacent property.” Also, “Indoor ice arenas accessory to a high school provided the arena, including accessory uses, is: 4. All structures are located at least 50 feet from any adjacent property zoned for residential use.” We believe these standards are directly applicable to the Commission’s evaluation of the requested variances and the conditions under which any approval should be granted. IV. Request We again affirm our support for the ice arena project and its value to the Orono community. We ask only that the Planning Commission: • Give full consideration to the concerns raised in this letter prior to granting approval of the application or any associated variances; • Require that appropriate mitigation measures addressing light, noise, security, and screening be incorporated as conditions of any approval; and • Ensure that the development, as ultimately approved, does not adversely affect our adjacent residential property in a manner inconsistent with Chapter 6.12 of the Orono Zoning Regulations. We appreciate the Commission’s time and careful consideration of these comments. Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ Jorgen & Yumiko Ellingson 2905 Sixth Ave N, Long Lake, MN 55356. 181 Arguments Against Approval: Orono Planning Commission Hearing – June 15, 2026 48,000 Sq. Ft., 800 seat arena addition with multiple variance requests on a 2 acre property that has historically been a residence is a bridge too far. Granting variances is not the solution to the applicant’s dilemma. They need to size the project appropriately to comply with the zoning requirements, no matter the cost or inconvenience. Overarching Arguments Against Site Plan Approval by Orono Planning Commission. 1. This application does not request one or two minor variances – this applicant, in order to ﬁt its project (a looming 48,000 sq. ft. structure) onto this site, requests 5 simultaneous variances: hardcover, building height, signage, parking and parking lot setback. The sheer number of variances signals that this project is fundamentally incompatible with the requirements for this location and will change the nature of the surrounding area and will cause irreparable harm to compliant neighboring properties. Property values and quiet enjoyment of neighboring properties will be harmed by approval of these variance requests. 2. This commission is currently engaged in updating the Orono Comprehensive Plan. Approving a project of this size that requires ﬁve variances may undercut the goals of the Comprehensive Plan by creating traﬃc, noise, lighting and neighborhood impact as well as infrastructure and environmental concerns. 3. This owner should not be allowed to skate past the reality that the size of the project and nature of the surrounding areas are incompatible with the development being proposed on the property. 4. The applicant should redesign the project to meet code – a smaller footprint, reduced height, compliant signage and adequate parking. The fact that ﬁve major variances are needed to ﬁt this project on the intended sight is strong evidence that this proposal is just too big for the available space, as convenient as it may seem. Arguments Against Each Individual Variance Under Minnesota law variances may only be granted when the applicant demonstrates “practical diﬃculties”. Diﬃculties must be unique to the property . The diﬃculty in this project is not with the property; it’s with the owner’s design and intended use. 182 1. Hardcover Variance. The need for excess hardcover is self-created: the applicant chose a building footprint and parking layout that exceed what the site can accommodate within code. To receive a variance, the issue facing the landowner needs to be unique to the property, not imposed by the owner ’s self-determined design choice. 2. Building Height Variance Height limits exist to protect viewsheds, neighboring property values and the community’s visual character. Arena buildings can be designed to meet height requirements through design choices (reduced ceiling heights, earth berming, depressed ﬂoor levels, excavation of the subject property to the levels of the existing arena site). The applicant has not demonstrated that a compliant height is functionally impossible – only that it is inconvenient or possibly more expensive. The visual impact of this structure on neighboring residential properties to the west will be substantially greater than 40 feet as the hillside terrain causes the building to loom above neighboring lots when viewed from grade level of neighboring lots. A 40 foot (or taller) commercial arena building would fundamentally alter the essential character of the RR-1B rural residential neighborhood in which it is located 3. Signage Variance Signage is completely within the applicant’s control. They can design signs to code. Excess signage creates light pollution and visual clutter, aﬀecting neighboring properties and the character of the neighborhood. Nothing about signage is a practical diﬃculty tied to the land. The looming size of the proposed structure itself is all the identiﬁcation it will need. 4. Parking Variance The parking shortfall is a direct consequence of the building size the applicant has chosen to maximize building square footage at the expense of required support structure. Solutions may be inconvenient or expensive, but they are fully within the control of the applicant. 5. Parking Lot Setback Variance 183 Again, this variance request stems from basic fact that the project, as designed, is too large for the site. Redesign the site, address the parking shortage by building a parking structure in a non-invasive manner or arranging for parking in adjoining spaces (e.g. Orono Public Schools, the baseball ﬁelds across Old Crystal Bay Road). This variance request most directly aﬀects adjoining properties and results in headlight glare, noise from car traﬃc, the visual impact of large, paved areas and the need for foot traﬃc to constantly pass through the parking area. Additional and Closing Comments. To be successful this project will need to serve multiple purposes and multiple constituencies. It will be owned and developed by a nonproﬁt organization that will be required to make maximum use of the property to support its continued operation. It is not just two ice sheets to support Orono hockey teams. The over 80,000 square feet of space will create multiple usages of the space (see Oronorink.com) that will greatly impact the entire community. The Applicant must work with the Planning Commission to design the project in a manner that will minimize the negative impacts of the project even if it aﬀects the overall size or cost of the project. Speciﬁc negative impacts the commission should consider include: 1. Placement of the trash facility should face Old Crystal Bay road to avoid noise and visual problems for residents to the west. 2. Any parking, if any, allowed on the west side of the building should be restricted to event parking only, not Orono schools parking. 3. Walkways to parking on Orono School property should be improved to encourage facility users to park in the lot to the south of the proposed project. 4. Large evergreens and fencing on the west border of the property must be added to hide the excessively large building (even after an acceptable redesign) and discourage foot traﬃc from wandering onto neighboring properties. 5. Lighting ﬁxtures throughout the facility need to be designed and installed to minimize the impact of lighting on neighboring properties. Given the applicant’s acknowledged (see Oronorink.com) heavy evening use schedule, this is imperative. Finally, current news articles ( see NPR.org 11/25/25 “When Private Equity Invests in Youth Sports Facilities”, also USA Today and The Wall Street Journal) identify a trend of community sports facilities being sold to private equity entities when they cannot successfully be managed by the community with the result being large price increases and other onerous outcomes for facility users. It would be in the community’s best interest to negotiate with the applicant as if 184 the applicant was not a local group, but a private equity investor. The applicant’s own website talks about a 50 year timeframe for this project and many, many things can change in 50 years. Many well intended community groups have experienced rink failure and have fallen prey to private equity groups. Since variances run with the land the planning commission needs to ensure any plans are compatible with the rights of immediate neighbors and are consistent with the Orono Master Plan. Submitted by Mike and Jody Wahlig, Orono residents 185 Morrison Arena 186 187 188 ti c-,.=..Y?'; 7 O O O b. - A CITY of ORONO F G'' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCII kESB g' NO. e ` A R'ESOL TTION GRANTING A VA tIANCE TO MUN CIPAL ZQNING COD ORDINANCE NO. 144, SECOND SERIES, SFCTION 5 FIi,E #2132 JV iER AS, Orono Hockey Boosters, Inc., a nonprofit Minnesota corporation, hereinaftr;r "the applicant") has an interest in the property located at 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road withi.i the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as follows: The east 430 feet of that part of Northeast 1/4 of South,vest 1/4 lyin; soath af County Road No. 6 excluding road, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the preperty"); and WH h2 AS, tk e applicant has applied to the City for a variarice to Ordinance No. 1 44, Second Seres, Section 5 that would allow the City to grant a conditional se perniit for a 163'x251' enclosed ice arena and the issuance of a building permit for the new construction on a property locatcd within Area 4 of a study area for the Highway 12 corridor. The ordinance would prohibit t ie City from the granting of a conditional use permit and tr e issuance of a building permit until the ordinance expires on July 22, 1956 or if the C u.rzcil. determines that he study has been completed, the ordinance may be repealEd at an earli r date. 1 1flVV, T IERE'OI RE, E IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2132. 2.The property is located in the RR-1B, Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District requiring 2 acres in azea. The property consists of 4.4 acres. The proposed 163'x2S1' ice arena structure will require no setback variances. Page 1 of 3 189 I O o b. CITY of ORONO ti RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 9k'ESH g' NO. e ° . 8 -., 4. The proposed improvement will not be contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Community Management Plan. i 5.The proposed improvement has been found to be compatible with zoning and i official control amendments being considered by the City. 6. The proposed improvement does not adversely impact the health, safety or welfare of the citizens. 7.The proposed improvement meets staiidards of pertinent sections of the Orono City Code and State laws. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND COND(TIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variarice to Ordinance No. 144, Second Series, Section 5 to perniit the consideration of the conditional use permit application and the issuance of a building permit for an enclosed hockey area to be located at 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road North as requested by the Orono Hockey Boosters, Inc. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on this 22nd day of April, 1996. AT ST: Dorothy . II llin, City Clerk Edward J. Ca h , Jr., Mayo Page 2 of 3 190 O O O 6. - CITY of ORONO L_ G' RESOLUTION OF eT H 1 Y COUNCIL kESH 4 NO. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 22nd day of April, 1996, by Edwa d J. Callahan, Jr. & Barothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City. U— Notary Public a LINDA NorH rPUaucr NEE I`% MYCo ENNfpINCOUNNESOTq mmission Exp,Jan3 2O p Page 3 of 3 191 r -.,--_ ____ r : J e s O O O b. - CITY of ORONO ti RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL L kESH 4 NO. 3 ` A RESOLUTION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.20, SUBDIVISION 3 (A-1) AND VARIANCES TO SECTION 10.61, SUBDIVISION 2, (A-3), SUBDIVISION 5 (A) AND SUBDIVISION 10 FILE NO. 2128 WI REAS, Orono Ice Arena, Inc., a non-profit Minnesota corporation, hereinafter the "applicant") has an interest in the properiy located at 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road North within the Ciry of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: refer to Exhibit A attached (hereinafter the "property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit to construct a 163' x 251' indoor ice arena as a non-profit organization under a land lease agreement with Orono Independent School District #278 per Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (A-1), and variance to Section 10.61, Subdivision 2 (A-3) seeking approval of a signage area variance of 64 s.f. where 12 s.f. would be allowed, a variance to Section 10.61, Subdivision 5 (A) for a setback variance for exterior parking along Old Crystal Bay Road proposed at 19.3' where the code would require a 50' setback, and a variance to Section 10.61, Subdivision 10 (E) for a parking stall variance to the total number required proposed at 91 where the code would require 200. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota: FINDINGS 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #2128. 2. The properry is located in the RR-1B Rural Residential Zoning District requiring . two acres in area. The property consists of 4.4+ acres. 3. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on April 15, 1996 and recommended approval of the variances as proposed and the granting of a . conditional use permit for the construction of an indoor ice arena at a total footprint of 40,900 s.f. of area. The following findings;°have been made to support the granting of the conditional use pernut: Page 1 of 9 192 O ' Y O O b_ - CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 9kESH g'NO. 3 ` a.The facility shall be located on the same tax parcel as the principal high school use. b. The arena structure shall meet the required 50' setback from all lot lines. c.The ice arena will not be separated from the high school by a public road. d. The facility shall be owned by a non-profit organization under a GROUND LEASE AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT with the school district. Per a letter of September 6, 1996 from the IRS District Director, applicant's status is confirmed as a non- profit corporation maintaining Section 501 (c) (3) status. e.Applicant has submitted a certificate of costs and sources of funds for the construction of arena and has demonstrated financial capability to complete said construction conf'uming 89.6% commitment of funds or revenue have been attained meeting the required 80% as required per code. 2. The following unique fmdings and hardships can be made to support the granting of the variances: a.The exterior parking area is located adjacent to Old Crystal Bay Road and the area is surrounded by schools, school parking lots and sports facility fields and parking lots and will have no impact on sunounding residential neighborhood. b. A lease agreement between applicant and the Orono School District will allow both to share in the parking areas located on entire school property. c.There shall be a walkway connecting the most northern parking lot of Orono High School with the southern and eastern parking lots at the ice arena facility. d. The setback of the exterior parking area adjacent to Old Crystal Bay Road is consistent with the setback of the parking areas serving the Orono High School, Middle School and Elementary School. Page 2 of 9 193 r O O O b. - CITY of ORONO ti RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL kESH S`' NO. 3 " H e.There is adequate room within setback area of exterior parking and road to provide plantings to minimize impact of parking area. f.Signage area of 12 s.f. for the proposed use is inadequate to serve needs of faciliry located on a corner lot adjacent to a major roadway that will carry out of town visitors to facility. g.There is a need to provide adequate warning of the location of the facility at the intersection of County Road 6 and Old Crystal Bay Road. 3. Applicant held information meetings for approximately 21 residents informed via written notice on both January 24, 1996 and March 21, 1996. The purpose of the meetings was to provide neighbors an opportunity to learn of the project before being presented to the City for formal review. The hope of the applicant was to receive early input so as to amend plans in order to eliminate any controversy. Attendance at the informational meetings was small and each person attending was given the opportunity to speak and ask questions of applicant. 4. Applicant has submitted addendum information that includes copies of letters to residents either responding to questions raised at the meetings and restating applicant's position as to the need to approve proposal as presented. 5. In a report by Michael P. Gaffron dated April 17, 1996, Mr. Gaffron confums that the ice arena does not fall into either of the mandatory EAW or EIS categories. As a result, no citizen petition for an EAW/EIS can be honored. 6. A joint engineering study by both the cities of Long Lake and Orono in the summer of 1996 conf'irmed that the existing downstream sewer lines will be capable of maintaining the additional wastewater from the facility. 7. On October 24, 1996, the Metropolitan Council approved Comprehensive Plan Amendment#6 placing the school property within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area and allowing for the extension of municipal sewer to this property. 8.On October 28, 1996, the Orono City Council approved Resolution No. 3 7 91 adopting Comprehensive Plan Amendment#6. Page 3 of 9 194 o o b. - CITY of- ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 9 i'ESH04 NO. 3 4 9. The Council fmds that the conditions existing on this properiy are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, would not merely serve as.a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; is necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 10. The Ciry Council fmds that granting a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 163' x 251' indoor ice arena will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the public, would not adversely affect light, air nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring property, nor will its use depreciate surrounding property values and that the proposed level of use of the property will . be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above fmdings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit per Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.20, Subdivision 3 (A-1) to Orono Ice Arena, Inc. for the property located at 1025 Old Crystal Bay Road North to allow construction of a 163' x 251' indoor ice arena and further grants variances to Section 10.61, Subdivision 2 (A-3), a signage variance of 64 s.f., per Section 10.61, Subdivision 5 (A) a setback variance for exterior parking at Old Crystal Bay Road North of 30.7' or 61.4% and per Section 10.61, Subdivision 10 (E) a parking stall variance of 109 stalls or 54%. This approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the Orono ice arena project has been based on plans drafted by Hammel, Greene and Abrahamson, Inc., Architects and Engineers, Ted Roozeboom Architect, submitted to the City for Council's approval as follows: a.Layout and utility plan - dated March 22, 1996. Page 4 of 9 195 r O O O b_ - CITY of ORONO ti G'' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL kESH' NO. X b. Grading and surfacing plan - dated March 22, 1996. c.Planting plan - dated March 21, 1996, most revised date October 25, 1996. d. Floor plan - dated March 22, 1996, most revised date November 1, 1996. e.Exterior elevations - dated March 22, 1996, most revised date November 1, 1996. f.Site plan - dated March 22, 1996, most revised date November 1, 1996. 2. Upon application for a building permit, applicant must provide the following information: a.All plans as noted above must be signed by either the licensed architect or licensed enginee. b. Final specs and plans for extension of the utilities for the City Engineer's review. c.Written report from applicant's architect confirming number of SAC units required by Met Council. d. Final grading and paving plans to reflect Orono Engineer's recommendations and corrections. e.Payment of required SAC units. Payment of sewer and water connection fee at $8490.00 per unit to the City. Total payment to be based on number of SAC units charged by Met Council. 3. Applicant and owner to grant drainage easement over detention pond on property see sample enclosed). 4. Applicant to obtain an access permit for the new curb cut at Old Crystal Bay Road North from the Orono Public Works Department. Page 5 of 9 196 o o b. - C ITY of ORONO ti RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL kEsxog' No. 3 7 4 5. Applicant and Orono School District shall be responsible for protecting the Type I wetlands located on this property by GME Consultants, Inc. in their report dated June 29, 1995. A map locating the two protected wetlands is attached to this resolution as Page 9. Applicant and owner of the property shall agree to never alter by excavating or filling said wetland before first obtaining required permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and U.S. Corps of Engineers before ' coming to the Ciry of Orono for appropriate permit approval. 6. All exterior air conditioning condensers shall be surrounded by an approved masonry wall so as to minimize any impact of noise upon adjacent residential neighbors. 7. Appl cant shall agree to install fencing and landscaping as requested by immediate residential neighbor to west of property. 8. In the granting of this conditional use permit, the City approves the proposed uses and the hours of operation during geak winter months commencing September 15th through March 15th at 5:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. and off-season periods from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The City reserves the right to reconsider this conditional use permit should the operation of the facility or the hours of operation result in any detriment to the public health, safety or welfare. This review shall be subject to the standards set forth in Section 10.09, Subdivision 11 of the Zoning Code. 9. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the properry not with the owner, but are permissive only and must be exercised by application for a building permit within one year of the date of Council's approval, or the special conditions of this resolution will expire on that date (October 28, 1997). 10. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Code, shall automatically teiminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. Page 6 of 9 197 O O b. - CITY of ORONO ti G'' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL kESH'NO. ! 4. 11. An authorized representative of the Orono Ice Arena, Inc. and an authorized representative of Independent School District #278 have read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of themselves, their successors and assigns, hereby agree to the recording of this resolution in the Chain of Title of the property. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of October, 1996. ATTEST: y 0 othy . allin, City Clerk dward 7. Call an, Jr., Mayor Authorized Re sent ve of Autho ized resentative of Independent Orono Ice na, Inc. School District#278 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 28th day of October, 1996, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. and Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor and Ciry Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instiument was executed on behalf of the-City. LINDA S.VEE NOTARYPUBUC-MINNESOTA HENNEPINCOUNTY NOtc1Ty PllU11C My Commission Expires Jan.31,2000 Page 7 of 9 . 198 ti• . O V O O b_ - CITY of ORONO ti L G'' RESOWTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL kESH NO. Q 1t- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this +,, day of ,,,, ,,Y , 199 before me a Notary P blic w itl in andforsaidcounty,personally appeared A"-h°r`z. p ay' a `` known to me to be the person(s) described in and ho executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. CAROLE A HASEMAN V:: y.. r' , NOTAR1fPlfBt.VGMINNESOTA f H8 1NEPlN C4UMY J/ r . //l il_/yL YM MyConun sstur,Exp res,an.3t,2 oo NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this ,l b day of .;,h e 199!before me a Notary Public withiti'' u or ZecE /C ep resen e andforsaidcounty,personally appeared /Q,/ ', t_ctw sar z-„ o Oni.l n SCYi oi .n,s r;--,ta l:nown to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument;and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. e =, LINDA S.VEE NOTMYPUBLIG IINNES07A z ;-' HENNEPIN COUNTY My Commission Expires Jan.31,200o O ARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this day of 199_before me a Notary Public within and for said caunty,personally appeared known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,and • acknowledged that h (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC Page 8 of 9 199 t D u 9.i iv 5 ini0 612 5b 3 U12U t2lZH/ t :+'tt ,3g' Job 54 $'.6E' i4J24 Y• j;=:• y'U:`. e"Y 4 t , q V.z:n: t= M:.: w C j T--.— y:s, co:t t Y NraF: F, t 7 T_-•• • ' " "' 3 95-3 i b s: 94-3 i y: it_' ARFAIP• a. P(OPQSE•:. r r. l Ei-95•?.U f i-95-5 To owr wArta L ._...._ Si.4PE: + f'iiGf'cl; i AR JC 8-95-1 I'1R TP-L i 91 -._.. TP-8.. . 7 'h rf 7' 7.-: PROPOSE:U PRRK IG a Ai2E:A F-k T* 94-t kCtP tTY T;-6• ; i Q m a E3A51N ?. - ' ~ S q'°Y_'5 ....._ . t.._ , -.._..._-....____._. .... . +.__..... _ E^vAil sCHO_ t ax s T L GFND A4..Tt111iY F=:.LU i ; s..ALE s 3 6 SOFL'!'i pR1L.E.£U T}l.S REPOrZT r-• ..__..... • a;.s I.L F v Et:c[r. r a f: FF z sUU' W::'l.Jtt. Tk5'T F S At4 PF:: wE'T M.D Stx ARY LOCATiOt s /J PPPRUxtaA1' I FPROXt'1A7E WEILMID OUk I S M C NSU.Ti'rhl7S. iNC. PROPQSCD !G AR.PtP c.o••eYv icd tbat.rteta*+vtrom.td OEZOt 10. YAi1»S TI . lAOOd 21 t /v nw N, r- : i41.!5q-1a54 55447 lCIy1B T M D C 95 Gt'7E Pra jact No. 1b67-9 n 12/19/95 15:11 TX/RX N0.0488 P.006 200 38 28-118-23 31 0001 STONEGATE FARM INC PO BOX 432 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 28-118-23 31 0004 JAMES T SWANSON 2995 JAMES TOWN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 31 0005 MICHAEL J & JO ELLEN WAHLIG 2945 JAMESTOWN ROAD S LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 31 0006 JORGEN & YUMIKO ELLINGSON 2905 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 31 0007 ORONO ICE ARENA INC 1025 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 31 0008 LORRAINE M NIICHEL NO 4 JAMESTOWN ROAD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 32 0007 ROBERT T FAYFIELD JEANNE E HOENE 3105 COUNTY RD 6 ORONO MN 55356 38 28-118-23 32 0008 LUCAS & ERIKA KERANEN 3045 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 32 0009 BRENT & ANGELA MCKEE 3025 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 33 0001 ORONO IND SCHOOL DIST NO 278 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 33 0003 ORONO IND SCHOOL DIST NO 278 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 33 0008 KRISTI SCHERWEIT JUSTIN PAQUETTE 3065 JAMESTOWN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 33 0009 ANDREW L PAGE JULIE M PAGE 3050 JAMESTOWN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 33 0010 GARY A LARSON 3085 JAMESTOWN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 33 0015 ANDREW L PAGE JULIE M PAGE 3050 JAMESTOWN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 34 0002 ANDREW L & JULIE M PAGE 3050 JAMESTOWN RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 34 0003 ORONO IND SCHOOL DIST NO 278 1025 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 42 0004 CHAD & ANN-MARIE GROCHOWSKI 1265 MAPLEWOOD DR MEDINA MN 55356 38 28-118-23 42 0007 ROBERT MICHAEL GILBOE MICHELLE R GILBOE 1125 PINE VIEW DR ORONO MN 55356 38 28-118-23 42 0008 MICHAEL J VANYO LORI J VANYO 1135 PINE VIEW DR N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 43 0005 ORONO IND SCHOOL DIST NO 278 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 43 0010 ORONO IND SCHOOL DIST NO 278 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 33-118-23 12 0007 H R A CITY OF ORONO 2700 KELLEY PKWY LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 33-118-23 21 0001 ORONO IND SCHOOL DIST NO 278 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 33-118-23 21 0002 ORONO IND SCHOOL DIST NO 278 685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE MN 55356 201 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 795 Old Crystal Bay Rd N 0 410 820205 Feet Date: 5/20/2026 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 202 PLANNING COMMISSION Date: Sign I n ! NAME ADDRESS 1.Ij A�A C--51016JUV PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR: ITEM # PUBLIC COMMENT j ❑ f) R ❑ 5. t"�Vi� PL f �. ❑ 6. P-jQ I ftO q)04 7. (1� j�t� r F-1 ❑ 8J A El 9. /, ".ier ❑ 10. i ❑ 11. �-' l ❑ 12. ❑ 13. ❑ 14. ❑ 15. ❑ assistive listening device available upon request