Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-21-2017 Planning Commission Packet PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE PI-14. 14-1-i- 02// aD!7 ❑ COUNCIL 1 PLANNING COMMISSION ❑ OTHER Assistive Listening Device available upon request. Please complete the following information for City records .X PRESENT FOR(from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1. 6 ks V\ �iiaV� ) � q i j, 2. &M ..PPA y /�eTsG .7IS-S ClaCc° d;cc/,o 17 _\ 17' . 3. '—lkl re -31 0 A-014 O /4,-(Lf 0-.-5 q 3 2-- 4. 4,1/3 Pil fi 1 / 1 5. / rc .r /ieli 3k› 34) I .0 � / 2 - 31 6 Z 6. 94Vi MO I a c al Cs() lUu -f4i L"1- 3'132- 7. 71),44 �/1---9) tlisT 470 VL _e17 -3 63 8. ___<-7Wi alt-(0--t- C70 S r,4de (., \1 ._3 ., 9. Plot-510- 4- j b C- 7 6 ick I g e Ora-K.0 OvcJi rd j 7- 3 7 3 )_ 10. C.K i k) -ev - ____ Lf a(00 > A H-L I\c) / 7 - 3 ,Z3 11. Ten I Tiku vIk . r_ 7 o P (tce ) 7- 7j1& -2-- 12. Moilt, Vciti3C-69 i , ii ,, 3? — 3742 13. '3( 5.CAOPUS CGQ-C 1 7 39s s L 141\ 11 -, 4 / el c tfcYC *1 Ozeita4 /7 i-5 Z� 15. e Le _ ,i t, V:1(LEGAL FORMS)1(FORMS)1PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE 4t,{ p-i� ' 'i7 ❑ COUNCIL ❑ PLANNING COMMISSION ❑ OTHER Assistive Listening Device available upon request. Please complete the following information for Cirecords PRESENT FOR(from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1. z- �` �c��1 c.�r S `f 4 P L 2. IS C& \7 ? C'hLrF. c 2 v �r 5cz 3. vt. ) 23D )0, )) fh 4. / iI 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. V:1(LEGAL FORMS)1(FORMS)1PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC i1SHi1fillpH/HIalIIfaH�HMN�UNIIniHiflmHrflii EIIHS erasion aillllINH�t�NOSIMI�tliiknf�� 'Nm/latimim 1122111ff0111111 11�DI•II I• IH4.11.4 21H 1�11g Y = As ; yV. �. tr y �[ESHO''' 1 * 1 a Orwta n • !i . _...cerur Rena Y.. ..4 .`� ._.__r•'' ita ;e..>.., s,- . hir^ d 3 : Legend w -».- City Limits i ,,» X romaii■ikftwealsH � ! f�0116111 , AGENDA n\,.., . _ 4� `' –'` °" i City of Orono Planning Commission Meeting for V �i uite2 August 21, 2017; 6:30 PM �� Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, ..e, l'i0"/"41 Orono, MN 55356 74932 '►.,,.,f...,„„i„m/m1`,a�,,.;,, 952-249-4600/www.ci.orono.mn.us r'in"it • , • Council Representative: Aaron Printup 111Iif)s '',vowa,,'ef. S I New Business ”`^`'�` • t 1. Approval of Planning a �.ogi1. - Commission Meeting Minutes I.: a --s. —�rHl . of July 17, 2017. ������• _ WSW a,,eare 2. 17-3949 Dale Gustafson on behalf of otI�� m Kevin Kretsch, t, s 3155 Casco Circle,Variance 17-396:1 °.,� (Staff: Laura Oakden) w„•„t, 3. 17.3963 JHG Properties, LLC, f�red7n 4035 Dahl Road, • Preliminary Plat and Variance a, _ (Staff: Melanie Curtis) taig\t * I 4. 17-3962 Lake West Development, V LLC on behalf of Rick& h Barbara Lupient, ,•'� PIDs 20-117-23-42- P 4,16 'g411'01111# 000110002!0003 �l.I1 �'!''�l (Lots 1, 2&3 Casco Point s AT.:xk tn.ti i A�,;t M I Addition) "Ivy Place", ' I 1 = Preliminary Plat i~"" "'1"""'„" ,� I (Staff: Jeremy Barnhart) 'r ! 1r ' 1E4 _Now _ -r ` 5. 17-3932 YMCA of Greater Twin Cities, °• a"i" """"� 4) �pt�' r' Nr 135 Orono Orchard Road V, *# eill►• North, Sketch Plan It,,,,.:,r„„ ,, (Staff: Jeremy Barnhart) i 0 0###S / P17-3962 .. I �, .... 0 ....r^..4.: August 2017 "`y°: _„, PC Mtg a�.,a' H>•Htf11it1r/)sflatHii/11 017-3949 1 - Disclaimer: 4I�� This rewire hneithernaer■legally recorded map nu a BOLTON survey and is not Intended to he used es one.This 19.10 Feet `/r' locaedrawingn acandt cut,ads,set.ofic ,,and other end data 1,�/ & M E N K 1� dIn various de,county, a��sed for sources effecting e e ea chow.and h to aced,° reference purposes only.The Oty of Orono is not responsible for env inaccuedes herein contained. Real People.Real Solutions. :•sa�tor+S Meni,au-Web G15 8/17/7017 6.76 AM t MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Kevin Landgraver,Bruce Lemke,Denise Leskinen,Chad Olson, Loren Schoenzeit,and Jon Schwingler. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart,City Planner Melanie Curtis,City Planner Laura Oakden,and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Dennis Walsh was present. Chair Thiesse called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. NEW BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 19, 2017 Lemke moved,Landgraver seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of June 19,2017,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 2. 17-3948 APEX HOLDINGS,LLC (SANJEEV MANGALICK)2635 KELLEY PARKWAY, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT,REZONING,PRELIMINARY PLAT,AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,6:33 P.M.—7:32 P.M. Ashish Aggarwal, Sanjeev Mangalick,and Viren Gori were present. Barnhart stated the applicant is proposing a new 70-unit,two-story residential facility. The facility would consist of 24 independent living units,24 assisted living units,and 22 memory care units. The proposed plan includes a two-story building with a defined height estimated at 32 feet. Underground parking is proposed under half of the building. The proposed plan would require rezoning to RPUD and an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan converting the site from commercial office use to residential use. The property is located directly across Kelley Parkway from the Stonebay Lofts at the west end of the long stormwater pond. The property is governed as part of the Stonebay Master Development and development of the property requires replatting from an outlot to a lot per the provisions of the agreement. The Stonebay development has established a certain design characteristic and Staff recommends that the building materials be consistent with the Stonebay development. These materials should be spelled out in the final master plan. Barnhart displayed elevation views of the building from all sides. The stormwater pond was originally sized to accommodate all elements of Stonebay so individual ponding will not be required on this site. It is likely some fill will be required to ensure adequate drainage and to allow for underground parking. Staff has been informed Hennepin County is looking at a portion of the parcel for an expansion of the stormwater pond,which may alter the applicant's final plan somewhat. The applicant has indicated that that should not be an issue. A proposed grading plan and landscaping plan have been provided. Screening is proposed along Wayzata Boulevard as well as some landscaping in front of the building. Page 1 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated the first land use amendment is for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and requires approval by the Metropolitan Council. The City established higher-density guiding of a select number of properties in order to offset the long-planned sewered development at low densities in the Shoreland areas. It appears to be beneficial to the City to rezone this property since there does not appear to be a high demand for office use and residential would allow the City to meet its density goals. To accommodate the proposed development,the site would need to be rezoned to RPUD. The proposed development provides a transition between a commercial or industrial area and an existing residential area. The Stonebay development,located directly across Kelley Parkway, is also zoned RPUD. The RPUD district standards indicate an RPUD site must be at least five acres in area but does allow for smaller sites based on Council approval. This site consists of approximately 3.5 acres. The Council has recently approved two smaller RPUD developments, Shadywood Villas and the Eisinger site,so that RPUD rezoning for this site would not be inconsistent. The setbacks from both Kelley Parkway and Wayzata Boulevard appear to be met with the proposed plan. The side yard setback from the building shows 35 feet. Barnhart noted the setback may need to be shifted slightly if Hennepin County acquires a portion of the parcel. Barnhart stated the maximum floor area ratio for an RPUD for an attached family development is one and the applicant is proposing a.52 ratio. A 20-foot setback is required for the parking lot. Some waiver would be required to maintain that setback, primarily for the driveway to provide emergency access. The Fire Chief has recommended the driveway remain at 20 feet in width around the building. The RPUD requirements include 10 percent of the gross project area being dedicated for recreational purposes. The pavilion and the green space around it amount to approximately three percent of recreational space. The maximum hardcover limit is 50 percent under an RPUD and the applicant is proposing 63 percent. Municipal sewer and water utilities are available in Kelley Parkway to serve the property. The property has not been previously assessed for sewer and water and connection charges will be due at the time of final plat approval. Staff recommends approval of the project but a number of issues still need to be addressed prior to issuance of building permits or approval of the project. Barnhart noted this was reviewed last summer as a sketch plan. Since that time some minor changes, such as shifting of the driveway access,have been made to the plan. Staff's report includes a number of comments regarding the outstanding items and issues. Barnhart stated the applicant is not proposing access onto Wayzata Boulevard. The proposal does meet the parking requirements based on the International Transportation Engineers' recommendations. Barnhart noted the City does not have parking numbers required for this type of use so Staff used those numbers to determine whether the parking would be appropriate.. Thiesse asked what the ITE number for vehicle loading would be for commercial was. Barnhart indicated he did not look that up for an office building. Lemke asked if the stormwater would be handled by the stormwater pond to the east and whether that has enough capacity. Page 2 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart indicated the stormwater pond to the east was designed for anticipated development of the entire Stonebay project and would be able to accommodate this building. Additional stormwater ponding is necessary because the stormwater from Wayzata Boulevard will be added to the pond. Lemke asked if this is the same developer as previously. Barnhart stated not to his knowledge. Thiesse asked if there is a reason Staff is requesting a trail easement since Highway 112 will have a trail along it. Barnhart stated it is expected that eventually a trail will be provided, whether it is on this property or on Highway 112. Landgraver asked why only 48 units will quality as residential rather than 70 units. Barnhart stated the Metropolitan Council will only count units as residential if they contain a full kitchen. Based on preliminary discussions,only 48 will qualify. Landgraver asked what the height of the condominiums is across the street. Barnhart indicated those are three stories with underground parking. Barnhart stated he was unable to find the plans for the condominiums but it is Staff's belief they are higher than the proposed building. Thiesse asked if the property to the west would also require an RPUD or whether it could be developed as it is currently zoned. Barnhart stated it could be developed as a commercial parcel. Ashish Aggarwal, Developer,stated they appeared before the City last fall to get some guidance on their sketch plan. Apex Holdings has owned the property for approximately three years now and that they considered senior housing and a commercial warehouse for this site. Aggarwal stated in their view the best option for this property is senior housing. The City Council at that time was very open to the senior housing project given the available housing in the area as well as the higher density meeting the ratios of the Metropolitan Council. Aggarwal noted they will need 70 units to make the project financially feasible and that the units are divided into independent,assisted,and memory care units. Sanjeev Mangalick,Applicant,stated they have performed some initial market studies and that the studies did support the demand for 60 units. The studies also demonstrated this type of housing growing by 50 percent over the next four years. Mangalick commented Orono is unique because it has a lot of single-family residential homes but does not have a lot of options for seniors,which then pushes people out of Orono. Aggarwal stated it is their belief this project fits well with what the City requires,what is currently available,and what the site is guided for. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. Page 3 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Larry Schultz, 2670 Kelley Parkway, stated his concern is the one entrance/one exit onto Kelley Parkway and emergency vehicles and the amount of traffic going in and out of that area. Schultz stated in his view the City Council should consider another entrance onto Highway 12 or Kelley Parkway. Dee Schultz,2670 Kelley Parkway,stated she was wondering why the building could not face Highway 112. Schultz stated Kelley Parkway has enough activity on it with the police,the fire department,and the students. Schultz stated in her view this would be a detriment to what is currently a quiet community. Dick Moberg,2670 Kelley Parkway,expressed concerns with the parking and the likelihood that people will park on Kelley Parkway. Moberg noted there are 85 parking spaces,with many of them reserved for employees and a few reserved for residents. Moberg asked how many spaces are reserved for guests. Moberg stated it is possible 70 guests could show up and then there would be a lack of parking. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. Barnhart noted a copy of an email was received from Alan Leiding that has been placed before the Planning Commission this evening expressing concerns about the height of the building. Lemke asked how many underground parking spaces there are. Barnhart stated to his knowledge there are 39. Lemke asked how many surface parking spaces there are. Barnhart indicated approximately 36. Landgraver asked whether there will be any parking along the street. Landgraver noted the plan depicts some bump-outs. Barnhart noted the south side of the road is signed no parking and the north side is signed no parking with the exception of the bump-out areas. Thiesse asked if the master plan has the building facing Kelley with no access off of Wayzata Boulevard. Barnhart stated he is very confident the Stonebay master plan from the very beginning stipulated no access off of Wayzata Boulevard. Thiesse asked if Staff can obtain the numbers from ITE to verify how much parking would be required if it was commercial. Thiesse stated to his understanding residential would be significantly less. Thiesse commented emergency vehicle access is important since this building will likely generate more medical calls. Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission is concerned about access,they could recommend a secondary access off of Kelley Parkway. Thiesse recommended visitor parking be considered as one component of the parking needs for the site. Page 4 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated a balance needs to be struck between having enough parking for special events and the amount of hardcover that would be needed for additional parking. Landgraver asked if some bump-outs could be placed in front of the building. Thiesse commented it likely would only result in four additional spaces. Leskinen asked if there was just one entrance proposed in the fall. Barnhart stated he knows the driveway shifted to the west with the new plan and that the applicant has indicated they have no concern with adding a secondary driveway. Thiesse requested the applicant consider and study a secondary driveway. Barnhart stated he does not recall there being two entrances/exits shown on the sketch plan. Barnhart indicated the current driveway has been shifted to line up with Stonebay Lofts. Schoenzeit asked what it would take to get to the 10 percent recreation area. Schoenzeit stated not meeting that says to him the building is too large or the site is too small. Thiesse asked if the trail was included in that. Barnhart indicated it was not and that the three percent was a very general number. Viren Gori Architect,stated there are a couple of areas that probably have not been included in the calculations. Gori noted on the second floor there is a rooftop patio right above the kitchen and a flat roof area to the west can also be added as a patio or seating area. Gori stated another option is to step the building back to create some more flat roof areas but that there are ways to meet the 10 percent. Thiesse asked if the rooftop areas would count. Barnhart stated the target market for this type of building does not use a lot of recreational facilities and that generally rooftop open spaces might be considered but that it is a judgment call. Thiesse asked if the pavilion would be available to the community. Gori indicated it would be. Gori noted only 24 residents are in the independent living area and that the actual number of parking stalls would not need to be more than 24 for residents. Gori stated typically a facility of this size has a permanent staff of six to eight,with the rest being part-time. Gori stated the balance of the parking would be for visitors and that they could potentially accommodate 50 cars for visitors at any time. Lemke asked how many staff would be there during the day. Gori indicated they will have six to ten full-time employees and the rest would be part-time. At night there would be three or four full-time staff. Landgraver suggested the applicant do a parking table for the City Council. Page 5 of 20 , MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke asked why there was not a second entrance. Gori stated the main reason for not having a second entrance was circulation and wanting to avoid causing confusion with two entrances. Gori stated he understands planning staff usually likes to see one entrance in and out. Gori noted this facility will not generate traffic on the scale of an office building and that other similar projects he has worked on usually only have one entrance/exit. Larry Schultz,2670 Kelley Parkway, stated as he looks at the plan,he sees Kelley Parkway going through there and that he sees parking spots facing Kelley Parkway. Schultz asked whether there will be any amenities or trees or foliage so there will be a buffer between Kelley Parkway and the parking lot. Barnhart noted Kelley Parkway is north of the site and that there are some trees between Kelley Parkway and the parking lot. Barnhart stated there are trees also along Kelley Parkway that are not shown on the plan. Barnhart stated the intent with the landscaping was not to screen the building. Thiesse commented it would be no different than the parking spots in front of the condominiums. Schultz asked how far back the building would be from Kelley. Barnhart stated the distance between the corner of the building and the driveway is 44 feet,with Kelley Parkway being another 15 feet beyond that. Barnhart stated to his understanding it is 65 feet to the curb. Thiesse noted Item No. 5 in Staff's report asks whether the Conservation Design requirements should be waived. Thiesse asked whether the Planning Commission can encourage the applicant to plant some trees. Barnhart stated in his view a Conservation Plan is not necessary but that the Planning Commission can recommend some additional trees be planted. Landgraver stated in his view a more robust landscaping plan should be developed prior to going to the City Council. Landgraver stated he is not sure whether there would be a benefit to angle the parking lot to diminish headlights going into the condominiums. Barnhart stated landscaping is part of an RPUD and would be reviewed as part of the final Master Plan. Aggarwal noted the floor level of the condominium is much higher up than this building and that headlights and so forth should not shine into the condominiums. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission feels there is justification for the CMP amendment and rezoning. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that there is. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission feels there is sufficient justification for flexibility. Schoenzeit stated there could be flexibility on some of it. Page 6 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission has already discussed Item No. 3 and that they have encouraged him to provide more private recreation space. Landgraver stated the City should also show some leniency on that item given the nature of the residents and that perhaps they should include the rooftop seating areas. Schoenzeit stated there could be flexibility in how to get to that number but that he would encourage the applicant to get as close to it as possible. Thiesse noted if they are going to provide a 10-foot easement for a trail,that would be considered. Barnhart stated his understanding is that a trail goes towards the Park Dedication. Thiesse noted Hennepin County has a 100-foot right-of-way and that they would likely construct any trail within that. Barnhart stated the developer would pay the City's portion of the trail,and if it is located on this property, Hennepin County would pay for the trail. Barnhart stated the City can accept a rooftop seating area but that he does not believe a public trail would meet the 10 percent private recreation area. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission discussed Item No. 5 and that they feel the Conservation Design requirements should be waived. Schoenzeit asked whether any precedent would be set by allowing 3.5 acres rather than 5 acres for the RPUD. Barnhart stated the RPUD standards have minimum requirements and that they have different stipulations that could be applied. Number two of the development standards states the property is directly adjacent to or across a public street from property which has been developed previously as an RPUD,which would apply in this case. Barnhart stated the City has also seen some projects in the past,such as Shadywood Villa,where the Council did grant a waiver,and that he does not believe they would be creating any precedent. Lemke stated he has a concern with the amount of massing without a break. Thiesse commented the recesses and offsets help him feel better about the massing. Schoenzeit noted they are also stepping back the second level and adding some patio areas,which could help break up the façade. Larry Schultz asked about the stormwater pond having runoff from Highway 112. Barnhart stated Hennepin County is eying a portion of the subject property to accommodate expansion of the pond. Barnhart indicated a portion of the stormwater from Wayzata Boulevard will be fed into the existing pond,which requires a bigger pond,but that flooding is rather remote. Landgraver commented demands change over time. Landgraver asked whether the City has any mechanisms for keeping the structure at three different living options. Page 7 of 20 , MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart noted the applicant is applying for the three different living levels at this time,and if they want to change things at some point,they would likely have to go through another public hearing. Barnhart noted assisted living is a conditional use, and if another unit is added and the Code stays the same,the applicant would require the conditional use permit be amended. Lemke moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3948,Apex Holdings,LLC (Sanjeev Mangalick),2635 Kelley Parkway,granting of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment,rezoning to RPUD,Preliminary Plat approval,and granting of a Conditional Use Permit as presented and based on the discussion regarding the five issues listed in Staffs report. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 3. 17-3950 NOR-SON ON BEHALF OF MICHAEL AND MEREDITH KUHLMAN, 1760 SHORELINE DRIVE,VARIANCES,7:33 P.M.—7:46 P.M. Michael Kuhlman,Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to construct a new home with a lakeside pool on the property. An average lakeshore variance is requested. Because 1700 Shoreline Drive is the only adjacent lakeshore lot, the average lakeshore setback for this property is determined by the distance between that home and the lake to the south. That distance was verified by the applicant's surveyor today to be 1,065 feet from the lake. As a result,the majority of the subject property is unbuildable due to the applied average lakeshore setback. The new home and pool are proposed at 948 feet and 925 feet and will encroach lakeward of the average lakeshore setback. Because the standards of Section 78-72 regarding Lots of Record cannot be met because of the setback variance,a lot width variance is also required. Staff has not received any public comments regarding this application. There are notable practical difficulties listed in Staffs report. Planning Staff recommends approval. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Peter Euschke stated he is available for any questions. Thiesse asked if the neighbor is aware of the proposed location of the house. Euschke indicated they are. Thiesse asked whether that neighbor has any objection to the house. Michael Kuhlman,property owner, stated one neighbor has seen the plans and they are fine with it but that he has not been able to get ahold of the other neighbor. Curtis noted that property owner has been notified. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Page 8 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Dennis Libby, 1000 Heritage Lane,stated he spent a lot of time reviewing this application and that he is delighted to see the architectural design work on this project. Libby stated the good aspect is the fact that it looks architecturally acceptable and is complementary to the neighborhood. Libby noted he is a real estate agent and has dealt with septic systems. Libby stated he has a concern about the installation and use of a subsurface septic system. Libby noted 17 years ago the residents in his neighborhood were required to abate those systems once they hooked up to city sewer. Libby stated two and a half weeks ago a state of the art pressurized high pressure sewer system was installed to service Tanager Estates and at that time he asked the contractor if the capacity of that line was really going to be adequate for the three large-scale homes. Libby indicated the contractor assured him that the line is adequate and could,in fact,service more homes. Libby stated from a common sense standpoint,he is wondering why the City is talking about putting in a subsurface system in an environmentally sensitive area with large levels of habitat and on a lot that is almost directly adjacent to wetland. Libby stated in his view the subsurface system is antiquated and the City should look at connecting to this high capacity sewer system that was just installed. Thiesse stated in his view it is a system that works and that this property should have adequate room for it,which will be verified by the City. Thiesse stated his biggest concern with throwing it into a force main is that they are sending their problems elsewhere and that a well-maintained system should do what it is supposed to do. Libby stated the modern systems versus the old systems are much more efficient. Libby stated the system that is there,according to the City Engineer,has the capacity to service more than the three houses that were just approved. Libby stated in his view a subsurface system is regressive, old-fashioned,and taking a step backwards. Libby stated given the wetlands and the wildlife,it is a real concern. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. Thiesse stated he does believe there is a requirement for that system to accommodate this property and that the ordinances allow a subsurface system. Thiesse stated if they do not work,the whole City of Orono is in trouble. Landgraver stated it is a broader issue and that he would hate to make one applicant do something that other property owners have not been required to do. Leskinen stated she cannot deny this application based on the septic system since it is an acceptable system and allowed by code. Schwingler noted that issue is not in front of the Planning Commission tonight and that he does not have any concerns with the average lakeshore setback variance. Leskinen moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3950, NOR-SON on behalf of Michael and Meredith Kuhlman, 1760 Shoreline Drive,granting of an average lakeshore setback variance and a lot width variance. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. 4. 17-3951 STONEWOOD,LLC,ON BEHALF OF FORREST BURKE, 1020 TONKAWA ROAD,VARIANCE,7:46 P.M.—7:52 P.M. Sven Gustafson, Stonewood,LLC,and Peter Euschke,was present. Page 9 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis noted the applicant received variance approvals earlier this year to construct a new home with an elevated terrace,both partially ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. The applicants are now proposing to construct an in-ground pool within the lakeside terrace on the property. The pool will have a 46-foot encroachment lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. No new public comments have been received. Curtis noted she did speak with the property owner to the north earlier today regarding a question he had and that he had no comments. Staff finds there are demonstrable practical difficulties supporting the average lakeshore setback variance as outlined in Staff's report. Planning Staff recommends approval. Thiesse asked if there will be any projections from the pool such as ladders and slides. Curtis stated they have not identified any stairs. Thiesse asked if it would all be within the terrace as approved. Curtis indicated it would be. Lemke asked if a fence is required. Curtis stated the City does not require one. Sven Gustafson, Stonewood,LLC,stated no fence is proposed and that the steps into the pool would be under the water and that there will be no slide or railings of any sort. Peter Euschke stated they did their best to not encroach very much into the average lakeshore setback. Landgraver asked if this was an add-on to the original plan. Gustafson indicated it was. Gustafson noted there was a hot tub that was originally proposed for that same terrace but that has been eliminated. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Lemke asked if the City has any control if they decide to install a slide at some point. Curtis stated the City does not require a permit for a slide or other protrusions to the pool. Schwingler moved,Olson seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3951, Stonewood,LLC,on behalf of Forrest Burke,1020 Tonkawa Road,granting of an average lakeshore setback variance per Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. Page 10 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. 17-3945 PAUL VOGSTROM ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY,2710 PENCE LANE AND 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE,SKETCH PLAN,7:52 P.M.—8:42 P.M. William and Sue Dunkley,Applicants,and Paul Vogstrom were present. Curtis stated this is a sketch plan review with the purpose of providing the applicant with comments and direction for a proposed preliminary plat to rearrange the property line between the two properties and create outlots and a new private road serving three homes. Currently there are three homes addressed off of Pence Lane, all served by a 12-foot wide driveway. The first home is 2701 Pence Lane and has two curb cuts on the private road outlot at the north end. Pence Lane then extends through a gate just south of this home. After the gate,the driveway is extended serving two homes,2715 Pence and 2710 Pence,which is owned by the Dunkleys. The Dunkleys also own the property at 2709 Walters Port,which is where their residence is located. The applicants submitted a survey dated June 28 and a site plan labeled proposed survey dated June 30 to illustrate their proposal. The plans do not coordinate so Staff used the June 28 survey for lot area and other reference information. The applicant is working on a coordinated plan. The Dunkleys wish to change the lot line between their Walters Port property and the 2710 Pence lot, increasing the lot size and lakeshore frontage for the Walters Port property and to change their access through the Pence Lane driveway. The addition of the third home,the Walters Port home,triggers the need to create a private road within an outlot for access. The need to create the private road,along with the applicants' requested variances for a lot line adjustment,requires a preliminary plat. According to the Code,a private code outlot must have a platted width of 50 feet and a minimum paved width of 24 feet with a 100-foot diameter cul-de-sac at the end. Staff provided a number of issues for discussion in the Staff report. The Planning Commission should address each one and provide direction and guidance to the applicant tonight. Additional issues raised by the public or the Planning Commission should also be addressed. The goal of the review is to provide the applicant with an overview of the Code,city ordinances,and how they affect their proposed plan and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. The issues cited by Staff reveal a number of issues with the proposed plat and the Planning Commission should provide direction to the applicant regarding the plat. The Planning Commission should review each topic and identify issues to which the applicants should respond to. As a sketch plan review,any comments or suggestions to the applicant are nonbinding but should be helpful as the applicant moves forward. At the direction of the applicant,the sketch plan will be forwarded to the City Council for review. Curtis stated it would be helpful for the applicant to introduce the project and address the issues identified in Staff report. Thiesse noted the Fire Chief is fine with what is there. Curtis stated Staff would like clarification on what is proposed for the driveway and then the Fire Chief will have another opportunity to provide comment on the plan. The survey shows the driveway outlot at Page 11 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. 25 feet wide connecting at Walters Port Lane. Curtis indicated she is not sure if it is intended to be an emergency connection or an active connection,which needs to be clarified. There are also a number of items related to the layout of the driveway that requires clarification. The Planning Commission should provide direction to the applicant on those items. Leskinen asked if the shifting of the lot lines is creating a non-conformity on one lot that is currently conforming with regard to width. Curtis indicated it is. Curtis stated the lot line rearrangement makes the Walters Port property conforming with respect to lot area and width but changing the Pence Lane property. Curtis stated there is some conflicting information but that she believes the applicant intends to add one acre to the Walters Port lot. Curtis stated that lot appears to be just under at this point. Sue Dunkley stated their home on Walters Port Lane was constructed in 1958 on a small lot. Dunkley indicated they moved in in 1984 and remodeled the home in 2008 on the same foundation. Dunkley stated the lot is very small and currently is less than a half-acre. Dunkley stated they are going to purchase the neighbor's property so additional land can be added to the Walters Port lot. Thiesse asked if at the end of the day they are proposing two conforming lots. Dunkley indicated they are. Vogstrom stated they are trying to figure out the best access for the three properties. At the present time the Walters Port property is really not an easy access for emergency vehicles so they are taking a look at the bigger picture and how that can be improved. Dunkley noted that driveway was not intended to be a public access but just to make it easier for emergency vehicles. Curtis asked whether it would be gated. Vogstrom indicated it would be a strobed gate that would open automatically. Vogstrom stated they are attempting to mitigate the impact to the wooded area. Dunkley indicated they would like to avoid the need for a 24-foot wide road if it all possible. Vogstrom stated they have spoken with the Fire Chief about their plans and the possibility of adding sprinkler systems to each home. Vogstrom indicated they are looking to have Outlot C conforming from the gate all the way down to Walters Port with a hook around for fire accessibility. The driveway would service the three homes. The reconfiguration would allow the cul-de-sac to be reduced somewhat. Vogstrom indicated they are working with the neighbors on the proposal. Vogstrom noted that neighbor currently has an easement and is fine with the driveway being reconfigured since it would help them retain their privacy and provide for better emergency access. Outlot A would connect to Walters Port and the driveway would be shared by the Dunkleys and the new lot. Vogstrom noted some of the driveway hardcover would be removed as part of the project. Page 12 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse questioned whether Outlot A is wide enough for adequate turning radii for the emergency vehicles. Landgraver stated there appears to be some sharp angles that would be difficult for large vehicles to navigate. Dunkley stated a large vehicle would probably go through their circle and then out but that they are trying to figure out a way to make it easier. Vogstrom indicated they are working with the Fire Chief on the emergency access. William Dunkley stated if police and fire enter Walters Port right now,there currently is no place to turn around except for in their driveway. The new driveway would provide access to the other homes. Dunkley noted there are not a lot of options available currently. Sue Dunkley stated their property would also not be over the hardcover requirements following the lot line rearrangement but that their house is located within the 0-75 foot zone. Dunkley stated there would need to be a connection to the little cottage as well. Thiesse asked if that portion of the connection could be moved out of the 0-75 foot zone. Sue Dunkley indicated it is as far back as it can go. Thiesse noted the applicants are not creating any new non-conformities for lot size and are providing access for emergency vehicles. Curtis noted average lakeshore setback variances would be required for both lots. Thiesse stated in his view the emergency vehicle access is more important than having the lot be completely conforming. Schoenzeit stated even if the lots were not conforming in width and size,the road would need to be widened. William Dunkley stated they are proposing to make it 24 feet wide. Vogstrom asked what is not conforming with the new lots. Curtis indicated the width on Lot 2 and possibly the area in addition to the variances that are being requested. Vogstrom stated the lot area and width will be conforming with the new lot line rearrangement. The variances would be required because of the access and the average lakeshore setback. Curtis stated a hardcover variance is being proposed for the Walters Port lot in addition to a variance for the average lakeshore setback and the 75-foot addition on the Walters Port property. As it relates to Lot 2,2710 Pence Lane,variances to lot width and area are required as well as an average lakeshore setback variance based on the location of the home. Page 13 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse noted this is a sketch plan. Thiesse stated he would encourage the applicants to get the additional hardcover out of the 75-foot area wherever possible or to demonstrate a practical difficulty. Thiesse noted this is a peninsula and that there is not much they can do about the average lakeshore setback. Leskinen asked what is currently within the 0-75 foot zone. Curtis stated there is a connecting piece from the home to the new addition. The new addition and the driveway would result in 43 percent hardcover. William Dunkley noted most of their home is within the 0-75 foot area and that they are proposing to build out from the hot tub away from the lake. Thiesse asked if they could build out from the other corner of the house. Sue Dunkley indicated there is a generator and other utilities in that area. Thiesse commented that could be a practical difficulty. Vogstrom pointed out the outlot blocks the land to the north so it is not included in the calculation,which is also a practical difficulty. Leskinen asked if there would be an additional gate besides the one that is being proposed for emergency vehicles. Dunkley indicated there is already a gate there. William Dunkley stated they are proposing to widen the road for emergency vehicles to pass each other. Curtis noted three homes having access triggers the need for a wider road. Thiesse commented he is not sure about the need for a gate at the entrance. Thiesse asked if the gate is 20 feet wide at the entrance. William Dunkley stated it is but that it could be made bigger. Thiesse stated if the road is being made wider for emergency vehicles,that gate should be made wider. Leskinen asked if he would recommend removing the gate. Sue Dunkley stated they would like to retain the gate if at all possible since it helps give the appearance that there is more land than just a small lot. Dunkley stated the gate opens for all people as it is currently set up. Vogstrom indicated they would widen the existing gate and then add another gate for the Walters Port property that would have a strob on it to allow access by emergency vehicles. Vogstrom stated both gates would open automatically for emergency vehicles but that the gate to the Walters Port property would require a code by anyone else. Page 14 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Sue Dunkley stated she would prefer a code for the gate leading into their property. Dunkley stated if the access onto Walters Port is not necessary,she would be very happy with that,and that they are looking for direction from the Planning Commission. Dunkley stated they would like the three properties to have access through the gate. Leskinen asked if the road would then need to be 50 feet wide. Curtis indicated the platted right-of-way would need to be 50 feet wide and the paved surface would be 24 feet wide. Thiesse stated if Lot 1 were served by Walters Port Lane,then the other two homes would not need a private road. Sue Dunkley stated the reason they are buying the other piece is to have the access come in the other way. Dunkley stated the current entrance looks like the home is sitting in a back alley. Thiesse stated the three homes is what triggers the need for the larger road. Thiesse noted the connection will be gated but that emergency vehicles will have access without the need for a code. Thiesse recommend they look at the radii of the angles. Landgraver recommended the plan be further defined before it goes to the City Council. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission has discussed No.4 concerning the existing entrance monuments and gate. Thiesse stated to his understanding Orono does not have any other gates that require a code. Sue Dunkley indicated there would also be cameras on the gate so they would know who is there. Dunkley stated Walters Port is also a private road. Curtis noted there would still be underlying easements for access and utilities under the outlot for the roadway. Landgraver stated he has a preference for the way it is now since it will provide some exclusivity or a barrier but that in his view a code might be going too far. Vogstrom stated they can have it where if someone drives up to it,it will open automatically. Thiesse asked if Outlot B would provide access to the Huelers' property. Vogstrom indicated it is if they choose to use that. Thiesse noted if Outlot D were to exist,the Huelers would not require an additional easement. Sue Dunkley indicated the Huelers would still come in through the gate but more of their driveway would be on their land. Vogstrom noted there would still be an easement from Kelly to the gate. Landgraver noted the City has received a comment regarding a shed. Page 15 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Sue Dunkley indicated the shed would be removed. Chair Thiesse asked whether anyone from the public would like to comment on this application. Andrew McDermott,2702 Walters Port Lane,stated when the Dunkleys were talking about cutting themselves off from Walters Port,his biggest concern was emergency vehicles,garbage trucks,and delivery vans being able to turn around on Walters Port but that the Dunkleys have shown that vehicles will be able to turn around when they get to the end. McDermott noted Walters Port is only 14 feet wide currently and generally works just fine except for the turnaround. McDermott stated a number of years ago the City Council cut off Habermans from Walters Port and put the Pence Lane Road in. McDermott indicated he would like some type of emergency turnaround there,and if it is going to be gated,that's fine,but the gate should be in 20 to 30 feet. McDermott stated he was fine with the gates as originally proposed but the developer did not put them in quite as proposed. McDermott stated in his view the gates should not be widened and that the gates should be left to open automatically rather than with a code. McDermott noted there is a lot of wildlife back there and the maple trees would need to be removed if the road is widened in that area. McDermott noted the Dunkleys' property is part of the Walters Port association and that they have some responsibility for the lagoon portion of the association. If the Dunkleys change their address from Walters Port to Pence,that would need to be addressed. McDermott stated he is not sure why only one person owns the road but that it has been that way for quite a while. McDermott stated it is not a public road and it is really not an association road. If the City is planning on a maintenance agreement,they need to look at how that is going to work. McDermott asked why outlots have to be created and what they could be used for. Curtis indicated they would not be building lots and they would provide some separation between the properties. Curtis noted an outlot would need to be replatted to become a building site and would require a public hearing. Curtis stated one of the concerns with the road connection is it separates the Walters Port property from the other portion of the outlot,which causes the land shortage for the improvements that are being proposed. McDermott stated the Dunkleys were very accommodating to the neighbors when they were remodeling the home and that they are proposing to fix the road that was damaged during the remodeling. McDermott stated his concern is the width of the road. Sue Dunkley stated their plan is not to stop helping out the Walters Port association and that they are planning to raise the road so it doesn't flood everyone's yards. Dunkley noted the easements have all expired and that they are willing to redo the easements as part of this. Dunkley noted they put about $200,000 into the lagoon wall to reinforce it that the neighbors should have participated in but that they still want to have some responsibility for the lagoon. Thiesse stated in his view a wider road will be needed but that the Council might waive that requirement. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. Page 16 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. 6. 17-3953 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT,NON-ENCROACHMENTS,8:42 P.M.—9:10 P.M. Barnhart stated in February the Planning Commission reviewed non-encroachments. Following a review by the City Council,some changes were made to those. The amendment allowed retaining walls,planters and similar structures in all required yards when certain conditions are met. Retaining walls,planters and similar structures has been interpreted to include planter/landscaping edging of stone,wood and plastic,boulder fire rings,and boulder lot line demarcation. Retaining walls are not included in the hardcover calculations. It has come to Staff's attention that perhaps the intent was not to include lake yards. If the intent is not to allow planters or similar structures, such as boulder fire rings, landscaping edging or flower beds,the ordinance should be amended. Staff is asking for clarification in terms of what the intent is. Barnhart indicated he understood the ordinance to allow relatively modest improvements in a setback situation that are not impactful to the neighbors. The challenge Staff has is that it is fairly prevalent along the lake. Barnhart noted the ones that currently exist would be allowed to remain. Thiesse stated one of the goals of the City is to protect the lake and that he is not sure how isolated, small items that are not connected to the lake would cause a problem to the lake. Schoenzeit stated if 20 percent of the homes have a fire ring and then all of a sudden the City makes them non-conforming,that seems silly. Thiesse commented there are also some children play structures that are very large near the lake. Landgraver stated he always understood the ordinance to be in the context of side yards and that it has been the City's desire to reduce impediments to people moving out to the side of their property. Landgraver stated he does not believe the Planning Commission ever discussed the lake side. Thiesse asked where fire rings would be allowed. Schoenzeit stated if there is a 10-foot setback,the fire ring should not be located within that. Barnhart stated a fire ring is similar to a planter or a similar structure that are less than two feet in height but that a fire ring has to comply with additional requirements, such as a 25-foot yard setback from the house or other structure. Barnhart stated it appears from aerial photographs that approximately one out of every three lots on the lake has some sort of hardcover in the lake yard. Staff did receive a complaint,which is why this is being brought forward. Barnhart stated he does not see this as a huge issue but that he wants to make sure the intent of the ordinance is being met. Leskinen commented she is not sure whether it is necessary to go to this level, especially since the structures would be allowed to remain. Leskinen stated the things that are problematic to the lake are addressed elsewhere in the code. Page 17 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit asked if that reported situation is still compatible as far as material and size. Barnhart indicated it is. Thiesse asked if it is the City's intent to create an ordinance and then only enforce it when there is a complaint. Barnhart stated it is Staffs responsibility to adequately and accurately communicate the goals of the ordinance to the residents and that Staff generally does not have the time to inspect people's properties for possible violations. If the ordinance does not do what the Planning Commission envisioned,now is the time to change it. Landgraver stated he is not interpreting this as overreaching because the City was attempting to accommodate flexibility and expandability and everybody was doing something that is tolerated. Landgraver stated Staff is realistically not going to go out to these lots and tell them they have to remove it. Barnhart stated the original goal with the ordinance was to address non-encroachments and to allow modest, small improvements since they cause little harm. From a Staff perspective, the current ordinance allows these small encroachments. Barnhart stated he is here tonight to ask if there is a desire to make any changes to the code to exclude the lake yard from these encroachments. It is Staffs belief that currently that is included in the ordinance. Landgraver stated as long as the structure is under two feet, there are no other size restrictions. Thiesse noted fire pits can only be three feet round. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:57 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at p.m. Leskinen stated a raised bed would be lawful on a nonlakeshore and that she is struggling with the fact that there could be someone who lives on a lakeshore and wants to do the same thing but they would not be allowed. Leskinen noted the City has other restrictions within the lake yard, such as the 75-foot setback,and that in her view there is no reason to impose further restrictions since the current restrictions help keep it in check. Schoenzeit stated perhaps the City needs X number of complaints to have it rise to the level of a text amendment. Barnhart stated there will be other situations where someone will exploit the ordinance and create an issue. Barnhart stated an example of a situation would be where someone has a planting bed and then edged that with rocks. Barnhart stated he is worried about having to tell someone that they cannot line their planting bed with rocks when other people have stones in their lake yard. Another situation is where someone has a play structure in the lake yard,which is not allowed. Barnhart stated anything lined by hardcover would not be allowed if the ordinance is changed specifically to limit those. Page 18 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Landgraver stated he voted on the ordinance based on believing it was based on side lots and that in his view it was not vetted for the lake yard. Thiesse stated the question he has is whether the side yard follows the whole side lot line. Landgraver stated his understanding was that it would follow the side yard until a certain point,which is similar to a fence. Barnhart stated there is an ordinance before the Planning Commission tonight that would prohibit structures within the 75-foot zone. The Planning Commission could recommend approval of the ordinance,recommend no change to the existing ordinance, or modify the draft. Schoenzeit noted the impact of these structures is minimal,and if more complaints are received,the Planning Commission can revisit it. Landgraver commented the City approved the ordinance,and by reversing it,it appears the City is over-regulating things. Landgraver stated it is likely that someone at some point will build something that does not quite meet the rules and then the City will have to come back and adjust the language. Schwingler commented it is not possible to envision every transgression. Schoenzeit asked whether Staff will send a letter to a property owner if the ordinance is changed. Barnhart noted the existing ones would be allowed to remain. Lemke stated one complaint should not necessitate the need for a change. Schoenzeit stated in his view the City is looking to pass something that doesn't fix a single complaint. Landgraver stated he does not think the Planning Commission looked at the lake yard when originally considering the ordinance,but if the City now excludes the lake yard,it will look like they are over- regulating. Leskinen stated in her view it is singling out the lakeshore property owners. Leskinen questioned what the benefit would be to exclude it now and whether people are going to keep on doing it anyway. Leskinen stated in her view the City has other safeguards to protect the lake. Schoenzeit moved,Olson seconded,to recommend no change of Application No. 17-3953,City of Orono,Text Amendment,Non-Encroachments. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 3,Olson, Schwingler and Landgraver Opposed. 7. UPDATE ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS: JUNE 26,2017,AND JULY 10,2017 Barnhart reported on the following actions taken by the City Council: • Denied the rock crushing operation • Approved a correction to the small lot setback regulation Page 19 of 20 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,July 17,2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. • Approved a resolution of a preliminary plat for 800 North Arm • Approved a resolution granting a variance for Peterson at 4105 Highland Road • Approved the site plan for an emergency dock at Molly's Corner for the Long Lake Fire Department. • Approved a variance for All Energy Solar • Approved an Eagle Scout project • Tabled the Catherine Sweet application • Denied the Westwood proposal for a condominium building on Shadywood Road • Approved going out for bids on the Navarre area plan 8. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Thiesse commented he would like to look at rezoning areas as part of the Comprehensive Plan update since people might question why the site is being rezoned from what is identified in the plan. Barnhart stated there are some opportunities to identify different areas that could be rezoned as part of that process. Thiesse stated building height for some of these sites should also be changed. Landgraver asked when these issues will get folded into the discussion. Barnhart stated ultimately the Planning Commission will see the whole Comprehensive Plan. Barnhart indicated the committee has been meeting and that they are in the process of reviewing various chapters. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS None ADJOURNMENT Landgraver moved,Leskinen seconded,to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 9:28 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 7,Nays 0. ATTEST: John Thiesse,Chair Page 20 of 20 , , Item 2 Date Application Received: June 21,2017 Date Application Considered as Complete:July 19,2017 /WA/ 60-Day Review Period Expires: September 19,2017 y To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members e, �� Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator 4kFSH°�� From: Laura Oakden, Planner LLD Date: August 21,2017 Subject: 17-3949, Dale Gustafson/Keven Kretsch,3155 Casco Circle,Variance request Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting the following: 1. A setback variance for construction of new retaining walls within 75 feet of the OHWL. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval as noted on Page 4 Background Mr. Kevin Kretsch and Mr. Dale Gustafson submitted an application to add retaining walls and landscaping to the shoreline of the property at 3155 Casco Circle. The property abuts Lake Minnetonka. It has a slope along the shoreline. There are currently stairs leading down the slope creating access to the Lake. The slope has started to fail in many spots.The applicant is proposing the replace the stairs in-kind and is asking to install some additional retaining walls to strengthen the slope down to the lake and prevent it from falling.They will also be grading and removing soil from the site to level the lake yard. They are proposing to move roughly 388 cubic yards of soil throughout the property and less than 20 cubic yards of fill is being proposed to be moved within the 75 foot lakeshore setback.The amount of earth being moved is allowed within the City Code. The applicant is proposing multiple retaining walls multiple walls running along the stairs and running along the slope. The applicant is also is working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to add riprap to the shoreline,this would include adding boulders that run above the riprap along the base of the slope which will act as a "curb" and protect the riprap and slope. This project expands a continuous flat yard. The additional tiered retaining walls will preserve the slope from the top of the slope to the lake. They are proposing to replace the stairs in-kind. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section7 78-350-Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100 Actual 30,622 s.f. (0.69 acre) 123'@ 75' 130'@ OHWL FILE#17-3949 Meeting Date August 20,2017 Page 2 of 5 Section 78-1405 &78-1279—Retaining Wall Setbacks: The proposed walls range between 1 and 4 feet in height(tiered walls)and are within 5 feet of the side yard lot line, requiring a building permit per City Code 78-1405 (5.1)b. The walls as proposed are situated at the OHWL of the lake. There is a second 3 foot wall tiered above the lower retaining wall. Additionally,there are multiple retaining walls curving up the slope to stabilize the stairs and the elevated lake yard. Section 78-1684Hardcover Calculations: Retaining walls are not permitted within 75-feet of the OHWL due to structural setbacks. Retaining walls are listed as an exception to hardcover calculations and are not counted towards the hardcover coverage on a site. Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Overlay District Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover Tier 7,463.5 s.f. 6,203s.f. 189' 6,708s.f. 505s.f. Tier 1 30,622 s.f. (25%) (20.2%) w/in (21.91%) w/in 75' 75 Applicable Regulations: Lake Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) Retaining walls are not permitted within 75' of the lake,therefore the applicant is requesting a setback variance.The applicant's plan involves replacing the existing stairs in kind, replacing the existing retaining walls, and constructing additional retaining walls. The applicant is hoping to proactively prevent any further erosion and potential failure of the lake yard with tiered retaining walls to stabilize the area.The walls as proposed are 4 feet or less in height but are tiered,thus requiring an engineered design. The City's engineer has reviewed the submitted plans and will require a building permit with engineering prior to installation. The retaining walls are the only new hardcover proposed. The stairs are considered an in-kind replacement.Ariel photos and photos submitted are attached. Governing Regulation:Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, subd. 2,when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. FILE#17-3949 Meeting Date August 20,2017 Page 3 of 5 According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2)variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Granting the lake setback variance to allow the improvements to be constructed within 75 feet of the OHWL is for the purpose of preserving and protecting the existing slope in the lake yard and will likely not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.Granting the requested variance to permit additional structure within the 75-foot setback resulting from the retaining walls is consistent with the priorities outlined in the comprehensive plan to protect lakeshore. Screening of the walls from the lake will be a mitigating condition of approval of the variances,which is supported by the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls;The owner proposes to install Improvements which are residential in nature and reasonable from a residential scope. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The owner has proposed a solution which will protect against failure of the slope. The existing slope of the lake yard was not a result of actions by the owner;and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance to permit structure within the 75-foot setback will help to maintain the existing slope and character of the locality. d. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn.Stat. §216C.06,subd. 2,when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.This condition is not applicable,as the use for retaining walls accessory to single family dwelling are an allowed use in the LR-1C District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.The slope of the property combined with the pre-existing improvements is a unique condition to the subject property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.The subject property's specific slope is beginning to erode and stairs have become unsafe creating conditions which do not apply to adjacent properties. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.Granting a lake setback variance to allow the retaining walls within the 75-foot lake setback is reasonable and necessary to FILE#17-3949 Meeting Date August 20,2017 Page 4 of 5 preserve the property rights of the owner and supported by the vulnerable lake yard slope on the property. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals,or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the lakeyard setback variance allowing the retaining walls within the 75-foot lake setback will not adversely impact health,safety,comfort or morals,or in any way be contrary to the ordinances. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulties which support granting the lakeyard setback variance to permit the construction of the tiered retaining walls and in-kind replacement of the stairs within 75 feet of the OHWL. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Septic System Status The property is served by City sewer. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B,and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Regarding the addition of retaining walls supporting the lake access stair and at the top of the slope,staff finds practical difficulties exist in the existing condition, and the need to stabilize and protect the slope from erosion. The portions of wall and the stairs are an in-kind replacement; two additional retaining walls near the top of the slope are meant to better stabilize the slope; the applicant also is proposing to construct one linear wall placed along the shoreline above the riprap. Staff conducted a site visit and based on the observed of the site conditions and the submitting information in the applicant. Staff is suggesting approval of the project with screening of all of the retaining walls be required to preserve the natural look of the shoreline when viewed from the lake. Staff has concerns regarding the linear retaining wall that runs along the shoreline that is connected to the rip rap. Planning Commission is asked to discuss the necessity, plantings, and screening of the proposed retaining wall. See Exhibit J from the applicant when discussing the bottom retaining wall and Exhibit K from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Engineer Comments The City's engineer has reviewed the proposed plan and requires engineered plans be submitted with the building permit.A thorough grading review by the City's engineer will occur upon submittal of the building permit for the walls. e FILE#17-3949 Meeting Date August 20,2017 Page 5 of 5 Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the variance conditioned upon the following: 1. Submittal of engineered plans with the Building permit application; 2. Approval applicable permits from the MCWD; 3. Vegetative screening plan to provide a natural looking slope when viewed from the lake; and 4. Removal of the wall directly above the rip rap,or if necessary to the stability of the slope, the applicant should provide justification and a revised plan which allows for vegetative screening of the bottom wall.Without justification, staff recommends denial of this wall. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Project Narrative Exhibit D. Survey Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Proposed Site/Landscape Plan Exhibit G. 3D Sketch Plan Drawings Exhibit H. Aerial Photos Exhibit I. Applicant and Staff Site Photos Exhibit J. Email from applicant discussing proposed base splash wall Exhibit K. Email from MCWD Exhibit L. Map and Property Owners List PC . Exhibit A �0.� City of Orono 17-3949 Variance Pre-Application y, 0 Meeting Form t�kESHo�ti (This form is to be completed by a City Planner during your pre-application meeting.) h + d ti M , R `F ".OffcUse Ony° , �x ¢ore ; - kr =g ' - y x � . Ae f in- tarirp � . z i .?* r I 1Qr ', ` a i wr » pit �"4 r .a, vg EmfMP, $ � xay3 ,,,l kP i ,xarr0pp 1 '3 b x/ t ( .. ..1,- What/s the purpose of a pre-application meeting? Pre-application meetings aid the applicant in preparing a complete proposal, inform them of the procedures and requirements of the city code,and identify policies or regulations that create opportunities or problems for the proposal. PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: 3155 Cosco Circle Property Identification Number(PIN): 2011723430027 Zoning District: Size of Property: 0.69 acres 29,854 DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUEST: ❑Average Setback 0 Side Yard Setback 0 Rear Yard Setback 17 Lake/Front Yard Setback ❑ Hardcover 0 Lot Coverage 0 Lot Area 0 Lot Width ❑ Other: Applicant's PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES: Owner and/or Applicant has received the Practical Initials: . Difficulties Documentation Form, understands it as it has been explained to them, and is Property aware that it must be completed and submitted in conjunction with their formal variance Owner's application. Initials: Applicant's BILLS AND ESCROW: Owner and/or Applicant shall pay for consultant expenses incurred Initials: in review of this application and/or additional staff time not covered in initial application fee, Property as well as provide an escrow in the amount of$$700.00 to guarantee payment of the Owner's above. Initials: OTHER INFORMATION: *Please note: Your variance application will NOT be accepted without a pre-application meeting during which this form will be completed by Ci staff. / Applicant Signature: (4 !'40. � Date: 7/5/17 Owner Signature: �J Date: —7/S—/2 Cir 7 Variance Application—January 2017 Page 3 City of Orono Variance Application Street Address: Application# -(Z 0 A) 2750 Kelley Parkway �/ Orono,MN 55356 Date Received: Main: 952-249-4600 Staff: fax: 952-249-4616 Fee: $700 • a Mailing Address: �� P.O.Box 66 Escrow: $700 / $2,500 l G Crystal Bay,MN 55323-0066 Notes: � SHOv-t Please complete. Applicant will be notified within 15 days as to the status of the application. Incomplete applications will not be placed on Planning Commission Agenda. SITE LOCATION: 3155 Cosco Point DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: Replace stairs and landings and add some walls to protect the bank. (attach additional sheets as necessary) APPLICANT INFORMATION: ❑check here if Applicant address should be used for billing Applicant: Dale A. Gustafson Phone(Primary): 763-544-4215 Mailing Address: 1845 Wisconsin Ave N City: Golden Valley Zip:55427 Email: PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION: 0 check here if Property Owner is same as applicant 0 check here if Property Owner address should be used for billing Name: Kevin Kretsch Phone (Primary): 763-226-8086 Mailing Address: 18215 34th Ave N City:Plymouth ZIP:55447 Email: kevinkretsch@comcast.net APPLICANT AND/OR PROPERTY OWNER: • Certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and property owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so,the staff has no alternative but to reject it until itis complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. • The Property Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff,consultants,agents,Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. • Property Owner and/or Applicant acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or property owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant/owner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. • Information will be distributed via email. • Applicant Signature: O ,¢j Date: Applicant Signature: Date: Property Owner Signature: Date: 7/s/ / Property Owner Signature: Date: Variance Application—January 2017 Page 4 PC Exhibit B 17-3949 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6(2) requires that practical difficulties be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The difficulties must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid practical difficulties. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council practical difficulties having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if practical difficulties exist and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties,address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of the twelve practical difficulties criteria as they relate to the request, if they do not apply, write N/A in the space provided: 1. "The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter." With out the variance to do construction the owner will not be able to protect their property from erosion,and the existing steps are completely failing and provide a very dangerous condition for access to the lake. 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." As stated in answer 1 Safety and erosion protection are necessary. 3. "The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality." The proposed solution to the two main problems are totally consistent in this area of the community 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." True 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." 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." NA Variance Application—January 2017 Page 7 7. "The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling." NA 8. "The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property." This property has special conditions in that the existing stairway leading to the lake is a serious safety hazard and erosion of the existing bank has already started and needs to be protected. 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." True,this property is unique to properties that are high about the lake.others homes closer to lake level to not have these conditions. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." Like most homes on Lake Minnetonka the access to and preservation of the lakeshore is a major property right. 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." This project will be similar to other projects in the area to avoid massive erosion and provide a safe way to access the lakeshore. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." This project desperately needs to be completed to avoid major shoreline and bank erosion problems like other properties in the area have occured in recent years. Practical Difficulties Statement Should you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): Variance Application—January 2017 Page 8 PC Exhibit C 17-3949 Planning and Zonning City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Project Narrative Kretsch Residence 3155 Cosco Circle Onono, MN 55391 Application # 17-3949 Variance in 0 to 75 foot zone Project Narrative: This application is unusual and common around lake Minnetonka because of the high ground around the lake, and the time that some properties have been developed. This project has two main components: Protect the bank from eroding more, and Replace the badly decomposing steps and wall providing access to the lake. The steps have been replaced and patched many times over the years, and the resulting conditions make it totally unsafe to use the steps for lake access. The replacement will be a "In Kind" approach in generally the same location. Risers and landings will stay vary much as is, but the pitch and slope will be corrected and new landings and treads will be installed. The bank is currently beginning to erode in several locations and will probably fail in the near future. The client will be installing new riprap along the shore that will provide the footing for the hill. We intend to build a small wall just up from the top of the riprap to contain some of the steepest and unstable part of the bank. To enhance the chances of the bank being stable we intend to do some significant grading to the yard about the 0-75 foot area and reduce the top edge of the slop as well. This grade change with allow the owners to "take care"of their water and not let it all cross the property line causing the neighbor to deal with more water. The grading will bring the water to the bank, but the top of the hill will be regraded allowing the water to spread out along the bank so the wall and platings can stabilize the bank. Most of the work will be lake access to the shore by barge, but part of the grading on top will be done from the top. Dale Gustafson Greendale Design 1845 Wisconsin Ave N Golden Valley, MN 55427 PC Exhibit D 17-3949 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR KEVIN KRETSCH OF LOTS 38 AND 39, SPRING PARK AND PART OF ADJACENT VACATED LAKE SHORE AVENUE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lots 38 and 39, SPRING PARK, and all that part of adjacent Vacated Lake Shore Avenue, and of the tract of land lying between said Vacated Lake Shore CASCO CI Avenue and the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, which lies between the southerly extension of the west line CLRof said Lot 39, and of the east line of sold Lot 38. 83°07'00" E 105.00 N neaewt�+� o denotes iron marker set • •: denotes iron marker found • /• , (908.3): denotes existing spot elevation, BLACKTOP mean sea level datum �ff covEWAY .-� I rl Af' • 1 -', � -517-- mean sea level dot mur brie, J • denotes existing I eo.o___--- I . I I _- I I 1 DOSING —19301—: denotes proposed contour line, -'"1F� COR I mean sea level datum 1 1 9 II Lor.0 II i Bearings shown are based upon on assumed datum. ( 1 s 13 I os_acTm � . >e This survey intends to show the boundaries of the I (o) 1 S b stiff above described property, the location of three '�� existing buildings, underground easement, spot 1 ... 1a woE L. elevations, topography and major trees on the II I •::-EASEIENT PER 004 lakeside of the house, and the adjacent houses II Id_'_' ND]M2BTB & lakeside topography, the location of all visible "hardcover", and the propsoed location of a I I rte.. proposed stairway, retaining walls and grades II IE)fjjSTING 1w' 3 _..,thereon. It does not purport to show any other I yl tf ��t„I '') 7 improvements or encroachments. / ARAGE I ' (((0 0) -'' i"` to III 40 Z o'-xi -�,3 c -1401'. . " - EXISTING a a ° HOUSE • ao O #3165 1 rn �I EXISTING ■ P1 ,,, `, rail. -rt tai 02 HOUSE wAl I c EP 11(H,$'p)O"( (/3155 i C'A, cryo'/ _, /.- ?�*..,!--''r-1-03e -- N {I,,�„ ra*1111 (A) 1 a lilj, . ...... " 1-' - Lir.. : ,/ l' , ---.__ _,.- i 1 031451 II``\`939 1 (...7) l)(. - -- i_______- /_ 1 cern ..-t .........-=vim= msn 1 avr'� � // / ne.a ,; .T[1.1.1r-n _�/' _. ce4o sireAa - / . ''. w LY LOT 3 \ LIE - -fes�f• '/ / / / OF Bs,rl -�� ,/ / /y,,.OFE LOT]e// // / %IE1♦fIED / ' 1: / e� //6c , // // awn 7 • � _\ � Exsrra srAEtWAY e4+> � // i •,'.� ro eE aEMovm Styp = I ` Ql . r-,.s -ir �- Ft tom, :- ��• i _ _ ____-1___ _._-_:.--7_-__: '.r..;'•-.•..�.` rw-933.0 _-____-'� r—� 1301 .9J c.,v.rl LIE(O.H.W.) LAKE MINNETONKA EAST UPPER LAKE 61E " !whereby c tit that this flurry,pkxr,or report.. SCALE ��55000MM GRONBERG AND a pep ky r ydirect 7-6-17 .Wroan•••Ar,eAw NO(WM row and toot I Aily Licensed Land Survey n 1">°20' 7.17,7 e� ASSOCIATES, INC. the Nee of the State of Minnesota. DATE CONSULTING ENGINEERS,LAND 5-8-17 , G SURVEYORS &SITE PLANNERS 445 NORTH NO LONG KE..MMN.53356OW DRIVE 17 B176A 952-473-4141 Mark 5.Graberg Minnesota Licerlbe Number 12755 17-176A PC Exhibit E 17-3949 City of Orono tN9. Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: „355 CAf co t /�c�E- arl<tz rs c,(/) qt,71 Prepared by: Date: G/( 044 Cif G f .4.11-0cmr61 , ice- 7-i 7-i7 Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) liaP Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 2:CPROPOSED HARDCO-� In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey(survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75'setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Hardcover Item(Describe) Length x Width Total Feet) y (Example) (Garage) (24'x 30') (720 S.F.) A 640ea e (Ex/TT, d c) /97y S.F. B , GAR LGf (c /rria-c) S.F._SR9 C G.f Ott G E CFxiJ'si.,.,G) Si 7 S.F. D Q,,,1/rW,t'7S /0 9 7 t it/7 (cx,J ,A4, /2710 S.F. E CDu jc.. GtJ.(L K ►`' 570 c,ASI. CCrx,rr..A.c) 6.9 o S.F. F FL.tGrrt:.✓t urea X/Pr...c 1/!— 2Y/rrOIf'feltuvr0= 67 S.F. G ®Eck ,E 176-40 r (E rij-ri .tr} 6 Q6 S.F. H "-TrYAi.4, 17.674..-,6".1` (Exi rrrvG) 32 S.F. I fro 6f AFwovco) '1fr9- S.F. J _,truerid ov Olerrar It IOr.r Gaw /iAPro- (errTrziVC) 33y S.F. K A/c OAA r (t=xi J't.A.c LS S.F. L /Ea.l ro Ot,,rr/AO art e,.c. 0-.4 Oris uv,s[irfijL (Er/rrwc) VA- S.F. M .77De/f IPA 0trig ('xipr/.✓G') /3 S.F. N 4E'TA/.4r,.ciG uJAcLI'tiler_r.^1NG) 9 S.F. 0 .P.CviDJki t'ro.d 4..../.4y 23 0 S.F. P Afa/oi Arri .. .-,,r./ WI 5 / 70 S.F. Q S.F. R S.F. S S.F. T S.F. U S.F. ✓ S.F. W S.F._ X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. (1) Total Proposed Hardcover 66 2.2 S.F. Excludable Hardcover(See City Code Sec 78-16544): N it Er.4.A.,,Arc 4VAtcJ Ole 7T/O6 of O-7:' zfi„.r / 9 S.F. S.F. S.F.' S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover /9 S.F. (3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line(2)from line(1)] 6 o 3 S.F. (4) Total Lot Area 3o,6-2 2 S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage ((3)t(4)) 2/.56% Subdivision Application-January 2016 This is an Information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein;however,if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code,the Code provisions will prevail. Page 19 PC _ Exhibit F 17-3949 , t / u .O 954 , a d n SETBACKTi-i LINE ______- _________________-_______,:_,____,..._z_________ oBeRemoved ,, / �,• / ' • 953 �, %. , i Plants-West Side ` f"• /, 1 yc.,ItED�•K E,'�� 1/Sherwood Compact Mugho Pine#5 pot - /!/4‘4.1.' - / N 2/Alp4ne#2 pot SplreaIMIII `;ri.�� ��.+ /�•�I U �` 4/Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle X2 pot VERY LARGE - �yy.:• - - ,_ _ ,-- - V Ift -- Perennial Flowers by Owner - •_. J� 7. - •E 4/Sea Green Junipers#5 pot - - Q115. 1Q -needed _ - -- -- - - '' Plains-East Side - to If needed after construction _..� - ,#i> `Y ��-.M�+r� .I�" -, Seeded Low grow fescue t to +eanarfly alie aro s�tn#icnot � `` ' ,�� '' ,.r¢��yf. "� -r - :, ,- -- -' MeniMain E>nsting Vegetatbn c to 1 23/Grow Low FragrantSumec �..1111111111111 ,,c/��i � , �)��N-�� — _I _ ----- IIneeded afterconstruction be I� X41► 1 usv.!®'�` 1r -•• '�- - - - _ i 5/Blueberry Delight Juniper#5 pot L '-' L �� - / Maintain an�lm rove _ - x m o Existing mixed plants to be _ , ! _ p cawed and renovated -' :447::::.Y1t • .:3A,/ - �, ` -: Existing native plants.- Seeded Low grow fescue __ _, _-- --::.50.01_—---=--- — --— —-—- k i44,s> � .si7 _ ---- 945.0 17—'-- 'ThX-K$ .��. .� �. -�.���'z��� ��w ;= -= — - Maintain and Improve - -_ _ __ Existing natrv_e plants- - '% !" --..r.: %.00.0,11.--1, .,��•�' /• C _ - :940 0- —--- _ — - sk 9 - n-toe_ostpArod- , Mir_,'e ® - . � ,r .z.. N ., ---- --- I:,.IIn, ., - � -� r� �rt���iP l�ffi91r- � � P Q1 19p�► r $R m — 9351�• wr •®i'ai---r►'� ,, r. .w ' ' ear �n�noa �.wa ;�u� � M,:._ ' � a Q -n ►:lp�f�U y, aIIFA m al`rc .a . k ttt o a d 1p - 9300• _ "" 7M , ,? ,7°. . ._. a ,.. LAKE ir. ; MINNETONKA ,. . v i -- '=955 \-__ ,' 953 - -- -—- 9` yy0. ,e5` N ,- (955.0)954 l ` 9 ' 952 11 ..a T O d 1-.) 40 a 75' "- 951 .r g (955.1) SETBACK JE ss LINE '" rk - 39 ___----- .' , - ED ____--- OF LOT 38 _ ---- EXTENDED• �1a �� 950 �.;,.►� q� Ra \ 949 To Be Removed' ' 947 953 i 948 ' tRY E 946 0 ;� 950. 9•v tR ": = s�(sa7.a) '945: (953.3) — ,L m VERY LARGE n RED OAK (954. (953 . O' E u in �- 952 e� (a53:5) sionis St slo, i+ :kgs 946- ' ' ___-- 940 N c mi `9yti +� r✓ r, _Grl'To 9ron plat€.-i = "' ' w in-n 0 _ 411. -945 - Y m O _(991.3) ;50.0 - - ---- _ --- ����,. -- ,, +935 =:94.5.0 - - - lA//�Y �� 7.v. �.�a;� .�� _ _ 7r �4to _ _ _-------.,_.-•- oiaaKc _ _ 1,/41111, , '�'�. ro t*� t,� a -' \_--lee ems settle' '- 1►®. � 5��►� int -- - ---940.0 - - - - -- - -- - � -- ----- - ---- -" ® �F _ o �u�Iygrown 1n ! 14�—ss M�'6��1;:_,�r"1:0,_ 0: w qOf •——7:7- — — +--- _ — _ oats len m pl`ce� -__—_ �' 6f®7J�I�TO :,jly 70 ,•`� IJ!�'S � l �:ts"� y P. zsit ....„7„, ` - _•935. . '�', + , � ' � `� �` l°. '": 929.4 CONTOUR - _ '._. %.r �0i !19o,15' .X&4-ff*.W10r*i` . 4, iil : LINE (O.H.W. d p i - _ -930.0 4 4 1Pt_at�i1�gilkWitilto co i ik b. . O l7 5 - -_---- -flir --_ ift4. '� s Typical Cross section of steps and walls LAKE . aa�r.a aaa � , �oaa�GwcreesaYa.,. ,, y AbOOW GorclNe.a drcMa � � Aockaxki 1 re rege _ / Finagretlerockease it'J1 Evs rag Grade— Course rock aaae •,IM-aL'41-$!, k MINNETONKA '4 4 �. J,�. 3 54 •� Shoreline Hill Closeup -;4 Kretsch Residence 3155 Casco Circle • *11 70, Orono, MN 55391 Al VERY LARGE RED OAK (954• _ __ (953 ` Scale 1 " = 4' - - - - , • ': July 18, 2017 Ail •54'0" ___ _. _ .5) 01111111.4k �► it awls ' , :�� � :la�lc ,..Cocas 54, 49' O 'i0 COW - � "/( %f506, "— 4 _ ro•, - in place - 9 • U (,TOW 54 Bow ' " - v sis 9511"- e p '®r`�' _ _ --- L -� � - � _ x'48 _ - : -- - --- 949111". _ -- � , _-� ��. •950 «�,s-- - ', ! _ _ _ . 0 - - - - _ __ Ill'a ' sar '_...p4,6714:: j ' _ _ - - ` --- r -- _ ' � `:lopeu 46t - — - - �I'944/942 If <� ' /_ AIi __Fe :16."-:- - - 451it 1Ill _ _ ', ie 942'11' `fid// j - A (1_.�--�� �-- - ! 6,/0--: ---, / 440", .—AIRy___.__,..._7:. `dular Wall under step as needed — —__—= '' — ]( "Average less than 2 feet tallz �` 1/ e - - - - , \ utsiOW 3-- --- - �-940•• � �� . • 35 � 93 ��t�- � . i — - — _ _ _Blas L oct s- _�--- ` _ — - tonglou.ad-- Cr —� -0- - _e_roo - ` _ , - - - - - - ,/ i g 93241g ' . . 45" - OGF1 S--_ - - _ — / .--- __ / ��,�'��� n _ — — - _ - - - 935 ► ..... �'', s ,�`� - — 7aC - _ - - - - - - _ --. ��ktJlai_,_MEW �• =931'3"--- ` alt Ct+h' � Shoreline Hill Closeup Kretsch Residence T �� ' 3155 Casco Circle __9'3� '�� Orono, MN 55391 VERY ARGE , - ►�� Qa _- -- RED OAK (954. (953 ._ Scale 1" = 4' AM ►;e 95 Aug 3, 2017 ---- swaralX11. • ti. _ - - �4-- 4 _ - - r3)' ��; !�, jr , f • i :laic Loeus W� F A ` cut to grow. "� ��'..,- , \--re... in place - (� ----- 951'1"- t`m.;t,i ' yr- 7tow 954.ow 949'11" / -___ ' /�/v -- - - - ---- �i94911'.�t _iii.-y� ' tow 949 bow 947'1, ..� _ i . .� .� •950-��` .��tea._ - N. - - ," v. `- ,46. . �' tow 944 bow 9417"-_---------- 417 - - -tow 949'11"bow 949 �' �� ^e uP - ' -_ - - - --- -- V�F--._-1111 ® -_ - - - - - l®� ��jrho�► 1� tow 940'6"bow 939.5 _ //{{''''�� tow 9471 bow$46`r -_r94511' d - tow 938'0"bow 934'0"M dwar wan under fepasneeded . \A\'Aes - stow 935!0"bow 932, TAIRW-Ay Averag-less than 2 feet_tallz- ��-`ham. _ _`--_ tow 941'7"bow 941'7" �l -� ij` �j ., _ 940 �� w /7.® Tri 35 \GuLd - Beck L.9cU3wall under step tow(ster9,39'5"bow 939'--/ /....42Z,2„....... Aij2 _ —Teav-e coot _ _ — — — 9325" - -`i_ _ _ _ __ _ _____ -- _, -1� vO S_ �- — — _ - -- - --- - - 935 _ i_e=6 1 PC Exhibit G 17-3949 - 11111.1111101. �;, iI w -'.ii- w;a, , ,e,;,r1 Illitaiwirsaff ''''..;P; W0. •41110:000. 1 P4'.-' i , ..., I. a . 1 ; /--, I / 4 �r, ►p. i �� F a ti A Ilii t r ' Y .. " ,1 . , - ,„fez:',', - I = ri IIIhIl f0jaff;1q 11:iii0- + f - Ill/ / fff /j 11 I i ;; 1 :'; , ill , r': I I1 �I 11;iiir If jjj1? , 1 -• , _,, 1POIP t 9 1 t o ..s 101 44 4' X4 ,'--- ,.I - v.. „, t,, , a� i 0 1 , iiijii1iLT'! o. , , _ ! i , ,.. , li ( 1 ,, I PC `+ ,. � �' tt k �t Exhibit H �pk ye y� 17-349 .-11.1110L -. 4- ,, -- . I' — ''';',444110. rte+,- "...... ... ,4 jp ,.. 46. - Ala KESH00 + •41 �ti zo �. Legend * i ;" 1�� City Limits ;,r i , ' ❑ Parcels(8-1-2017) . . r'. t yIt6• Cr) of .e. � > i e =. ,n `� �. � '!� ,1 4,14,' f .' x /` '° . _ .A f ;. st• - 72i. „:1..,-..„`M' ,';VIM..1•.i- d :'. t�,. --!1...,•,"r'''. � � x z ";�' „.?.;-:$14;� ��tf+� a.` 'Y' " }, 1 y a � y� �� 7 . ,r • 444 w `ZT'! A i * .1 •"Ii. + • s^*'"or fir. ,s rV` I ` !" 4 `�t" 1 r ,�.. „..4,.;!"..,F,„„ t f, r i` +gyp r;� °i.. Il :• ` K lk e •jeSX ,C� i.�*7iyls” '1.1: •� � �d�tl ._ „ f ��Higifir r, �� � �i• r"t`�.°t�'� a ,.,.., a �' ��rr 1, 3 _ •fWf Inllt ' r"st,' • <r • • Map Name e ' Disclaimer. This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.This drawing iz a compilation of records,information,and data BOLTON 0 35 Feet & M E N K located in various city,county,and state offices,and other s affecting the area shown,and is to be used for reference purposes only.The City of Orono is not ©Bolton&Menk,Inc-Web GIS 8/17/2017 8:46 AM Real People.Real Solutions. reannneihie fir ani inareo aries herein rnntained. . PC Exhibit I 17-3949 Applicant's Submitted Photos 1in _ 4r0/4.�•. 1:0 ', '"' 4 ""'r ate' ‘.. /... -, 4.0, .4. .„004 41 •/' .mrd rir ? 1 i I�1 fi, • + „ , � . ,. A r :, ,,,,,,,,. . „......„. , 4.,..„,,, ,,.. - ,. .„, , • .. . .. ,.., ,....., ...• , IA..-414. ,,(' 4/11i rit§rff , WI'r 1 ' IRI, A Iir i . a k- H . • IV. "� 'w� ` • t � • 4 `t lir. • F Tj `,4.• , Ay .s ..,+r,toy' 4s '1 +v - .°'+� i -.4.;A 4 _ % _ - !�i. / 414 - «x* ►t7; �t "+� t, 4 r*' i I ...., 4...... ..ilikik‘st• r Ili# 1 _ e t ;ri�,o ,`ir 1 t' , J1 1 •>,4. .Y a ..: . , 44 f T r ' " 14/." a.4.. ..14-1" p i r.r.L j , i MIIIIII/ amp fie 44 ti, 4 1 if 1I . ,I i t } l 1 rr fl i / . - . , 1‘ - , '' . ,,,' —. , ' , ' ' fri,,I 1. • :./f'/.l' 14 ',1: , ' ., . ,i 4 4' L �,1 .{ 1jr,:"if d J {{ * F'`!rr F il rJ l .•y F i I1 1 ,�� , '' �, .,fry if � 1�(l fe)� � . „# �+ 'I 1 � (�!! . ,< y l�j' + /r: h��/fit jf t1 ! ! alb y %;; _,- ,, J 1�.,d i- f f I gild/ / i':,f' f` "Y Fri i, y •. S I • ' '-, �y' ' �l 1.. ' 'S ' 4'7� I. • • ,1, ' 'f t,k . -r!,. �y � 1 F i tit,+ . -„1., • 4, . 1 1,1.4 ir 4 '. 1 (I / ; I I l' ' . '.: '.... 77:1Art•17:„....•:.,P., ,-, --'.';.- .. t.'"i, tt.0,‘ , 1 1 I +/ jj 4fiiii (' E r • �, .. Jo ., 1' is ' 11 r/ , .1,( � i ..if /. 't, i r_f� r :k• ' q���.>'31 'd} R f _ ,� _j ..t.,.• f ' ' i-r ' ' EA_ �� ��C '.f ,.:-.i;',."-..Ai. •+Y qp • u / t i .�.., ,7 :lir !` - —1 i.? .j , • n . -, 'i -,..04'.'(A'1:... g � .,,. jam' .,{ rf. . , si1„ „, a. ,x It a kr X' :,,, t , • +' ° :f r 1K'�.f1..'t" ` f::. ,,...‘.=',.)'•;:-,-.� t - AC. ` ,i ' _ ,.p ' • 4 f'"• • TT 'y „ ' { F yt Qf li ^ S -.v.' 4 'I. -,: " i :ia• . e xC - ii 1,.•f , '. q 1 tl `f • t 1-.4 l':; • ,+ t<F . IL, .. fix•.• ' F -�. 4' ,- rfix , 33,. , /r • „:.,,,,-(%.,- f, Mkt .r 414, . q fit: !. - Zc ` ., t ,' •• I' 'f' t 7I .1� ?. r,p t• r 1 .1' f,,a " lam. Y :e„ 4. , ' ixn•.' • P`''''' - a • -0"T''' "T' a` i2+ rL`ee a• j -tib. t • - ,,,,.•' , . ►:r �F k 1 . Y ••,5w. 'Fw F •�. •is.. X17✓iI 7 •t .I• l s . t.4 •i %' • ? s ',' s"• • "'fie ,�4 _.� 4.e .s jf , - -w�a- r '' J .i !ty ry Y i - • - - F �I. x+` �f,, # irg.., w.f 749/ 14 n .7-.4' t.. fr� _ �a^� '`�'`. `4y7`T `_1',.�' t t .f' l L r. f' •f i�,"�•j ,t' . ,� " , . ...,,,,. .I syr- ..� ♦t . •.• •t ,. ... „ ,.,. . , g.,..,,,,,.. , ✓ �e ' .'fir 1�, ,, ',.`!..'' ?.t.„' l tiv ,wi - ,sit . ^ c' �s . r yam, .... +tea, r'i -•4;-7.-4,:/,:.ft,'k q 1'�R �g ~.�1 r `f 4 t'” l i.: •1�Cr i 4 •'•• 1. .fi»•;�Y^ydr�' y'S`+l• t1 • +,. ••tn '$$tV,. ir',•.7...... ... ......4i,,•e i II.t (�'!�. 1 .; • t .r ,.,,"...,,, ., ii..,. _. c 1 .c.44:1 ,, ., ilk,. vit • 3{j• y * �r 1 r i F y�• * 'i 7 M .V r NT' �£) �1-r• .tl+ n `� ws.it rg.. .;\ • _ .•11"1 t.' ,,wi fi r,, •,,..6•':`l'.`,'di, •' ‘` 1011!•, ,i,.1.% '4,11t. , g,',- 4,41.,: . , , s , ,, ,. .. ., . , 4. • k mac ' `'' 1 ''`.• l 1 •4✓ If • a��1,, ` t :S • N 4 �' re, • • ' •1 1• ' N ? A a�.� ' +f Y?a \` r .. .. '„,ti l Sit �'• y ';`IN ” ty yj/, 1/ t. syr oe • t a . . - ,+ t R.d 4. A ti. Si Il�.'i..,7 ._ , ......,, M 1�ikei�,,,��,,', � l� v' 4� rte—R ‘ . it.i oe. ., ..,, ;.,...,,,,,,...„.,,,,r...„ __ ri Z ^ 7 f .t.. ,.... .,,,, _ t . ,i , ,,,,s„,...=;$-4,.-„v - . ,i :-...-;: . •, _-_.1" .*"''- lif:. .�• `r r,S AT i* ` __ �- *, ' pry„ e j�Y �w ~', .0,k; r. � :i ,„4/..9, -01 C t 1 y ( '•'11�� -F ��'.o I .',.? ,1 � '.• :'(1Lj• •� :.H �f 1. ` tip,! �F�` ,dry*1 " / }t 0 • �t - i,1*::: r i vim' t � �� f • • 'tom 'tt; t. • Y y • 'fir'" 11' L. ..,,J \ �`' - i • t T # - 4)., IF: € e 4,, • r ••.4,)'L' i , , .,..., .., I it.. it i , ., ..... .,-,-. 1....,...,,,,. -. .7..,:::::' „Xi', ,.. ''''', .... ' i ' /: . i • 't r k 'i- y'4 14�'A r f t f.,..-..w. - : i'-. .y ix Yom.3 / J( ...,.. r•' - _ .. : - A • i 0,- i'v—I "' I .. . , ,. t., ... ._, , - . ..,tr i ' •t J { y y t 6� A�• ~ i• { r • +� �,F�f, 'r�-s.�`% � � � - may'+";.+ �f �� \ C s;$7..J. -��, f''b'ertr J. • ,� y� st, t t+ �!`Z `';at• \# L - fid; • -, . • :'4• r-lit pyo i ,:-ti �r '' `'+ �a „,•' -, •+� 44%.y cJ _ •Y`S. J +a•' 'r',I. .. ,., ..t.. , : .. ..z.k. . . ..i. .,,,.,...p .i .. ..404,141y3. 7..„..,........ ...„,,„...,._., 1..,.: . ._, ,.:, it: .1,-, . ; w'• .':t't .N e. if • a < v k.,._� 'h4 •- ,. w.r -;:,'--'..::: -'5;.n. .-, - may. '-' ` • Ya m ,. fi' .rte ...,.. e� ' 4 : ,' - --+ :9 r � r .rf sat w (f' q . i -yam '`+�.!�1 • .y ,N ,,,,,,.:ii 1�' f1s . 1SIai `4'� y; �r fi : °nts� — t / �.\ /'►, .ya. " v �ems.'o � t ,r • A -( , . -" � �. � +r i'.. - _ + ae " ir {t J+y v ;, t . �. a..'' �+. , . '',c !fi x x f!. +* - .. r t ' 1:', - ...titik. 4, 1044 - - - -, • *4% fc,,,*•‘...4444,, . 141.4e, 1,4, ,--0,.. , ... ..... „. r ' ,...• t :4,"c f Y ,4 b • `+i. `^syr "1. r , ,,$ '', y '` r 4. Y-' .r• -0 .it- ..vs , J(� Chi �. ��? yltik S . i Y . S elt +e` ... •4; �'1 Vit: ; 4y4 A,'d ''• _✓ w' j' j 3. • 4b-4... x'+71 "`•' "'t". ., i,•.(i • of '1� 42:.-4. .1.!1#.1.'>� ,y ZJi i th{ a - `` . . l (, t ` t. . 4 1r J . • ? 144.5111 511 ''''..7. 1• r { , ' t•-%• ij'. ♦ .?;ter � rT , k !-'1.t!!) g ftM ,t. . •;,..1, ,, t. ',lip. iiiii•Nk, •• ••,:44,L: s , .: ,40$4,4e. 44 " k 0 4,i' .. ,,.,..?1 ..%.r‘l, , , 41* .i,'" ' ➢ ir, rI ,,1 V A' x, 'ILA,i fir` j�_ "y ppb ' ill ' . '.* 'e '. . #1 ' "; , 0 '''' 't , Atli.' ' G' 1/1 / t { 1 t 1 V S ,: / 1 i 1 Li 1 i'. '.,-';', -.'•, '''', 1.'f'',. '' • • Ur r. . # '+ !0 .1.'JP. qtt t .‘, ,, . ,,,...,..;;;,'•-"..4i-:::-.,:c:. ' 5' '''' A. 1, ,,,,:„,,.....,..$-•4v8,,,),,, f i i „,..„. , .: ' ' i'.."1 0 3 ' t4 t. ` \ . . , 1 la } t"�i"P' , ,, ,-.:. 1 \4 , . ,.,-,,,. ,,„„.‘,.L, .,,,, , ,.. , .. . ik ,..,:... ,,,.,,,,,,,,,,,..,,,, ,,, . t. . .;.4- . ..'. , 1 ' . - .,,,... ......., i ,, .. •-,',...i'\/ tilitt ,,'..,4,,,r-4. t a4.4 e.„,,i,"!7:', a 'R t. C _k ` -`•'•,• ea•, � \ t ,y s • i M I c i A F 1'1e_ ,.. fin Ilk s`► •a •F ''tn, y • a , ' r __ s " 1;,:f. ''''''- I"''' ; . )i. . ... vtt .` - PC Exhibit J 17-3949 Laura Oakden From: Dale <dalegus@earthlink.net> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2017 3:51 PM To: Laura Oakden Subject: Re: 3155 Casco Cir Laura, I reviewed you letter and have the following answers to you questions. 1. Existing wall? All the walls on this section of property are all associated with the stairs and platforms the follow the steps to the lake. They were made with small stones and look like they have been repaired many times. We are looking at the walls to be to protect from future erosion. The area on the east side of the step is showing "slumping" and eroding at this time. 2. "Two walls". Close to lake we need to use two different terms to keep the concept simple. What looks like a wall from the plan is part of the RipRap for the shore. We call that a curb. This curb addition is common around the lake and especially more common after the last really high water lever. The RipRap was not hight enough to with stand the high water waves and many RipRap projects failed at that time. The stones at the top of the RipRap are simply boulders turned up on end to protect against high water waves. Of course those boulders are supported by the ones below and filled behind with more rock mulch to add strength. What we would call walls and the other ones that follow the stairs up the bank and support the sides of the stairway. The wall by the shore behind the RipRap curb is needed to stabilies the lower bank that to prevent the erosion that is now taking place. This wall will stabilize the bank above it to keep the bank from eroding farther. The property to the east has a softer bank going down toward the lake so it did not require walls to hold it in place. It does however have the Wave Curb to also reduce the slope of the soil. The property to the west does have walls on the west side of the lot does have some walls around the steps and storage areas. But not in the areas on the very east side of the property. However some of that area is showing slumping and starting erosion. 3. Hiding the walls. We have discussed some plantings along the edge of the walls to soften the impact. We expect to plant vines about the wall that will spill over the walls. We also thought that some vines planted below the wall would cover their impact. I will note that on the plan. Dale 1 PC Exhibit K 17-3949 Laura Oakden From: Chase Vanderbilt <cvanderbilt@minnehahacreek.org> Sent: Tuesday,August 15, 2017 3:52 PM To: Laura Oakden Subject: RE: 3155 Casco Cir Orono- Permit Hi Laura, I apologize as it looks like I did not respond to your last email (not sure why), but I will answer your questions as best I can below: • They have not submitted any permit application materials (including a cross section)for the riprap portion of this project. It is my understanding that a different company that we get permits from all of the time will be applying for this portion of the project. • I spoke with my supervisor about the "MCWD approved slash wall" (I assume they meant to write MCWD SPLASH wall). o He claimed that after the 2014 floods the MCWD approved these walls, but no one here knows anything about it, so no, it is not something we suggest or have approved. o We are okay with them having a retaining wall on top of the rip rap as long as the retaining wall portion is out of the 100-yr floodplain i.e. above the 931.5' contour. o Right now the site plan I have been provided with shows the bottom of the retaining wall to be under the 931.5' elevation, which is basically not allowed and not needed. • FYI, we allow Riprap to extend to top of bank or 2 Ft. above the 100-year floodplain elevation, whichever is lower. o This might sound counterintuitive, but on steep slopes, sometimes 2 Ft. above the 100-yr contour is lower than the top of bank because the bank has eroded so much and the top of it is really high up. I hope all of this helps and doesn't cause more confusion, but if you have any questions don't hesitate to give me a call if you need some more explanation.Thanks! k s• Chase Vanderbilt District Representative Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Direct 952.641.4580 ,„ + 15320 Minnetonka Blvd.,Minnetonka,MN 55345 « www.minnehahacreek.orq CC sais•yry;•Anv{r From: Laura Oakden [mailto:loakden@ci.orono.mn.us] Sent:Tuesday,August 15, 2017 2:41 PM To:Chase Vanderbilt<cvanderbilt@minnehahacreek.org> Subject: FW:3155 Casco Cir Orono- Permit 1 PC Exhibit L Nonnwrpin Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 17-3949 Provided By: Resident and Real Estate Services Date: 6/20/2017 ra ' , 7^ z Y4y'tia z =... , tk t P 1 20- -23-34 P • 2- 4,+"s {� * iht �.'_ . a< X117-23- ( e4• y}s -.,,,,' , s',` ''... . '. ,:, t;-.. 4,,..:i."(.,:-....:,-;-=a* is .,, , . te h Rr { at- •- a ; ;r_ 1 . ue n' `""moi gg 1 zaa - _-,,,,:,44.,k �fAK „ " ' E3, * - .� .� �'�� ; it- x mac723-fi ,a ;29-11 - i . 29-11 i 23w21 29-1 1.7= 1:3 Buffer Size: 350 feet 0 60 120 240 ft Map Comments: 11 r r 11111 KEVIN R KRETSCH&P KRETSCH 3155 Casco Circle RECEIVED For moreinformation contact: Orono,MN Hennepin County GIS Office 55391 300 6th Street South JUN 21 2017 Minneapolis,MN 55487 gia.infoWhennepin.us CITY OF ORONO # 3949 RUN DATE:06/20/2017 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE: 38 20-117-23 34 0007 38 20-117-23 43 0030 TAM/R WAHLIN G C BECKER/I I MARCHESSAULT 3131 CASCO CIR 3133 CASCO CIR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 TAM/R WAHLIN G C BECKER/T I MARCHESSAULT 3131 CASCO CIR 3133 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 38 20-117-23 34 0008 38 20-117-23 43 0031 JOANNE D JONES TRUSTEE THE CASCO CO 3129 CASCO CIR 3100 CASCO CIR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 JOANNE D JONES CITY OF ORONO PARKS 5100 FRANCE AVE S#104 P O BOX 66 EDINA MN 55410 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 20-117-23 34 0021 38 20-117-23 43 0057 R G&P A DUDLEY HARRY YAFFE&BELLE YAFFE 3125 CASCO CIR 3185 CASCO CIR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 RONALD G&PATRICIA A DUDLEY HARRY YAFFE&BELLE YAFFE 3125 CASCO CIRCLE SO 3185 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 38 20-117-23 34 0022 FREDERICK C PETERS 3127 CASCO CIR ORONO MN 55391 FREDERICK C PETERS 3127 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0022 C ALEXANDER/D J HAWKINSON 3205 CASCO CIR ORONO MN 55391 DOUGLAS HAWKINSON 3205 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0023 E STRATTON&D CALLAHAN 3195 CASCO CIR ORONO MN 55391 EARL STRATTON DEBORAH CALLAHAN 3195 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0026 W D ARMSTRONG/K S ARMSTRONG 3165 CASCO CIR ORONO MN 55391 WARD D ARMSTRONG KATHLEEN S ARMSTRONG 3165 CASCO CIRCLE WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0027 KEVIN R KRETSCH&P KRETSCH 3155 CASCO CIR ORONO MN 55391 KEVIN R KRETSCH PATRICIA KRETSCH 3155 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 43 0028 B C DOWNEY&B A DOWNEY 3145 CASCO CIR ORONO MN 55391 B C DOWNEY&B A DOWNEY 3145 CASCO CIR WAYZATA MN 55391 317HAN&NE� 9 K RECEIVED ASHSHEEHAN&NASHEAN 3135 CASCO CIR ORONO MN 55391 KEVIN A&NOELLE A SHEEHAN JUN 21 2017 18479 SCHROERS FARM RD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 # 3949 `crn'OF ORONO r Item 3 Date Application Received: 07/19/17 �O`VO Date Application Considered as Complete:07/31/17 60-Day Review Period Expires: 09/29/17 y � To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator AkEsuO�‘c From: Melanie Curtis, Planner h'1GG Date: 21 August 2017 Subject: #17-3963,JHG Properties, LLC,4035 Dahl Road, Class III Subdivision/Preliminary Plat with a Variance Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting approval of a lot area variance with a Class III subdivision in order to subdivide the 1.82 acre property into two buildable lots. The LR-1B zoning district requires a minimum of 1.0 acres in area and 140-feet in width per buildable lot. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial of the variance. Background The applicant lives in the neighborhood and purchased the property in order to remove an existing vacant home which is in disrepair and redevelop the property. The property is 1.82 acres in area and is situated on the corner of North Arm Drive and Dahl Road. See the applicant's Project Narrative attached as part of Exhibit A for their reasons for purchasing the property and the basis for their request.They have identified the manufactured/mobile home on property at 940 North Arm Drive as one of their reasons for purchasing the property and the need to split it. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-330—LR-1B Setbacks: Side Yard Side Yard Lot Lot Front Adjacent Rear Adjacent Area Width Yard to Another Yard (acre) (feet) (feet) Lot (feet) to Street (feet) (feet) 1 140 35 10 20 30 Section 78-330-Lot Area/Width: LR-1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acres) 140' Existing 79,714 s.f. (1.83 acre) 158'on North Arm Dr Proposed Lot 1 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acre) excluding road dedication &wetland 158' Proposed Lot 2 29,185 s.f. (0.65 acre)variance needed 195' Section 78-1700-Hardcover Calculations: The property is currently in Tier 2, Lot 2 will remain in Tier 2 (30%). Based on the building footprint w FILE#17-3963 21 Aug 2017 Page 2 of 5 location of Lot 1,the Tier 3 (35%) hardcover limitations will likely apply. Applicable Regulations: Lot Area Variance(Section 78-330) The applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum lot area standards in order to create an additional buildable lot.The LR-1B one family lakeshore residential zoning district requires one contiguous dry/upland acre for each buildable lot created.This development would create one conforming 1.0 acre lot,and one 0.67 acre lot. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Guiding The property is within the LR-1B one family lakeshore residential district which requires a minimum size of one acre and 140 feet in width per lot.There are lots in this district which are substandard in size although many meet or exceed the 1.0 acre requirement.According to the Comprehensive Plan (CMP) Map 36-B, attached as Exhibit E,the Low-Medium Density category includes virtually all single- family properties in the 1/2-acre and 1-acre zones (LR-1C and LR-1B).The "Low-Medium Density" category was incorporated into the CMP for two reasons: 1)to reflect that a majority of the Low- Medium Density area was historically subdivided into smaller lots than the zoning minimums, in a majority of cases many decades before the current zoning came into effect in 1975; and 2)to satisfy the Met Council's demand that Orono establish density categories rather than merely zoning districts (but then they only credit us with the lowest density in the range when determining whether we meet their density goals). The CMP provides guidance to the city in adopting ordinances and policies to achieve the goals and vision of the City. Based on the guidance of the CMP,the city adopted zoning regulations establishing minimum lot sizes, including for the subject parcel. The "Low-Medium Density"category was not intended to suggest that City would change the zoning to allow creation of new lots that are substandard based on their respective existing zoning. Only twice since 1975 has the City allowed the creation of new lots with substandard lot area; both in the 2-acre zones and both for what can only be considered political reasons-elimination of the Stubbs Bay Marina in 1980 which allowed creation of three small lakeshore lots as a concession to the marina owner; and creation of one 1- acre lot at the east end of Fox Street (1985-ish) in relation to expediting the Minnetonka Bluffs sewer project. In every other instance where we have developed lots smaller than the zoning,they have either been via a rezoning or via the PRD process. Via PRD we have always required that the underlying density still be met overall by the creation of open space outlots. Conservation Design (Section 78-1632) According to the Code,the Conservation Design Master Planning requirements apply to all proposed residential subdivisions or multi-unit residential developments greater than five acres in total area or guided for urban density(greater than one unit per two acres). The property meets the urban density guidance trigger,therefore a conservation design plan is required. The applicant has requested a waiver of this requirement (see Exhibit F). Governing Regulation:Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under r • FILE#17-3963 21 Aug 2017 Page 3 of 5 consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn.Stat. § 216C.06,subd. 2,when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2)variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance.The intent for the acreage minimums set forth in the ordinance for each district is to maintain and control density to the desired levels.This project creates a lot which is nonconforming with respect to area and is not in harmony with the ordinance. This criterion is not met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.The CMP's primary goal has been, and continues to be,the preservation of the lake and natural environment. The Comprehensive Plan finds that high density in the Shoreland serves to harm the lake water quality. The minimum lot sizes are intended to address overcrowding of the lake,thus preservation of the lake quality,and the City's flexible side yard setback regulations are intended to preserve a property owners right to improve their own property. The addition of a second lot is inconsistent with the preservation goals of the CMP. 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 official controls require a minimum acreage and width for each newly created building lot.This development does not meet the minimum standards for acreage.This criterion is not met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The size of the existing property was not created by the landowner however it is not unique.There are many properties which exceed the minimum acreage requirement yet are not twice the minimum thus supporting a subdivision to create a new building lot as required by the Code.The purchase price of the property was created by landowner.This criterion is not met; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The character of the neighborhood is primarily made up of 1.0 acre and greater lots.There are three properties less than one acre but the majority are conforming with respect to area. The variance will alter the character of the neighborhood.This criterion is not met. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have been identified as a primary factor in the variance request by the applicant. In the applicant's statement(their Practical Difficulties exhibit),they indicated that the property was purchased "at a premium at public auction"and identified this as"a factor" in their practical difficulty determination.The purchase price of the property is not a valid practical difficulty.This criterion is not met. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06,subd. 2,when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. FILE#17-3963 21 Aug 2017 Page 4 of 5 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.This condition is not applicable,as a residential use is an allowed use in the LR-1B District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.The property contains more land than the minimum LR-1B acreage requirement.This is not a practical difficulty.This criterion is not met. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.The property contains more land than the minimum LR-1B acreage requirement.This is not unique in the district nor is it a practical difficulty.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. Granting a variance from the minimum lot area requirement of the LR-1B district to create a new buildable lot is contrary to the goals of the ordinance and is not necessary to protect the property rights of the owner.The property can be developed with a single family home.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. Granting the requested variance to create a substandard building site in the neighborhood impairs the comfort of the immediate neighborhood and is contrary to the chapter.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 variance serves solely as a convenience to the applicant.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. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has provided a Practical Difficulties analysis attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Staff finds that that applicant fails to satisfy all of the practical difficulties necessary to grant a variance,which is necessary to approve a subdivision to create a new,substandard buildable lot in the LR-1B zone. As detailed above,the City has historically not created substandard lots without a rezoning or a PRD process. Public Comments Staff spoke with one neighbor,who asked not to be identified,who was not in support of the variance and/or subdivision of the property. This neighbor further stated their concern with the fact that the City did not have regulations in place which prevent/prohibit the type of construction which was done on 940 North Arm Drive. • FILE#17-3963 21 Aug 2017 Page 5 of 5 Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Commission Action Requested The home on 940 North Arm Drive was constructed in accordance with the minimum Building Code standards.The City does not (and may not) have a prohibition on any of the different home or construction types which meet the Building Code. Staff suggests that the City Council may want to explore the regulations which govern construction types or minimum construction standards (size, width)specifically if the placement of mobile homes on properties within the City is a concern. The Planning Commission should consider the following: 1. Approval of the lot area variance in order to create a new substandard (0.67 acre) buildable lot;and approval of the Class Ill subdivision to create a total of two buildable lots where one lot currently exists (including one new substandard lot). If the Planning Commission finds variance approval appropriate,the applicant should be directed regarding the waiver of the conservation design requirements. OR 2. Denial of the variance;thereby a denial of the subdivision request as well. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Preliminary Plat Drawing Exhibit D. Proposed Landscape Plan—Concept Exhibit E. CMP Map 3B-6 Exhibit F. Request for Waiver of Conservation Design Requirements Exhibit G. Aerial Photos Exhibit H. Subdivision Fees (2017) Exhibit I. Wetland Delineation& MCWD NOA Exhibit J. Property Owners List& Plat Map ' F PC Exhibit A #17-3963 City of Orono Subdivision Application Street Address: Application# 17-3963 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono,MN 55356 Date Received: Staff: Main: 952-249-4600 Application Fee: fax: 952-249-4616 (4'ktsHo1-1" Mailing Address: Escrow: P.O.Box 66 Crystal Bay,MN 55323-0066 Notes: PROPERTY INFORMATION: Site Address: 4035 Dahl Road Property Identification Number(PIN): 07-117-23-14-0003 Date Property Acquired (month/year): April 2017 Ill Abstract 0 Torrens (Please check one) Present use of property: Residential; number of Units 1 0 Other(specify) Zoning District: LR-1 B APPLICANT INFORMATION: I check here if Applicant address should be used for billing Applicant: JHG Properties LLC Phone(Primary): 952-767-0167 Mailing Address: 12700 Anderson Lakes Parkway City:Eden Prairie ZIP: 55344 Email: jhgilbert@lawgilbert.com PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION: check here if Property Owner is same as applicant ❑ check here if Property Owner address should be used for billing Name: Phone(Primary): Mailing Address: City: ZIP: Email: EXISTING LAND USE: Number of Tax Parcels: 1 Development Size: 1.82 Acres Dry Land 0.01 Acres Wet Land 1.83 Acres TOTAL, all parcels PROPOSED LAND USE: 0 Division for Tax Purposes ® Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Existing Units: 1 New Units: 1 Total Units: 2 Proposed Gross Density 2 Units per 1.83 acres Minimum Lot Size: 79,279 Square feet dry buildable land Proposed Use(check)I2 Residential 0 Other(specify) Subdivision Application—January 2017 Page 5 APPLICANT/AGENT AND/OR PROPERTY OWNER: • Agree to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department • Agree to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and • Certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so,the staff has no alternative but to reject it until it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. • The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff, consultants, agents, Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request. • Applicant and/or Owner acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. If an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in place of the applicant/owner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. • Information will be distributed via email. 1(AL r\ Applicant Signature: 1 ��` Date: 7 I\cj l 17 Applicant Signature: Date: Property Owner Signature: '0471)S) ' "` Date: 7 \ ‘`.1 Property Owner Signature: Date: Subdivision Application—January 2017 Page 6 DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with Minnesota State Statute 13.04 Rights of Subjects of Data, Subd. 2, "Tennessen warning",we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential information. You are notified that: 1. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3. The information may be shared with other local, state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may become public. 5. You have certain rights under Minnesota State Statute 13.04(see following page)to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name is required to process this application or permit. �� l Lin e. -S t-- \\ ,--. 2 LA First ' ',5 Middle 1 Last Address e —'--1.— `f \ v�?/IC .3 y L'1 — 1 S2 - 71,--/- ole") City State Zip Phone I understand my rights as stated above. Signature, �J (/ 4 ( Subdivision Application—January 2017 Page 13 J1-1G PROPS RT1L5, LLC 12700 Anderson Lakes Parkway Eden Prairie, MN 55344-7652 E-mail address: JHGilbert@lawgilbert.com July 19, 2017 City of Orono Melanie Curtis 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono,MN 55356 Re: Project Narrative for 4035 Dahl Road Lot Subdivision Dear Ms. Curtis The property at 4035 Dahl Road was purchased with the intention of protecting the neighborhood while also adding value to the properties in the area. The property is 1.83 acres in size and is located at the southeast corner of North Arm Drive and Dahl Road. The property currently has a dilapidated home that has been an eye sore in the neighborhood for some time. The property is zoned LR-1B residential and contains a very small wetland in the corner. The lot is the largest in the immediate neighborhood and is over 3 times the size of the two lots on Dahl Road immediately to the east. The home currently on the lot is located on the east side among numerous trees. Immediately to the west of the home there is a significant hill, at the bottom of which is an open grass-filled area of over one acre. JHG Properties,LLC also purchased the property at 4035 Dahl Road because I was extremely disappointed and concerned when the City allowed a manufactured home to be placed at 940 North Ann Drive(See attached picture). I live in the neighborhood where 4035 Dahl Road is located, and after the addition of the manufactured home, I took it upon myself to protect my neighborhood from this possibility by purchasing 4035 Dahl Road. It is my intention to demolish the dilapidated home that currently sits on the property and replace it with two homes of approximately 3,500 square feet each. The homes will be of high quality and built by a builder that has a track-record of building quality homes in this area. I've built homes of comparable size and cost in the past and would be happy to provide information about those projects should it be requested. While final plans for the proposed homes are not complete,preliminary plans prepared show that a home of substantial size will fit on both subdivided lots without any variances,beyond the one lot area variance that is being requested as part of this application. The homes I intend to build on this property will add substantial value to the homes in the surrounding neighborhood while also providing significant tax revenue to the City of Orono. Streets and sewer are already in place and we will preserve most of the trees on the property. We will also add landscaping and trees along North Arm Drive to segregate the lots from traffic, view and noise. I am happy to provide any additional information to supplement my application and welcome any related questions. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, , 61,&02' J. II es . Gilbert C -f anager,JHG Properties, LLC 5 R ••• s -- - ■1■ VI ■ / t, ■ � . PC Exhibit B #17-3963 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM This form is a required submittal for ALL variance applications. An application will not be considered complete or placed on any meeting agendas until this form is complete and submitted to the City. Minnesota State Statutes Section 462.357, Subdivision 6(2) requires that practical difficulties be demonstrated in order for a variance to be granted. The difficulties must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the land owner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid practical difficulties. In order for an application to be heard by the Planning Commission and City Council practical difficulties having merit must be demonstrated. HOW DO I PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? This form has 12 points outlining the basis City staff uses to determine if practical difficulties exist and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties, address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information the City receives is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. If you leave something out it will not be considered. Please address each of the twelve practical difficulties criteria as they relate to the request, if they do not apply, write N/A in the space provided: 1. "The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter." Both lots will be developed with single family homes and will require no additional variances. Single family homes are permitted uses in LR-1 B areas and the proposed use is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 2. "The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner." See Supplement to Practical Difficulties Documentation Form 3. "The variance, if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality." The proposed variance will allow one additional residential home in the neighborhood. The size and use of the proposed parcels are consistent with the character of the locality. 4. "Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter." See Supplement to Practical Difficulties Documentation Form 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.' This condition is not applicable 6. "The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located." This condition is not applicable, as the residential use is an allowed use in the LR-1 B District Variance Application—January 2017 Page 7 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." See Supplement to Practical Difficulties Documentation Form 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located." The conditions set forth in #8 do not apply to other land or structures in the district in which the parcel is located. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." See Supplement to Practical Difficulties Documentation Form 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." See Supplement to Practical Difficulties Documentation Form 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." See Supplement to Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Practical Difficulties Statement Should you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical difficulties preventing compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in the following lines (attach additional sheets if necessary): See Supplement to Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Variance Application—January 2017 Page 8 Supplement to Practical Difficulties Documentation Form 2. The difficulties created by this unique parcel of land were not created by the property owner. The lot shape is extremely long and narrow,the west side of the lot abuts North Ann Drive/County Road 151 which carries a large volume of daily traffic,the lot contains substantial road frontage to the north,the lot contains dedicated wetland,it is the largest lot in the immediate neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhood is full of substantially smaller lots. This lot is the only one in the immediate neighborhood that contains this collection of irregularities. This lot is also unique to the immediate neighborhood in that it is just shy of being able to create two conforming one acre lots,but splitting the lot will still result in two lots that are consistent with the size and character of the neighborhood,with only one of those lots nonconforming. A majority of the lots in the immediate neighborhood do not conform to the one acre area requirement. This parcel is the closest in size to two acres of the parcels in the immediate neighborhood. The landowner did not create any of these circumstances. 4. A reason for the variance is to put this property to its most logical and highest and best use. A lot split is in line with the difficulties created by this unique parcel of land. Practical difficulties do not allow the lot to be used in its most logical capacity and prevents the land from being developed to its full potential and best use. While economics cannot be the only factor constituting practical difficulties,it can be a factor, and when all costs and expenses of redevelopment are taken into consideration, a premium was paid at a public auction for this parcel to insure a development beneficial to the neighborhood. 8. The property is the only one in the neighborhood with such a long, narrow shape, substantial road frontage and a location on busy highway 151, and it is the biggest lot in the immediate neighborhood. Because of the long, narrow shape of the lot,there are five properties directly across Dahl Road to the north,three to the south, and one directly to the east. This lot has a steep hill in the middle that acts as a natural dividing line for the lot. This natural dividing line is caused by the hill in the middle of the property. This limits the property owner to building a home on the far east or west side of the property, leaving a majority of the lot unusable. The lot is approximately 500 feet in length,much longer than any other lot in the immediate neighborhood, and the appearance of this length is augmented because the lot is so narrow and contains substantial road frontage. Despite the limited ability to use the property,the property owner still has to pay property taxes on the entire lot and still has to maintain the entire property by mowing the grass on the size of a football field and performing other maintenance as required by city ordinance, even though portions of the lot could be over 100 yards from the principal structure. Using the hill as a natural dividing line for the property and allowing a subdivision along this line will alleviate these practical difficulties and allow for two high quality homes with access to Dahl Road. 10. A granting of the variance application is the highest and best use for the proposed parcels and will enhance neighborhood values and appearance. Using the parcel "as is"does not fit with the nature and character of the neighborhood. A variance is necessary for the property owner to put the property to a reasonable and logical use, conform to the nature and character of the neighborhood, and maintain separation and adequate privacy. The applicant has a substantial 1 property right in putting the lots to the highest and best use, and having a lot that fully conforms to the nature and character of the rest of the lots in the neighborhood. 11. A variance will allow the creation of two lots that are consistent with the size and density of the lots in the neighborhood, enhance privacy and utilize the natural dividing line in the middle of the property caused by the large hill. Granting the variance will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort of morals,nor will it be contrary to the intent of the code. The requested variance is necessary to alleviate the practical difficulties. The new lot that will be formed to the west is in full compliance with area requirements in the ordinance and excluding the wetland will be 1.0 acres. The wetland diminished usable land for area calculations and the delineation process caused significant delays and expenses. The lot to the east will be 0.67 acres and will support the construction of an approximately 3,500 square foot home. The new 0.67 acre non- conforming lot is larger than the two lots directly to the east,which are 0.4 and 0.52 acres respectively. There are no additional foreseeable variances needed as a result of this lot subdivision. These lots are easily buildable after being split within the city code requirements and conform to the setbacks,hardcover requirements and the density and character of the neighborhood. 12. The size, shape and orientation of the lot create practical difficulties, and the variance is necessary to alleviate these difficulties. The subject property is surrounded by 11 neighboring or adjacent lots. The long,narrow shape of the lot currently does not fit with the nature and character of the neighborhood and the hill in the middle of this property requires the landowner to build a principal structure at the far east side of the property. It is currently the largest lot in the immediate neighborhood and exceeds the average size of the lots in the immediate neighborhood by a substantial amount. The lot is the only one of its size in the neighborhood with such substantial road frontage,making a division of the lot logical and a best use for the property. This lot is out of character for the neighborhood. A variance allowing a 2-lot subdivision is appropriate when considering the cost of the property and property taxes for the land,the wetland delineation,the natural dividing line in the middle of the lot caused by the hill, the long narrow lot shape and significant maintenance and grass mowing. Two homes facing Dahl Road is consistent with all lots across the street and those immediately to the east of the property. A lot split will insure that another manufactured home will not be installed in this neighborhood as the City ordinance allowed to occur at 940 North Arm Drive, and on this parcel without a need for a variance. 2 PC Exhibit C #17-3963 Z�„ GILBERT SUBDIVISION _. Waz . t-2wil PRELIMINARY PLAT AND a'Y U..igQ BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR °w6LL JHG PROPERTIES, LLC Qe,wa mon IN THE SE 1/4, NE 1/4, SEC. 7-117-23 � o� • HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA m =w 0 It ____\_-)\....__ _ `\ Ur — __�asca`_usru_ax _..]:• ee•2ru•E sa¢++ ROAD . -. --M-- I� +� "a,e f A niwinar \ W v //� �`v - -, .-t — -`.-.._.-.. -- -__—__—Ner2T1�'W-27 500 —' _� rrronnrn \ \ ( \\ \ 1_.-__.-._ y _ h Y i _._._ NORTH LINE OF 5E 114 . ....I • NE MI.SEC 7-117-23 \ \ _..-.),\ 101.-AC EALSO -y 4 ' 7 \ 00N-ACALsoexc upmcv�nwo 1 x / - EXISTING '91 #Y V agp35 a EAST LINE OF SE 1M, 'I ,/ NE 1N,SEC 7.117-23 • \\` \\\ ,� �` / .so , .Sr�, e KI I 1 �^'! A� o0sr.-AACC�,it I \ A; \ �- = —--- ,- \\`. � !� � r>w N&3�2T~t,{W I —� EI • `. • a .4?. I -wx,uvo 50641 194n LINE PARALLEL VITA li I iiii � 1 1 NORTH LINE OF SE 1p. p > NE IN.SEC]-11]-23 I`7+1t [p ftli LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: nil 3 That part of Section 7,Township 117,Range 23,described as follows;Commencing on the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section eta point distant ADDRESS=4035 DAHL ROAD 275 feet West from the Northeast corner thereof;thence South 150 feet;thence West parat- AREA=1.83+-ACRES lel with the North line of said section to the center line of the road;thence Northwesterly along AREA=1.82+-ACRES DRY AREA=0.01+-ACRES IN WETLAND I zthe center line of said road to the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter;' thence East to the beginning. ZONING=LR-1B This survey shows the boundaries and topography of the above described property,and the location of an existing house and driveway.It does not purport to show any other improvements 0 or encroachments. 0 30 60 120 0 Iron marker found Wr+elr. CO a :Iron marker set > • w -+r -:Existing contour line SCALE IN FEET 1,203I i.-4 �" 1 l...a ' .' N,,,, : it . :4,_.4,.,„ It / # Jf i4 - ......, , . ,. ..... ,,. .,. .. ,, ,; , _ , .,.0_ „,, . . . \ \ f, \ ,'. ..,. ..,....• •L' 4,r I) • 4440 A 1 - . ..,, r 44r, 1111 lb°. , A atipq i iiiil \ I it . >,----7 r. 7T "/ ' \%\\\ \\\ il 4/' , 3 e 0.14: :-': ''' jay - lIl "IP . - ”" , 05 4.,. ,. ;it;,� 094/ \\:: .," a .,, • , ''' i \ IP / \ Cl) 7 CD ----------------- , -- :,71/1i II $U 'gi:117L-ri Warr • -..;.%.,:rifeit-i-1111111 -. ill& \ . 1 !".4.1P411746' Ili'' - Ie.%woo mow- Am ins. .110411WAMI*11111111 frZ• 01 IMO ..,_ ,/. , ...:.•,-,,,•' ; .., -T. ...-.....i - ; ,=.• 01 1117 j / -- , !Pe tri':. V.41 ,• / i 1 i ..4.Viir''' t.!:....44- i'4oq Ail ,wippyri-ppr - / tr4 V - ''•°4* AC-1.1110 44r '.'‘V-01111: gi -- -- i ,•1 • - ' Rtii Call - '3.1.1't1:1111104 / tati,_ • -!'? -, - •-iv"" irt 1 a 1......1 al I. _ , / . 't,t %** 1•Ni: 1 I 4F-Tariiii Will i"lir : . ', 11PrelliiiM ., , . .- v: 41 R'== .•,•.'•' --; --,.,'- • '' • ebt ' • - 1.1.11illim • ,1.2_ -J4..do.;• ' _ _,,,,,,-N.7," - ---- - _ ,• '-', -4\, - ‘ .:.'; Iftor, .ii,ii•* „,,, ---./-_ / ta rig r.- for .._,.. __=,‘ . ...„...,„.,„,. t 0, ,,,,,i , ., 1 -?....„,....:artpar= ma ..I- /4/ . cilium:: N err: :'• , .:7. of 1 '- mr,--1— / 4,„.•-•.r.1'- -., iiirAf - , . Aar [ 401,....le l'Ne s•7. ' , ', P.,..i., ‘ % 11111 s E'.4&.&_.A.M.1 6 111. '- '311” A Wall I 1' , ,,,,,' 142/11,BA , I r. ,..., ,.. 2, ...• ' 1111114- Ifj4V";&\1111111-. *--,.•#41,,,...:',., ,- li wie.if.,_..*. *,-- -4;--,,..; . Cool,..),/ • a ire a!rigap 4 Mi. pi ,,,•,,,!,.:5-AIVA :Milk at* .,as1111111111E1% 1'.:'',:la7.,1,:-' ''1 ' 1r411141•111V•e*ii f r _,,,,...,,....,„ , .WI:... , Ar • ... 7.6 ivia. I;ft, ,,,5 ., ,, If • ,„..„.,4, ,,,;,,,,,:: oil /I- ____ 5 0 • L., — - : ,', A./ ' ,..,,,,,..', 4, 4 - pig!' . 4".11111111110r, in,tui As , f- ' 1 • '-'- -,..t- ' ,.-:- 'Ili. .... I ; : --1r I 4 II / ---5 r41111,1—INEN I limo kamosaie a/z ir"i\k••',pl'i.r•,'-t7i-7:"-lNliiN.:i:i',i.k4,iMk'..'.-fr,,''..I 1.P 44-.-1ierii-rg,a-4,,i..0tii;llsAiin4,rf,.i.t...eiim!0:t4-fv•.r,-:,'',:r/--60-•',0,".i47..l..1.‘,*47..1.*%.041r11." 131iiI .'KI w'i'.r.'4lfi4mI-rfrI4/tioe/eI.n44,.i.1,-a i4iF i ,-=- *1it1*I1:11riETbVL'I_III,L,-1,'1k'4-L 1IMI11-71R'-I1 1111 '1i/bF1 -14m11 IIII v.---•-.1.-.6.kti.4,,,r'1r,!1•1',s'1.‘1arml/..riiu1.)•i=.i ppilnll? atm=1v:i1lirr.fi:l rslTi141-,1li1-n-4g JI . = I g . . o lilt11-2,.4i41I11lI 1111141v 4AlT04-V1 -' • AIL ,-;°°4-----',..,-8,,,-,,011-.!‘• ---_ ‘iii..... i-32 ailiin b. \ '11 / . .$11 111 ..-,•;•% liVtAdit_ir 11! .74 4,110k , • 1.......i. ... 1 11 I A ..L #11111. latg‘ : 4: 1 Ti .. ,1 PC Exhibit F #17-3963 MG PROPERTIES, LLC 12700 Anderson Lakes Parkway Eden Prairie,MN 55344-7652 E-mail address: JHGilbert@lawgilbert.com July 31, 2017 City of Orono City Council 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: Waiver of Conservation Design Requirements for 4035 Dahl Road Lot Subdivision Dear City Council Let this letter serve as JHG Properties' official request for a waiver from the Conservation Design requirements set forth in Chapter 78, Article XII of the Orono City Code. In light of the size and nature of this subdivision application, we request a waiver of the conservation design plan which appears to be suited for larger sub-division projects involving major earthmoving,new streets, sewer, etc. None of these major disruptive activities will take place on either of the two proposed lots if the variance and subdivision are approved. All necessary roads and sewer are already connected to the property and the proposed driveways will simply be connected to existing Dahl Road and become part of the existing neighborhood. We plan on leaving undisturbed all of the trees and brush growth on the perimeter of the property and the major pine trees that are on the property. Two of the pine trees were damaged in the recent storm and broke off and will be removed when the existing home is removed, along with the scrub trees and bushes that have grown around the home. We requested a quote for a conservation design and the estimate was between$5,000 and $7,000 for this simple lot split. We have already spent considerable sums on the wetland delineation process, and the wetland area will of course always be protected from any development or alteration both now and into the future. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information and thank you for your consideration. Letter to City Council Page 2 Sincerely, 1 � J.1ii- Gilbert • - ► anger, JHG Properties, LLC U` M `� r I 3 U _C) Cr) -. ., itik . : : ....- 47..-. a • a i°4 Y 1410 o\ • • / '49 ` . i r �"+.,� f lip Ar....\\ r , 14 L. x �' '> u . North4-017W 3 .'' s ` _ I w ti s. At ; T sem_:, -41ice - . ; . ,te , / �_ tt ,4414 410/ yf` t. c ' 4e �Kr w � t et "„f, " . w:. "f • - '',''''',..r-s-,,,r,7,;,,, , 44' *li,i �M w 1- .;k • i ^ r,l4p'r, �, A:T^N soar. , ,....„., _ • 7\ •."It' .gra :s: � rir1 :�'. Facing West .-,....- ,..- .. :,..-..t•Pr--, i , -..-- •,,,,, , -----14- ,..:-.-. -.- ,..,',',..;•• .' -- -..;7.- ••••• , hi+,..---7,--- -,•.,i.• ..'.,. ler, .„._ ..,,,,, ., , ,: __;,_ ,..,, ,,,,.,, ,,, _: , . ;., ,4'.,,,I..44e.\,, - .4,.. . .., ...i , .- • • 3r., 7-,..'-, 0,..„ , 7.*.c.)'-":.;.:-:..!•.s..-i&t.;,.•,•1-',..*k,%•'*-?..ri..4-,,, ,•. 41.1Flii-o._--`• -41 •'`,-).-/A •-' : r:- • . ., 4 -.- .:- ,- ----1,- .-___±,-c.- - 9.':-.7.*'•,..1.ii...77,:-.., ',,,.,,,-.. ,_. .;-:,•..,1.1(kiii.v2,,,i,:7-•,,,,, :: ,,:.„. ...,- ',.i. •••••e7:-;tt . ,-....'m -'-'••- • ''.,.1; '•••• i-.. 7r,"",,, -' 4" '''- . f - '" ' : ''. " - i'-. -rr''. ''*"'''IV . . ';'''ii:::'-4.\/'-';,ik,:',..1?'''','1'.4s.I.J:-•-..f.'..'Ole--. Hr-:'.,.' ,. Li . . ''.^'-;'. ' /.1 . ..v.ii.,4!driff , 1W.,.. ../c*:..r.:_'_f.,1,-....,; ',.,.,7, ... i,-,_',..--1:11'1'--7.-_ .'...•-• -,'-.; --... w.: -.. „---.--...!...',..t, ' _..,c.,4;..- •.- ..!-7...;,..,_,..v.i;A:, ..,.._... ,..„44.._, ::...':..,...timv:-.. ..,,,..i.....z.,,''.\•,-' ' r , 4 , .. , . . . .4, ii....,.., .•,,..f''-c..'""'' .-.''1.-, '.- ":''''-:'''""" .. .„. . . C.- 7 t ' • -:-...',..-:.•-• ,, • -4,...:, -. - . . • 7:-. 0,•-• -- , r..)--•-• , • g. •1: ' - . ,.-••••'-:-‘,--,:'•-...,.. --.-Vi ,,,,,,,,.. . ,-,..,-, , -.' ig -...::. :,..-,:. - N:. ..„., „. . .. .., , ....,. ,.`'.. .. , e.- ,-,--'.r , • " „ ,.. ,.. `, ;.. ,7, -- ''... • •. • •-•r:.. - ..-7-,.'- ,---• - • . • .• I V"'„ . -7..• \ li , .. .*411/14,' ' •' ' .-.-- - .41.6:7 -- - 44. • -----'' , ...... • - '-- , ',I.:::•---.'...r.', -...*:r••:,;:7, - \ - . •, -.7-,.; '1:....":• ,INF-7•••-• .J1nir'.-,,-- ; •' - , ' .-'".,-*...,..).-,-.'•, '--- --?-, , , ,......_.: •e' • -„.r.:.•.!,-,.•,.„-•-. *t,',.„ itt, -4$ • 't...-,., ..1(.:-, -t-....-,r rf.,....\4.krori..... ...tii--•._ .i.-'.';, _-,-- - .. '.. ..,y,- .- -- •-,- -..---..-- ,r•r - - !,,,.., . ._.„ „, _ ;:i.-.‘41.•‘4-.•g'44,,,I, r•,;,71,4,.;,..11:'-‘„4,-.. ..4,-r.;,,_41—.',, ',,,-.•,,, yr.-, _. ,_:.-.,..-.,...-.- 4 . . . _ - . ...,, ..z;i;;.'-....-'74e7;:."?.°:;.-;•••t'v'' AfT4'•.-7.4,-...,-:' c.',..-''"'°- -.-.;,, .. •,....,.... ,-.. .-. --,,=',.' ._-_. .•' .... . • • ',.---;.•, ...,,,I.-,..7..,,,-,•e••,;',....;;TIJ,.4,-. • ' - ..-‘t.'•,-. ' '" . - . A, • ... ..•- ..v.-..- ''.4 '-.431.ii.k '.„. .-•-- . -, '-):.„ .. -. .".' * .,- •- i-,-,:• '''.4.•..--'.•:•':::: . . !,.,.•': .t.,: -- ".--,••••e---•;,-.:"-- :0'..lir • -...-.-.. .„. --f.--_'4.14.. „ . ,. . . .. ,..:. ._ ., -=.t.*,',2'.'g.: ''''-'''';', '`.. , .--..T.-..•.,i,rl'ir.: _.-...-.:-Tki.--,;•...-...1' ---"illk -7','-?"'t'.7,:i- , z rr. . •.... -• -_, • . . r't:.----''-'-:..4 '-' •••‘',, - 1., -- --r -it— , r J-• r-. - . i-...,•. • -1,tt •,•:...t,...,• .,...,','N-....1 ,.-,.t-.....-. 'A. ""- .."' , ._ ,. .. . . ,. . .. :".,."i;;-.,',..''." ,f-'-„ •+:.,',1;-,. t."4,11,-;,. . 7 ,:-_-„--'-3/4„,• s, •.,: N.. --I ,,- ,, ..-,;,14.;i''..,•','‘''.:.'',',tS'', ''•-'''s,. ' 't'''''''..'c, .1.‘..;''' ' ',."• : V ,/' .*' . :' ..C. , ' `.:441- '''' , . g'!:-..-7 -} k -- ,- -'• ', . . . --, ----''---','-- '-'-----'' -''''01:c- -A.t....- .v-,.:-. ..- r.:: .'.','• ‘"-14 1.4 ! _ ) . ' '. 4.1"..-4-''' 't . . - ,-- - ,, • ; ::""'"''''', '',';,(' " '`" ...*A. ''''''. ' ‘,...;.,,,.-",;. ',, 8--..'.,".'1,-..r. • ., alf - • . _ - .. • - •,.• ..- - : . •--- .e.,--:-,i,, ,t-••-,,,:.,...•,. ;'---,,,,'•-•\.-.1,.... 77--•.:,.. k -, ••. .•c- -.• . --.-....„, ,,,,,-,,,.. ,. , ., -, ,.., ,,,,..-, ,,,,,,...47,,•' .t,-k...;:;:ii t',..n , , ' '-• ''"-_":","-•"' ...ti...,",:;,,-.'it',"-.it,..., .- - .-:,/"•••• •\t - ) ..1....,__,,,,,-,-. . . --.-.--4-' ?. „ -)„.4,-.E.:, - ,-,... -,_01,,,... ,...-,v..., _ .,, . ;_ , ,.. -,,,,y,- , , .,. _ --f,,4•-j .., -,_. - ,#,J;,..,:„?'•'.'„%.,,:;': .' Itile."M",,, ,, ' 'a•AiA,"4, ;: %.i'•'..Wiii,...• .'6,',-.'„. ;:,--7- . ,.,44iiii, ,' . 1--::_,,--) .i.; -- • ' . •7-4,71/0.• --'....•••• - 71.4 V. •%."ii ' ,.. .11, • ••••=, S Matomet Facing South PC Exhibit H #17-3963 Preliminary Subdivision Plat Application: #1 7-3963 Preliminary Subdivision Application $950+30/lot Application Escrow(guarantees payment of City's consultant costs- Assumes no public improvements) $2,500 Variance Application Fee $700 Estimated cost of City Engineer's review of preliminary plat $1,000 (Actual cost will be billed to property owner monthly) Collected with Application on 7/19/17 $1610(application fees)+$2,500 escrow Final Subdivision Plat Application (filed after 09/01/17): Final Subdivision Application Fee*, including Legal Review and Filing (w/covenants) (Covers first review of documents, if additional time Is required,those costs will be billed to the property owner.) $500 Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee* $5,000+3,517.5 =8,517.5 (to be paid for the entire plat) Park Fee* (8%of Fair Market Value), but no less than $3,250/per lot and no more than$5,550 per lot x#of new lots $5,550 Estimated cost of City Engineer's review of final plat $1,000.00 (Actual cost will be billed to property owner) Final Subdivision Application Fee is paid with the Final Plat application. Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee, Park Fee and consultant costs are paid before the final plat is recorded. *Based on revised 2017 Fee Schedule 2017 Fee Schedule Excerpts: Applicable Code Section PARK DEDICATION FEES I Sec.82-227 Land Dedication Minimum Area-Subdividers shall be required to dedicate to the City for parks,playgrounds,trails,open spaces and other public purposes as a minimum that percentage of gross land area,or other such amount as may be determined by the City Council,as set forth below: (1) Residential/Agricultural/Multiple Residential Zoned Land. Dedication requirement of 8%of the land being platted or subdivided. (Exclusive of lot that includes an existing residence.) Cash Contribution in Lieu of Lands. In those instances where a cash contribution is to be made by the subdivider,in lieu of a conveyance or dedication of land,the cash contribution to be contributed shall be equivalent to the fair market value of the equivalent undeveloped land that would otherwise have been conveyed or dedicated. The City shall account for such funds in a special fund named Park Dedication Funds. The City Council has established by resolution a minimum residential park fee of Res.4738(12-10-01) $3,250 per dwelling unit and a maximum of$5,550 per dwelling unit. Applicable Code Section STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEES 5% Fee Sec. 14-281 thru 14-287 Storm water trunk fees apply to new development and redevelopment of existing properties and provide funding for the storm water infrastructure necessary to serve the City. The trunk fee is based on the land use and acreage of the property being developed. An equivalency factor multiplier is assigned to each land use type,with a 2-acre residential lot considered as the standard in the City with an equivalency factor of 1.0. The table below lists the storm water trunk fees per acre for the various zoning districts and land uses in the City. Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fees(amended July 2015) New Development Land Use Trunk Fee per Acre Maximum Trunk Fee per Lot Single Family Residential 5 Acre Zone $3,230 $15,375 (I),(2),(4) Single Family Residential 2 Acre Zone $4,030 $7,680 (1),(3),(4) Single Family Residential 1 Acre Zone $5,250 $5,000 (1),(5) Single Family Residential 1/2 Acre Zone $6,050 $2,883 (1),(6) Multi Family Residential 4 Units/Acre or Less $7,275 NA (7) Multi Family Residential Greater than 4 $8,490 NA (7) Units/Acre Commercial or Industrial $9,690 NA 1. Trunk fee charged on per lot basis. For the 5-acre,2-acre, 1-acre and 1/2-acre zoning districts,the trunk fee shall be charged on a per-lot basis.Only acreage platted as building lots shall be charged the trunk fee.Acreage platted as road-rights-of-way or out lots for other purposes shall not be charged the trunk fee. The dollar amount calculated by multiplying(a)the number of new lots by(b)the zoning district base acreage per lot by(c)the base trunk fee per lot established in the City Fee Schedule, shall be deemed the Base Development Trunk Fee. 2.Maximum fee.For the five-acre zoning district,any lot exceeding 5.0 gross acres,including wetland,shall be charged a maximum trunk fee equal to the trunk fee for a 5.0 acre parcel. 3.Maximum fee.For the two-acre zoning districts,any lot exceeding 2.0 gross acres,including wetland,shall be charged a maximum trunk fee equal to the trunk fee for a 2.0 acre parcel. 4.Fee Credits. For the two-acre and five-acre zoning districts,a combined reduction of up to 50%of the Base Development Trunk Fee shall be allowed for the percentage of the total development property acreage in one or more of the following categories: - acreage of newly-created wetland. - acreage of stormwater ponding or similar improvements that provide additional treatment benefits beyond what is required to treat the stormwater runoff from the development site. - acreage of conservation easements resulting from Conservation Design process. 5.Maximum fee.For the one-acre zoning districts,any lot exceeding 1.0 gross acres,including wetland,shall be charged a maximum trunk fee equal to the trunk fee for a 1.0 acre parcel. 6.Maximum fee.For the 1/2-acre zoning districts,any lot exceeding 0.5 gross acres,including wetland,shall be charged a maximum trunk fee equal to the trunk fee for a 0.5 acre parcel. 7.Multi-family and High-Density Single Family Developments. Trunk fee shall be charged on a per-acre basis,except that the following acreages will not be subject to the trunk fee: - all wetland acreage up to the delineation line - acreage of stormwater ponding or similar improvements that provide additional treatment benefits beyond what is required to treat the stormwater runoff from the development site. - acreage of conservation easements resulting from Conservation Design process P.0 • Exhibit I Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act #17-3963 Notice of Application Local Government Unit(LGU) Address Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 15320 Minnetonka Blvd Minnetonka,MN 55345 1.PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Name Project Name Date of Application JHG Properties,LLC,Jim Gilbert 4035 Dahl Road,Orono Application Number 7/20/2017 W17-24 Type of Application(check all that apply): ® Wetland Boundary or Type ❑No-Loss ❑Exemption ❑ Sequencing 0 Replacement Plan ❑Banking Plan Summary and description of proposed project(attach additional sheets as necessary): JHG Properties, LLC,Jim gilbert has applied for wetland boundary&type confirmation for the wetland located at 4035 Dahl Road in the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Legal description: Section 7,Township 117N, Range 23W. The boundary/type approval was requested X. A wetland delineation was conducted by Kjolhaug Environmental Company, Inc. on July 18th, 2017. A complete delineation report and WCA application were submitted to MCWD on July 20th, 2017. One wetland was delineated on site. Wetland 1 was identified as a Type 3, Shallow Marsh. The boundaries will be reviewed in the field by MCWD staff. 2. APPLICATION REVIEW AND DECISION Signing and mailing of this completed form to the appropriate recipients in accordance with 8420.0255,Subp.3 provides notice that an application was made to the LGU under the Wetland Conservation Act as specified above. A copy of the application is attached. Comments can be submitted to: Name and Title of LGU Contact Person Comments must be received by (minimum 15 Heidi Quinn business-day comment period): Permitting Technician 8/25/17(4:30PM) Address(if different than LGU) Date,time,and location of decision: 15320 Minnetonka Blvd A decision will be made following the review Minnetonka,MN 55345 of the application and completion of the comment period. Phone Number and E-mail Address Decision-maker for this application: (952)641-4504 ®Staff hquinn@minnehahacreek.org 0 Governing Board or Council BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 1 of 2 Signature: Date: 3.LIST OF ADDRESSEES • SWCD TEP member: Stacey Lijewski—stacey.lijewski@hennepin.us ® BWSR TEP member:Ben Meyer—ben.meyer@state.mn.us ❑ LGU TEP member(if different than LGU Contact): • DNR TEP Becky Horton-becky.horton@state.mn.us • DNR Regional Office(if different than DNR TEP member): ❑ WD or WMO(if applicable): ® Applicant(notice only)and Landowner(if different): JHG Properties,LLC,Jim Gilbert ® Members of the public who requested notice(notice only): bhodapp@ae-mn.com; kjusten@ae- mn.com;jhgilbert@lawgilbert.com; cmattson@ci.orono.mn.us; mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us ® Corps of Engineers Project Manager(notice only): Ryan Malterud- Ryan.M.Malterud@usace.army.mil ❑ BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator(wetland bank plan applications only) 4. MAILING INFORMATION ➢For a list of BWSR TEP representatives:www.bwsr.state.mn.us/contact/WCA areas.pdf ➢For a list of DNR TEP representatives:www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/DNR TEP contacts.pdf ➢Department of Natural Resources Regional Offices: NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: Reg.Env.Assess.Ecol. Reg.Env.Assess.Ecol. Reg.Env.Assess.Ecol. Reg.Env.Assess.Ecol. Div.Ecol.Resources Div.Ecol.Resources Div.Ecol.Resources Div.Ecol.Resources 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd.NE 1201 E.Hwy.2 1200 Warner Road 261 Hwy. 15 South Bemidji,MN 56601 Grand Rapids,MN 55744 St.Paul,MN 55106 New Ulm,MN 56073 For a map of DNR Administrative Regions,see:http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/dnr regions.pdf ➢For a list of Corps of Project Managers:www.mvp.usace.army.mil/regulatory/default.asp?pageid=687 or send to: US Army Corps of Engineers St.Paul District,ATTN:OP-R 180 Fifth St. East,Suite 700 St.Paul,MN 55101-1678 ➢For Wetland Bank Plan applications,also send a copy of the application to: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Wetland Bank Coordinator 520 Lafayette Road North St.Paul,MN 55155 5.ATTACHMENTS In addition to the application,list any other attachments: ® Complete delineation report BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 2 of 2 Project Name and/or Number: 4035 Dahl Road PART ONE: Applicant Information If applicant is an entity(company,government entity,partnership,etc.),an authorized contact person must be identified. If the applicant is using an agent(consultant, lawyer,or other third party)and has authorized them to act on their behalf,the agent's contact information must also be provided. Applicant/Landowner Name: JHG Properties, LLC,Jim Gilbert Mailing Address: 12700 ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY, EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 Phone: 612-790-7077 E-mail Address: jhgilbert@lawgilbert.com Contact(do not complete if same as above): Ben Carlson, Kjolhaug Environmental Services Mailing Address: 26105 Wild Rose Lane Sherwood, MN 55331 Phone: 952-401-8757 E-mail Address: ben@kjolhaugenv.com Agent Name: Mailing Address: Phone: E-mail Address: PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Hennepin City/Township: Orono Parcel ID and/or Address: 0711723140003 Legal Description(Section,Township,Range): Section 7,Township 117N,Range 23W Lat/Long(decimal degrees): Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets,roads,highways. Ok Approximate size of site(acres)or if a linear project,length(feet): 1.76 acres If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,you must provide the names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be provided by attaching a list to your application or by using block 25 of the Application for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/RegulatoryDocs/engform 4345 2012oct.pdf PART THREE: General Project/Site Information If this application is related to a delineation approval,exemption determination,jurisdictional determination,or other correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number. Describe the project that is being proposed,the project purpose and need,and schedule for implementation and completion.The project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements that effect aquatic resources(wetland,lake,tributary,etc.)and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings showing the location,character,and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts. Project Name and/or Number: 4035 Dahl Road PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impacts Summary If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) identify each impact in the table below.Include all anticipated impacts,including those expected to be temporary.Attach an overhead view map, aerial photo,and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s)of the proposed impacts. Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table. Type of Impact Duration of County,Major Aquatic Existing Plant Aquatic Resource q (fill,excavate, Impact Overall Size of Watershed#, Resource TypeCommunity ID(as noted on drain,or Permanent(P) Size of Impact2 Aquatic and Bank (wetland,lake, a Type(s)in overhead view) remove or Temporary Resource Service Area# tributary etc.) Impact Area' s vegetation) (T)1of Impact Area llf impacts are temporary;enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the"T". For example,a project with a temporary access fill that would be removed after 220 days would be entered"T(220)". 2Impacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported In linear feet of Impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses). For example,a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6 feet wide would be reported as 50 ft(300 square feet). 3Thls is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp.8,otherwise enter"N/A". 'Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3'a Ed.as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp,2. 5Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp.7. If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred,identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated with each: PART FIVE: Applicant Signature ❑ Check here if you are requesting a pre-application consultation with the Corps and LGU based on the information you have provided. Regulatory entities will not initiate a formal application review if this box is checked. By signature below,I attest that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further attest that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein. 171F\--*(52-. 1`,1`k. � Signature: k� Date: 7/17/2017 The term"impact"as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement. Project Name and/or Number: 4035 Dahl Road Attachment A Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or Jurisdictional Determination By submission of the enclosed wetland delineation report, I am requesting that the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,St. Paul District (Corps)and/or the Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit(LGU)provide me with the following(check all that apply): ®Wetland Type Confirmation ® Delineation Concurrence. Concurrence with a delineation is a written notification from the Corps and a decision from the LGU concurring,not concurring,or commenting on the boundaries of the aquatic resources delineated on the property.Delineation concurrences are generally valid for five years unless site conditions change. Under this request alone,the Corps will not address the jurisdictional status of the aquatic resources on the property,only the boundaries of the resources within the review area (including wetlands,tributaries,lakes,etc.). ❑ Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination.A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD)is a non-binding written indication from the Corps that waters,including wetlands,identified on a parcel may be waters of the United States.For purposes of computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements,a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD will treat all waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. PJDs are advisory in nature and may not be appealed. ❑Approved Jurisdictional Determination.An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is an official Corps determination that jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present or absent on the property.AJDs can generally be relied upon by the affected party for five years.An AJD may be appealed through the Corps administrative appeal process. In order for the Corps and LGU to process your request,the wetland delineation must be prepared in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual,any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Manual,and the Guidelines for Submitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesota(2013). http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/DelineationJDGuidance.aspx 4035 Dahl Road Orono, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report Prepared for JHG Properties, LLC by Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company, Inc. (KES Project No. 2017-114) July 18, 2017 WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY • The 1.76-acre 4035 Dahl Road Parcel was inspected on June 6, 2017 for the presence and extent of wetland. • The NWI-map showed one PEM1C wetland mapped within the property. • The soil survey showed Cordova loam as the hydric soil type present within the review area. • The DNR Public Waters map showed DNR Public Waters 27-133-13P (Minnetonka- North Arm) approximately 500' north of the property. • The National Hydrography Dataset Map showed one Lake/Pond directly south of the property and one Lake/Pond approximately 500' north of the property(Lake Minnetonka). • One(1) wetland was identified and delineated on the property as summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Wetlands delineated on the 4035 Dahl Road Parcel Wetland Wetland Tye Dominant Vegetation ID Circular 39 Cowardin Eggers and Reed 1 Type 3 PEM1C Shallow Marsh Reed canary grass,cattail species 1 4035 Dahl Road Orono, Minnesota Wetland Delineation Report I. INTRODUCTION The 1.76-acre 4035 Dahl Road Parcel was inspected on June 6, 2017 for the presence and extent of wetland. The property was located in Section 7, Township 117N, Range 23W, Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Generally, the site location was south of Dahl Road and east of North Arm Drive (Figure 1). The site limits corresponded to Hennepin County PID 0711723140003. The majority of the site was manicured lawn with scattered hardwood and evergreen trees. One single-family home was present in the eastern portion of the property. Adjacent land use was primarily single-family homes, forested area, and Lake Minnetonka. The topography was lowest near the western edge of the site with a bottom elevation of 986 feet msl(at Wetland 1) and rose in elevation to the east with a high point at 1012 feet msl. One depressional wetland was identified and delineated within the site boundaries (Figure 2). II. METHODS Wetlands were identified using the Routine Determination method described in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region (Version 2.0) as required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Wetland boundaries were identified as the upper-most extent of wetland that met criteria for hydric soils,hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland-upland boundaries were marked with pin flags that were located by surveyors from Lot Surveys Company, Inc. Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at a representative location along the wetland- upland boundary. Plant species dominance was estimated based on the percent aerial or basal coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for trees and vines, a 15-foot radius for the shrub layer, and a 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type sampled. Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of 24 inches (unless otherwise noted)using a Munsell Soil Color Book and standard soil texturing methodology. Hydric soil indicators used are from Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS) in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, Version 8.1, 2017). Mapped soils are separated into five classes based on the percent composition of hydric components and the Hydric Rating by Map Unit color classes utilized on 2 Web Soil Survey. The five classes include Hydric (100 percent hydric components), Predominantly Hydric (66 to 99 percent hydric components), Partially Hydric(33 to 65 percent hydric components), Predominantly Non-Hydric (1 to 32 percent hydric components), and Non- Hydric(less than one percent hydric components). Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys. Taxonomy and indicator status of plant species was taken from the 2016 National Wetland Plant List(U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2016. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.2, https://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover,NH). III. RESULTS Review of NWI, Soils,DNR, and NHD Information The National Wetlands Inventory(NWI) (Minnesota Geospatial Commons 2009-2014 and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) showed one PEM1C wetland mapped within the property(Figure 3). The Soil Survey(USDA NRCS 2015) showed Cordova loam as the hydric soil type present within the review area. Soil types mapped on the property are listed in Table 2 and a map showing soil types is included in Figure 4. The Hydric Soil Report—Component List is included in Appendix A. Table 2. Soil types mapped on the 4035 Dahl Road Parcel Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating L23A Cordova loam,0 to 2 percent slopes Predominantly Hydric L4OB Angus-Kilkenny complex,2 to 6 percent slopes Prediminantly Non-Hydric Lester-Kilkenny complex,6 to 12 percent slopes, L41 C2 eroded Prediminantly Non-Hydric Lester-Kilkenny complex, 12 to 18 percent slopes, L41 D2 eroded Prediminantly Non-Hydric L4 1 E Lester-Kilkenny complex, 18 to 25 percent slopes Prediminantly Non-Hydric The Minnesota DNR Public Waters Inventory(Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2015) showed DNR Public Water 27-133-13P (Minnetonka-North Arm)approximately 500' north of the property (Figure 5). The National Hydrography Dataset(NHD) (U.S. Geological Survey 2015) showed one Lake/Pond directly south of the property and one Lake/Pond approximately 500' north of the property(Lake Minnetonka) (Figure 6). 3 Wetland Determinations and Delineations Potential wetlands were evaluated in greater detail during field observations on June 6, 2017. One (1)wetland was identified and delineated on the subject parcel (Figure 2). Corresponding data forms are included in Appendix A. The following description of the wetland and adjacent upland reflects conditions observed at the time of the field visit. At that time precipitation totals were above normal based on available 30-day rolling precipitation data, and climatic conditions were wet based on the three-month antecedent conditions(March, April, May) (Appendix B). Vegetation was actively growing during the site visit. A survey of the site provided by Gronberg &Associates, Inc. is provided in Appendix C. Wetland 1 was a Type 3 (PEM1C) shallow marsh dominated by reed canary grass with cattail species observed in the center of the basin. Saturation was observed at 14"below the soil surface with no free water present in the wetland sample boring. Additional secondary indicators included Geomorphic Position and FAC-Neutral Test. Wetland 1 was located along the southwestern edge of the property and extended offsite to the south and totaled 0.015 acres in size within site boundaries. The adjacent upland was dominated by Timothy, Canada thistle, and Kentucky bluegrass. No primary or secondary hydrology indicators were observed in the upland. The delineated boundary followed an abrupt change in topography, was placed along the transition from wetland to upland vegetation, where soil transitioned from hydric to non-hydric, and where hydrology indicators were no longer present. Wetland 1 was indicated on the NWI as a PEM1C wetland and the soil survey showed Cordova loam(hydric) as the soil types present within the review area. Wetland 1 extended off the property to the south. Additional Areas No additional wetlands were indicated on the NWI map. Hydric soil is mapped north of Wetland 1,however, the upland sample point confirmed this area was not wetland. No additional areas exhibiting inundation or supporting wetland vegetation were observed during field observation. 4 IV. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION The procedures utilized in the described delineation are based on the COE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. Both the delineation and report were conducted in compliance with regulatory standards in place at the time the work was completed. All site boundaries indicated on figures within this report are approximate and do not constitute an official survey product. Delineation Completed by: Ben Carlson, Wetland Specialist Certified Wetland Delineator No. 1125 Report Completed by: Ben Carlson, Wetland Specialist Certified Wetland Delineator No. 1125 Xl Report reviewed by: Date: July 18, 2017 Mark Kjolhaug,Professional Wetland Scientist No. 000845 5 4035 Dahl Road Wetland Delineation Report Figures: • Figure 1 — Site Location Map • Figure 2—Existing Conditions Map • Figure 3—NWI Map • Figure 4—Soil Survey Map • Figure 5 —DNR Protected Waters Map • Figure 6—National Hydrography Dataset Map utrz a aa11 Court. K Carr rA A'n Et 1 O For•.I LfMe 0, • Z W mint Ar• Fet.at 1.454 C• an Jy ay Fmwnn 3 n n� O QProject Boundary Figure 1 - Project Location Map N 4035 Dahl Road (KES 2017-114) 0 0.1 0.2 Orono, Minnesota Miles I�(' T u�T j Note:Boundaries indicated JOIJl- UG F.NVIRONMF.NTAL SF.RV1CF.S COMPANY on this figure are approximate 'O��-• and do not constitute an �`� official survey product. cD0 R , qc .*;1'i'l.-1.1.:T...........1.7fir; . yg� . � �` ; •p ,. .. 11 4% : , a ,. 1 I_ imum.44411:•.."1111111111\ R. P \ �y`c .'. ifir.. ,,,,.: ,s s' \ ''k\ , 11‘, \ cp z � Wetland 1 0.,4 Irr • ,. 0.015Ac / k .0.4) "6* _ 1.: — — t \ e .. m. Project Boundary • I \ • Sample Point `A . a —•••• • Transect ///, Survey Wetland Boundary t Hennepin County Lidar '` - ` 1g* lii Figure 2 - Existing Conditions (2016 Imagery) N 4035 Dahl Road (KES 2017-114) ,,s„ A 0 100 200 Orono, Minnesota � Feet Note:Boundaries indicated �(' r u,►T r/^� on this figure are approximate l t�Ol.nh V l7F.NVIRONMF.NTAI.SF.RV1CF-S COMPANY and do not constitute an `�'�^-^ro official survey product. +^./V Source:MnGeo,ESRI Imagery Basemap • Ito. ,, oma. ,. ` . ti `"' , ":4; 1' '' ti• IF.'L� •* • i' r .. _ «c(' 11 ice' f}; 1 inal •i!;441#4.41, •.„,,, tornio, , . ' , .r y r e+,,,.. ::.°4°,"7:1',41..U. t' f !!" ''''..3,44,, 4 I a` S a Snvw' e♦ > it fir. y -4-141f iikt " • • i s r .f ': I.+ r q i t . sem'+ 1..+ 41 i rigid s - - it 1 r f- r 1 I. 14 4 - 7,,„„ _ ,,, _, , , ...„ QProject Boundary °- "t' i Figure 3 —National Wetlands Inventory Map N 4035 Dahl Road (KES 2017-114) 0 125 250 Orono, Minnesota 4=, A__,*111 .. Feet �(' T u r T Note:Boundaries indicated • 1 :JOLJE AUG F.NVIRONMF.NTAI•SERVICES COMPANY on this figure are approximate 11.—~�...ror and do not constitute an �`"� official survey product. L64A .,\ ti L40B . t $ .., A, _,.. . k 1 I t 40* l;i L40B l 5. l ,„,„, L41 D2 E , ,,,, , - L40B r ,. Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating WOESi is L23A Cordova loam,Oto 2 percent slopes Predominantly Hydric ^s Angus-Kilkenny complex,2to 6 percent Prediminantly Non- L4OB slopes Hydric Project Boundary Lester-Kilkenny complex,6to 12 percent Prediminantly Non- i Hydric/Predominantly Hydric L41C2 slopes,eroded Hydric Lester-Kilkenny complex,12 to 18 Prediminantly Non- Partially Hydric L41D2 percent slopes,eroded Hydric I Lester-Kilkenny complex,18 to 25 Prediminantly Non- Predominantly Non-Hydric/Non-Hydric L41E percent slopes Hydric ' Figure 4 - Soil Survey Map N 4035 Dahl Road (KES 2017-114) 0 Orono, Minnesota ?,, 25 0 125 Feet s -- a- u T u hr Note:Boundaries indicated '`� 1,JoLIA.T TG F.NVIRONMF..NTAI.SF.RV1CF.S COMPANY on this figure are approximate iii.-v`.... and do not constitute an '0',.....0%/ official survey product. • c. ' r , • ti P t �� `4�,, ���, ` � ��• Minnetonka-North Arm (27-133-13 P) \-1 QF ,0„,'[:''''' .,:rz: il illptoRitt,,,, ..,\ -, f� t' !w L , ti _ _ --? 8, , 44. 1 r1�. j. l' r pa. "' Fr r el* . ,, ! •`i y •.„_:, 01,,„,-,,,,,1• , , 7,•• •74,IlL .fi r• • . 11i• - , m ti iNfrt".- lir • JIIN �. s ,R 1 itt tit. , • rt„,.4,,,,*--... ,:,,i., _ , _. �/', r Q Project Boundaryilliito, • Public Waters- Hennepin County f': '''"` �. tie Figure 5 - MN DNR Protected Waters Map N 4035 Dahl Road (KES 2017-114) _ t„,r A 0 250 500 Orono, Minnesota itli 7mi � Feet �(' T u Thr Note:Boundaries indicated 1�J�1.L111VlJ F.Nb1R(1NMF.NTALSF.RVIGF.SCOMP Y on this figure are approximate '�W and do not constitute an �......V official survey product. • I. 1rr. l L 1 `` 'fir +� •x'�r�-IC4 it _ 4' c / , V y ., 4 to 4lit 1,4 lis, IN„. ...1 7 S..kr,.. ^d :� T� Atfir .* `�-' 4 Ir# Iir�0: id 4� ,•" Project Boundary " ' 1 ,. 4_4,,,,-;„.: r /// LakePond � "' 1 j Figure 6 - National Hydrography Dataset N 4035 Dahl Road (KES 2017-114) r : 0 250 500 Orono, Minnesota '.s,40 A a: E=z:i Feet Note:Boundaries indicated l':- KJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMPANY on this figure are approximate w.....• and do not constitute an �..00.../ official survey product. 4035 Dahl Road Wetland Delineation Report Appendix A: Data Forms and Hydric Soil List WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Midwest Region Project/Site 4035 Dahl Road City/County: Orono/Hennepin Sampling Date: 6/6/2017 Applicant/Owner: JHG Properties,LLC State: MN Sampling Point: 1-1 Up Investigator(s): B.Carlson(WDC#1125) Section,Township,Range: S7,T117,R23 Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Slope Local relief(concave,convex,none): Linear Slope Slope(%): 0% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name Cordova(Hydric) VWI Classification: PEM1C Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? N (If no,explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed,explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? N Hydric soil present? N Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N f yes,optional wetland site ID: Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from gridded database method "Wet"; 30-day precipitation rolling total above normal range. VEGETATION --Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0 (A) 2 Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across all Strata: 1 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 0.00% (NB) 0 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub straturr (Plot size: 15' ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total%Cover of: 2 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 3 FACW species 0 x 2= 0 4 FAC species 15 x 3= 45 5 FACU species 90 x 4= 360 0 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column totals 105 (A) 405 (B) 1 Ph/eumpratense 70 Y FACU Prevalence Index=B/A= 3.86 2 Cirs/um aivense 10 N FACU 3 Poa pratensis 10 N FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Trifo//um repens 5 N FACU Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Taraxacum ohicina/e 5 N FACU -Dominance test is>50% 6 P/antago major 5 N FAC -Prevalence index is 53.0* 7 Morphogical adaptations*(provide 8 supporting data in Remarks or on a 9 separate sheet) 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 105 =Total Cover (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30' ) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Hydrophytic 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? N Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: 1-1 Up Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR 3/2 100 Clay loam 4-12 10YR 3/2 70 Sandy clay loam mixed material 4-12 10YR 4/3 30 Sandy clay loam mixed material 12-18 10YR 3/2 98 10YR 4/6 2 C M Clay loam 18-24 10YR 2/1 100 Clay loam *Type:C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol(A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Dark Surface(S7)(LRR K,L) _Black Histic(A3) _Stripped Matrix(S6) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _Stratified Layers(A5) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _Other(explain in remarks) 2 cm Muck(A10) Depleted Matrix(F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) _Redox Dark Surface(F6) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) _Redox Depressions(F8) hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3) problematic Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Hydric soil present? N Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Surface Water(Al) Aquatic Fauna(B13) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) High Water Table(A2) _-True Aquatic Plants(B14) _Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) —Water Marks(B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows(C8) _Sediment Deposits(B2) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) _Drift Deposits(B3) -Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) _Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) (C6) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) _-Gauge or Well Data(D9) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) Other(Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water table present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Indicators of wetland Saturation present? Yes No X Depth(inches): hydrology present? N (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM-Midwest Region Project/Site 4035 Dahl Road City/County: Orono/Hennepin Sampling Date: 6/6/2017 Applicant/Owner: JHG Properties, LLC State: MN Sampling Point: 1-1 Wet Investigator(s): B.Carlson(WDC#1125) Section,Township, Range: S7,T117, R23 Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): Basin Local relief(concave,convex,none): Concave Slope(%): 0% Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name Cordova(Hydric) VWI Classification: PEM1C Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? N (If no,explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed,explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Hydric soil present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y f yes,optional wetland site ID: Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) Precipitation from gridded database method "Wet"; 30-day precipitation rolling total above normal range. VEGETATION --Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 1 (A) 2 Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across all Strata: 1 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 100.00% (NB) 0 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size: 15' ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total%Cover of: 2 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 3 FACW species 105 x 2= 210 4 FAC species 5 x 3= 15 5 FACU species 5 x 4= 20 0 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5' ) Column totals 115 (A) 245 (B) 1 Pha/ans arundinacea 100 Y FACW Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.13 2 Arclium minus 5 N FACU 3 A/liana pet/a/ala 5 N FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 U#ica dioica 5 N FACW Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X-Dominance test is>50% 6 _ X-Prevalence index is 553.0* 7 Morphogical adaptations*(provide 8 supporting data in Remarks or on a 9 separate sheet) 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 115 =Total Cover (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30' ) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Hydrophytic 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? Y Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: 1-1 Wet Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR 2/1 100 Clay loam 8-18 10YR 4/1 80 10YR 4/6 10 C M Clay loam 10YR 6/1 10 D M *Type:C=Concentration,D=Depletion,RM =Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol(A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K,L,R) Histic Epipedon(A2) -Sandy Redox(S5) Dark Surface(S7)(LRR K,L) _Black Histic(A3) _Stripped Matrix(S6) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K,L,R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _Stratified Layers(A5) -Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _Other(explain in remarks) 2 cm Muck(A10) Depleted Matrix(F3) X Depleted Below Dark Surface(Al 1) Redox Dark Surface(F6) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) -Depleted Dark Surface(F7) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand _Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Redox Depressions(F8) hydrology must be present,unless disturbed or 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3) problematic Restrictive Layer(If observed): Type: Hydric soil present? Y Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Surface Water(A1) Aquatic Fauna(B13) _Surface Soil Cracks(B6) _ High Water Table(A2) True Aquatic Plants(614) Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(Cl) _Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots_Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) -Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) -Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils X Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(65) (C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) _-Gauge or Well Data(D9) Water-Stained Leaves(69) _Other(Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Water table present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Indicators of wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth(inches): -14 hydrology present? Y (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream gauge,monitoring well,aerial photos,previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region I Hydric Soil List-All Components--Hennepin County,Minnesota Hydric Soil List - All Components This table lists the map unit components and their hydric status in the survey area. This list can help in planning land uses; however, onsite investigation is recommended to determine the hydric soils on a specific site (National Research Council, 1995; Hurt and others, 2002). The three essential characteristics of wetlands are hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology(Cowardin and others, 1979; U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, 1987; National Research Council, 1995; Tiner, 1985). Criteria for all of the characteristics must be met for areas to be identified as wetlands. Undrained hydric soils that have natural vegetation should support a dominant population of ecological wetland plant species. Hydric soils that have been converted to other uses should be capable of being restored to wetlands. Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS)as soils that formed under conditions of saturation,flooding,or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part(Federal Register, 1994).These soils, under natural conditions, are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration of the water table, is needed.Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register, 2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands.The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999)and "Keys to Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006)and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils.The indicators used to make onsite determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and Vasilas,2006). Hydric soils are identified by examining and describing the soil to a depth of about 20 inches. This depth may be greater if determination of an appropriate indicator so requires. It is always recommended that soils be excavated and described to the depth necessary for an understanding of the redoximorphic processes.Then, using the completed soil descriptions, soil scientists can compare the soil features required by each indicator and specify which indicators have been matched with the conditions observed in the soil.The soil can be identified as a hydric soil if at least one of the approved indicators is present. Map units that are dominantly made up of hydric soils may have small areas, or inclusions, of nonhydric soils in the higher positions on the landform, and map units dominantly made up of nonhydric soils may have inclusions of hydric soils in the lower positions on the landform. The criteria for hydric soils are represented by codes in the table (for example, 2). Definitions for the codes are as follows: i Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/18/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Hydric Soil List-All Components--Hennepin County,Minnesota 1. All Histels except for Folistels, and Histosols except for Folists. 2. Soils in Aquic suborders, great groups, or subgroups,Albolls suborder, Historthels great group, Histoturbels great group, Pachic subgroups, or Cumulic subgroups that: A. Based on the range of characteristics for the soil series,will at least in part meet one or more Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, or B. Show evidence that the soil meets the definition of a hydric soil; 3. Soils that are frequently ponded for long or very long duration during the growing season. A. Based on the range of characteristics for the soil series,will at least in part meet one or more Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, or B. Show evidence that the soil meets the definition of a hydric soil; 4. Map unit components that are frequently flooded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season that: A. Based on the range of characteristics for the soil series,will at least in part meet one or more Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, or B. Show evidence that the soil meets the definition of a hydric soil; Hydric Condition: Food Security Act information regarding the ability to grow a commodity crop without removing woody vegetation or manipulating hydrology. References: Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. Doc. 2012-4733 Filed 2-28-12. February, 28, 2012. Hydric soils of the United States. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Vasilas, L.M., G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble, editors.Version 7.0, 2010. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. fiNatural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/18/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Hydric Soil List-All Components--Hennepin County,Minnesota Report—Hydric Soil List - All Components Hydric Soil List-All Components–MN053-Hennepin County,Minnesota Map symbol and map unit name Component/Local Comp. Landform Hydric Hydric criteria met Phase pct. status (code) L23A:Cordova loam,0 to 2 Cordova 80-95 Drainageways on Yes 2 percent slopes moraines Glencoe-Depressional 5-15 Depressions on Yes 2,3 moraines Nesse) 0-10 Moraines No — L40B:Angus-Kilkenny complex,2 Angus 35-55 Hills on moraines No — to 6 percent slopes Kilkenny 30-50 Hills on moraines No — Lerdal 5-15 Moraines No — Mazaska 0-10 Swales on moraines Yes 2 L41 C2:Lester-Kilkenny complex, Lester-Eroded 40-50 Hills on moraines No — 6 to 12 percent slopes,eroded Kilkenny-Eroded 35-45 Hills on moraines No — Terril 5-15 Hills on moraines No — Derrynane 2-10 Drainageways on Yes 2 moraines L41 D2:Lester-Kilkenny complex, Lester-Eroded 40-50 Hills on moraines No — 12 to 18 percent slopes,eroded Kilkenny-Eroded 25-45 Hills on moraines No — Terril 5-15 Hills on moraines No — Ridgeton 0-10 Hills on moraines No — Derrynane 2-10 Drainageways on Yes 2 moraines L41E:Lester-Kilkenny complex, Lester 40-50 Hills on moraines No — 18 to 25 percent slopes Kilkenny 35-45 Hills on moraines No — Terril 5-15 Hills on moraines No — Derrynane 2-10 Drainageways on Yes 2 moraines Ridgeton 0-10 Hills on moraines No — Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Hennepin County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 19, 2016 iNatural Resources Web Soil Survey 7/18/2017 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 4035 Dahl Road Wetland Delineation Report Appendix B: Precipitation Data Minnesota Climatology Working Group State Climatology Office - DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources University of Minnesota home I current conditions I journal I past data I summaries I agriculture I other sites I about us I search Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database Precipitation data for target wetland location: county: Hennepin township number: 117N township name: Excelsior range number: 23W nearest community: Saga Hill section number: 7 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 Score using 1981-2010 normal period values are in inches first prior second prior third prior A'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from radar- month: month: month: based estimates. May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 estimated precipitation total for this location: 4.71R 3.92R 0.60 there is a 30% chance this location will have less than: 2.53 1.99 1.07 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than: 3.94 2.81 2.03 type of month: dry normal wet wet wet dry monthly score 3 * 3 = 9 2 * 3 = 6 1 * I = 1 multi-month score: 16 (Wet) 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14(normal) 15 to 18 (wet) 8 3rd Prior 30 Days 2nd Prior 30 Days 1st Prior 30 Days 7 - 4035 Dahl Road m Orono, MN v Site Visit 6/6/2017 6 co 1 m Q O 4 -- -- Emi a.+ 3 —.oar 111, >+ 2 - -- •— normal p precip range 1 v 3/6/17 3/16/17 3/26/17 4/5/17 4/15/17 4/25/17 5/5/17 5/15/17 5/25/17 6/4/17 0 monthly precip - daily precip 30d rolling total 4035 Dahl Road Wetland Delineation Report Appendix C: Parcel Survey BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY FOR (;<Z' Ws1< JIM GILBERT ~ w 2 . O 0{5 IN THE SE 1/4, NE 1/4, SEC. 7-117-23 cr)Nre o HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA <=Q �5oA Ww°7. \ 002361 \ Z2cch1§61 0 ea \\ •mil aeuc.ro> o ...._..1 bN•^• (-P - "'en DAHL I ROAR r \ �v \ �,po�a.:k.ov mn / S8B•2]11•E 062-11 r ...e. CI IN dC 1 e a .e. V i / l ' V - �__- v�--.- ---tiae•zruw z�s-oo — A \ 40 9� \ i I i ir - - NORTH LINE OF SE II/. \ r$�� / / / N NE III SEC 7-117-23 \ j �• \ \\\ W�AAC EXCLUDING50 R�NG WETLAND / T- Y g7I • r I A\, \ 610 % \ \ \ f / ! r / kpe yp` EAST LINE OF SE tI�, / /. y NE 1/4,SEC]-11]-23 V �� °A \ \ u �1 i 0 ✓• EAST PARCEL rI l r•- _ l -i III 1 ` \ N BB'2T1/'W SHe ar �.s.�. ,- I A E \ x• n LINE PARALLEL WITH I 5^5 1 NORTH LINE OF SE 1/4, TS Y \ NE 1/4,SEC 7.117.23 I OIL, 1 $BBxs I ie'. ll LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: --- F Fi That part of Section 7,Township 117,Range 23,described as follows;Commencing on the 1,,,,North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section at a point distant _ Ia 275 feet West from the Northeast corner thereof;thence South 150 feet;thence West paral- lel with the North line of said section to the center line of the road:thence Northwesterly along the center line of said road to the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter: thence East to the beginning. I1 This survey shows the boundaries and topography of the above described property,and the location of an existing house and driveway.It does not purport to show any other improvements Zlyl or encroachments. • :Iron marker found �rrNrrrD 60 120 CII i :Iron marker set '�'�" 1 1w .--:Existing contour line SCALE IN FEET ¢I I I in t F-1 P 203 ,°[ PC Exhibit J �,; Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map #17-3963 Provided By: Resident and Real Estate Services i- Date: 6/23/2017 06-117-23-44 05-117-23-33 07-1'1'7,23-12 08-11743,22 - - o^ 07-117-23-11 . ' '°"-- TOO._ :— abb. P . 5t,�ake D r . N , . ,, _.. ry-.r.r r - 11166.,0&11.7a.412 ..,, r - �x ..i,,,,,;,,,:-„,„:,,,, a s; .....„,..,1 . , J8-117-23-23. • 07-117-23-130711 - -" •• . • Nom. .i P 10, au. KA ' P . b rhtaclJ:u �-� Av g', - o A \, n r 07-117-23-42 07-117-23-41 °� -. 08-117-23-32 s p r_u ce., o -0 Buffer Size: 350 feet o 120 240 480 ft Map Comments: I t I t I I I I PID:0711723140003 Owner JHG PROPERTIES LLC For more information contact. Address 4035 Dahl Road Hennepin County GIS Office Orono 300 6th Street South MN 55364 Minneapolis, MN 55487 gis.info@hennepin.us RUN DATE:06/23/2017 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:1 38 07-117-23 11 0003 38 07-117-23 14 0001 38 07-117-23 14 0055 L L GOLDEN&T D GOLDEN R&B HAAPALA R NIXON/D NIXON/A NIXON 4160 FOREST LAKE DR 4015 DAHL RD 1034 LOMA LINDA AVE ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 LYNN L&TIMOTHY D GOLDEN ROBERT J&BONITA L HAAPALA RODNEY&DONNA NIXON 4160 FOREST LAKE DR 4015 DAHL RD ALEX NIXON MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 1034 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 11 0006 38 07-117-23 14 0002 38 07-117-23 14 0056 T&S THEISEN DEAN E JOHNSON ET AL L A HUINKER&G W WOLLNER 4175 FOREST LAKE DR 4025 DAHL RD 1030 LOMA LINDA AVE ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 THOMAS J THEISEN DEAN E JOHNSON LORI A HUINKER 4175 FOREST LK DR 4025 DAHL RD GARY W WOLLNER MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 1030 LOMA LINDA DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 11 0007 38 07-117-23 14 0003 38 07-117-23 14 0058 SAMUEL S HUDSON JHG PROPERTIES LLC THOMAS ILLIES ET AL SUBJ/LE 4155 FOREST LAKE DR 4035 DAHL RD 1065 NORTH ARM DR ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 SAMUEL S HUDSON JHG PROPERTIES LLC ROGER J ILLIES 4155 FOREST LAKE DR 12700 ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY 1065 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 I 1 0016 38 07-117-23 14 0006 38 07-117-23 14 0070 C J SMOOT&VALARIE SMOOT RALPH BENNER KNOX TRUSTEE MARY A MARTH 980 NORTH ARM DR 1029 LOMA LINDA AVE 990 LOMA LINDA AVE ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 CHARLES J SMOOT RALPH B KNOX MARY A MARTH VALARIE SMOOT 1029 LOMA LINDA AVE 990 LOMA LINDA AVE 980 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 11 0017 38 07-117-23 14 0007 38 07-117-23 14 0071 TREVOR V ANONSEN LAVONNE SORENSON ROBERT INNES 996 NORTH ARM DR 1025 LOMA LINDA AVE 1000 LOMA LINDA AVE ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 TREVOR V ANONSEN LAVONNE SORENSON ROBERT INNES 996 NORTH ARM DR 4027 VINCENT AVE N PO BOX 365 MOUND MN 55364 MPLS MN 55412 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 07-117-23 11 0018 38 07-117-23 14 0008 38 08-117-23 23 0001 LEISA L SODHI GILMAN G SORENSON THOMAS P MCGLYNN REV TR ETAL 4080 DAHL RD 1001 LOMA LINDA AVE 3980 DAHL RD ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 LEISA L SODHI GILMAN G SORENSON THOMAS&ANTOINE1 It MCGLYNN 4080 DAHL RD 1001 LOMA LINDA AVE 3980 DAH.RD MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 11 0019 38 07-117-23 14 0015 38 08-117-23 23 0024 T E DAHLQUIST/M A DAHLQUIST YE/R Y JI/L SHEN JACOB KELM 4070 DAHL RD 1067 LINDEN LA 1038 LOMA LINDA AVE ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 THOMAS E&MARY A DAHLQUIST RICHARD YING JI JACOB KELM 4070 DAHL RD 1067 LINDEN LA 1038 LOMA LINDA AVE MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 11 0020 38 07-117-23 14 0018 J&J NEVE JR ANDREA DAHL 4060 DAHL RD 1055 NORTH ARM DR ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 JAMES P NEVE JR ANDREA DAHL 4060 DAHL RD 1055 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 11 0021 38 07-117-23 14 0019 JOHN L LEPPLA&WIFE SALLY A RHYLICK 4040 DAHL RD 1045 NORTH ARM DR ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 JOHN L LEPPLA SALLY A RHYLICK 4040 DAHL RD 1045 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 11 0022 38 07-117-23 14 0020 J H GILBERT&M M GILBERT R&L CONRAD 4030 DAHL RD 1015 NORTH ARM OR ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 JAMES H&MARY M GILBERT RONALD C CONRAD 4030 DAHL RD 1015 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 RE: Agenda Item #3 Lakes File #17-3963 202 Superior Boulevard 1^dayzata, Minnesota 55391 t 952.230 3101 www lakessothehysrealtycorn S otheby's INTERNATIONAL REALTY Orono Planning Commission and Staff: We have reviewed and support the plans for a variance and subdivision of 4035 Dahl Rd. The property has been a detriment to property values in our neighborhood for some time now. We welcome the revitalization of the street and its knock on effects on property values. While normally we support a strict reading of the city code, in this case,the property is large enough seems to be high and dry enough to support two home building pads even factoring in the delineated wetland near North Arm Dr. Tom &Toni McGlynn 3980 Dahl Rd. RECEIVED AUG 1 .i ZU1 CITY OF ORONO r Item 4 Date Application Received:July 19,2017 �Of VO Date Application Considered as Complete: July 19,2017 120-Day Review Period Expires: November 16,2017 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members a Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator yl �` gkEsHOC-� From: Jeremy Barnhart,Community Development Director Date: August 21, 2017 Subject: #17-3962,Lake West Development, LLC on behalf of Rick&Barbara Lupient, PIDs 20-117- 23-42-0001/0002/0003(Lots 1,2&3 Casco Point Addition)"Ivy Place",Preliminary Plat Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of a proposed two- lot subdivision of a vacant property located at the northerly end of Ivy Place on Casco Point. The property consists of 3 existing tax parcels,which the applicants propose to reconfigure to result in two residential building lots,each exceeding the 1/2-acre minimum lot size of the LR-1C district. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff supports the project, but recognizes issues related to floodplain filling and wetland mitigation need to be resolved prior to Council approval of the plat. The Planning Commission may table action on the subdivision request pending resolution of these items, or provide a recommendation to the Council, subject to these issues and the conditions below: 1. No structure may be closer than 75 feet to the lake on either side. 2. The property line between lots 1 and 2 shall function as a side property line, requiring 15 feet setback(150%of 10 feet side yard setback for LR-1C) 3. All comments of MCWD, outlined in their memo of August 10, 2017 4. Declaration and documentation of wetland buffer as required by MCWD 5. All comments of the city engineer, outlined in a memo dated August 14, 2017 shall be addressed. 6. Comments from the Fire Chief shall be addressed 7. Additional approvals a. Variance from the wetland setback b. Variance of wetland buffer impact(Watershed District) c. Conditional Use Permit for filling in the floodplain d. Successful vacation of the existing Driveway easement(Doc. 1023891) e. Successful realignment of a underground utility easement(Document Nos.855727 and 862192) Background The applicants propose the replatting of the three lots into two buildable parcels and one outlot, as a front lot/back lot configuration. Also proposed is the vacation of an existing roadway easement through the parcels,to be replaced with a new one that better aligns with the proposed development pattern. The documents provided suggest the construction of two homes meeting setback requirements. Accessory structures are also shown on the proposed plans, including docks and beaches.All improvements beyond general grading and improvement of outlot A will require city approval. The site is located at the northern terminus of Ivy Place. The property will be served by municipal water and sewer. This project was the subject of a sketch plan in May, 2017. The minutes from the Council's review of the #17-3962 August21,2017 Page 2 of 6 sketch plan are provided in Exhibit F. General Site Characteristics The property is a peninsula created by filling of wetland adjacent to the shore of Carman Bay more than 50 years ago. The property is wooded with mostly poor-quality volunteer trees that have grown up over the past 30-50 years. The land is relatively flat,just a few feet above lake level, and portions of it are below the 931.5'floodplain elevation. In areas where filling of flood plain is required in order to build homes, mitigation measures would be necessary. Given the history of the parcel as a wetland,measures such as pilings may be necessary in order to support homes. There are a number of existing easements on and adjacent to the property as well as potential encroachments that influence the proposal: Utility Easement, Document Nos. 855727 and 862192. This is the sanitary sewer easement granted to the City when the sewer lines serving this area were installed in 1966. The easement as described apparently does not match the actual location of the sewer lines. The proposal suggests thay these easements will be vacated and new ones over the actual pipe location will be granted. Drainage and Shore Stabilization Easement, Document No.T5010662. This is an easement granted to the City in 2012 to allow the restoration of shoreline over the existing sewer lines where the shore had eroded over time. This easement will remain in place. The watershed district has noted that the Easement prohibits structures within the easement;they are verifying with their legal consul to verify if the road and docks are considered structures per that document. Private Driveway Easement, Document No. 1023891. This easement was created in 1972 as part of the platting of the three lots to provide access to all three. The easement includes a private cul-de-sac.The easement will be vacated. Perpetual Roadway Easement(over 3560 Ivy Place),Document No.922012.This is an easement granted in 1968 over the adjacent lot owned by the White's at 3560 Ivy Place. This easement presumably remains in place. Utility Easement (over 3560 Ivy Place), Document No. 855726. This is a perpetual underground utility easement granted to the City over 3560 Ivy Place in August 1966. Unknown at this time whether this easement remains in effect given the easement granted in 862191(below). Utility Easement (over 3560 Ivy Place), Document No. 862191. This is a perpetual underground utility easement granted to the City in October 1966, believed to be a replacement or correction of the easement granted in August 1966. View Easement, Document No. 1160211. In addition to the defined easements within or adjacent to the property,there is a view easement of record in favor of the Powell property at 2916 Casco Point Road, which limits the number, location and height of the homes allowed within Lots 1-2-3(no more than two homes total; no home may extend northwest of a line 25' NW of the line between Lots 2 &3; dwelling closest to the NW end of the three lots cannot be more than one story in height). Possible Sewer Connection Encroachment. Staff has been advised that the existing sewer connection for the residence at 3560 Ivy Place crosses the applicants' property.This needs to be confirmed and if it exists,the encroachment should be eliminated(relocate sewer connection)or applicants must grant an easement for the encroachment. r #17-3962 August21,2017 Page 3 of 6 Deck and Driveway Encroachments. The survey work provided indicates that a sliver of the deck for the house at 3560 Ivy Place may encroach into the applicants' property. Possible remedies include a lot line rearrangement or possibly an easement. Also, a portion of the driveway serving 3560 Ivy encroaches into the applicants' property. Possible remedies include lot line rearrangement, easement,or removal of encroachment. Applicants' proposed driveway parallels this encroachment. Conformity with 2010-2030 Orono Community Management Plan The proposed re-platting to create two residential lots from three existing tax parcels conforms to the CMP guiding of the property for Low-Medium Density Residential Use. Relationship to Surrounding Development The neighborhoods surrounding the proposed development are all single-family residential in nature, with lot sizes ranging from as small as 1/4 acre to more than an acre. It is anticipated that the proposed homes would be consistent with other lakeshore residential development on Casco Point. Conformity with Zoning District Lot Requirements The property is zoned LR-1C, Lakeshore Residential District, which allows for single family residential uses with a minimum lot size of 0.5 dry buildable acres and 100' width as measured at the shoreline and at the 75'setback line. Lot Area and Width. Each of the two lots exceeds the minimum acreage requirements. Lot 1 is approximately 0.66 acre in area. Lot 2, being platted as a back lot given the unusual property shape and access limitations,exceeds the 150%lot area requirement at approximately 1.35 acres. Each lot exceeds the 100'width requirement. Front/Back Lot Configuration. The front/back lot configuration was recommended by staff as the most conforming method of converting these three lots into two. Zoning Code Section 78-1369 states that"each lot shall face on a public street or appropriate private easement". The existing driveway easement with cul- de-sac becomes a limiting factor for development of the site, cannot be counted towards lot area, and its location conflicts with other easements. In order to convert the 3 lots into two lots,a new, relocated access corridor for Lot 2 is necessary,suggesting the need for a subdivision process that creates a'front lot',a'back lot',and an access outlot (typically 30 feet in width per City code). Setbacks.The Zoning Code back lot standards have a significant impact on potential locations of a home on the back lot. By definition the line between proposed Lots 1 and 2 becomes the front lot line, requiring a 45' setback (instead of 30') when the back lot "150% of standard setbacks" rule is applied. The proposed house location on proposed Lot 2 is shown at a 10' setback. Elsewhere in the city, the 'front yard' for lake lots is the yard adjacent to the lake,therefore it could be argued that the orientation of the homes on Lots land 2 will be such that the'front'yard will be either the easterly or westerly lake yard,and the line between the two lots will function as a side lot line. This would only require a 15' side setback for Lot 2. Under this scenario,staff would be comfortable with recommending the redefining of lot lines and yard designations, but not for granting of a variance to allow a side setback of 10' instead of 15'for Lot 2. Note that proposed Outlot A,the 30'wide driveway corridor,extends approximately 15 feet into Lot 2. This could also be used as a justification for the redesignation of yards. Staff has prepared a setback exhibit (exhibit N) illustrating the designation of yards. Both lots show a conceptual house footprint preserving the 0-75 lake yards. Both lots would still be required to adhere to the 75'lakeshore setback and 25%hardcover limit,as well as the 20%structural coverage limit. Average Setback. Because this is a peninsula, and with both lots having shoreline on two sides,the average lakeshore setback should be addressed as part of the approval resolution. It would appear that the location of the adjacent home at 3560 Ivy should be the defining property for establishing average lakeshore setback #17-3962 August 21,2017 Page 4 of 6 on the lake side. The home at 3560 Ivy appears to be 35 feet from the lake. Because the survey indicates that 3560 Ivy does not abut the lake on the lagoon side, there would be no average lakeshore setback on the lagoon side. Since any new homes on Lots 1 and 2 must be at least 75' from the shore, staff would suggest that 75 feet become the required average setback regardless of which of Lots 1 or 2 is built on first. Access and Standards Access to the site is via a road easement that extends through 3560 Ivy Place, from the northern terminus of Ivy Place. An existing driveway easement (Document 1023891) will be vacated and replaced with a 30 foot wide Outlot A,serving both Lots 1 and 2. Outlot A will be located within the 75' lake yard,but generally outside of the Drainage and Shore Stabilization(D/SS) Easement(Document T5010662), illustrated on sheet C0.2. A portion of the Outlot will unavoidably encroach into this easement because the existing road easement terminates into the D/SS easement. While establishment of a cul-de-sac or more functional turnaround at the end of Ivy Place would be desirable, there is not sufficient room to accomplish that within existing right-of-way. Acquisition of additional right-of-way from the applicants' property would seem to be of marginal value given the configuration of the property and the close proximity of the lakeshore. Whether the addition of two new homes at the end of this street will cause future maintenance,service vehicle or emergency services issues is a point for discussion,to be addressed by the pertinent service providers (Public Works, Police, Fire). The neighboring property owner has raised concerns with access, outlined in the letter dated May 1,2017, attached as Exhibit J. The applicant's attorney has responded in a letter dated August 4, 2017, attached as exhibit L. The city is not in the position to arbitrate the access question. Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted A very small wetland was delineated within existing Lot 3.The applicant proposes the filling of this wetland, triggering the Watershed District's review, which includes a 14 day public comment period. Watershed approval of wetland mitigation must be achieved prior to preliminary plat approval, it is recommended that this item not be placed on the City Council's agenda until this review is complete. The proposed beaches impact the wetlands beyond diminimuos limits. If the beaches are removed, the wetland may be filled without mitigation. Per the Watershed District. a wetland buffer of 25 feet will be required. The city requires a setback of 10 feet from the buffer for structures and hardcover. The wetland along the shore line and its buffer/setback impact the proposed driveway at the extreme south end of the parcel. A wetland variance will be necessary for the driveway. Floodplain Alteration Filling activities exceeding 500 cubic yards in the Shoreland require a conditional use permit. Further, filling activities which exceed 1,000 cubic yards of imported material within the floodplain requires review of a conditional use permit.The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD)will be reviewing the proposed grading and mitigation plan to assure the overall volume of flood storage has not been diminished.The lowest floor of the proposed home must be at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE)for Lake Minnetonka which is 932.5 feet;the MCWD's regulations require low openings to be one foot higher at 933.5 feet. The proposed concept plan suggests a first floor elevation of 934.00. The Watershed district has requested additional information to verify floodplain regulations are met,their comments are provided as Exhibit I. Conservation Design. #17-3962 August 21,2017 Page 5 of 6 A Conservation Design Report has been submitted (Exhibit D) and notes the wetlands discussed previously and the identification of 129 substantial trees (greater than 6" DBH), 127 of them Boxelder and Elm. The landscaping plan suggests the planting of 94 new trees to the property,adding to the vegetative diversity. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee (SW&DT Fee) on a per-lot basis at the rate of$3,025 per lot. The fee will be$6,050 per the 2017 Fee Schedule. Stormwater management will be subject to City and MCWD review and approval. Park/Trail Easement/Fees or Dedication Needed No new parks or trails are planned for in the area of this property. Assuming the City Council finds no need fora public park at this site, payment of the standard Park Dedication fee of$5,550 per each new building lot would be due at final plat approval, assuming that records will indicate that no park fees were paid in the past(verification required prior to final plat). Utility Locations and Availability The property is served by municipal water and sewer. Based on a review of the assessment history for this property, it was fully assessed for municipal sewer in 1965 and no sewer connection charge would be due save for the Metropolitan Council SAC charge which is currently $2,485 per dwelling unit. City water was installed in 1970 and the property was assessed for one unit; if more than one home is built, a water connection charge of$4,240 for the second unit would be due at the time a building permit is issued. Engineer Comments The City Engineer has prepared comments which should be addressed prior to formal Planning Commission approval,or as a condition of such approval. Fire Department Comments Chief Van Eyll, based on a review of the Sketch Plan suggested that due to the difficulty of access to this site, he would recommend: - the residences be provided with fire suppression sprinkler systems; - no contractor parking be allowed on Ivy Place during construction;and - it would be beneficial for emergency and service vehicles to allow a driveway wider than 8 feet to serve the two homes (the distance from end of Ivy Place to the northerly proposed home is approximately 250'). Public Comments As noted above, the view easement in favor of the Powell property at 2916 Casco Point Road, exists, impacting the property. There was some discussion during the sketch plan phase to remove this easement, however,the property owner has submitted a letter indicating a desire to retain the easement, provided as Exhibit K. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the subdivision is consistent with City Code and the Comprehensive Plan? 2. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose additional conditions in order to protect the vision of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of the Code? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? #17-3962 August21,2017 Page 6 of 6 List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Narrative Exhibit C. Proposed Plans and Specifications Exhibit D. Conservation Design Report Exhibit E. Wetland NOD (signed) Exhibit F. City Council minutes May 8, 2017 Exhibit G. Map and Property Owners List Exhibit H. City Engineer Memo dated August 14, 2017 Exhibit I. Watershed District Comments dated August 10, 2017 Exhibit J. Comments from resident RE access Exhibit K. Comment from resident RE view easement Exhibit L. Applicant access response Exhibit M. 82-256 Front Lot/Back Lot Exhibit N. Setback designation exhibit PC Exhibit A 17-3962 City of Orono Subdivision Application Sfreet Address: Application# / 7 5 2750 Kelley Parkway i 10- Orono,MN 55356 Date Received 7_,9 - /7 i Staff J J Main. 952-249-4600 l ( � 647 fax 952-249-4616ApplicationFee $s g o SH�o r, MaOing Address: P.O.Box 66 Escrow A 6-0 0 Crystal Bay,MN 55323-0066 Notes PROPERTY INFORMATION: , Site Address: 1-Oh t,2 pd 3 131ock I � 65 co 1—x•"1 i4rIi4?m ` A-drift55e5 11$1415si9g.til Property Identification Number(PIN): ZO/(72 3 f Z O00/ ) 701/723ItZ000 Zt 2O//7Z314QGU3 Date Property Acquired(month/year): /44- ❑Abstract Torrens(Please check one) Present use of property: ❑Residential; number of Units ) VOW: Mt-- Other(specify) VO if-- Zoning District: .-r]p�-/�,.. APPLICANT INFORMATION: ch,wk here if Applicant address should be used for billing Applicant: La e f eV nre-� Phone(Primary): - - • a - t Mailing Address: /452 ,(fiQ W 7 = ZJJri City: r(we t 0 ZIP: 3�±1 Email: (lbNe ./WeiS /.mot � aur-H- ?iv H v.f-o,v PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION: 0 check here if Property Owner is same as applicant 4111 check here if Property Owner address should be used for billing Name: Gh Ara _ t_opt— Phone(Primary): (Da- 7eijD- par Mailing Address: ZO ?nd City: MiN►6PC(F101i S ZIP: 554/3 Email: rites t u pi•�tt g.gala//,COM EXISTING LAND USE: "`� Number of Tax Parcels: T Yet- Development emsDevelopment Size: 6(5 Acres Dry Land (010r Sf fl/t c Q31.SC+osAttV) 1.01 Acres Wet Land(5r 001 Sf, below 55(.5- eaat four) 244 Acres TOTAL, all parcels PROPOSED LAND USE: ❑Division for Tax Purposes ,, Subdivision for New Building Sites Number of Building Sites: Existing Units: Mote. New Units: Total Units: Proposed Gross Density Z Units per Z(Q acres Minimum Lot Size: &I 570 Square feet dry buildable land Proposed Use(check) esidential // `` 0 Other(specify) RECEIVED Subdivision Application—January 2017 JUL1 g Z U j Page 5 JUL # 3962 CITY OF ORONO APPLICANT/AGENT AND/OR PROPERTY OWNER: • Agree to provide all information required or requested by the Planning Department • Agree to pay additional fees (staff time not covered in the original fee payment) and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this application, and • Certify that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so,the staff has no alternative but to reject it unci it is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of Its potential merit. • The Owner hereby acknowledges and agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff,consultants, agents,Commission and Council Members for purposes of investigation and verification of this request • Applicant and/or Owner acknowledge they must be present at all scheduled review meetings of the Planning Commission and Council. tf art applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend In place of the applicant/owner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. • Information will be distributed via email. Applicant Signature: Applicant Signature: Date: Property Owner Signature: gel- f Ari oe/taIctt, Date: Property Owner Signature: Date:_ A. RECEIVED Subdivision Application-January 2017 JR 19 2017 Page 6 3962 CITY OF ORONO DATA PRIVACY ADVISORY In accordance with Minnesota State Statute 13.04 Rights of Subjects of Data, Subd. 2, "Tennessen warning",we would like to inform you that your request for a permit or license from the City of Orono or any of its departments may require you to furnish certain private or confidential Information. You are notified that: 1. The information you furnish will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. 2. You may refuse to supply data, but refusal may require that the City deny the permit or license. 3. The information may be shared with other local, state or federal agencies to the extent necessary to process the permit or license. 4. If your requested permit or license requires Council action to approve, some information may become public. 5. You have certain rights under Minnesota State Statute 13.04(see following page)to review private data on yourself. 6. Your full name Is required to process this application or permit. SAN First Middle Last 145zz Ikkwiy 7 , $ Ir#2s Address ftrna. AlA1 ,57,:31/5- 952-?50-(gal° City State Zip Phone t understand my-fights as stated aove. Signature = RECEIVED Subdivision Application—January 2017 Page 13 JUL 19 2011 3962 CITY OF ORONO AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT:Lots 1.2 and 3.Bock 1 Casco Point Addition PARCEL ID:2011723420001, 2011723420002,2011123420003 STREET ADDRESS:3580 Ivy Place,Orono MN 55391 PROPERTY OWNER: The undersigned registered property owner of the above noted property do hereby authorize Curt Frethom of Lake West Development,LLC to act on my behalf and take all actions necessary for the submission,processing,issuance and acceptance of this application,permit or certification and any or all standard and special conditions attached. They shall be the principle contact in the processing of this application. Sincerely, Rick Lupient 20 Second Street NE#2801 Minneapolis,MN 55413 RECEIVED JUL 10 201 3962 CITY OF ORONO PC Exhibit B 17-3962 LAKE VIN DEVELOPMENT, LLC Class Ill Subdivision Application — Preliminary Plat Narrative Lots 1, 2 and 3 Block 1, Casco Point Addition PID: 2011723420001, 2011723420002, 2011723420003 July 17. 2017 Overview Lake West Development, LLC is seeking approval of a Class III Subdivision in order to consolidate three vacant lots of record located at approximately '3580' Ivy Place, Orono (addresses unassigned) into two lots for the purpose of constructing two new single- family homes. Jim Lupient purchased the property years ago with the intent of building three homes - for himself and for family members. Sadly, his intention was never realized. After much deliberation, Mr. Lupient's family decided to sell the property. Over time the property has become overgrown with a stand of poor-condition box elders and invasive species. The shoreline wetlands are low-quality and have no formal protection. The property is also encumbered with a variety of easements for access, utilities, and shore stabilization purposes. We are pleased to present a variation of Mr. Lupient's vision. Our plans call for two appropriate-sized homes and significant re-landscaping of the property, replacing unhealthy trees and invasives with high-quality trees, shrubs and native grasses that will provide long-term benefits. Our plans also involve cleaning up and reconfiguring areas of overlap among the various easements. We have already completed a Sketch Plan review and have integrated feedback from the City and from neighboring property owners into the plan. We are now submitting this Preliminary Plat Application with the anticipation of realizing the vision for this unique property. We appreciate the City of Orono's help in completing and submitting this Application. Curt Fretham CEO, Lake West Development, LLC Office: 952-653-134 Lake West Development 1 14525 Highway 7, Suite 265, Minnetonka, MN 553451 Phone 952-930-3000 Class II Subdivision—Preliminary Plat Application A. Contact Information Owner of Record Rick Lupient(Barbara Lupient Et Al Trustees) 20 Second Street NE Minneapolis,MN 55413 Phone:612-790-1800 Applicant Curt Fretham,CEO Lake West Development LLC, 14525 Highway 7, Suite 265 Minnetonka,MN 55345, Phone 952-930-3000 B. Site Data Address '3580' Ivy Place and unassigned addresses Orono, MN 55391 Zoning LR-1 C One Family Lakeshore Residential Parcel Size 2.16 acres 94,080 sq.ft. Lot 1 =35,071 sq.ft. Lot 2=30,579 sq.ft. Lot 3=33,122 sq.ft. PID 2011723420001, 2011723420002,2011723420003 Description Lots 1,2 and 3, Block 1, Casco Point Addition C. Land Characteristics The property is located on a peninsula on Carman Bay surrounded by lakeshore on three sides,platted as three lots.The property was formerly wetland and lakebed but was filled sometime during the late 1950's-early 60's.The proposed grades in the area of the proposed home sites are at or above the 100-yr flood elevation of Lake Minnetonka(931.5)The proposed homes will have a low floor elevation of 933.5 per requirements of the City and the Watershed.Any floodplain filling will be mitigated on site at a 1:1 ratio as required by the City and the Watershed. The parcel also contains an incidental wetland (-168 sf)near the center of the northernmost lot.Potential filling of this wetland will be mitigated on site per City and Watershed requirements. Currently the property is improved with sewer and water but remains undeveloped. It is moderately covered with low quality trees(boxelder and elm),many of which are storm and beaver damaged. CUP—Page 2 of 4 Class II Subdivision—Preliminary Plat Application D. Description of the Project Our intent is to consolidate the three lots into two lots and build two homes that fully take advantage of the lakeshore on all sides.Although beautiful,the surrounding lakeshore creates a practical difficulty for development in that it requires a 75'setback on all sides. We propose to move the property line between Lots 1 and 2 five feet to the west. Lot 3 will be vacated and combined with Lot 2. The resulting Lot 1 will be 28,875 square feet; Lot 2 will be 59,715 square feet. The existing driveway easement will be vacated and a new,smaller outlot(Outlot A)with driveway easement will be created to serve both lots.The new outlot will have less crossover with other easements. A shared 12 ft.wide driveway situated at the northernmost edge of the outlot will provide access to both properties from Ivy Place.We are seeking a hardcover variance for the driveway within 75 ft.of the lake.This is the only option to access the lots. During construction,a temporary wood chip construction parking area will be established on site capable of accommodating 9-plus vehicles. Two wetlands currently exist on the site. Wetland A will have two 12-ft wide areas filled for private beaches.The entirety of Wetland B(-168sf)will be filled as part of this project.All mitigation will occur on site and will expand on Wetland A.A wetland buffer meeting watershed requirements will be established around wetland A and will include high-quality seedings and plantings. Stormwater management on the project will be handled primarily by two underground rate control systems to match the existing conditions on the site.A swale will be constructed between the proposed project and the adjacent neighbor to the southeast.The swale will convey stormwater runoff from both properties and will ease already existing flooding concerns on the adjacent property. The underground utility easement will be vacated and a new one created that covers the pipe it was actually intended to cover. The drainage and shoreline stabilization easement will remain as is. The applicant will create an easement to accommodate the neighbor's small utilities encroachment upon the property,or if necessary,will relocate it within the common lot line drainage utility easement. E. Trees Currently the property is moderately covered with low quality trees(boxelder and elm), many of which are storm and beaver damaged.The site is overgrown with invasive species. Our plan is to replace the low-diversity,poor-condition trees and all invasive species and to replace them with high-quality plantings that are well suited to the site. Our goal for the landscape is to create a sustainable ecosystem that provides habitat and food for birds and provides long-term enjoyment for the residents and neighbors. CUP—Page 3 of 4 Class It Subdivision— Preliminary Plat Application F. Home Design In the early 1970s the peninsula was nearly devoid of trees. During this time a resident to the southwest of the point placed a deed restriction on the property constraining any future structures to one story in order to preserve the view of the bay beyond the peninsula. Even though the current tree cover obscures the view today,this deed restriction is still in effect. For this reason the proposed home design for the lots have an expansive footprint.The design is meant to harmonize with the natural topography of the land and provide timeless beauty for residents and neighbors. (See Concept Sketch) The applicant has been in conversation with the resident and is optimistic about resolving this restriction. In that case,the building footprint can be reduced. CUP—Page 4 of 4 CI)S 11 I,., J SbESS NWVNNOI3NNIW'S9Z#31INS'L AVMHOIH SZSPL i w 0 • 1 E' 3$ . 3 011`1N3Wd013A3a 1S3M 3)1\11 E `s3i p ; N r/1 Z :w7 i P � CD- p.4Q.7 l6ESS NW'ONO O 30V1d AAI OO96 =g 69 N lila' a a g U' i :: '= 0 : s 0 3�b�d �nlsgaayi - 103roaa g 40 o :z ! u z yaaa;aaaaaaaaaa>!Ea ?,�iddaaillidgiaiaaeal. . w �. .. g g x sg w g gR ZgBw ' i1 awk _ Ct y1:r Er, 1ET a P4iileli H —I . ... - . O iggW a0 w 1 856 Z Z 3 ig 2 � � 0- J iia .iiiiiti $ 11 !!! O w � � . z ci- ct } III o o 6 Q 1_ 1a1+ 1- ;ae ddd g a Cr)n Vs , t dud! a i / 6 41 ` ) Z SR vil �a a IT, � / a;g s74 1 rc U w O W w ii _as i � c) <_ 8 - '.2.,!/ iia O )oa w!x 4g > ?Oi. U zwb. vniffi z$" ,o ..Ing 6 HL.., U I i t 0 t i I i , i I 1 IMIIIIIM1111111111M1W nit!! fl 41 .1 1 i I 1 iiii 1 I 11111/Wilingilliffillinillinlillii 2 I 11!! iiii , ,-,.-tt t-,,t- ,..'•",-,,,,,,-,..,v ,-_,---•,- It . , Et . I: 1.01 I .- . I q irtr z q 1 ! II 1 i ill!!Ill!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII fi I I ;tSc.;.:105'ilitintE:15:litiiVItitHriintati er M '' C) 0 1"... Z 0 .01e :L. 1/\ i, -1 tilli_: ildj;A• ....-._z-4mn ,. (f) r-• 'ihriniiiili •T•li i P'i II Ill- , a k 0 ''••J , I. C L > (r) cp k k•-• 1.1,j ‘,„, . 0/ -(SEf, Z,i ,c; - ,,...,•• ,•:).-- ,, .-:).:',"' :, ' •1;,\ . ' ::: 1.1.= 4.1 -1." v.',• r' '‘.. '''/ ''... 4.4 / 6-S-A 64 \ , ' i•. , t, n' ‘1,1. "..C• ,4. '''' \ Zot, , b ' / •',i) ',_ , ,/. 6; : ' -_ ,,'; ' ,6 '6 1 •,t'' „ .-•4 .. A . / .,..--- , ;%:- ig,t)•' • ,':, „=,;-.-,,/ ,/ ,:,"..., ''. °1-6 . / t''Oit -7-W---'•--L- -4r-----/- /- ./.-':,', '-Ay-...:::%;:a;..7.:.-1-21,_ • ---.;%/-• / . .•',/ r i,• /0 t 6\ A6„,:',' 6.:, 6)2, ,,,,),,,,,,,-;-_-• --,1 , , ,) •.,_..s. 4 ,6- ,), .1.. , 6_.;_,.---,4,_;--„, .2,•-, ,. --„---.ft - - ,:•:-., ,' ! /. /,'- ' i •66 ,,-,,,,'1..,(7,- -,/ i g - -., •- ; ', ,,,,- 4.;.:• 6 et,,,-- • --., ,,-,.-.; ...,„.0:-/i/5 z'•••,,,I, 6 , '' ii ,,,,6-,,,,', .;;„;•,%:,• ,•'); - i ,6E e4 4:6.5 er..te, ,*,..„--.-7:,- I., zi. e ,, 6 (66' ,/ A,- ,!)\ .2%,.•-' -4X .,,,,-fifY.'/' till ' , i (1 6-6, '.6 45s ',,,,-6. •.,..,,v-6-.;.:(.-->;-:•ir ,, q i 1,,,, +3 v (5,. SI f J 96299 NW'VN NO13NNIW'99#311f1S'LAVMHOIH SLSVL C,a� ~ •��ET L. W 311`1N3WdOl3A3a 1S3M 3NY1 €.01 - < • a N 8 .- ,--40 y_ L66SS NW'ONONO'3OVld MI 009E ;`INN Z / ` a :. W e ler e 5. s §: -w v l joa< ;a g o 30V-Id AAI ' d a „., pl- g 10.0.1 R a g lig : lil I It i. I 2 51 b L I Y '> y 1 I FD 0 Z 1 ow ,T\ 09 r�������� \J�o �� ryoa'9 m° \ z `\e { R\ l'-' // \ /Op -4 \ ,<<" & ' \ , .4 ss sz.„ \4- . CO ,i' / ��// .\ 4,' {6 G • PS' 1 44 / `, F ‘; 1 g A-\' \ c • Ciii#14 a 7 tP '' I / 1164 �_-., 'i t. 9 9 70 I'#/ G p � .v i. /0' 0 0 vor.„ , so ir, v y- 4. , 4, . - lift _,;:,1P - ‘. ;11 Irrlp VP ' ' 1 1- P JCC 'T'r ;, z)./' d •? S2 did ° kyr r ��, r I i9 o''''''.,/\ a ,t 2 co hq PY-c Al4 c c$ I o Ei i psi €€" f I s4 t; I$ i ''o p$ 11 i g z i " i ,,��.111 r,l z ° s dli €z$■ �'• R 80 '' g iii 'i A 41pm ,, ga oOrli O5� �� q ia E 4m t R� R it -i a $ i€ m g 13, RSg il oF ' €R 3 P YA $ g Ea Y y 1D Rg s E 4 E " 3 5 , 3 t l 4, 2 1 q b'A_NN� :li Q1 2= 1 F a 2 P g i B t g €o d A �X P qg XTs R'I ' in ; g "4 1 g1. 1" F 4 7 p A" L t A, Ao�ec* p r— pi e : B Ifilq ° IVY PLACE m ,_�'�; ; �� : • : 0 �mi ¢F 84pP34° 36001WPLACE,GRONO,MN55791 ; WO* �� a ii Rig'!{ LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT,LLC gpP =g� 1 0 t 2 14525 HIGHWAY 7,SUITE#265,MINNETONKA,MN 55345 ffir n 4 . E J SOE99 NW'VNN013NNIW'99Zi 31109'L AVMH01H SZSOL �': i •r"^.�ci '2 L 011`1N3WdO13A34 1S3M 3)1V1 tel VJ 73a �x., '8x!' �e 2W N i 16E94 NW'03080'30Vid AAI 009C _s€l y� ' ` �O' � W d lin p' LI" b�� is V �° ' iP 0 3OVld AAI Null 8. w Y 3fOtld it >:g.� §2 x. gl i� � it : 3 r 0 R! A R R ao ;1121y YySYSd il i ■m 3>s a. 8~ _ �W 12! h ° - liE E dl N111"4 ib ig i itn 1Y s� !! iIft Oe, ;081J 11 m ;5g iv gt§0.1„ 1,iiii !1g10 ii!g git 11 g s aa: 1 I I 1 wx c a <: 8 55, .....9E °xxx x -„x xxxxxxy x ,.-;.17 4.1 z_Za E'9' jiti R la Si w Y�i R sEE a°a asLI 6� l o” P 1 0 ,i`b 1 k\t, No ,9,. ,.- ss, • 4s, s i lit 4./ \ , ,,14,100, 4 ‘‘ 1 e` _-\ 9 A .S ,�O 4 f� \(. ,c00011ral � 4� ,f/ Zoe s' . VI , 1 / ,:i ..,' /- .0., \ /-, PiP 01 I 1 Wm SPCS9 NW'VNNOI3NNIW'SR*3Lf1S'L AYMHOIH SZSPL G•a� 1 >bw r_ , �� iCO �a �? 317`1N3Wdol3A3a1S3M3lvl si/€ ' �0c\J `` L56" 1.6ESS NW'ONOtlO'30Vld AAI 009E 01,p, i k, Li! w U y AArc °per ' i VJ g61,0SS _ @¢ 5 2 a k 6 1m '"J c 30V-Id Afli 103roCe 'owl ¢3 y R a # . ,;.- li II II, ! nil L i I 1 N I I II a,' ��P°ti92� /-,/ \\ v� / N /' �•\9. ti� � s 9Q i 111 ai ,•WI Aa F� Li S6£SS NW'VNNO13NNIW'99Z#3 IIr9'L AVMHOIH SZSbL E,�� > N ^' Y C/.'3;�aa 011`1N3WdO13A3a 1S3M 3)w1 !8 ' z g i 10 • i gda •-• L6E99 NW'ONOlIO 3OY1d AAI 009E £o212es Wi-- " � N •�OsBb W o ipg�gS. "Q U a cit, 39 .J o 30V-Id AAI Sr 'e - a 1D3rotld z 1 r# Z Z Nl W I 1 I l' 11 I N I 1 I I Ow P `' ,4'''. \ .\ ♦ \ P / 0 /' \\\ ��� — \•\ \� WA. ;/ La 94fS9NW'VNNOL3NNIW'99Z#3Jins'LAVMHVHSZ90I. t I N 5 •,4 i• ; 311`1N3Wd073A3a 1S3M 3)IV1 --r-- _ � �_ co. �a'i§ , L.W. W € ”i'. V 1 e�r -lam : l6fSS NW'ONOtlO 30Vld AAI 009C i://i0 1 7. 3• € �JlD ! ,iapr F rje i 0 30V-1d AAI 3•oa, - g §s F" ¢a R R 17, 8 ia G 8 WH 1 1 I I F I I 4,3' ..1° !• \ x ,,0 / \J-o . m F V ` P����P // \ \,`\ 4- /• \ ,-- , •,\9z Q�P�F ‘ , .,--.— — \ '4-., k ° / / Ns,-.1 / * . , / T6 G / `� / / *4% 4_,..•s.�`_,� / - e , s �' `'� \ 1 ` . `` . CUL PI J SIESS NW MINOI3NNIW'99Lf 31If19'L AVMHJIH SZSPl G Y �,Q. rg 311 r1N3WdOl3A3Q 1S3M 3NVl ,.wh, • Cr) 1 W €e.3•" s : CO yp- L6E0S NW'ONOLIO'30Vld AAI 009E oSi95G_ �1 Y , WZ ' '.�� W o '�D�F a P il () Jena g? Q o 33Vld AAI aro d -SE ? 'a . 1 Y q ! 1 1 ! 11! ' "g Ii€ !lig _ !x2'e !I s`'n $ 1 1d. "a iNii g S I a hg kW g Pig i gi i b1.1 s=° g IIDIbh :f e g ¢14 "g1y�� 11i (xiflk i' rz W 'g 6p ! ill a: I;set biip x dpii 1 11 kgW 1 _I II l ke .;1 G &3f -. ! SSSS e ! °9 !, r§o1g d lR 1 g- U R I§i 5 gni. 4 . ! c t g Ali ! aFS S it @a 1%4 gS PS h ! . il i i $ iii v Y r a s gi ii _ !I ;11 ggit ; oo s kIii2i r rip t o zqii S; 4i .P g s i _BA 6 _kg s g2 2 k ! 2 "�- 8 188 ° V'm i :i pi pi ii O d igaE Ili 11 /igi yy; 55 i �e�6g 1:1 g LI ! i 5l l ay, I. 1: a i itxg sx6i si at 8 °C a3 " i� i g � 41 ' ° �i bpi Wg £ $ g0 1$ 211 IA # 1 I. 3g3 B l i iii Q ie li N a h 3 pp i a ih !e !zi .,I L SI !€L° $ ' \•\ 0r _r_________\\Al 2 --„„- 0 g 'i pi 1 � lam' Z fai ¢ 1 a N3 j d $aeRg o Y � �x 3 o i i xi W JI U' C .rAAk�l U 1194111110mr 6 a aA 6 ki o° it kip 2 \' ��� • � �9 ',,s 1 , ily,ti0 \_ 99 ♦ g S ./ h 4,,,- 0� ' a♦ \ - 0♦ gi p. ` p r 8As 5� � �'� al i' R •$ 8 I -1 „a ai\♦ -e,,,' % r--'. IO \ Qom, z x� 4./' $ $ % 000 q 4" ''' k4I • 8 1: 8 O Rte-' -\-----,..,AN '6 d �. . •� \\ 800 A. \ R e x 'jihs! ,- 2s.);1•7- --11---S. - 'il . g 4 ;a a e 000A f te a . —r -gz v \ r0 4 8 8 00 •sY• -A4i l'....'...1.-.,..6 CV' /� g q11.: ••�� , _,I f f; ki W i 99690 NW Y9NO13NNIW'S9Zi 311(10'L AYMH'JIH 52991 ^ 1 Z zz r� +� � ~ faa3° 8 , I'd as 311`1N3VUdOl3A341S3M 3)IY1 sli a :. Cn h1 W sa. �. C>9-?A M �,�°- B 16E99 NW'094090'30Yld AAI 009E 1:p 51 .1 7 LL / Ni j a eP1,1 5 9: b• a z e ei" P. be a HP �1 tl a c d5 :�° Q 33V1d AAI €�,' - .. do- '''''1 !P . • anode a II.a w i $ i 4i 1,x rg % sl; a v is _ s6= .= g= a 9$x x a - P a' r' ! -ga V. a sk 2`» s 414 " K k 9 $ s y i 4 a R 1-4 'g " ' "t ilk.g 1 ,sigq irc§di/ Iti.;° 'i ii 5x g 5 gii ill t 4 0 <4) . - y W w"Iii ,WS yL g E 7.1p 1§"§d a g EEE�� € � � W }s8 tl� � �g a 1� h g' s ���.. �g k c ?g 69 , @@ 4 lW “' �RortallirVgillW .4 20 iLti ?1 L W L gay, 5 g0 girt y i is yiw glil ii P .1 ligl, i s rsa of "g i 1 €$ o §bo 1 i 1 v a ,Ni dW Ej, isli t 6.g i# p Iglu °6 ; h040iiili gB i =t$a l a W Alliir }xw 1 gi y£f Via: fami�� ' 'Jh �p fieii = !!] p iE 3a #.. e i 4t1; a bN= avi I_ 1 s% a 11i 9 I/$i x 1gil 11 : 5 - $" iii ep Et IM, 1 6 Q 4 C E I aE El i 1; 110 wi J38- G' yy * sk rti %•,'' / \*-4,,, , IE.- t 4'' r--- , e, ' Al,' ,„ Uli Q/ gaga � uJ qPGF, CP ` \,,,,:%„.„6ca I ° ee 4.-. - 6, n/ GP k 0 ,rc. � 1 i � a /♦ 1 4 0,.• ak ., a O� k ' d ♦ nk a 1 ■II■ ♦ ;y , • ty; N /'/ 8rn 80 44 ii F,.. SbESS NW'1MN013NNIW'S9Z#311f1S'L AtlMFPJIN SZSP i,�6 2 r , i 1 W 311`1N3WdOl3A301S3M WW1 tqh 9 = . , . f W z ; Ma "'40211 ' L6ESS NW'ONONO'3O'dld MI 009E €104 > 3e IL Gi 9 88 $96 1 1 a8 % g - i3 �I a til giw.ii a ;; oil r z E a hi -E# 16 1 1 1 lei ax ill 611 ii OnI i ff X01 w q F' 1 L 'P�JP�i a4.1 A\ 3 PI § I` AI aff t + ,� � �� ' �// OAF, j4igii '1 041,�,ir`�wma, / 8 litto 7�,,�\ it Ci 1 ,• �, � .Lals P, ,„ 7 /4:: \ 5 ff;i ��% Ilkx '8 71Cp� % :Itielit4,,, Irak / -,- ..iir- 4,, .,._ , / .,. - a .41# ' .'• -"Ras•-- ' tkite i g CVn ai 1� L. SKS=NW VMNO13NNIW'99•3LfS'L AVMHOIHSZS>L L .h .P44 a ” rxj 011' N3O13A3S3M 3NY1 :Vi 0 cf) = \1.�OA . . LBESSNW'ONOtlO'3OVld MI 009E sii � I •� ;= tlii. zG b 'i av L-1! 1.1.1 Ouu3rona Ma .1 H•-. 2 5 k @. f! � . ¢ 4 (..)0 iii Qo a € 1 X i 1 a i b 1 y yN i b V Q a 3b i 1 e i a n�'4� y i a a xai g 6 4 3 o a I i] 1 3 l'qd ; a 6 h ii Deb 1 i € 4, ic ' i hi 19 i4 e i . viii1 p 611 !6 O Y `1' pp 0 € W i ¢ Wg Z i� P48 e � ' g2 ^S bip 19� a $ a� f -s �e ne3 � y W e 4 _ 60 i 'if hi i g' p 'A ft, ii lig 6 i i i e��t 90 g 1d !i g 4 n 6 a i a 1 . Y y � d ig sig 1 '6 € n 212 ■zf o ;-a e 0 ! i r2; .1 51 $ of b g ; o sin i 10 eh I 1 e 1! s : iii 11" ' 04 a hg En G " u a ^ h N., � ggii v 0 ih 1 i 221 i!it i i ; A41i! le; € ag gm . e $� N1 . ■ i <,�E o - t h NI a g !i a : i Big a� a z. a �oG :r '� g = do a 0� ie E? $ �i� = 9 S f t5' 8 p� 6 kg gi g i 9g l�6ili$ VA l6 ig i! 3 : is ir ' gi °z P.! H iiAi i gar 521 ii b3€) a 1 1 il'iail i 1 In !% 4 gt '� s" 11/1 g, ,,x1b pig Iia $ Yy Iii 0g1 A Ing= flg il ! 'al _ g ; I $ l dI¢$a 51111 a a i Ig ypp s BR yR a i ; r it , r g ige g; „i5 ne . to B $7G gg i g 6A '4 3" ' n . n` Ge!! k' G_'r 8 g S � _ a El 1 z 1 g rgg$W §i r r r as l 's i h it !vs A r t a 11 4gildi r�i 1 115 1; !ii !II 1 2a dg i 1 H N q t 2 J E 16 6 IP d O rc 21 Al gbgi 828 �_ '-W t Ia82u89C O a OWOI 6.1'nS.01 ioC 0k a&,.a'", iaoi / 4- ,tiAsSows g$4 r 'Pe'51 - V' moo'•' ;rd \bry TW16 B�i �1 4 , q� ..! 1. P� CS ¢W g� 2 PC ,, � .e' OP r 1O9e x JOB:s :' �. a k� ;o \a �>'4 �i $ ih 6` !,;2 c, p ;ptP 6> ni9A- N60 ..,6-2,0 4" ,-; , AY$* \ 4C> , q, 12; /,/ ' • r„, .p..„ . _____ ___,<,ni41 1/ . \ 0 SBM Ae6e cmoi.Gr� Z �a 4daS : / .:.4,-_---!--,-..,—. _,S,,,------ ■ 0 .g. W2 p6 *. J• / . .:I • GG • ,P MI! a. i • <>.�i s4 g11 �: vi y� 889A8RA - /, w� +gt7,A8$ " I 1 yE •�.-,e- y 1i I— J 9t£99 NW NO13NNIW'99Z#311fS'LAVMHOIH 9 SbI ""2' J O y + - W � g-; Gill 1N3WdOl3A3C1S3M 3�d1 s3 'C/) i -_ tC ,......„7.1 LI L6ESSNW'ONOLIO'93 ld AAI 009£ 7:s.p,.4 A ' ` hC „,. ego€11 - "., rc Co ii Cr o 33V-Id AAI 3roae `git13 4 a s a .4 F 3 u Si i'uZ � Z ba I u t l,l. :E m� I,I aV 1i of f` uE ' of F .1� \"Y. . _II ¢1./. .II n'7 PI iii .♦ : , 6 I t a . . _ Gz „, — of ,„ e__I = _ ,,_4-' E W lo W .g� Dili 1 fi ; g i 1 l g �� e $ 5 ill ? ti§ �c - : b g iii q s yl0 S ill W r a ; M 1 ,,,,- ..;1,00,,i !I ‘Iii iit w i di � f3''StfS1.Ti� 11 o Y W l O n�n�n�n=n=._.-1.1101P' f=n=1r � a a 111111 I' I %a { Bann .^+sam.aqu N PCL XL error Error: IllegalOperatorSequence Operator: Oxc1 Position: 11590590 Item 5 Date Application Received: 3/22/17 A' Date Application Considered as Complete: 3/22/17 <yO 60-Day Review Period Expires: NA To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director �ikfsH06" Date: August 21, 2017 Subject: #17-3932, YMCA of the Greater Twin Cities, 135 Orono Orchard Road North - Sketch Plan Review Zoning District: RR-1B, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acres/200' width) Property Area: 39.4 acres total (19acres wetland, 2 acres conservation,) Application Summary: This is a sketch plan for a 39-acre property abutting the Luce Line Trail proposed to be developed into 15 single-family residential lots ranging in size from 3/4 acre to 1-1/2 acres, averaging approximately 1 acre in dry-buildable area. All lots are proposed to be served by municipal sewer and water and an internal road. The proposed plan would require rezoning and an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, as the property is within Orono's defined Rural Area in which the minimum lot size for new development is two dry buildable acres. Staff Recommendation: While no formal action is required, this memo will serve as a foundation for the Planning Commission's discussion with the applicants to illustrate issues for discussion prior to submission of a formal Preliminary Plat application. Background The applicant is working on behalf of the YMCA of the Greater Twin Cities, who acquired the land in donation from the previous owner. The property under review includes a single tax parcel on the west side of Orono Orchard Road North, north of the Luce Line Trail, east of Long Lake Creek. The property is zoned RR-1B,One Family Rural Residential, requiring a minimum lot size of 2.0 dry buildable acres and 200' lot width, if unsewered. The property has been zoned for 2- acre lots, is guided in the Orono Community Management Plan(CMP) for Rural Residential Use (1 unit per 2 acres) and is within the defined Rural Area(See Map 3B-1). The property is outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area(MUSA). The Comprehensive Plan does not contemplate serving this area with municipal sewer or water. Due in part to increased interest in development potential for this property, and the requested changes from the city Comprehensive Plan, Staff encouraged the developer to host an informational meeting for the public. Staff understands a meeting is scheduled for August 17t, after this report is filed. The Commission may wish to ask for a verbal report on the results or findings from this meeting. Sketch Plan Review Parameters The goal of this review is to provide the developer with an overview of the pertinent City ordinances and how they affect the proposed plat, and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. The "Summary of Issues for Consideration" at the conclusion of this report notes reveals a number of issues with the proposed plat and should provide direction to the applicants regarding the proposal. Planning Commission should review each topic and identify any issues to 17-3932 August 21,2017 Page 2 of 8 which the developer should pay special attention. As a sketch plan review, any comments or suggestions to the applicants are non-binding but will be extremely helpful as the applicants move forward. The City Council will also provide comment at a future meeting. Conformity with the Orono 2030 Community Management Plan There are three main issues with respect to the proposal and the Community Management Plan. 1. Overall guided density, 2. Rural versus urban development patterns, and 3. MUSA boundary adjustment. The project requires amendment in all three areas. Guided Density. The property is guided for Rural Residential,with a density of 1 unit per 2 acres. The 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan requires lots at a minimum size of 2 dry-buildable acres if the lots are not served by municipal sewer. The proposed re-guiding to Low-Density Residential with a range of 0.5-2.0 units per acre(1/2-acre to 2-acre lots)is a departure from these goals. The proposed 15 unit subdivision will occur on 39.4 gross acres. 24.1 of the acres (wetlands, wetland buffers, and conservation areas*) are excluded from the calculation as they are in-eligible for development, based on the Met Council calculations. The adjusted, net density is 1.02 units per acre(15 units on 15.3 net acres). *if in Fed, State, or Local control and subject to a perpetual easement Rural versus urban development. The property is within the defined Rural Area of the City(CMP Map 3B-1) in which new development is expected to occur with lot sizes of 2 to 5 acres. The boundary between the defined Urban and Rural Areas was established in the 1980 Community Management Plan, at that time being consistent with the MUSA line. It has been the City's intent to avoid creating new pockets of higher density within the defined Rural Area. Is it appropriate to introduce higher density to this area? MUSA. The project requires the expansion of the MUSA line and extension of water and sanitary services to accommodate development. The expansion of the MUSA into the subject parcel was not contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan, but the Planning Commission and Council could determine that the project satisfies one of the priority statements outlined in the CMP: Priority 1 Properties that abut the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and all other Orono lakes. Priority 2 Properties that abut City-protected tributaries, and all other properties within the Shoreland Overlay District. Priority 3 Existing substandard developed lots not covered by Priorities 1 and 2 and developed prior to 1985 that have failing septic systems and do not have an alternative site available to replace said system. Priority 4 New development using clustering that permanently preserves blocks of open space. Priority 5 Conforming developed lots not covered by Priorities 1 and 2 and developed prior to 1985 that have failing septic systems and do not have an alternative site available to replace said system. Priority 6 New or existing development not covered by Priorities 1, 2, 3,4 or 5. The Met Council has stated they will not support the expansion of the MUSA boundary for projects with densities less than 3 units per acre. 17-3932 August 21,2017 Page 3 of 8 Expansion of the MUSA boundary is done infrequently, the last expansions were completed in 2008 as part of the last update. In expansion of the MUSA Boundary appropriate for this project and this parcel? Conformity with Zoning District Lot Requirements The property is currently zoned RR-1B, Rural Residential District, which allows for single family residential uses with a minimum lot size of 2 dry buildable acres. Under the current zoning and a standard plat process, the property could likely be developed with no more than 8 total lots, or perhaps 10 via a PRD process. The applicants anticipate a rezoning to the RPUD zone. Additionally, portions of the property are within 300 feet of the OHWL of Long Lake Creek (OHWL being defined as the streambank). These areas, plus additional areas of wetland mapped as floodplain, are within the designated Shoreland Overlay District. The Shoreland District has specific standards for development,the most pertinent for this site being the 75' required setback from the creek. There are also setback requirements from the wetlands per the standards of the Wetland Overlay District, predicated on MCWD-required wetland buffers. The entire property is within the Stormwater Quality Overlay District, designated as Hardcover Tier 1 which limits each lot to 25%hardcover. An RPUD zone could introduce additional hard cover, as hardcover limits for an RPUD are automatically 50%. Proposed RPUD Rezoning. The applicants' are proposing to rezone the site to Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD) District. An issue here is that no portion of a property within 250 feet of the OHWL of a Protected Tributary is allowed to be rezoned to RPUD [Zoning Code Section 78-626(1)]. The northerly 3 lots of applicants proposed development are within 250 feet of the creek OHWL, a waiver is necessary. Excerpt from 78-626(1): "No property located within 250 feet of the ordinary high water level(OHWL) of a protected lake or tributary as defined in article IX of this chapter shall be rezoned to RPUD.However, for a property that is partially located less than 250 feet from the OHWL and partially located more than 250 feet from the OHWL, the portion located more than 250 feet from the OHWL may be rezoned to RPUD at the discretion of the city council when all other requirements are met." In relation to the RPUD standards, there are specific guidelines for detached single family development in Zoning Code Section 78-626(8). Section 78-626(16) provides for flexibility in RPUD standards. A cursory review of the 15 lots confirms that minimal if any flexibility with respect to lot areas, widths or setbacks would be required under an RPUD rezoning. Relationship to Surrounding Development The neighborhoods surrounding the proposed development are all single-family residential in nature, yet quite diverse in character and density. This is in part due to the fact that the properties north and northwest of the site are within the City of Long Lake, where lot sizes along the creek range from less than one-half acre to more than 2 acres. The surrounding property in Orono, however, has been developed with lots based on a density of 1 unit per two dry buildable acres. To the south is the Luce Line Trail with undeveloped wooded wetlands south of the Trail. To the southeast is the Orono Golf Course. To the immediate east are three homes along the west side of Orono Orchard Road on large lots, and east of Orono Orchard Road is the Orono Oaks subdivision of 2-acre lots.North of Orono Oaks in the City of Long Lake is the Stoneridge Colony development of half-acre lots. 17-3932 August 21,2017 Page 4 of 8 Surrounding Land Uses Summary Long Lake neighborhoods north of creek Lot sizes: 1/2 acre—2-plus acres Creekside In Orono Lot sizes 0.8 acre; Density 1 unit per 2 dry acres South of Luce Line Trail Undeveloped—2-acre zoning Orono Golf Course 2-acre zoning Homes to immediate east along Orono Orchard Rd 2-acre zoning Orono Oaks 2-acre zoning Stoneridge Colony(N of Orono Oaks in LL) Lot sizes: 1/2 acre Lot Layout and Lot Standards The proposed layout of the site is dictated by the nature and orientation of the uplands and wetlands. With the proposed road closely following the existing driveway route,homesites along either side of the road in the southerly half of the site are placed midway down steep slopes ranging from 20% to 40%. This would likely result in the need for substantial site re-grading, filling and retaining walls on many lots in order to create usable yard areas. On the flatter slopes at the northerly end of the site,some lots will require additional fill in order to create the depicted walkout configuration. The 2-acre RR-1B standards include a lot width minimum of 200 feet and minimum yard requirements of 50' front and rear and 30' sides. These standards are intended to create separation between homes to maintain the rural character. The proposed rezoning to RPUD would establish a very different set of required lot area, width and setback standards as follows: Minimum lot area: 15,000 s.f. (1/3 acre) Minimum lot width: 90 feet Minimum lot depth: 125 feet Front setback: 25' Rear setback: Lesser of 40' or 20%of lot depth Interior side setback: 10' Whether developed under RR-1B standards or per RPUD standards, the required setback to the creek is 75 feet. Preliminary plat submittals would have to verify the location of the creek bank. Minimum City-required setback from wetland boundaries is 35', or if MCWD-required wetland buffer exceeds 25', minimum City-required wetland setback is buffer width plus 10 feet. Conceptual house pads depicted under the RPUD proposal range from approximately 5500 s.f. to 8500 s.f. In each case the separation between homes is depicted at 60 feet, minimum. Although the steep hillsides in certain areas have slopes averaging more than 30% and rise more than 25 feet above the floodplain,they are not subject to bluff regulations because those slopes are outside the defined boundaries of the Shoreland Overlay District. Site Grading At this sketch plan stage no grading plans have been submitted. However, the submitted conceptual road layout and house floor elevations suggest that the top 15-20' of the hill would be removed and placed to create the house pads depicted. The impact on existing trees would likely be substantial. 17-3932 August 21,2017 Page 5 of 8 Road Layout and Standards The proposed road is depicted as being a private road. While this is consistent with the RR-1B District 2-acre zoning, a question for discussion is whether the road system serving the proposed development should be public or private if developed as RPUD. The CMP Transportation Plan in Urban Transportation Policies states: 1. Local streets in the urban area will be owned and maintained by the City(i.e.public streets). Because the land use and street use density of the urban neighborhoods is relatively high,the City will provide public street access to all urban properties.City responsibility for proper maintenance levels will ensure passable, all-weather streets available at all times for emergency vehicles and for general public ingress and egress. At the urban density proposed, it can be argued this should be a public street. The applicants are prepared for the road system to be private. As proposed, the road system will serve only this development and has no potential to be extended to serve other neighboring properties in the future. At this sketch plan stage, road designs have yet to be established. The City's minimum paved width standard for a private road system serving the number of dwellings proposed is 28'; for a public road, the minimum paved width would be 32'. The City's standard for maximum length of a cul-de-sac road is 1000 feet. The depicted sketch plan shows a private road with cul-de-sac approximately 1500 feet in total length, not including the loop segment at the north end of the site. A variance or waiver of this requirement would be required. Waivers of the cul de sac length are not uncommon. In the current plan, curb and gutter would likely be required in order to manage stormwater for some portion of the internal road system. Street design and grading information is required at the time of preliminary plat for City Engineer and Fire Marshal review. Sight distance at the entrance to Orono Orchard Road should also be reviewed. Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed Assuming the road would be private,the City will require a Road,Drainage and Utilities Easement over the private road, which should be platted as an outlot and designed and built to City private road standards. Standard perimeter drainage and utility easements around all property boundaries as well as conservation and flowage easements over the delineated wetlands will be required. At the time of preliminary plat review, the City Engineer will determine whether any improvements to Orono Orchard Road, such as turn lanes,might be necessary. Parks,Trails, Sidewalks The property abuts the Luce Line Trail, and the sketch plan suggests a private trail connection from the Luce Line to the cul-de-sac. This connection would require some type of wetland/drainage ditch crossing structure subject to City and MCWD approval, and may require approval from the DNR. RPUD standards require that 10% of the development site be provided as a private recreation area or open space to serve the residents of the development. The site as designed would appear to have sufficient open space to meet this objective. Park Dedication In addition to the RPUD requirement for creation of a private recreation area to serve the development residents, the City Code requires dedication of 8% of the land as public park, or payment of the equivalent value in cash. The Orono Park, Open Space and Trail Plan in CMP 17-3932 August 21,2017 Page 6 of 8 Map 4E-3 indicates a future trail connection along Orono Orchard Road from the Luce Line to the Long Lake border. The applicants should plan to dedicate a 10' trail easement along the Orono Orchard Road frontage, regardless of how the site develops. Assuming the City Council finds no need for a public park at this site, payment of the standard Park Dedication fee of$5,550 per each new building lot (credit for one existing home) would be due at final plat approval. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements & Fees The applicants are proposing a stormwater management system incorporating a variety of methods intended to manage runoff rate and nutrient control including phosphorus and total suspended solids reduction. Storm sewers would be convey runoff to ponding areas prior to discharge to the wetlands. Ponding areas will require the establishment of easements and the ponding areas will not be creditable as dry buildable area. Stormwater management will be subject to City and MCWD review and approval. The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee (SW&DT Fee). Final calculation of the fee would be based on the final lot count and density. If for example the subdivision results in 15 lots averaging one acre each,the SW&DT Fee would be 15 lots x $5,000 per lot=$75,000 per the 2017 Orono Fee Schedule. If the subdivision results in eight 2-acre lots, the SW&DT Fee would be 8 lots x $7,680/lot= $61,440. Utility Locations/Availability The property is not within the MUSA and municipal sewer and water utility mains owned and controlled by Orono are not available to serve the property. While a Met Council sewer interceptor is located within Orono Orchard Road,there are no current connection points dedicated for service to this property. Municipal sewer and water potentially could come from the City of Long Lake systems near the NE corner of the property, but staff has not attempted to ascertain whether there is adequate capacity or a desire by Long Lake to allow extension of its services to the property, nor at what cost in terms of assessments or connection fees. This is left to the developer to research with the City of Long Lake. It is unknown, but unlikely, that Met Council would allow a connection directly to its interceptor for this development at the proposed density of approximately 1 unit per acre. Absent the ability to connect to municipal sewer, the property cannot be developed as proposed. In that case, a plan for the use of septic systems would have to be prepared. Due to the steep slopes and wetlands, it is unlikely that the property could support more than a small number of lots using septic systems. If City water becomes available from Long Lake, water system looping and capacity for fire protection are factors that will have to be addressed in the preliminary plat. The applicants would be responsible for all utility construction costs. It is assumed that all other utilities will be underground and located within the right-of-ways. Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted The property contains 19 acres of delineated wetlands, the boundaries of which have been confirmed by the MCWD. In addition to the major wetland surrounding the site,which will not be directly impacted, two very small wetlands exist at the north end of the property. These are anticipated to be filled, with mitigation via purchase of wetland credits. The major wetland basin would be protected subject to MCWD buffer requirements and City of Orono conservation and 17-3932 August 21,2017 Page 7 of 8 flowage easements. The MCWD would be involved in establishment of any wetland mitigation requirements. The City will require a minimum structure setback of 35' from the wetland boundary, or 10 feet in addition to a MCWD required buffer. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts Approximately half of the upland area of the property is wooded, with most of that growth occurring in the past 50-60 years. A tree survey will be required as part of the conservation design process. Substantial woods on the steep slopes is likely to be lost based on the road and house pad conceptual designs submitted. Conservation Design The developer is advised that this subdivision will be subject to the City's Conservation Design Ordinance. The property will be reviewed in terms of the Rural Oasis goals and policies which have been approved by the City Council and are supported within the ordinance. The preliminary plat application should include a complete conservation design analysis of the entire site for review. Archaeological Site Proximity Staff is unaware of any archaeological sites within the property; the applicant should contact the State Historic Preservation Office(SHPO) to confirm. Summary of Issues for Consideration Staff suggests that the primary focus for consideration and discussion by the Planning Commission should include the following topics: 1. Is this property a location where the City should depart from the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan guiding, and allow higher density development? 2. If so, what are appropriate standards for such a development? 3. Portions of the property located less than 250 feet from the creek are not eligible to be rezoned to RPUD and therefore would not benefit from flexibility in terms of lot standards. Applicants are requesting that these areas be included in the RPUD rezoning. Does Planning Commission support this flexibility? 4. The property is not in the MUSA, and therefore is not eligible to be provided with municipal sewer. Is expansion of the MUSA boundary appropriate for this project and this parcel? If so, what other parcels should be identified for higher density to compensate for the reduction of density buffer? 5. The steep slopes surrounding the existing homesite are heavily wooded. Development of new homes on the property will likely result in significant and substantial impacts to the topography and vegetation of the site. Would this be consistent with the rural residential goals and vision of the Comprehensive Plan? 6. Should the internal road be public or private? 7. Can Planning Commission identify any issues that should be addressed regarding this concept plan review? 17-3932 August 21,2017 Page 8 of 8 Staff Recommendation Staff notes the project: • requires a departure from the City's vision for the Rural Area. • is proposed at a density that requires municipal sewer but is not in the MUSA and doesn't meet Met Council standards for expanding the MUSA. • if added to the MUSA, would likely require guiding other properties for higher density; such properties are scarce, and are needed to offset future expected low-density developments already in the MUSA. • As proposed, would likely result in significant changes to existing vegetation and topography. While staff would view development of this site as a candidate for a 10-lot clustered PRD development based on underlying RR-1B 2-acre standards (similar to the Creekside In Orono subdivision) there is still the issue of bringing sewer to an even lesser number of lots and the likelihood of Met Council denial of MUSA expansion for the resulting low density. Development of the site with septic systems will be difficult due to the extreme topography; it is likely that only a small number of homes can be supported with the use of septic systems. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Applicants' Cover Letter/Narrative,house renderings Exhibit C. Applicable Exhibits: a. Sketch Plan b. Orono Zoning Map c. Orono CMP Land Use Plan Map d. Orono Sanitary Sewer&MUSA Map e. Stormwater Quality Overlay District—Hardcover Tier Map f. Conceptual Depictions: Proposed Homes Exhibit D. Comp Plan Map 3B-1 —Defined Urban and Rural Areas Exhibit E. Comprehensive Plan Excerpts Exhibit F. Staff Sketch: Shoreland District; 250' RPUD Prohibited Area;Existing House Location Exhibit G. Planned Residential Development(PRD) Standards City of Orono PC Exhibit Concept Application ^ Street Address: I Application# 1'7 -• 3 9a 3 a �'i_).1\-- ) 2750 Kelley Parkway Date O Orono, MN 55358 Received: 3-72 /7 ?2 7 Staff: ‘.7--,42,Main: 952-249-4800 Fee: $350.00 fax: 952-249-4616 lg wick.. �, ti Marling Address: Notes: /45444, IV -44SsHo4. Crystal Bay,MN 55323-0066 Applicable regulation Section 78-47. Concept plans may be accepted for proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan,the Zoning Ordinance,or the Zoning Map. Submittal Checklist 17 1 1):1116101#1114 Aikiii11211 181 2 ; 'cation tee • - ® 4 Building Plans 1 5 ,NIttratiVS ® 8 Additional information you feel helps describe the project - D 8 ,Additional information uested by City Staff a L li .vatotrolosostistainyktiitnai via A OD ort , PROPERTY AflON: Site Address: 135 Orono Orchard Road,Orono - PID 3411823220035 PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION: Name: YMCA of the Greater Twin Cities Phone(primary): 612-371-8724 Mailing Address: 30 South Ninth Street City, State&ZIP Minneapolis. MN 55402 Email: Anita.Lancello( )ymcamn.oro PROPERTY OWNER: • Agrees to pay additional fees(staff tine not covered in the original fee payment)and/or consultant expenses incurred in review of this extension application,and • Certifies that the information supplied is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge. The applicant and owner recognize that they are solely responsible for submitting a complete application being aware that upon failure to do so,the staff has no alternative but to reject it until It is complete or to recommend the request for denial of the request regardless of its potential merit. • The Property Owner hereby acknowledges end agrees to this application and further authorizes reasonable entry onto the property by City Staff,consultants,agents,Commission and Council Members for purposes of Investigation and verification of this request. • Applicant acknowledges they must be present at ail scheduled review meetings. it an applicant and/or owner is unable to attend a scheduled meeting, please make arrangements to have an authorized representative attend in piece of the applicant/owner and advise the City Planner assigned to your project. • Information will bed-' ,,. a email. I Property Owner Signature: ` ) , 1 9 iiiWWW1 4( r `J ate: _ 111 l�( ,� RECEIVED Property Owner Signature: Date: MAR a 2 2017 Concept Application—January 2017 Com.aroNo I PC Exhibit B OtthaitA t Sketch Plan Application Narrative to the • City of Orono, Minnesota June 27, 2017 Tambatek RECEIVED JUL 0 5 2011 CITY OF ORONO Orchard Hill of Orono-Project Narrative 06/27/2017 Orchard Hill of Orono - Project Narrative Background The YMCA of the Greater Twin Cities is pleased to present a concept sketch plan to the City of Orono for their consideration.The proposal is for a high-end single-family home subdivision with fifteen (15) buildable lots.The property is currently occupied by a two-story single-family home which has been the family home of Ed and Phyllis Rydell since the early 1980s.The family donated the property to the YMCA in 2005 as a charitable gesture.The Rydell's continued to occupy the homestead until shortly after Ed Rydell's death,at which time Phyllis relinquished her right to occupy the home.At this time,the YMCA is seeking to obtain all required land use and subdivision approvals necessary to develop the subdivision. In conjunction with the development,the YMCA, in cooperation with Gordon James Construction, intends to sell fifteen lots for the development of custom built,executive-style homes. The property is a 39-acre parcel located within the City of Orono at 135 Orono Orchard Road.The parcel is bordered by other single-family subdivisions on the north(Orchard Meadow, Meadow Creek, Bollum Ridge and Creekside of Long Lake),west(Creekside of Orono),and easterly(Stoneridge Colony)sides of the property.The Luce Line Regional Trail borders the southerly edge, and the Orono Golf Course lies to the southeast. The parcel has access to Orono Orchard Road through an existing lengthy gravel driveway which connects to the home on the southern portion of the site.The property has an existing septic system and private well; both of which will be removed/capped concurrent with demolition of the existing house. The property's ecological diversity includes Long Lake Creek—connecting Long Lake to Lake Minnetonka, significant wetlands,areas of extensive tree cover,and sloping topography;all of which are recognized as exceptional natural assets that will help to make this a wonderful neighborhood for generations to come.The development proposal has been carefully tailored to help preserve these amenities while allowing for low to medium density single-family residential development with MCES sanitary sewer. Proposal Overview The attached sketch plan illustrates the proposed subdivision of the parent parcel into 15 single-family lots.The proposal utilizes the existing driveway's access point onto Orono Orchard Road,and includes the construction of a new urban-section city street within a 50 foot right of way.The street features a full cul-de-sac at its terminus along with an additional turn-around at the north portion of the site.The development is seeking to extend MCES sanitary sewer within the proposed street right of way to service all of the proposed homes.Sewer is available in Orono Orchard Road-immediately adjacent to the site in the City of Long Lake.The City of Orono has a worked with its neighbor in the past to accommodate urban style growth by providing utilities through joint powers agreements,and that would be our desire in this instance. In addition,the sanitary sewer line is a regional interceptor under Orchard Hill of Orono- Project Narrative 06/27/2017 the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services(MCES).The MCES operates and maintains the large inter-community wastewater sewer system which transports sewage from community systems to regional treatment facilities. Separate approvals from both the MCES and the Metropolitan Council will be needed to connect to the regional system to move this project forward. The development is proposed to drill well(s)to serve the development's water needs. The proposed lots will range in size from just under an acre to over one and one half acres.All but one of the homes is configured as a walk-out residential structure in order to take full advantage of the topography of the site. Lot 15,located at the entry to the site, is configured as a look-out home to preserve the grading profile in this area.All of the homes will have between approximately 4,000 to 6,000 square feet in finished floor area and include multi-car,attached garages. It is anticipated that the property's rich environmental amenities and desirable location along with the builder's high-end custom home credentials will provide strong marketing features which position this project in the approximately $1.4M to$3.5M range. City Approvals Comprehensive Plan Amendment In order for the project to proceed,the YMCA and Gordon James Construction are seeking comprehensive plan and zoning classification amendments from the City. Currently the property is guided as"Rural-Residential" in the City's 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (see attached 2030 Land Use Plan).This classification is a low density single-family classification which limits development to not more than one unit per two-acres.The proposed development will require a reclassification to"Low-Density Residential"(LDR),which allows from 0.5 to 2.0 units per acre. The City's MUSA line (Metropolitan Urban Service Area)will also need to be amended to include the subject property so that the proposed neighborhood has access the regional sewer main which abuts the property.The MUSA reclassification is consistent with current Comprehensive Plan identification of the subject parcel as"potentially further sub-dividable for residential use" (see Map 3B-4).The adjacent Metropolitan trunk sewer line located in the Orono Orchard Road right-of-way has more than sufficient capacity to facilitate this connection.The requested comprehensive plan amendment includes the addition of the subject parcel to the city's MUSA which we recognize will require Metropolitan Council authorization. We are also aware that the Metropolitan Council seeks to have a reasonable amount of density in each development it allows to enter into the MUSA and to connect to regional sewer system. In the City of Orono,the Met Council has sought to require an average density of three-units per acre or more within the MUSA. There are currently two higher density project proposals being considered by the city. These projects would have a positive impact on the city's goal of maintaining an average density of three-units per acre or more within the MUSA area. Combined with said proposed developments,the Orchard Hill of Orono development would maintain this future density threshold above the desired average density of three-units per acre within the MUSA area. The proposed development's density of one unit per acre Orchard Hill of Orono-Project Narrative 06/27/2017 is twice that currently allowed by the city's comprehensive plan and zoning district standards. While we recognize the need to consider future regional growth in allocating regional sewer usage,we also recognize that good planning also requires both environmental and neighborhood sensitive land use decision making. We feel our proposal is a good balance between these often competing objectives and would meet the spirit and the law of the requirement. Zoning District Amendment In addition to the comprehensive plan amendments,the development also seeks to rezone the property to allow for the proposed density and greater design flexibility which the city's planned unit development provisions are designed to achieve.The current zoning for the site is RR-1B, "One-Family Rural Residential", which requires a two-acre minimum lot size(see attached City Zoning Map). In order to facilitate the proposed subdivision, (consistent with the comprehensive plan amendment),we are requesting a zoning amendment for the property.We are eager to follow the City's lead as to the category which best suits both our proposal and the City's overall zoning framework. Based on our preliminary review,we would like to consider a planned unit development approach such as the City's RPUD, "Residential Planned Unit Development." The planned unit development district appears to be desirable for a number of reasons. First,along with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it allows for the project's proposed density of one unit per net developable acres. Also importantly, as outlined in the ordinance,it allows for greater flexibility in land development in order to protect and preserve sensitive natural environmental features.Additionally,the planned unit development approach provides the opportunity for increased tax revenue for fifteen new single family homes versus one existing single family home or seven two-acre lots as suggested within the RR-1B zoning district requirements.As a result,the increased tax revenue would have a positive impact on the City's ability for public improvements. It is our belief that this proposal strikes a balance between the City's need for good planning and the Met Council's need for density. Furthermore,given the properties natural characteristics including significant slopes,tree cover and soil limitations; it is apparent that individual septic systems would not be a reasonable approach to developing this parcel.We feel that this form of medium density,single- family type development,facilitated by municipal sewer(as opposed to septic system type development), provides the best development solution for this environmentally sensitive site. In addition to the current RR-1B zoning,the property is also partially in the City's Shoreland Management district.The Shoreland district is an overlay district which impacts the portion of the site lying within 300 feet of the ordinary high-water(OHW) level of the Long Lake Creek tributary which flows along the north and westerly perimeters of the site.The buildable portion of the property affected by these regulations is limited to the northerly 300 feet of the subject parcel.The Shoreland regulations require a 75 foot building setback from the OHW in this area.The sketch plan layout meets or exceeds this standard. In addition,we recognize that the hardcover limitations of the district are applied to the entire site;which is limited to 25 percent of the parcel's gross area.The sketch plan is well below this impervious surface threshold. • Orchard Hill of Orono-Project Narrative 06/27/2017 The City's Floodplain Management regulations have also been considered in the subdivision layout.The plan recognizes and avoids any development in the Flood Hazard areas as depicted on the official Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) maps for the City. RPUD Development Standards The RPUD district standards are designed to promote high quality carefully planned residential developments in environmentally sensitive areas.The district allows for a variety of uses including single-family detached residential development.The standards include a minimum lot area requirement of five acres of net developable land (gross area -less wetlands,floodways and right of ways).The subject property includes 39 acres of total land area with 17.9 acres of net developable (dry-buildable) land area.The district's density allowance is established by reference to the designation in the City's comprehensive plan. For this proposal,the requested classification of"Low Density Residential,"would allow for 0.5 to 2.0 units per acre.The proposal's density is roughly one unit per net developable acre, which(in accordance with Met Council standards) may exclude arterial right of way,floodplain, wetlands,wetland buffers,wetland buffer setbacks,and other conservation dedications.The proposal also includes a conservation easement area along the northerly edge of the site abutting Long Lake Creek consistent with the City's environmental objectives.As depicted on the attached Conservation Master Plan Dedication diagram,the total reductions from easement requirements and conservation dedications reduce the net developable area of the property,as defined by the Met Council,to approximately 14.5 acres. The minimum development standards specified for an RPUD development are as follows: RPUD Minimum Standards Lot Size 15,000 s.f. (0.35ac) Lot Width 90 ft. Lot Depth 125 ft. Front S.B. 25 ft. Side S.B. 15 ft. Rear S.B. 40 ft. The proposed lots and building pads within the project proposal meet or exceed all the above noted minimum requirements. Individual lot areas will vary from 0.75 to over 1.5 acres. In keeping with the upscale nature of the project,the front and side yards have been designed with generous 40 and 30 foot setbacks respectively. Rear yards would vary in depth with most well in excess of 100 feet in addition to abutting wetlands. Recreational Set Aside.The RPUD requires that ten percent of the gross site area be designated as private recreational land; dedicated for use by the residents of the project.This provision is in addition to the City's general park dedication requirements.The set aside area may be intended for either active Orchard Hill of Orono-Project Narrative 06/27/2017 or passive use as is suited to the needs of the residents.The Orchard Hill of Orono project will include roughly 24 acres of set aside including natural wetland areas,wetland buffers (as required by watershed and city standards),and conservation dedications.These areas will be protected by both easement and protective covenant restrictions. In addition,the proposal includes a trail dedication which will connect the cul-de-sac within the new public right of way with the Luce Line Regional Trail along the property's southern edge. In total,the recreational area set aside will exceed 60 percent of the gross land area and will include both active and passive provisions. Ownership/Control.The RPUD district addresses the need for unified ownership and control to ensure that the project is implemented as approved by the City. As stated,the owner and land developer for the project will be the YMCA of the Greater Twin Cities. The YMCA will be responsible for all submissions and approvals required from the City and other local jurisdictions, as well as the Metropolitan Council.The YMCA will further be the responsible party for implementing all subdivision improvements necessary to carry the land development phase of the project through to successful completion.Gordon James Construction is assisting the YMCA with the development process,architectural and builder standards and the sale of lots. Gordon James will be the lead builder of a small group of premium builders allowed to build within the development. Neighborhood Impacts.The developer and builder will manage the development process to minimize impact to adjacent properties.All construction related parking,equipment and material will be handled on-site to minimize impacts to Orono Orchard Road and the surrounding area. In addition, a rock construction driveway and periodic street sweeping will be utilized to control soils being carried onto Orono Orchard Road. City regulations regarding hours of operation will be adhered to for all construction activity. Long term traffic impacts on Orono Orchard Road are expected to be minimal.The City's transportation component of the Comprehensive Plan denotes Orono Orchard Road as a "local road"with about 2,500 vehicles per day.The development is anticipated to add approximately 120 to 150 total new trips per day. Home and Landscape Architectural Standards.The home and landscape architectural quality of the project will be in keeping with the high standards established by Gordon James Construction.The company's attention to careful planning and detailed design orientation results in homes of exceptional quality with elegant interiors and refined exteriors. Each home will be a custom design project resulting in floor plans with approximately 4,000 to 6,000 square feet of finished floor area plus multi-car attached garages.The overall effect is intended to be an upscale neighborhood with homes of compatible size,quality,and outstanding design characteristics.The market approach for the project is to deliver turn-key,custom homes in the price range of approximately$1.4M and$3.5M and up. Please see Architectural Exhibits provided as part of this sketch plan submittal package. The over-all site design concept,consistent with our project's name, is a neighborhood of fine-homes nestled in a lovely orchard-like setting. In addition to quality boulevard tree plantings, project designers will focus on common-area and supplemental tree stands which will emphasize flowering ornamental Orchard Hill of Orono-Project Narrative 06/27/2017 trees such as flowering crabapples, hawthorns and other native varieties including flowering fruit trees, etc.Our goal is to imbue the neighborhood with an atmosphere which celebrates the best the Minnesota landscape has to offer year-around, (especially the spring-time). Plantings will also be carefully chosen to attract and support wildlife in the area. Conservation Design The developer is aware of the strong emphasis the City places on ecological considerations in all of its planning and land development efforts.The standards,values,and procedural requirements which are incorporated into the City's Conservation Design Ordinance will be carefully adhered to. We share these values and consider the natural features of the site including its wetlands,topography,and tree cover to be unique and valuable assets.The preparation of a Conservation Design Masterplan is a top priority in moving forward with the planning for this property. Much of this effort is already under way,and the City can be assured that the project is being carefully planned to preserve and protect these natural amenities to the fullest extent practical. Wetland Preservation.Wetland preservation is a core value in preserving the ecological integrity of the site.To date,we have completed a wetland inventory which has been approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District(MCWD).The complex of wetlands which surrounds the upland portion of the site on three sides comprises nearly 50 percent of the total site area. Careful planning of the subdivision has resulted in no adverse impact or fill of these larger wetland structures.Two smaller wetlands on the north end of the site are proposed to be filled and mitigated through the acquisition of wetland credits through the Minnesota Board of Water Resource Management(BWSR)wetland bank program.These two isolated areas are considered perched and only seasonally flooded basins,which are of less significance than the site's larger wetland bodies.The total fill area of both small areas is 5,080 square feet.Typically a 2 to 1 ratio of replacement to filled area is required.The developer will comply with all requirements of the MCWD and the City in mitigating the filled areas. Wetland Buffers&Conservation Easements. In addition to preservation of the surrounding wetlands, the proposal includes the dedication of wetland buffer areas which will border most of the adjacent buildable areas of the site.The MCWD requires a 30 or 40 foot buffer strip(depending on wetland type) coterminous with the wetland edge.The MCWD buffer is required to be a No-Mow zone,and will be placed under protective easement and covenant.The City has an added requirement of an additional 10 foot building setback strip which restrains buildings from being placed directly adjacent to the wetland buffer area.The project further proposes to establish a conservation easement along the northerly edge of the site as it abuts Long Lake Creek.The easement will provide added protection of this important ecological feature by preserving native vegetation and establishing a permanent wildlife corridor.All totaled,the buffer and conservation dedications will exceed 4.5 acres,which when added to the wetland easement area, brings the total Conservation Master Plan dedications for the project to over 24 acres. Orchard Hill of Orono-Project Narrative 06/27/2017 Stormwater Management. Stormwater management for the development is being designed consistent with the City's Local Surface Water Management Plan(SWMP),the City's Stormwater Overlay District, and the Construction Site Runoff Control Ordinance requirements.The official map of the City of Orono Stormwater Quality Districts classifies the subject property as a Tier 1 area due to its proximity to the Long Lake Creek tributary. As such, it is subject to a limitation of not greater than 25 percent hard surfacing. The project proposal is well under this threshold. In addition,the grading and stormwater plans for the site are subject to rigorous regulations including a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) incorporating best management practices(BMP's)as prescribed by the MPCA.The grading and drainage plan includes the use of multi-cell treatment principles and methods designed for both rate and nutrient control including phosphorous and total suspended solids reduction.The management plan also uses storm sewer to convey runoff to ponding areas prior to collection in abutting wetlands.The proposed detention ponds will be included in the common area maintenance declarations under the HOA covenants. Tree Preservation.Tree preservation will be a priority.A comprehensive tree inventory will be completed as part of the preliminary plat and PUD submittal phase. As with most development,tree loss will be inevitable; however,the developer is committed to aggressive measures to save significant tree cover and individual trees where possible.Trees located within the No-Mow zone will be preserved and protected with securely anchored, heavy-duty fencing during construction.The developer is also committed to preserving individual trees around building pads on each lot where feasible.Construction fencing will be used to protect trees them from root compaction and damage from construction equipment. A professional certified arborist will be employed to help identify trees which can and should be saved and to prescribe the best management practices to ensure their protection and health going forward. Tree Replacement. In addition to professional landscape treatments on each individual lot,the developer is committed to designing and providing a common area landscape which compliments the premier quality of the proposed neighborhood. Consistent with the project's namesake,Orchard Hill of Orono,we are planning for a leafy and verdant streetscape.To that end,we are proposing that the boulevard and other common areas be planted with a variety of oak, maple, linden, evergreens and other flowering ornamental trees.A generous budget of is proposed for common area tree planting.All common areas will be placed under the ownership and management of the future home owner's association. Conclusion In summary,we are very excited for the opportunity to present this proposal to the City of Orono and we hope that City officials will give this project a satisfactory concept review based on its many fine attributes. We believe the project's high-quality, and medium density,single-family orientation, provides the best practical design solution for this unique property. The increase in allowable density that is being requested through the proposed comprehensive plan and zoning district classification amendments is a component that the Metropolitan Council and the City of Orchard Hill of Orono-Project Narrative 06/27/2017 Orono are working together to come to an agreement on.While this proposed density may still fall below the desired density sought by the Metropolitan Council for sewered development in this area,the city's overall average density within the MUSA area will be maintained at or above the required three- units per acre,when other recently proposed projects are taken into consideration. We feel the project's density as presented is in keeping with the environmental characteristics of the property and will further prove to be compatible with,and welcomed by,the surrounding neighborhoods. We look forward to presenting our concept plan to the Planning Commission and to beginning a constructive dialogue with the City and the Metropolitan Council in the near future.We greatly appreciate and welcome the City's feedback on this exciting project! Please do not hesitate to contact me at 763.746.1608,or kclark@sambatek.com,should you have any questions or need any additional information regarding this proposal. Sincerely, Kevin Clark Client Service Manager, Residential • Ali _ N Or CKS "V x i +( ii tE° ' 163 011.11111:' • r. >' L. wa 1 t5 �. _ '' 0815 . kft 14 1k _, . I� Al ,r it 0 , • itif $1 r. �"ttliit a .� ' ±' Lt I# ilk l�- r= '4 SI. r ' ~r F' _�a C*ft/ ,4 I�+i �<< f;1, ll 1i�i 1hiltf �� $ ' -7—: C., -4- , - _ ::.. :11,:iti - , 1 , \ . i i h I iifl�Er:.1 - , +`,t ii 4Ji : I ', �1 pflf.li 41 1 1 14—.--1- -1 , • , „ , .' �� i E '41/110111 if . ,; - _____: 1 -....--, cl, k ' _ -, , filp ii ^ j li I. is, yi* i ....t„.„ , i co 6. *. . 1 , ..._ „„, } y5 a l' .4,••v Ni i, v.." Y� S� a�� £ W 4 Y 1y' ,,„/' , C_ SZI '' ii""";, , r •dF •' wt sJI, lep P SI. ' '4.,...:1 �t dY ' y / y a. a ea ti i� '<< t5. ` i T L.Ii J 1 § �a i " ,1 I —,,,:ii ill!‘ :, 1��m 1Nit, \I(,,.,,u,n�,1 c s` + ` Y— t T. i i 4' *' rwri i ` , , , :, `'***-.>\ 4 ... . 1 ,.:7: • , sF i 1 a � , CZ i .. k . i CI' eZ. P Y t w !- _ w wl :wI 114 ��1: ,'ILS ' `, �I �ti�- o�' at, tti t + !fit_-__ C T� n ?► 1� i /., rft(. r �" / ' t {R,;- —I— ,i +,.! ' .....t --14 r T*. '1* iiillll!il1 I+ • 1, f xMll11fIIJIIIII11i*, a.!.,'- - 1 3 V ' , ctrl it+,,�,�,' — ��JJ• . I-- ,,,,!, , ,-• `J . I , , 7!,...... ,-- R 4 1 ' fit . ,. Iv tr • ` • A � x fq r { t iitilli it,• lit if} ! •, c ,.° tiff ;_ .1 k. i t ' „\ ' ? ' 2)C4... ;f3 w + i -� * 4 o ii tll,l�V N `t t � ;J� � fli{6t J1t4, 1y } ;1 1 _ {R —f I{ !-" P - :4'',Ii141 t` r %w. Cl.)• CZ m4 el • cm kilo . usaa, • . ! ..' +aid E d° t• ` r Cal •- y 'b �� . fy�`!!il '>i T .�� ti � _ 4' t I, 1, - SH r 4—, \I — err . .4 ,I r` w4;r 4* to a.i�- 1 ' 1 ' ,moi raN ,i t > s �)i r! 4 t r r . ` _- i fa' l ,.i .-: : , -1.41,....1. 11,-,' -:. . , # 'y.y,: ..g 7.4u=,, is � - ` =1tr ''' ...„...-„,-.-",-:., ' ''; ''-' :� L ic' e_ 4 . ::.' mcg s .-i''...:\:,, ' .�• 4;:.ii ‘: ‘ 1 i,�iuF . ,11,.t',.,,, 1 \ '',,\,'.".:— ._1 • *;:-.,:;':43-14' fip -.-4.—.-- i '...‘ .::::-....---....7., ,,.. 1', .` :,,,4: - - , - 10.1/ .; , A'-++fir. Y 1 _ . 1", tor ...vat . ,,,te , ip...„ • • . £s-a._, fd ,N 4i�0 C It 1111444-44—.444 4 1 3 i, 61'......') i , _-,.x. .1111 - ir"? :.; � j r ., '.,),:..,.1 ,4":„.,,,,:.:..:11:,!..41.i,,.;„ ;,,s:.,.1.:. :4 ' w F i .:DIVED ,. - ''22017 - c^-�-^,-^-"!-c�aa^4,1-4,...,..-,--,,,,,44,,,,,,-,:‘,-,-,,,,,,---- .� F r'E"'x,*,r � ate. ,. . . -;<, 1 . 4k,) '*: -,,, ..:'''' C:3 I,'\' I� v Imo, r:li ' ,, . 04 it ...7„..3-n {_9 Lig Lake C • • ": ce " + ; ,„!r :: -.a- `°` , , 1 0 ,� ��. , ''oi a -� •, 1 ` J - . �.. `" ' s• ''• r la I Proposed = +, i_ ' l' - , , is: .,a servation Area 0 .� �. r • . ,,,,, MEN• • alma I A "Op 4J , 7, ',..' •:\ Is •"'• 1 . ' r 1.!:'''',::''''' `' .... ''''- ' 7-' - WaV:'. r (k; -. Wetlands ( 2 ' \ , -',. '44k*j.''''' .''' , '''‘ i( \ • A4r. a t �� L r . t..‘‘-':.. .,l'.\:. 14! �h ' • . - . :fit 4—741' p -e•,-- . •. Vfr,,,, ``..-, . . sA. . .- ". _ N'� - -''� • • 12 • r +mak , `/' • �r • . . �•• .. ,,, 1 r. Li Wetlands i j. l r" / '• �` :y f . ` _ °;� • • } ,y J fit..-- �,y ..: �r T r' 1 I ! k¢ • { fi 4 Nolor, _ . - .. tib. i• h e rr Y _ . Wetlands •EoratW L----'''''°-- ;40010110,...... , , . , Q 1 Orono Public Golf Course 2tdia,etee wdz o3.2z.i� ally gn khe t� w SKETCH PLAN MO MED orxxxn is `Sambatek P / It I ', y/ �� MAR z 2017 f- __ - ! \ 1-__. / / CIN OF ORONO -j r ..,- ,r,„,,,,,,•-• „, . 1 ire • t..r....--.. - Mao' ' .-N AM* �--' ;. \�'. 2 re \ ♦ \\ j / 4 � \ \ -/' ( \ \ t. \\ // - ,, N \ \ N \.yer Ste • \\1 i ! i\ / 4, (': N ,J�` \ \ is.J*t_y4 �'t. ), ,,,/ 41re 13_._ ./".--:. 1 s' r 1, 4 `t\\ j it f• >i t - - ,/ / , ii � V di 4 1 // y C4. io, // / . i / ___) , ._ / ';'2 f _ 1f ? Vie' * /// .\- ..--- 1: 1 1 ii R,: _,, I 1 1�lET DENSITY GC�!"FJT4T`0\ - GROSS AREA: 39A AC. 1 WETLAND AREA: 19.0 AC. \ - t WETLAND EVER AREA: 3.1 AC. \\ ""'1 �+'" `� i WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK: OSAC. ` e `� - - - CONSERVATION AREA: 2.0 AC. II 1.48 \ M"1 .'/ ■ NET AREA: 2 1 ...-^-'" 14.5 AC. N �% / I PROPOSED UNITS: 150 UNITS N NET AREA: 145 AC• y = NET DENSITY 1.03 U/AC. L_ ./._j / i sem' + - \ . / . j` NOTE: HOMES SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT ARE ARE CONCEPTUAL AND ARE SUBJECT CHANGE ORCARD SILL OF ORONO - NET DENSITY COMPUTATION # 3932 SC, :, . lee 07-162011YMCA 4 GORDON JAMES Et _ 11 1 • 4?.• ---civ City of Orono ,., ,,,,=... - --,•..., IA ist-L Rot-. .. , ll 1 RR 17."'''''l / 0 0 '-„1..., • . •.:-..;.---1 1 i RR•ita ' i_____---;„. . 14-4,,,f . 4''" - ' !II vv_i ._,--1-• Safi" Ar117i '------'2131,15-3' - :‘ " / 1••- .11*• '•''''" "r I I 4' 3- . •-•:•- '* ....,_, .,-;.k.,.! ,. , ,. , .- tkl? 1.-.- ,--) ,,.., , - ,,,,...• .i:.).A..,-:i ' --K- ... ...___:•"_:;7_—_,...,..ffs-710 I -1 , i 1. .--, ..___RR•111' . 71 . / _ ZONING MAP _y--1/1 ILAI ..__I , •/. t 1 - . -.1.4,j , , ... mic--- - •- ---- - I.ii,-.. .-_-,4=--.' I! '....i.,_t i- ---r--1., - -- ' . -- . ._ .-1_Pz' .i AI' • s , ,- . „.--...— 1 , •--- ., i,---- - . ippi .,:,A:,... ? , .,-,,. , I I . ,,,p• • •' I.- ••• , —1 Iiiialli 1 • . - All, —---- -- - 'It$1 '1 ;"RR ii A 1-1-.• • '- el I, LONG LAKE J - . R--i lift ' - f: L' .1A ZONING DISTRICTS Rural Residential ,..—. .,11 t SI , Business U• MIN .__1- '.;%,:,. :it.;.--"/". • 4., '4 .: , . ,., --' 1 RR-1A-One Fartily Ftural Residential-5 Acres 1, --. , . .1. ..:. ..:., j,,,ILI__ ' '-,,...._ '"'"'"-FarL-_,,,____L,,_,_ 11::.....,•.•, • '.1 :"1-...-- '':',... •'t-; .....ispro i '- ':'- ,i• , _ . - -c . ) flit_ . . t.. i .. .. ..ii6.1 tF. .11 As . - - df.71- -111 111 ,C fed•IL: l 1 ' B1-Retail Sales B2-Lakeshore . _ 1 1 RR-1B One- Fly Rural Residential-2 Acres Lakeshore Residential • ,-.e",--• '''`:.1...r-:--,,, • 1 R -1B i ' r-, ..% de w-skir,,,,-: 83-Shopping Center I I LFt-1A-One Family Lakaehore Residential-2 Acres , iii • - ,IlikV ___,11','?••:„ • - _ --'- •.....- !... .-1.-_=•;:..:;;,,..i_.:,._:,..l_.4. . k '':,.,,,, I --- : a . -..., ': LR-1B-One Family Lakeshore Residential-1 Acre i ,.,i r p!..4.115-... •., ,, ,,,,J.,...thl..:,,.,, .;11 i..I A.:' .,. - a _...‘ .7 1,4.r_t.' . ' ' „yr'1;21 11 41. _...". ..,"->ii•lip 4--„i'Llst6 ,,. 4 , .:: ' .2.<• ‘. i ,' B4-Office/Professional Or. ' - ; • Eirr----i ' ii;- , . R-- BS-Linked Nelobborhood . .. . .. - r I . •:I•Trilie, M.& LR-1C-One Family Lakeshore Fbssidential-1/2 Acre . -LIOIF I.. '" .L.4.4_.;....L.-.......1.....r__,JA,,,..r...,,_12_ ...:r,..____,--,:-iil_La.i., .,... . ..."._ ,...y4.4„.. _.1._to '',.... i ' ___:* 1% " , _ , sir g8.Highway Cortyriarrial - : . 1 t..1 AP,',-I' I' l• LR C-1-One Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistnct-1/2 Acre 11- iir;"/ ' __/ TIT. 'r---1 • ..- • • • r ' t..".. ..1. ' '-'i OH 4.,,, J--1.- " lon.- .-6.- . ?met-i. -1.,......, ‘...••I ..z. , -- ... ''''. . 1 Ilr B-8 PUD-Highway Commercia;PLID .- - . • Residential •--'i 1.. II fl ., ,.. .....„.. .D _.......,...- .6-.. I et' '' .i..„ , • - t j... ----tf,LT I ....1-- i. --; Industrial L ,., ! R-1A-One Family Residential-1 Acre ' •-- , . l• .i..•.3 .. ;7-- ,I-Ir rz_ . ,----...... -t, ..., . -:•,-.II ii / _i -4 _ .9 *Ink „...i.. , ' , ..,,, /,.. I EL:I 1-Industrial l ...-.7 . > ,,.,. , . -,...c-r. .41.*_,:- ., .e.j. ‘.1±r1111._:„..7.,...._ -. ,:tm. ----i -- .. R-1B-Dna Family Residential-1/2 Acre l i .1 I ROCRN410fIll , • 7-7_:1 1014i))'' %•1 --: ' •'l 'ti 0= . ..1. -1-7-':---' ' , Planned Unit Development . ;rt. 1 E— i -,- -t•-. , ---‘4,.; ::. rfri-1--- c-1 ..1\_2; Seasonal Recreational :-- ,..__- RPUD•Residential Planned Unit Devaiopment ._ .._ • -5..;...-isi.• 1 --c--' - — - . - ','' i ' .. , t A i 1 . ! RR-1B PUD :-i '. 1--147i I= STUBBS BAT ,.,.. ..1.1.7.1'151.1.1: !,...1.----- 1-1,411_Ii'-. r .. "*)-2 _ _.-• il i-„ :.__ --- -: ' N i -- ...._ . ...... ...1 PRD-Planned Residential Development ...., t ,ff., -.)2'-f: .. -4- rr- 1 I _LA I.-. '', i',,-• ...... .,.....„, R Ft•1R 71(H. '1,...,..,,,„% ., c.- , -, .,„ ,.. .__, /' 1,.. ./. • g.....1 4 r-. z..--- • 1 , i_q ,_ _,,.. 1,7- ..... - -e.*i..i -P71, r;7 ;ri:i ) I -H........00.1-4r;:. .?1 -= .1.." :44,.....'71> f -.) ,..c.,..--,...-. .,,im& oth. The Zoning Designations on this map are a representation of a combination of maps, ordinanancas and City Code requirements which rroke up the complete City of Orono I 11-2' ,..„..wit•1 - - •'.'' `11 '''''' ' _I--,- 11. .-' --'1-,t-.'", ”i .- '-,- 1 J W E .WPzil. r 1 piime Boundary Zoning Regulations. Information on Planned Devebpment is ayaitabie at City Hatt.AN Zoning requirements and Zoning designations on spec properties are subject to change. .7H \ I !--I, ,416, -Nt .., 'Oa MANN*Ll .ii tivAL 4.,i , ,1 LI ;t ' ..6.- i./iK-7 •4 ."'' ''' ....t. BROWNS • 141 1,•_,,. fil ." Section Boundary Water Body For updated Zoning 1 nfonnabon,please contact the City of Orono Planning&Zoning Department at planning@ci.orono.mmus or mit(952)249-4620 A7,.iff7f:)_jj I-,_ __, : .i -- , , _. . s I c: Cly Boundary I• ''•-__I -.1"_ . .•-• r" . ir . /f • f -ftk...1.;, 72; ..: • . . „.f......: e. . . tt. ' , . , ,r- ' • ' '-':• , -, 1 ---------- 7A — (c,,,q,-ier... ..• / , .)....„. ._,, ,,,i.,,,....,,,,... ',,.• ,: , . . . . , , , • ,,,....-'--. t.; , 'A . % L IS•1 C•41 ,,,... „ 0/ .. i if; .4 „... .,I.,/7 • oplikk- .l. .„ . ,..14 •• '•,,36.1t‘. ...,ol(..'4,-,/ ////,- :,.,:../1_,_r?.... :,... „...... , INSET 1 — -1 i• •--r-- ----- ...„ \\_........ ., . , -- , r----- ../ ..--. -,....;..;.:7.1 #sq....t.. .. ,....... : , • d • ! WEST IRV i BAY B.Boulder Dr 1 ,, '11*!,•:.-4--- • i- ! ' . 1,..i. nr :7' I I 1.4rE C.Sandstone La D.Stonebay Dr 1.(W-.62LaY PKW1 _ t n is-- .: 714*-.-:•:. • . • . i I MiNNSTONAA E.Cascade la •RR-1B r--.7-' -7:....... V... i 1 ' 1 i t:' 1 I .t. ......w........t 4........„ . Feet i .„ ..- F.Sandstone a , ---- -* •PIM•-'• - w ; 4.--:.......s.,..-7-777.:.•:....... .....—..:". ...::: ' G.Cobblestone CI ' r - - "r L. ,....______•1 .. e . . . 3000 1500 0 3000 - I 1 L----i ',---' -1--. 4111MMIII.j ,' „'. .• r • ' \. , Z. 1 C7.--——,...—._, MI r' 4 • I INSET 2 , , .44 ------ -t------ .1-.•,,:---- = —.‘.._ I i ! ' ' •.. ,—. .,r.C. 4 , i _--Tr.r".1"! '"7" - , ) , •—•-• ....,---... • ••i r.-:.! . .- . ..1..;_.Li....,:a..... i „ • ,..i '-'`F• - .. ........ ci:::- 4-70.:;,:-.9• , . •• IL • . - -, . . ... /, lillik°°*---- ,•--4s\:-'12146*' •d • Raorattun 1 . I 111111illeit' POW I Lalt. '''. t : 6p. °A,% I (UMW r:// r•isti.r" a-ii - .-------- i imulli. . . i.„.„ •••',4-1:- ffir--r- —. ,...= .. . 1 -41111111i.t - ,.',..;;' W alk40-71vrii B...-ii 64 , t R•1- • %..., 1 ! rI , , .44110 . I LR sT 1.-• L.R.113 ../... # 3932 * .. . 4 LR.t C , ... 1 (.1)., ,,,: '? • , 4- t — • • -vi„ :. MARCH 2011 K:\139\139MAP\GISDATA\Projects\Zoning.mxd _ _____ -- ----- . 1----- - — - - 1.11 c Jill_ mow■.�5f'�,1��"� - t _� �� ,...,0„,lEr `�:��tti �,•• �- _ 1.== ..„...5illi 2030 Land Use Plan �`- �,--- :i__.4i NOW i� • 1 ° City of Orono ti F �- - I Minnesota 1Z,0. � l'• = _ 1. 1 ......1. -.„,,...._(.. L.______i • t 1 to i- w ,_ ._ gm,. UseCategories„ � reLand I1�1 .4�� .. _, • ' Rural(1 unit/5 ac) Future i_ ! _ � � ■ ... { •- _ L_-1 Rural Residential(1 unit/2 ac) •�- - __.. i .� _-.'�,. : ul':� I� — __ �� 1 J Low Density Residential(0.5-2 units/ac) �r ��� - �- �r -— - . - J Low-Medium Density Residential(2-3 units/cc) r � -� H _ — _ __ _ ,. i- Medium Dens' Residential 3-7 units/cc =FAIN El lgm 5. - - "11����1 �� �`rilln _l •Val,rte �'° _ (` i $117 '11 Medium-High Density Residential(7-10 units/ac) 1 L_ High Density Residential(10-15 units/ac) i 17 f �� \\ _3 �� `�I , �___ - - Mixed Use Residential(6-15 units/ac) I oi- ti -7,;' 1 � ���;a Commercial ��fj► �2y r Industrial _ Office �- �i '` \moi / f lilli!��1 : i nN i :■ I j . .. - Park,Recreational,and Open Space �`b°� .,...r.,,,, ..----r‹.- ' i Institutional °°, �”' I—_''? r !tit ���Proposed MUSA 1 �o®o °'/!�°� Open Water 0 ,_ fez3 f `: ." syo�- Parte! oa,.o - � `` �°4�o� 4 Railroad i wdill I City Limits u +�.�.ra:a.�► • ! t i i .*-(\ c, Qo 1_ talo 1 0 4,000 8,000 r °°O°°© ��_~ Feet „ -.`7' o<> !rte ©OO y_.-_. , D°°© mo•L•••••LII/I/) ' •NOtTMb/lY All OK1ATla lON.4LTANt I, 1110- ®°0 o...,?rini rat.wsL+io n ir_s��:„. .r.,�,.. ®°O® Source: Bonestroo,Northwest Associated 1d °0ocefler�eoc� Consultants. Date:June 16,2010. i __ - MAP 3B-6 # 93R 1g ' c uij 141:8, 1 ix Mt pi a C_ ♦ fes j- Sanitary Sewer System ii, kir "ji ._____ AO, . SP'. Ilkr-tCity of Orono NGP.40 LSY _ lam - ------ - - - ---- Holl •d., , _ - .1111,11 . -1..---,--------:- ---- --- �-. - �- �rrf -� ��� Minnesota :LT'' I � LVD ' �� Er- - , J 1 � LAIC g I LYD Manhole . d - Lift Station LONGA6 Sanitary Sewer LAKE ,..0,4G 1111110 - Forcemain - City •000r Forcemain - Met Council • 1 i j - - City Limits 4111 Area within the 2008 MUSA iiii a" „a AI wil, =--i m _ k _..,..._. ..,,,,,_ iiiMinmismm 21 „ c WI r �' o Proposed Additions to the 2008 MUSA LONG LAKE , '' w ,� •. 1 PUBLIC ROADS ' -‘ P .• W a1 ply4„'.. Private Roads , Ala M.;.,,.-r m 4•0_ N. -o'II.,__., -' 1 •s'-'° i L-60 Pillital -' -71-1-- -1*-4 -. - ki.,_ .,.........0000°....141prer b. \ oto.o oa � �- e6- w polt1 `'�' _ E '0” 1*----- -4111MLAbbi. ttalties.> .: *p. 1.001p17,t -:411M11111111111111111MmIlli. , +mime _ 000 0111.7" 1` 0 1000 2000 .fie” I 1111 . ;Ill I -Ig Scaieinfeet is-10- �`` 1 WA 6 TA \1 ,, MCESR4 + i • O 011i t7 P,� �a � i l -it'Itti f:i At. Bonestroo I7N, o '',Act l i , , # g 2 ::1 R ,, Tip 3MAP 4C-4fai � B,vlN� •�,f iris' Quality Overlay District Tiers C , ;IreaN•.* 4jv4,e® raw,N,,,... Tier 1 ._._AIL-- - -.IOW_ _ 1 ' Tier 2 al " relitio_ , 1► II ,ter/ .�► -, .„- 1 _L NAS '` r► r 01111111 MINI Tier 3 NIP -Ain li , 11. 1.--L-3,-- ili 1111 Tier 4 • , , efiromIIIIIIw .„ Tier Exempt 4800 A 4400 8 4000 C 3600 U 3200 E 2800 F 2400 G 2000 H 1600 1 1200 3 800 K 400 L 0 ' PC Exhibit D lzoo— - . . i� ^�� -.. ; CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan PC Exhibit E RURAL LAND USE RURAL RESIDENTIAL LAND USE Rural residential development will be limited to single family dwellings, with a minimum dry-buildable lot size of at least two acres. When the total number of forecast dwelling units in the defined Rural Area(i.e.the 2-acre and 5-acre zoning districts), approximately 1685 units by year 2030, is divided into the total Rural Area acreage of Orono (8543 acres) the gross rural density becomes one unit per five acres. The extensive amounts of wetlands and public open space that occupy Orono's defined Rural Area result in the absence of substantial contiguous tracts for development, which in turn is a primary reason why extension of urban services and urban densities into this region is neither practical nor economical. The planned rural density of at least 2.0 dry-buildable net acres per dwelling, when coupled with requirements for identifying two on-site sewage treatment system sites for each developing residential lot, will permanently support on-site water supply and sewage treatment systems. The planned rural density will not overload or adversely affect the natural wetlands and storm water filtration system so necessary to the preservation of Lake Minnetonka's water quality. The resulting population densities will require no major changes to the public road system. The planned rural density should maintain to the greatest extent possible the historic character of this rural area with land remaining in parcels large enough to permit quasi-agricultural activities as well as residential uses. Because extensive, expensive urban services are not necessary, the planned rural density will allow rural development of two-acre lots to be economically competitive with urban development in other suburban areas. This preserves the rural land owner's rights to use and/or develop his land, as well as preserving the widest choice of lifestyle possible for Orono residents. Certain restrictions on rural residential development will continue to be imposed because of the existence of numerous wetlands and drainageways to Lake Minnetonka, steep slopes, soil type variations and other natural characteristics. These restrictions will continue to minimize the need for expensive public services such as municipal sanitary sewer, municipal water, major improvements in public transportation, and most important, public storm water sewer and treatment facilities. All rural lands abutting lakeshore will be subject to the same protective restrictions as urban lands in addition to the lower land use density of the area. Municipal sewer will be provided to rural density lakeshore properties where feasible, but sewer extensions will not result in the ability to develop such properties at greater densities than 1 unit per 2 acres. City of Orono Community Management Plan 2008-2030 Page 3B-45 CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan Orono's rural residential density will not be increased to more than one dwelling per two dry-buildable acres because of the potentially adverse environmental impact and because of the increased need for costly urban services. At the same time, however, Orono's rural residential density will not be decreased below the established average because the resulting increase in acreage per unit would destroy the ability of the rural residents to economically maintain their property. Orono's defined Rural Area includes properties categorized in the Land Use Plan as Low Density Residential (0.5-2 units per acre) because they are within the MUSA. Non-MUSA categories within the defined Rural Area are depicted in the Plan as: RURAL RESIDENTIAL- 1 DWELLING PER TWO ACRES This is the typical rural residential density developed and planned to be permanently self-supporting in all of Orono's Rural Area. No rural density will be allowed greater than one unit per two acres except for those existing residences in existing rural housing clusters that were originally developed many decades ago and in most cases have been provided with municipal sewer within the past 3 decades. New rural developments may include housing clustering when environmental and site conditions allow, provided the overall density within the development conforms to these requirements, and provided that all sewage treatment needs can be adequately met. RURAL- 1 DWELLING PER FIVE ACRES Although the typical two acre rural residential density is appropriate for the entire Rural Area, the northwest corner of the City is planned for a lower density of one unit per five acres. The citizens in this area in the 1970's verbalized a traditional desire for more intensive rural and quasi-agricultural activities which require and support the larger minimum lot sizes. Thus, historic land use and not environmental concerns have determined this land use classification. RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND USE There is no separate designation for agricultural land use since this activity is appropriate and is still occurring to a minor extent within the rural residential areas. Performance standards will be maintained to assure that active agricultural activities such as livestock farming do not occur on unduly small parcels of land, but that they may occur anywhere within the rural area where sufficient land area provides buffers for neighboring residents as well as adequate protection for the environment. City of Orono Community Management Plan 2008-2030 Page 3B-46 CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES Orono's Land Use Plan is based upon the following goals and policies which in turn have been actively developed and fostered by Orono residents over the last 35 years. LAND USE GOALS 1. To reinforce Orono's environmental protection commitment, with special emphasis on the protection of Lake Minnetonka and Orono's other lakes. 2. To maintain the historic identity and character of the separate urban and rural neighborhoods. 3. To provide appropriate places for a variety of local residential, educational, recreational, industrial and neighborhood commercial activities. 4. To protect neighborhoods from encroachment of incompatible land uses. 5. To coordinate Orono's land uses with that of neighboring communities. 6. To coordinate land uses and developed density with the financial and physical capabilities of the City and its citizens to provide the necessary public facilities and services. GENERAL LAND USE POLICIES 1. The boundary between Orono's Urban and Rural Areas is fixed. Orono's Urban Area will not be strictly defined by the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary or future expansions of the MUSA boundary but will be fixed by this and the other elements of the Community Management Plan. Orono's defined Urban and Rural Areas are best described by the planned development types and densities. Areas where the the zoned density allows no more than 1 unit per 2 acres is deemed Rural; areas where the zoned density allows more than 1 unit per 2 acres is deemed Urban, Orono's Urban and Rural areas are depicted and fixed by Map 3B-1. City of Orono Community Management Plan 2008-2030 Page 3B-15 CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan 2. The Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) will define the areas of Orono where municipal sewers may be extended. The MUSA will include all parts of Orono's Urban Area and may include parts of Orono's Rural Area where appropriate. The MUSA boundary in Orono will define areas where sewer exists or where it may be extended to serve existing or new development, but will not define the areas where general urban services will be provided, and it will not strictly define the boundary between higher density and low-density development. 3. Orono's land use plans will be based upon environmental protection policies. Land use and development must assure the conservation, protection and preservation of sensitive environmental resources in accordance with the goals and policies of the Environmental Protection Plan. Land use policies will encourage the wise use and management of natural resources while prohibiting their misuse, abuse, overuse or exploitation. 4. Development density will be limited throughout the city to a level which will not overload the natural surface water drainage and filtration system. Urbanization increases the rate and quantity of surface runoff while decreasing the water quality. Developed land use densities will be determined by comparison between known levels of volume and pollution generation and known marshland capacity for ponding and nutrient assimilation. To the extent that it is practical and feasible, the City will supplement existing natural assimilation capacities with man- made ponding areas, but will not allow increases in development density beyond the defined rural density as a result of such supplementation. 5. The wetlands and marshlands of the city will be protected and preserved as wildlife habitats, as unique open spaces, and as the only economically practical and truly effective method of flood protection and storm water runoff filtration. Wetlands, drainageways and floodplains will be protected from encroachment and from alteration or destruction by filling, grading, excavation or drainage. Wherever possible, the City will acquire open space and flowage easements for conservation of these lands. 6. Protection of lake resources will allow reasonable access, use and enjoyment while preventing overcrowding and excessive encroachment. In conformance with Orono's Shoreland Management regulations, Orono will prohibit overly dense development within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka. Lake use regulations will be promoted to limit excessive boat density and overuse of sensitive bays. Land use regulations will continue to be developed and fine-tuned to provide reasonable control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment. City of Orono Community Management Plan 2008-2030 Page 3B-16 CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan 7. Lake shorelines will be protected from alteration. Shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach or floodplain, are sensitive environmental features with significant impact on lake water quality,aesthetic values and land use function. These same factors act to draw development which can be destructive if not properly regulated. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap shoreline protection will be encouraged. Where determined to be feasible and practical, alternative natural methods of shoreline protection other than rip-rap will be promoted. Excavation, filling and other grade changes at or near the shoreline for the sole purpose of accommodating development will be discouraged. 8. Development or alteration of floodplain will be restricted. Most of the City's identified floodplains are located along the shoreline or within designated marshlands and will be protected by regulations applicable to those areas. In addition, where floodplains do exist on otherwise dry buildable land, construction, filling or alteration will be strictly controlled so as to avoid flow restrictions, to avoid flood level increases on other properties, and to avoid costly flood damage or pollution dangers. 9. Natural resource investigation will be required as part of all development proposals. This will include topographical information,soil analysis, drainage plans, vegetation plans, erosion control measures and similar site data related to each project,whether public or private. 10. Orono's land use plan will promote the preservation of open space, light and air. Sufficient open spaces will be provided in each neighborhood and on each lot to prevent overcrowding and to ensure adequate light,air and recreation for all residents. 11. Private stewardship of land and resources is preferable to inflexible public control. Private ownership, maintenance and stewardship of the land, including open space and many types of improvements, is favored over public ownership as being in the best and most beneficial interests of the property owner and the public,providing for more intimate, responsive and economical land management. 12. All land owners must have equal land use opportunities. No land owner should be denied the right to develop his land by any staged growth, land banking or no-growth policy, provided the development can be accomplished within the performance standards, policies and requirements of the Community Management Plan. City of Orono Community Management Plan 2008-2030 Page 3B-17 CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan 13. Future development must enhance the community. Land development should respect and enhance neighboring properties and existing developed character of the neighborhood and the City, preserving the value of the land and the integrity, stability and beauty of the community. 14. Future development must enhance the environment. Land development should respect and enhance the unique natural features of the site and the general environmental assets of the community. Preservation of natural views, vegetation, drainage and general respect for unique site features always produces more aesthetic results and lasting value for the property owner and the community than does wholesale alteration of the landscape or mathematical division to the highest possible density. 15. Physical improvements required to accommodate new development must be provided by the developer. Whenever required, improvements must be provided by the developer. Because the City has limited staff and limited bonding potential, physical improvements such as roads, drainage and utilities required to accommodate new subdivisions or development should be designed, financed and installed directly by the benefited developer as a precondition to increased land use density. In addition,this philosophy includes developer responsibility for special fire protection equipment or devices in the case of unusual land uses or building configurations, and/or special security services in the case of unusual public safety situations. 16. All physical improvements must conform to city standards. Physical improvements related to health, safety or community sys4ems such as roads, pathways, drainage or utility systems will be designed, located and constructed to uniform, City-established standards to ensure proper functioning and compatibility with overall City plans. 17. Developers must dedicate lands required for public use. Land subdivision or any development that results in increased land use density, and hence increased demand for municipal services, will be expected to include public dedication of lands necessary for additional road rights of way, parks,playgrounds, trails, open space, ponds or storm water holding areas whenever such facilities are directly used by the subdivided land or required by such density increase. If the individual development's density increase or impact is relatively small, or the layout is not conducive to public land dedication, then in lieu of lands the developer may be required to contribute funds for the municipal purchase of such lands or the improvement of such facilities proportionate to the cumulative effect of such density increase from multiple small developments. City of Orono Community Management Plan 2008-2030 Page 3B-18 CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan 18. No land will be developed unless its location and characteristics are suitable for the proposed use in accordance with this plan. Land to be developed must be of such size, character and location that it can be safely used for the intended purpose without danger to health,without peril from fire, flood or other occurrence and without undue impact upon neighboring properties. No land will be permitted to be subdivided or built upon which is held unsuitable by the City for the proposed use because of flood hazards, inadequate drainage, soil formations with severe limitations for development, severe erosion potential, unfavorable topography, inadequate water supply or sewage disposal capabilities, or any other feature likely to be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the future residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community. URBAN LAND USE POLICIES 1. The majority of Orono's urban area will be reserved for residential land use. Orono's urban residential neighborhoods will provide the opportunity for a variety of housing types and price ranges. Many urban residences will be intimately associated with the lake shoreline and will be subject to density restrictions because of sensitive environmental conditions. Medium and High Density multi-family residential uses will be limited to locations near existing shopping and transportation services, but will not be appropriate within 1,000 feet of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka except when in close proximity to the Navarre commercial area abutting CR 15 or CR 19. 2. Limited commercial areas will be provided for neighborhood service businesses. The primary function of Orono's commercial areas will be to provide those retail, commercial and service businesses which are directly necessary to serve Orono's urban and rural residents. Commercial development will be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer and adequate transportation are available. Commercial development of a regional nature (i.e. "big box" retail) which would increase traffic, particularly on collector streets serving low density residential development, will be discouraged. Mixed Use Residential and Commercial Development is targeted for select traditionally commercial areas to provide a healthy base of customers for these limited commercial areas. City of Orono Community Management Plan 2008-2030 Page 3B-19 CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan 3. Lakeshore commercial areas will be provided for public access and limited lake-user services. Orono's residents and other lake users require lake access, fishing supplies, boat service and boat repair facilities which are unique to our location on a recreational development lake. Orono's Land Use Plan will provide locations for such special-purpose businesses where appropriate from both the land use and the lakeside environmental standpoint. No use or location will be permitted to adversely affect the lake quality or the public's general usage of the lake. All lakeshore commercial is to be limited to areas where full urban services, including municipal sanitary sewer and adequate transportation are available. 4. The City will encourage private unification and coordination of the existing commercial areas. Unplanned strip commercial developments will be discouraged. Coordinated projects designed to aesthetically enhance,'unify and identify the business areas will be encouraged. 5. Future industrial development will be limited to the area of the existing Orono industrial park. No other location in Orono combines the availability of transportation and public utilities with remoteness from sensitive environmental features. In addition, this land use is entirely consistent with Long Lake's neighboring industrial development. 6. Commercial and industrial development will not be permitted to adversely affect neighboring residential property. The location, scale and types of commercial and industrial development will be controlled so as not to encroach upon or adversely impact the primary residential land uses in Orono. Wherever possible, natural land forms or buffers will be required between different land uses. 7. Public urban services must be available for all future commercial, industrial and urban-residential development. Commercial, industrial and urban-density residential uses will be permitted only where municipal sanitary sewer, adequate transportation,police and fire protection services are available. In addition, commercial, industrial and multi-family residential development will be permitted only where a municipal water system is available for adequate water supply and fire protection. 8. Urban development will utilize the capacity of existing public facilities. New land uses and development will be allowed to infill existing vacant properties within the urban service area consistent with environmental limitations and with the existing or planned capacities of water, sewer, drainage transportation and recreational facilities. New development will not be permitted to overburden these services at the expense of the existing users. New urban development will not be permitted if it requires additional unplanned local or regional facilities capacity. City of Orono Community Management Plan 2008-2030 Page 3B-20 CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan 9. The existing urban area will not be expanded. Orono's Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. Except in limited cases, as defined by this plan, the urban service area will not be expanded into the defined rural area and urban services and facilities will not be extended into the rural area for purposes of fostering or allowing increased development density in those areas. 10. The design and density of urban development will be controlled to assure protection of light, air and solar access for neighboring properties. Requirements for minimum lot size, amounts of open space, minimum yard setbacks, and maximum building heights will be designed to assure protection of these values for all urban residents. 11. A significant amount of natural woodlands and open space will be retained on each property. Retention of the natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property. 12. Land use standards will limit the impact of urban encroachment on Lake Minnetonka. Minimum lot width will space out docks and structural encroachments while increasing areas of natural vegetation. Lake use regulations promulgated by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and supplemented with City regulations if necessary will limit the number of boats per property and the amount of public waters available for private docking and boat storage. 13. Retention of natural vegetation will limit the impact of urbanization as visible from the lake. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with prohibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopes and retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. 4.°)Ir RURAL LAND USE POLICI ES 1. Orono's rural area will be reserved for permanent low-density residential land use. Orono's rolling rural area is not suitable for commercial agriculture. Likewise, the delicate balance of storm water nutrient loading vs. marshland assimilative capacity precludes expansion of the urban service area without major environmental problems for Lake Minnetonka_ Therefore, the ideal land use for that portion of Orono located outside of the Urban Service Area is the planned low-density rural residential land use. Commercial and industrial uses will not be permitted in the rural area. City of Orono Community Management Plan 2008-2030 Page 3B-21 CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan 2. Orono's rural area provides the opportunity for quasi- agricultural land uses. Greenhouses, orchards, truck farms, riding stables and recreation areas such as large golf courses and park reserves are not possible in more crowded urban areas but they are compatible with rural residential properties. Thus, the total commercial activity of Orono is broader and more varied than if the City were all urban or all rural. 3. Rural density is limited by natural conditions. Development of rural Orono is naturally limited by a number of conditions including extensive wetlands, steep slopes and areas of high water table, which factors influence building locations and transportation options as well as the location and spacing of on-site sewage treatment systems which rely on soil treatment of sewage effluent. 4. The existing rural area will not be urbanized. Orono's Community Management Plan is not a staged growth plan. Except in limited cases as identified in this plan, the urban area will not be expanded into the rural area. Municipal urban services will not be extended into the rural area or across open,rural lands. Rural land uses and rural land use density will be maintained at a level to ensure that private on-site sewer systems will operate satisfactorily and that rural wetlands and drainageways will not be overloaded with storm water nutrient pollution. 5. Rural land uses and densities do not require urban services. Urban services are not compatible with rural land use. Extension of certain urban services, such as extensive public road maintenance or municipal sewer or water cannot be economically justified or easily provided to developments in rural areas or at rural densities. 6. Rural land uses do not require municipal sewer service. Orono's soil, topography and low-density rural land use provide the ingredients necessary to assure safe, adequate, permanent on-site sewage treatment and waste water disposal without hazard to ground water, surface water or the public health. Extension of sewer service to properties in the rural area will be avoided, except when necessary to protect the public health, or to avoid or eliminate negative impacts to surface and groundwaters. Future expansions of the sewer system into the Rural Area to solve existing neighborhood sewage treatment problems or along the lakeshore to avoid or eliminate potential negative impacts on lake water quality, will not result in a reclassification of those neighborhoods from Rural to Urban. Expansion of the sewer system into the Rural Area will not result in the provision of additional urban services, nor will it result in changes to allowed development densities. City of Orono Community Management Plan 2008-2030 Page 3B-22 CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan 7. Rural development will be subject to proven on-site sewage treatment capability. Future development in the rural area will be contingent upon the developer providing prior technical evidence that the site contains sufficient suitable land for all development, an acceptable primary drainfield area, and reserved space for at least one alternate drainfield area. The zoning area requirements for rural Orono will therefore be based upon minimum areas of dry buildable land exclusive of roadways, wetlands,streams or areas of high water table. 8. Rural development must be self-supporting. Al 1 future development in the rural area will be required to be proven self-supporting for the intended use, especially in terms of water supply, sewage treatment and internal improvement maintenance, so as to prevent extension of costly urban services into the rural area. 9. Rural land use densities will allow maximum retention of private woods and open space. Low rural densities will accommodate homesites without affecting the traditional vistas of open fields and woods. The retention of these woodlands and marshlands will then assure permanent habitat for our abundant wildlife. Public open space will be provided on a large-scale or Park Reserve basis, but neighborhood or mini-parks are unnecessary because of the large amount of available privately owned and maintained open space. 10. Rural wetlands and marshland will be maintained and protected for surface water retention and filtration. As total population in the watershed increases, the total requirement for storm water filtration will increase. Orono's rural land use plans will protect all of our rural wetlands and marshland for future use as retention ponds and nutrient filters including the capability of accepting recycled urban storm water for increased nutrient filtration. 11. Rural lakeshore areas will have dual environmental protection. The low-density residential land uses will automatically reduce environmental pressures on the shoreline. In addition, the rural areas will be subject to the same shoreline protection performance standards as the urban areas, including minimum setbacks, green belts, clear-cutting prohibitions and lake use regulations. Taken together, these factors should preserve to a large extent the original appearance of Orono's rural shoreline as seen from the lake. 12. Rural lakeshore areas within the Shoreland and within the MUSA will be provided with municipal sewer service upon request. Existing residences within the designated Shoreland Overlay District and within the MUSA for which municipal sewer service is requested shall be provided with municipal sewer. New residential development of such properties at City of Orono Community Management Plan 2008-2030 Page 3B-23 CMP Part 3B. Land Use Plan the planned and zoned densities will be provided with municipal sewer at the request of the developer. However, this policy will not preclude development of such areas using fully conforming Individual Sewage Treatment Systems. LAKESHORE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE POLICIES Although Orono's lakeshore has a wide range of diversity in lot size and home size, the predominant character of Orono's lakeshore is natural. This is due to much of the lakeshore being historically developed as large estate lots with homes set back a substantial distance from the lakeshore, or being developed as moderate homes on moderate lots leaving substantial open space. The exception to the natural lakeshore is the areas where historically small cottages were built on small lots close to the lakeshore. These cottages in many cases have been updated, remodeled or expanded into year-round homes. The key goal of the City's Comprehensive Plan is to protect Lake Minnetonka, which includes the preservation of the natural character of the lakeshore and the water quality of the lake. As the demand for, and value of, lakeshore property has dramatically increased, so has the pressure to expand or replace small and not so small older homes with much larger homes. This pressure has the potential to substantially alter the natural character of the lakeshore, and the more open and natural environment enjoyed by property owners along much of the lakeshore in Orono. The following policies will guide the City in addressing development on the lakeshore. 1. Lake Minnetonka shall be protected as a natural and recreational resource. 2. The natural character of the lakeshore shall be preserved, and when possible, enhanced. 3. The views and open space currently enjoyed by lakeshore property owners shall be protected. 4. The size of a house to be allowed on a lot shall be determined based on the size of the lot, as well as on the shape and topography of the lot. 5. The increase in massing of structures on the lakeshore shall be limited. City of Orono Community Management Plan 2008-2030 Page 3B-24 ' [iWC.rM�Yl.Mn.c*nA,m"V1w,.Ya•fA'Nc,VM..►W i0•a u. ( IP VAN QIN V....f. ay; uo�1 (31111 9N1)0:10M) alorsrei o ONOCO 0IIuI /� Vyu^ 1Ot ;(-6L.. W. i//'/ //////•'/' I �- �',�,- -„:_ .// /-. _ • „ NOLLYA3731f10XNM OM i/�//// kik( l _-%�--- /i..��_--, \>`' I'..et.,�., --............ - NOLLYA3131/10X001-01; /„.-.)./.4 j//r1/`( `� .5 -• i ii y A /; j+`S ..............et.,,....... ` \ NOLLtlA373 NOO1 139YW9 d9-/)Ll`_---=:-.---.------"_ -7-------"---1.-ii'i �- /I'' , _„i -'''s-* \ ' 39NVIOQlA'13II13WV1Vfid33N033W'//� { `l/��j%'/ '/r -// +1/ S\'.'-./ ' " (�� -` NMOHSSNOLLVA3130Yd9NI011MI11Y:310N-' ,- 7/ii%- j //F ' •/ //• -•-•-'r. "i' :1 //////r - / •'-- N _� -F/ iii/ �'/// / / r /� ,! �` _ ///,-- 4.;,47.17,1 J / ///-- // / / / I /' /• / // i, immmois // /j/��15 '^`�\ \• \ .� �r / /'/ l i' i ice'~'J '• �'/ // 1 // // dt' 4' - - `• tl/ / ' ''' ; : :I, / �/ i �� �'1f31 f / I i �''1 - / j cti ° 1 � �► 1141 I i! `�\ -_-1 /�,%%" SIX ))/ � Q t+�)11 \,� • 1.1" \ *1\N._ 40;01, / / / // T/ J / ! 1/ // // � '�.. � . —..�� �\\ \ ' % 1 ' / ,/ / /� / / , /;/// ////4# ' Ol i ` \\\\ '>>> .1` a : -. ._... / _ ! // •S4• �/,'/ / / , \\ J 1 / le. / ;, .��/;,. , / •/rte. \'/ ,\1\,-.27 ,161)Q 't // pas f /7 /7 7.'# ' -- ...41/744‘V% . ' I/ 1 LI 1 I li 11 i: .. ( 1" ;: ;. 0' .�. `t *//"71'r ,jl /,. , , x1. ,,„00 /.. . 2546\, .. , /4 vrr 11 •r r � 7 ,..1,, in . Iflii/ . / / / / 4' -P; a4,` ' / `, „ �7 I r;'i ! „ /t / , , ..` � , 7-� /. /1 / �/' Mal rj /// ” .0,00.y�'.>0- `__./f~/Ar %_��//' / • ' /, % fill o* a,,**.t. -•—— �e _ fir/ , _ r • ///// / ' r.+ _ _w =moi / �vl/� ,� / iqf %�/ /%. `�'_ '/ //A/ i //i r . / / /e/ / • ��,'� 9 -- -t—Z //lllrll r di ('( / , / 1.'' / . *' r !f7 I I di 1+ •;\ ! / / / // 1 • P/ � ••�i/ Zvi.- —\\\\ `_Mr') I 1,Y . \ ) ) I fit/Ili ( .' l / A,/_ -10 --,.-, �� -'-- \�:. /%rl ii1+ 0 1 ` . 4, / + \\ — • viol / i/ice/if/- -- -. -' _.J • 1 • \ \ I' ... \ / / , Ili..Okt 4W 1,0". v 411111t*,",:::' 1 --3"-e-'" al .0 woo/0 ig,torriP0/0 ) ,/:::.....-. . / I 4::, / N . /;:t• 1.--';,'"' ..-- . kill nLA4t ";%fel / I I , • ,.....-2---,...*ergro ..-• I, p •t ,,•. li,„ s ro:i .7 i mini-.- .--- ..../... / x:.// • . .......-0 . . ....,.. / I \ •---.....------:e.c.-:•-;-<- --,,7.:•,i I N /. ' //f/ t//ii , . ,...,''...''''' c r 11 k i‘ ..0 I . '11* /,/ '' :ie ‘...." - •Z / 4 ci a7 e -.. , e • . ..... )1 1 4-;4 '.40,' 0 ( .• • :I-. \ \ ( !---....-- ...- ... • -..., • \ , ,. 4 \\ / coli,e* z cd-',:,••e• ---..0"r A* \ ' 1.NI\ "It '‘ ,I / 1 \ 1\ 4 \X. fop/ ,',,,.4)„....„,v. ,,,,,4,,,,. \\ ,, ,..„,... ictsz V1011110 Ai, AtIV%. 4W, i /**** )1 t4, X`'k r,. :,, \ \'c \- .. qaC4' 0114-LOW / 1 / \ ,NiOZ37d C / /J ,J r , •�,�. i. I / l � 4p. -: , • r. A \ �7 . / • .01 i . ....;_, S% \\ \ \ ‘‘ ...--,, . 61' ( Pir / h'�,Ir•'il 'l� v`wwois 1 �', goo, •\ ,/•• X-- -.,""-'2.- j� f/ ,/ ir 4 X . ‘ il ` ^. x' 60•ISI SW 7.. Olt*/ 07\ �, / f II .-- 1��9[• 50R i 1 , \\I \ \ ,, �r.�• �• `�/ ,/"../ /- 1/ //j� \ , _..,- _1,00 flpIgp--• 101(il al .• • \ ," ..S IS vie . *. t 1 /si : ` � \ / / - .4.—— �\ / s w um L ! -ow 21111 p \. 1 v ` •+f —X— — L .....,_. .• k ,,e.....t. ........ __:____- _ _ .________...,z,. ......_,:.) / , ......... /......• .._. ,.._7„,.. 7 ...._ , , • . \____ , __ , . _ _ „ .....___ __.. • #, .-, ,, .r-- • -*<.:. --,-. .- .-:7-- -,...-\_._ . . /,/, , , ,.., , .-_4_- __,-.-__.____z_____,, ..,.... -7__: -7-__- ._._.e_ .. . ,,,.... // , \-- __ __ __.,„ _ _/r.,./ , ,/ ,,,,,/,,, _,..,_ • . __• ___ ,.. "- ...._ _ . /,, ,,„ ,__ • , ____ ...:..., .. ..._ _____. ,... \ , , ,„, , , , •026:2.0'..'% �=�, /!.� /��__ '\\\\\ I Ill r/� `\ 1 \ / 1 1 r/Ir a f / • % — / ��- ///ir���\\\\�\\ I\\ I l 1 1 \ ` 1 t // \ / I l l\��; \caw. „:—.,......7----_-_____,_:::::„..-.:--„:„...„:„....:-._______:-......;_,-,,,,,i ) 1 i lif 1 4:01/ ._, L ll�l� � �����/j�/r\\ X:--/) \+`\+14144 \ \ \\ 1 i / 1\_,. -- / r f -J ! / /�^ \/ i / `� �/� I, I \ `I\.\ \� I 1 -- ,/'—, / / / i \ \\ \ \ 1 1! / '\ ) t 1 11 I I \� l l \ b 1 I\ -,-----' r /�\ / �f r 1�v 1 �� f \ /r �, I \1 //1 1� .ly /1 / '�. / //�.�--,\ \\ ( \\r r ! S ! ,1----� ! \ \�, —� ll ! ! \ / .-\ ( / � � �/ ! yr/ 111 I r \ r /// l;—_ \ /� \ ���`. 1 ! r } �� \ ; �-�� —t� / /I/ \ h/� r 1 \ I ,'/%�/A/ — , \� \\\�I \ t r i 1 r �I /,e,• � A—_ _ �/� I 4 I\—�'\ //,/moi // ���\�\�` Ji \ I ! 1 f /i /rte-�- //-� / ( \1 I \ / , /,// / /�-�- \\\, ,.., _, 4\\4 1 r �,, / -/ \ J\ \ 1 `\ \ ��„ -/'j'/�///////,/T. -` �_ N.\�\\\ \ \� -> ;,1',+�, +,! +,' I / \� ,� 1 I'll --a__-;: -max.-: \ \\\. , „N---_,„f� Orono, MN Code of Ordinances Page 1 of 3 PC Exhibit G DIVISION 10. - PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 17-3932 Sec. 78-601. - Purpose. This plan is available to land subdividers subject to council approval, as alternative to standard minimum lot size subdivision of land.The purpose of this plan is to enhance the appearance of neighborhoods through preservation of natural open spaces,to counteract the effects of urban congestion and monotony, to provide cohesive structure to neighborhood design, to offer recreation opportunities close to home, and to aid in improving the welfare in general of city residents. (Code 1984, § 10.32(1)) Sec. 78-602. - Submission of plans. Landowners may submit land subdivision plans for any R district without adherence to minimum lot size requirements for each building lot, provided that the total number of building lots or dwelling units shall not exceed the number of such lots or units permissible under the minimum lot size requirements of the zoning district or districts in which such land is situated. (Code 1984, § 10.32(2)) Sec. 78-603. -Council discretion. Dwelling units permitted may be, at the discretion of the council and subject to the conditions set forth by the council, in detached, attached or multiple-family dwelling structures, subject to the limitations provided for in each zoning district. (Code 1984, § 10.32(3)) Sec. 78-604. -Open space. The dedication, ownership, use and maintenance of open spaces created by the application of a planned residential development shall be subject to conditions deemed necessary by the council to assure the preservation of such open spaces for their intended purposes. (Code 1984, § 10.32(4)) Sec. 78-605. -Dedication of open space. about:blank 4/10/2017 Orono, MN Code of Ordinances Page'2 of 3 The dedication and ownership of the open spaces referred to in section 78-604 may be through: (1) Homeowners'association; (2) Landlord maintenance; (3) Special service district; (4) Municipal ownership; or (5) Any other method deemed appropriate by the council to accomplish the purposes of this plan. (Code 1984, § 10.32(5)) Sec. 78-606. - Site plan. The proposed site plan, including location, spacing and basic design of proposed buildings, street and parking plans,water and sewer(public or private) plans, and plans of open space available for park or recreational purposes shall be submitted for approval by the planning commission and the council. (Code 1984, § 10.32(6)) Sec.78-607. - Hearings. The council may direct that a public hearing be held to review plans governed by this division. (Code 1984, § 10.32(7)) Sec. 78-608. - Final approval. Final approval of plans governed by this division shall not be granted until all conditions set by the council are met, and, further, the council shall not approve any such planned residential development prior to the legally binding establishment of the open space dedication, ownership and maintenance provisions, such provisions to be guaranteed by bonding or other means satisfactory to the council. (Code 1984, § 10.32(8)) Sec. 78-609. -Subdivision requirements. about:blank 4/10/2017 ' Orono,MN Code of Ordinances Page 3 of 3 All provisions of subdivision procedure established by chapter 82, except as modified in this division, shall govern applications under this plan. (Code 1984,§ 10.32(9)) Secs.78-610-78-620.- Reserved. about:blank 4/10/2017