Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet 02-15-2023Planning Commission 1 of 2 February 15, 2023 CITY OF PLYMOUTH AGENDA Regular Planning Commission February 15, 2023, 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. PUBLIC FORUM—Individuals may address the Commission about any item not contained on the regular agenda. A maximum of 15 minutes is allotted for the Forum. If the full 15 minutes are not needed for the Forum, the Commission will continue with the agenda. The Commission will take no official action on items discussed at the Forum, with the exception of referral to staff for future reports. 3. APPROVE AGENDA —Planning Commission members may add items to the agenda for discussion purposes or staff direction only. The Commission will not normally take official action on items added to the agenda. 4. CONSENT AGENDA —These items are considered to be routine and enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission member or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed elsewhere on the agenda. 4.1 Adopt proposed January 4, 2023 Planning Commission minutes. Draft Minutes.pdf 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Preliminary plat for "Fretham 24th Second Addition" for property located on the west side of the Cottonwood Lane segment lying south of the Highway 55 service road (Lake West Development, LLC - 2023003) Planning Commission Report Information Location Map Aerial Map Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 2014 Approved Plat 2018 Approved Plat Applicant's Narrative Site Graphics Resolution 5.2 Preliminary plat and variances for “Bass Lake Shores” to allow the subdivision of a 2.35-acre parcel located at 12001 County Road 10 (Bass Lake Shore, LLC - 2022072) Planning Commission Report 1 Planning Commission 2 of 2 February 15, 2023 Resolution Location Map Aerial Map Notification Map Applicants Narrative and Graphics 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Variance request to allow construction of a two-story home and garage addition, along the south side of the existing home for the property located at 2950 Larch Lane (Brian and Kareen Swanson - 2022092) Planning Report.pdf Variance Standards Location Map Aerial Notification Area Map Correspondence Received Applicant's Narrative Proposed Survey Home Addition Plans Resolution 6.2 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Discussion Planning Report.pdf Staff Presentation on Accessory Dwelling Units Comparable Cities Regulations (2022) Family Housing Fund ADU Information (2019) Family Housing Fund ADU Regulations by City (2019) 7. ADJOURNMENT 2 Regular Planning Commission February 15, 2023 Agenda Number:4.1 To:Dave Callister, City Manager Prepared by:Chloe McGuire, Planning and Development Manager Reviewed by:Maria Solano, Deputy City Manager Item:Adopt proposed January 4, 2023 Planning Commission minutes. 1. Action Requested: Adopt the proposed minutes from the January 4, 2023 Planning Commission meeting. 2. Background: The regular Planning Commission meeting was held on January 4, 2023. 3. Budget Impact: N/A 4. Attachments: Draft Minutes.pdf 3 1 Proposed Minutes January 18, 2023 Proposed Minutes Planning Commission Meeting January 18, 2023 Chair Boo called a Meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, on January 18, 2023. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Michael Boo, Marc Anderson, Julie Olson, Neha Markanda, Jennifer Jerulle, and Josh Fowler. COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Bill Wixon STAFF PRESENT: Planning and Development Manager Chloe McGuire, Senior Planner Shawn Drill, Senior Planner Kip Berglund, and Engineering Services Manager Chris McKenzie. Chair Boo led the Pledge of Allegiance. Call to Order (1.1) Oath of Office for New Commissioners Planning and Development Manager Chloe McGuire swore in Neha Markanda, Jennifer Jerulle, and Josh Fowler. (1.2) Election of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair for 2023 Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson and seconded by Commissioner Olson to approve Michael Boo as Chair and Marc Anderson as Vice Chair. Open Forum Approval of Agenda Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson and seconded by Commissioner Olson to approve the agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Consent Agenda (4.1) Planning Commission minutes from meeting held on December 7, 2022. 4 2 Proposed Minutes January 18, 2023 (4.2) Variance to allow a swimming pool in the front yard at 19040 County Road 6 (Scalon Inc – 2022086) (4.3) Variance to allow an eight-foot fence in the side yard at 17145 9th Ave N (Robert Mueller – 2022085) (4.4) Review 2023 Meeting Dates Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson and seconded by Commissioner Olson to approve the consent agenda. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. Public Hearings (5.1) Preliminary plat, site plan, and variances for a new one-story, 32-unit "Suite Living" assisted living/memory care home in the west portion of the property located at 4325 Zachary Lane (Hampton Companies, LLC -- 2022-080) Senior Planner Drill presented the staff report. Commissioner Olson asked the status of the private easement with the church and whether the church agrees to that. Senior Planner Drill replied that the church would sell lot two to the developer and part of that sales agreement would include the access easement. Commissioner Olson asked if the parking would occur on either side of Lot 2. Senior Planner Drill identified the proposed parking for Suite Living and the parking area for the church noting that the proposed parking would exceed the city standards. Commissioner Anderson asked whether the church currently has sufficient parking or currently has overflow during busy time. Senior Planner Drill replied that there are times when the parking lot at the playfields gets full and perhaps there are instances when those users park at the church. He stated that it would seem natural to have a shared parking agreement between the city and church and noted that staff is working on that separately. Commissioner Anderson asked and received confirmation that a member representing the church is present to answer questions tonight. He stated that this would create a lot that does not have direct access to a public street and would think that would fall under a subdivision requirement rather than a zoning variance. 5 3 Proposed Minutes January 18, 2023 Senior Planner Drill replied that the subdivision language does not include such a requirement, and therefore the requirement falls under zoning ordinance and would require a variance. He stated that there are PUDs that include similar approvals to have access through easement. Commissioner Anderson agreed that it would be difficult to get a street through to the property but wondered if a zoning variance was the best way to move forward instead of a PUD. Senior Planner Drill replied that, from staff’s perspective, a zoning variance would be the best option to approve such access. Planning and Development Manager McGuire stated that this is a unique property as it does front Rockford Road on the south, but they do not want access there. Commissioner Jerulle asked if there would be one or two easements. Senior Planner Drill stated that the residents of the assisted and memory care units would not be driving, so the traffic would be generated by staff, visitors, and some vendors. He provided details on the flow of traffic. He stated that there would be one private and perpetual easement for access and some others for utilities. He noted that perhaps on holidays there would be more visitors and the church could agree to allow a row of shared parking but stated that would be a discussion between the church and Suite Living. Commissioner Jerulle asked if there would be a public safety concern because the access easement runs so close to the front of the church. Senior Planner Drill said staff did not have concern as most of the traffic accessing the Suite Living building would occur during off-peak times from the church. Commissioner Fowler asked if there has been discussion about signage that would require Suite Living traffic to move straight upon entry to the site and stay away from the front of the church. Senior Planner Drill replied that there has not been such discussion at this time. Commissioner Fowler asked if emergency vehicles would be able to make the turn at the southeast corner if there were vehicles dropping off at the church. Senior Planner Drill confirmed that those drive aisles are wide enough to support emergency vehicles. Chair Boo asked if there would be signage on Zachary Lane for Suite Living and whether that would count against the signage allowed for the church. Senior Planner Drill identified the proposed location for the Suite Living sign, which would meet ordinance requirements. He stated that each site would have its own signage allowances as this process would create a new lot. Chair Boo introduced Jeremy Larson, representing the applicant, who noted that he was available for questions. 6 4 Proposed Minutes January 18, 2023 Commissioner Anderson asked if there were concerns that the church could overflow into the Suite Living parking area. Mr. Larson replied that they have 13 facilities running at this time, with roughly six employees during the day and four at night. He stated that even on holidays and busier visiting times they have not experienced any parking issues and did not anticipate that they would overflow into the church. He commented that they sadly do not have many visitors as most residents are at the end of their lives. Commissioner Anderson asked if ambulances are frequent visitors. Mr. Larson replied that while that may occur during an emergency, it is not a regular occurrence. Chair Boo opened the public hearing. Chair Boo introduced Reverend Bruce Kronen, representing Pilgrim Church, who thanked the commission for their consideration. He stated that the church has a heart in partnering with other entities to continue their mission to help others. He stated that currently they do not make total use of their parking and therefore did not have any issues with overflow parking. He noted that they have allowed the elementary school and city park users to park in their lot and have not experienced any issues. Chair Boo introduced Fred Stelter, 14505 43rd Avenue N, who stated that he has parked at the church for his son’s baseball game. He stated that he has been a resident for over 35 years and believed that this layout makes sense. He commented that this is a wonderful use of an underutilized property. Chair Boo closed the public hearing. Commissioner Anderson stated that this is a creative concept in using an open part of a lot to create a needed use in the community. He commented that this single level building will blend nicely into the area and the easement seems to be the best way to provide access. He was not concerned with the site not meeting the minimum acreage. He referenced proposed condition #10 which states that the city and church will continue to discuss easements and asked if the applicant should also be party to that. Senior Planner Drill agreed and stated that additional language to include the applicant would be added. Commissioner Olson agreed that this is a good project that she also supports. Motion was made by Commissioner Anderson and seconded by Commissioner Olson to recommend approval of the resolution for preliminary plat, site plan, and variances for Hampton Companies LLC for an assisted living and memory care home in the west portion of the property located at 4325 Zachary Lane with noted conditions. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. 7 5 Proposed Minutes January 18, 2023 (5.2) Site plan amendment and conditional use permit for the construction of a freestanding laboratory building and associated improvements (Honeywell International, Inc. - 12001 Highway 55 - 2022081) Senior Planner Berglund presented the staff report. Commissioner Markanda asked the proposed hours of operation. Senior Planner Berglund replied that the hours of operation were not provided in the application but noted that a representative is present that could address that question. Chair Boo introduced Doctor Matt Wiebold, representing the applicant, who stated that he is present to address questions. He stated that they do not plan to operate outside of typical business hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. The other members of the applicant’s team introduced themselves as well. Commissioner Olson asked if there are chemicals of concern in the laboratory. Dr. Wiebold replied that they do not have hazardous material or chemicals in the building. Commissioner Olson asked there would be additional employees as a result of this project. Dr. Wiebold replied that they would anticipate hiring a few more employees as a result of the project, estimating that two to eight employees in total would be added. Chair Boo introduced Stephanie Stillman, 510 Magnolia Lane N, who stated that her family recently moved to Plymouth in November. She requested that the project undergo an environmental review as the company has 79 environmental related incidents. She believed that the environmental review would provide additional guidance for the project. Chair Boo introduced Keith Waaraniemi, 11800 Sunset Trail, who stated that Honeywell has been a good neighbor and appreciated the information that has been provided tonight. He stated that his main concern would be related to water quality, air quality and potential noise impacts. He noted that the proposed building would be close to the yards on Sunset Trail. He commented that Honeywell planted trees 10 to 15 years ago that acted as a buffer but noted that many of those trees have died and requested that those in need be replaced. Chair Boo introduced Wilson Moy, 1100 Kirkland Lane, stated that he has lived in his home for 28 years and his concern would be with the use of toxic and lethal materials used by Honeywell. He recognized that is not proposed in this facility but noted that intention could change in the future. Chair Boo closed the public hearing. Senior Planner Berglund commented that there is a threshold for projects that would trigger the need or requirement for an EAW. He stated that the size of the proposed project, at 5,000 to 8 6 Proposed Minutes January 18, 2023 6,000 square feet would not trigger an environmental review. He stated that the draft resolution would require any mechanical equipment related to the building to meet the requirements within the noise ordinance. He stated that the city does have water quality standards and air quality is regulated by the MPCA. He referenced the comments related to the tree buffer and confirmed that those trees would remain in place. He stated that if this is approved, the applicant would still need to go through the building permit process which would require disclosure of any hazardous materials. He stated that if the plans of the applicant changed in the future to involve hazardous materials, the applicant would need to work through the MPCA process. Chair Boo asked the applicant to address questions regarding the use or storage of any hazardous materials or chemicals on-site and MPCA process for the use of any hazardous materials or chemicals. Dr. Wiebold replied that the company regulates with all requirements and MPCA requirements. He stated that the equipment developed in this building does not involve hazardous material or chemicals. He stated that the new building would be laboratory space. Commissioner Anderson stated that the rumor that this site would handle hazardous materials would not apply to this application. Senior Planner Berglund confirmed that this review is for the newly proposed building. Commissioner Anderson stated that once constructed, the owner could change the use within but anything involving chemicals that would be of concern or hazardous materials would have to go through the process of the MPCA. Senior Planner Berglund agreed that the use could change as long as the proposed use would be allowed within the zoning district. Commissioner Jerulle asked if there is language in the draft resolution related to potential pollutants. Senior Planner Berglund reviewed the proposed condition related to noise regulation. He noted that there are regulations related to water quality within city code. He stated that if desired an additional condition could be added. Commissioner Markanda asked if additional information could be gained relating to the environmental incidents mentioned. Planning and Development Manager McGuire replied that the city cannot take those into account for this application. She stated that there is a rigorous review process during the building permit process and anything that would not match the intended use would be flagged. Chair Boo appreciated the seriousness of the questions raised related to potential uses and related requirements. He stated that they need to take into account their limited role of review and that other agencies or entities are charged with reviewing those issues. He noted that the commission must focus on the matters charged to it. 9 7 Proposed Minutes January 18, 2023 Commissioner Anderson commented that this application meets the requirements. He stated that in his opinion this would be an ugly building even though it meets the requirements. He noted that unless he goes hunting for the building, he may never see it because it lies further into the site and there is a buffer of trees between the subject property and adjacent residential properties. He stated that he does not see a reason to oppose the request as the requirements are met. Motion was made by Chair Boo and seconded by Commissioner Anderson to recommend approval of the resolution approving a site plan amendment and conditional use permit for Honeywell International Inc. for property located at 12001 Highway 55 with the noted conditions and requirement that the applicant comply with any applicable environmental regulations for the property and its intended use. With all Commissioners voting in favor, the motion carried. New Business Adjournment Chair Boo adjourned the meeting at 8:19 p.m. 10 Regular Planning Commission February 15, 2023 Agenda Number:5.1 To:Planning Commission Prepared by:Shawn Drill, Senior Planner Reviewed by:Grant Fernelius, Community and Economic Development Director File No:2023003 1. Applicant: Lake West Development, LLC 2. Proposal: Preliminary Plat to plat two parcels totaling 20,700 square feet into one lot for a new single-family home. 3. Location: West side of the Cottonwood Lane segment lying south of the Highway 55 service road (address presently unassigned; to be addressed as 705 Cottonwood Lane when final plat is recorded). 4. Guiding: LA-1 (living area 1) 5. Zoning: RSF-2 (single-family 2) 6. School District: ISD 284 (Wayzata) 7. Review Deadline: May 5, 2023 8. Brief Description: See attached Planning Commission Report. 11 9. Attachments: Planning Commission Report Information Location Map Aerial Map Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 2014 Approved Plat 2018 Approved Plat Applicant's Narrative Site Graphics Resolution 12 Planning Commission Report Information Lake West Development, LLC (2023-003) INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to plat two parcels totaling 20,700 square feet into one lot for a new single-family home. Notice of the Planning Commission’s public hearing was published in the city’s official newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 750 feet of the site. A copy of the Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map is attached. Development signage has also been posted on the site. CONTEXT Surrounding Land Uses Adjacent Land Use Guiding Zoning North Single-family home LA-1 RSF-2 West Fourth Baptist Church/School P-I (public/institutional) P-I (public/institutional) East (across Cottonwood Ln) Single-family home LA-1 RSF-1 (single-family 1) South Vacant single-family home site LA-1 RSF-2 Natural Characteristics of Site The site is located in the Bassett Creek watershed district. It is not located in a shoreland district. There are no floodplain or wetland areas on the site. An existing drainage ditch lies in the south portion of the site. The drainage ditch would be maintained within a drainage and utility easement that would be recorded on the plat. Previous Actions Affecting Site The northerly of the two subject parcels was platted as an outlot for future development as part of the Fretham 24th Addition, which was recorded in 2015. The southerly of the two parcels was tax-forfeited property that was acquired by the applicant around that same time. In 2014, the applicant received approval of a 6-lot plat that included the subject site, together with the property directly to the south (640 Cottonwood Lane) and the property east of that (618 Cottonwood Lane). Although approved by the City Council, the applicant did not record the plat with Hennepin County. A copy of the 2014 approved plat is attached. 13 2023003 Page 2 In 2018, the applicant received approval of a 3-lot plat that included the subject site, together with the property directly to the south (640 Cottonwood Lane). Although approved by the City Council, the applicant did not record the plat with Hennepin County. A copy of the 2018 approved plat is attached. The applicant previously owned the roughly 1.7-acre property directly to the south (640 Cottonwood Lane) but sold it to a homebuilder last year to allow for future construction of one single-family home. The abutting Cottonwood Lane segment (segment lying south of the Highway 55 service road) was fully reconstructed in 2021, with the final/top layer of asphalt installed in 2022. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING The city’s discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance. This is because preliminary plat review is a judicial action (enforcement of established policy). If a preliminary plat application meets the established standards, the city must approve the preliminary plat. ANALYSIS Lot Arrangement: The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to plat the site into to one lot. The proposed lot would accommodate a new single-family home. The RSF-2 zoning district where the site is located requires a minimum lot size of 12,500 square feet and a minimum lot width of 80 feet. The proposed lot would contain 20,700 square feet and would be 115 feet wide, and therefore would exceed the RSF-2 standards. Storm Water: A storm water BMP (best management practices) feature including soil amendments in the rear yard areas was previously approved as part of the Fretham 24th Addition, consisting of the subject site and two lots to the north. That BMP was filled in and must be re-established to receive city approval of final construction plans, as required by the resolution. Runoff that flows from west to east traverses the south portion of the site in an existing drainage ditch that would be maintained. The drainage then flows into a pipe under Cottonwood Lane that is part of the city’s storm sewer system and is ultimately discharged to a large wetland to the east. 14 2023003 Page 3 Trees: The proposal is subject to the city’s tree preservation regulations which require preservation of at least 50 percent of the caliper inches of significant trees, or reforestation and/or monetary restitution for any removal beyond 50 percent. A significant tree is defined as one being eight inches or larger in diameter for deciduous trees, and four inches or larger in diameter for conifers. There are 473 caliper inches of eligible significant trees on the site. The plans indicate that 328 inches of significant trees (69.3 percent) would be preserved. Consequently, the proposal would comply with the city’s tree preservation regulations. In addition, the builder would be required to install two new front yard trees after the home is constructed. Park Dedication: Park dedication is required in conjunction with platting of the proposed lot. Because the city’s comprehensive plan does not show a need for land dedication within this site, the applicant would instead be required to provide a cash fee in lieu of land dedication, in accordance with the city’s subdivision regulations. This matter is addressed in the attached resolution. Sidewalks: This neighborhood pre-dates the requirement for sidewalks. As a result, there are no sidewalks along this segment of Cottonwood Lane. The resolution waives the requirement for sidewalk for this plat. RECOMMENDATION: Community and Economic Development Department staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Lake West Development, LLC for one single-family lot to be addressed as 705 Cottonwood Lane, subject to the conditions listed in the resolution. If new information is brought forward at the public hearing, staff may alter or reconsider its recommendation. 15 SITE Co t t o n w o o d L n Hwy. 55 Servic e R d Fourth B a p t i s t C h u r c h 2023-003Lake West Development, LLCCottonwood Lane parcelsPreliminary Plat K2000200400100 Feet 640 618 16 Co t t o n w o o d L n SITE 2023-003 -- Aerial Map K100010020050 Feet 640 618 17 18 FOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT AT THE NORTH 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 22 1321.06- .._ ` — - N 264224W -NORTH LINE OF NE1/4 OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 22 01 0 0 ON I ATQ00a Q I A 411117 AA C1 O F_ O 0 O O IV I N I 6O W MO vS G QN1 8 J 0 oI 0 I0 04 1 0 0 2 eq L J 04 W L600 0 10 IQ N89 ' S89'38'48"E 1T 3896.31 1 1311.23 - T- I Q, J. rr 1 I i EAST -WEST 1/4 UNE OF SEC."' ” DRAINAGE AND UTILITY II EASEMENTSSHOWN THUS: 35, TWP. 118, RNG. 22 L1 85. 00 ---------- 3 rN1• Ir- 1 I-- rNr- 1 F! r-Ii f- f- K O 6 u) 0 I~ IciM 0 6-1 O 0 i I FOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY F w 1 NO SCALE THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OF 71.48W'-= SEC. 35, TWP. 118, RNG. 22 BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY t S89°4730' W LL. 2-- 6 wet - O 136.56 1 LINES, UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLAT. rA' 1I/ yl I z L1J 0 T- NG. 22 W aA 1 A- 1- lam z 137.03 S 315.01 I , 3 s8s 3.22 rnM allr In ON rN 0 r- it -1- A -- r- i• z f f- 1 ' 1 1\'f- 1 NO 1 1 Is `- AA C1 O F_ O 0 O O IV o\ N I 6O W MO vS G QN1 8 J 0 0 I0 Cv C- 1 0 0 Q: 2 000 L600 0 10 N89 ' S89'38'48"E 1T 3896.31 1 1311.23 - 0 I i R251807 1 I i EAST -WEST 1/4 UNE OF SEC."' ” DRAINAGE AND UTILITY II EASEMENTSSHOWN THUS: 35, TWP. 118, RNG. 22 85. 00 ---------- 3 rN1• Ir- 1 I-- rNr- 1 F! r-Ii f- f- K O 6 u) 0 ui 0 6-1 O IN0 z s i I FOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT AT 1 NO SCALE THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OF 71.48W'-= SEC. 35, TWP. 118, RNG. 22 BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY t91S89°4730' W FRETHAM 24TH SECOND ADDITION 2620.63 1 80.01 I ' • ' Ale 1\Users\Eric\OneDrlve\CAD-iD\14029hs-Plymouth\dwg\14029-fp-24th Second Additlon.dwg 6/5/2015 9154155 AM CDT 50 L_J L1J 50 L--------------------- X 4001 t / / /% r\ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\ 1 I I I 1 1 11 1 0 1 1 NO 1 \ . . NO \I L. M 1 A 1 r- • 1 ON 1 /\ 1\I f- 1\11 1 - 135.00 i KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Lake West Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, fee owner of the following described property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota to -wit: The east 85.00 feet of the west 315.00 feet of the south 330.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota. and Oulot A. FRETHAM 24TH, Hennepin County, Minnesota. and The west 230.00 feet of the south 390.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Has caused the some to be surveyed and platted as FRETHAM 24TH SECOND ADDITION and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use the drainage and utDity easements as shown on this plat. In witness whereof said Lake West Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by Its proper officer this day of 20 Lake West Development, LLC Curt Fretham, Chief Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20 by Curt Fretham, as Chief Manager of Lake West Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company O IM M 0 IN C SCALE 30 Notary Public, County, Minnesota My Commission expires IN FEET ) 1 Eric R. Vickar us do hereby certify that this plat was prepared b me or under m direct supervision, that I am a dui LicensedYoYYPP P Y Y P Land Surveyor In the State of Minnesota, that this plat Is a correct representation of the boundary survey, that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat, that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year, that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined In Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this H certificate are shown and labeled on this plat, and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. 1 ®1@ Dated this day of 20 5 IV N I OD W MO vS GQN1 8 J N 'Or Vs 2 p Cv C- 4 0 Q: 2 L--------------------- X 4001 t / / /% r\ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1\ 1 I I I 1 1 11 1 0 1 1 NO 1 \ . . NO \I L. M 1 A 1 r- • 1 ON 1 /\ 1\I f- 1\11 1 - 135.00 i KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Lake West Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, fee owner of the following described property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota to -wit: The east 85.00 feet of the west 315.00 feet of the south 330.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota. and Oulot A. FRETHAM 24TH, Hennepin County, Minnesota. and The west 230.00 feet of the south 390.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Has caused the some to be surveyed and platted as FRETHAM 24TH SECOND ADDITION and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use the drainage and utDity easements as shown on this plat. In witness whereof said Lake West Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by Its proper officer this day of 20 Lake West Development, LLC Curt Fretham, Chief Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing Instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20 by Curt Fretham, as Chief Manager of Lake West Development, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company O IM M 0 IN C SCALE 30 Notary Public, County, Minnesota My Commission expires IN FEET ) 1 Eric R. Vickar us do hereby certify that this plat was prepared b me or under m direct supervision, that I am a dui LicensedYoYYPP P Y Y P Land Surveyor In the State of Minnesota, that this plat Is a correct representation of the boundary survey, that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat, that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year, that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined In Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this H certificate are shown and labeled on this plat, and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. 1 ®1@ Dated this day of 20 Denotes Hennepin County cast iron monument p Denotes 1/2 inch by 14 inch iron monument set and marked by L.S. No. 44125. DENOTES FOUND 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE MARKED BY RLS#44125 Eric R. Vickaryous, Licensed Land Surveyor Minnesota License Number 44125 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF This Instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20 by Eric R. Wckaryous. Notary Public, County, Minnesota My Commission expires City Council, City of Plymouth, Minnesota This plot of FRETHAM 247H SECOND ADD17ION was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this day of '20 . If applicable, the written comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of Transportation and the County Highway Engineer have been received by the City or the prescribed 30 day period has elapsed without receipt of such comments and recommendations, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section, 505.03, Subd. 2. City Council, City of Plymouth, Minnesota By Mayor By Clerk RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that taxes payable In 20 and prior years have been paid for the land described on this plat, doted this day of 20 Mark V Chapin, County Auditor By Deputy SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to MN. STAT. Sec. 383B.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this day of 20 Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor By COUNTY RECORDER, Hennepin County, Minnesota 1 hereby certify that the within plat of FRETHAM 247H SECOND ADDITION was recorded in this office this day of 20 at o'clock M. Martin McCormick, County Recorder By Deputy The South Line of the SE1 /4 of the NE1 /4 of Sec. 35, T. 118, R. 22 is assumed to have a bearing of South 89 degrees 38 minutes 48 seconds East. JUN 12 2015 ihACRE LAND SURVEYING BLAINE, MN rr 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 p 110 n1 112 113 04 05 n6 n7 ne n0 120 5 OD W 0 I i 1 I i I DRAINAGE AND UTILITY II EASEMENTSSHOWN THUS: 85. 00 ---------- 6 ui 0 6-1 O I i I L.—.—.J L.—.—.1.—.—.—._ 1 NO SCALE T 71.48W'-= BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY t91S89°4730' W Sjt37 2-- 6 wet - LINES AND BEING 6 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING LOT136.56 1 LINES, UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE PLAT. I 3 NG. 22 aA 1 A- lam 137.03 315.01 s8s 3.22 i ON rN rN ON 1 n 1 - 1- r- r- it -1- A -- r- i• FOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON I NO L. ' f- 1 ' 1 1\'f- 1 NO 1 1 Is `- I /_ 1 f- ,. 1 1 `- MONUMENT AT THE EAST 1/4 CORNER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 118, RANGE 22 Denotes Hennepin County cast iron monument p Denotes 1/2 inch by 14 inch iron monument set and marked by L.S. No. 44125. DENOTES FOUND 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE MARKED BY RLS#44125 Eric R. Vickaryous, Licensed Land Surveyor Minnesota License Number 44125 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF This Instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20 by Eric R. Wckaryous. Notary Public, County, Minnesota My Commission expires City Council, City of Plymouth, Minnesota This plot of FRETHAM 247H SECOND ADD17ION was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this day of '20 . If applicable, the written comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of Transportation and the County Highway Engineer have been received by the City or the prescribed 30 day period has elapsed without receipt of such comments and recommendations, as provided by Minnesota Statutes, Section, 505.03, Subd. 2. City Council, City of Plymouth, Minnesota By Mayor By Clerk RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that taxes payable In 20 and prior years have been paid for the land described on this plat, doted this day of 20 Mark V Chapin, County Auditor By Deputy SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to MN. STAT. Sec. 383B.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this day of 20 Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor By COUNTY RECORDER, Hennepin County, Minnesota 1 hereby certify that the within plat of FRETHAM 247H SECOND ADDITION was recorded in this office this day of 20 at o'clock M. Martin McCormick, County Recorder By Deputy The South Line of the SE1 /4 of the NE1 /4 of Sec. 35, T. 118, R. 22 is assumed to have a bearing of South 89 degrees 38 minutes 48 seconds East. JUN 12 2015 ihACRE LAND SURVEYING BLAINE, MN rr 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 p 110 n1 112 113 04 05 n6 n7 ne n0 120 = Plat Approved in 2014; not recorded or constructed. = Site Area of current/2023 plat request. 19 N LEGEND 18-011 01/15/2018 N CAMPION ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. Civil Engineering Land Planning COTTONWOOD LANE ADDITION LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT PLYMOUTH, MN PRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER & WATER SERVICE PLAN ” 4 10 = Plat Approved in 2018; not recorded or constructed. = Site Area of current/2023 Plat request. 20 January 4, 2023 Shawn Drill, Senior Planner City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 RE: Fretham 24th Second Addition – Project Narrative Preliminary and Final Plats Shawn, Lake West Development is proposing to combine Outlot A from the previously platted Fretham 24th subdivision with the north 60’ of the contiguous (southern) unplatted property to form a one-lot plat to be called Fretham 24th Second Addition. The proposed lot will meet all minimum lot requirements for the RSF-2 zoning district, which is the current zoning for both properties. There will be no impact on the existing City infrastructure. The stormwater management report has been updated and is attached to this submittal. The existing conditions and tree surveys have been updated and that information is visible on the proposed preliminary plat, also attached. Please let me know if you have any questions or need more information. Thank you. Sincerely, Ben Wikstrom Land Development Consultant on behalf of Lake West Development benwikstrom@gmail.com 612.801.7992 21 C O T T O N W O O D L A N E 2/1/2023 2023-003 Revi s i o n s R e c i e v e d 2-1-2 0 2 3 Address will be: 705 Cottonwood Lane North 22 City Council, City of Plymouth, Minnesota This plat of FRETHAM 24TH SECOND ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this________day of _______________________, 20_____, and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statures, Section 505.03, Subd. 2. City Council, City of Plymouth, Minnesota by_________________________________, Mayor by_________________________________, Clerk RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that taxes payable in 20___ and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat, dated this_____ day of_____________________, 20____. ______________________________, County Auditor by___________________________________Deputy SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to MN. STAT. Sec. 383B.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this ______day of ___________________________, 20____. Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor by___________________________________ COUNTY RECORDER, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that the within plat of FRETHAM 24TH SECOND ADDITION was recorded in this office this____day of _______________________, 20____ at ____________ o'clock ___.M. Amber Bougie, County Recorder by___________________________________Deputy KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Lake West Develoment, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, owner of the following described property: Parcel 1: The North 60 feet of the South 390 feet of the West 180 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 2: Outlot A, Fretham 24th, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Abstract Property. Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as FRETHAM 24TH SECOND ADDITION and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use the drainage and utility easements as created by this plat. In witness whereof said Lake West Develoment, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by it proper officer this _____day of_____________________, 20____. Signed: Lake West Develoment, LLC ______________________________ Curt Fretham, CEO STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF _________________ This instrument was acknowledged before me on ______________________________ by Curt Fretham, CEO of Lake West Develoment, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. __________________________________ Notary Public Signature __________________________________ Notary Printed Name _______________County, Minnesota My Commission Expires___________________ I Kaleb J. Kadelbach do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wetlands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this__________ day of _______________________, 20____. _____________________________________________ Kaleb J. Kadelbach, Licensed Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 57070 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF _________________ This instrument was acknowledged before me on ______________________________ by Kaleb J. Kadelbach. __________________________________ Notary Public Signature __________________________________ Notary Printed Name _______________County, Minnesota My Commission Expires___________________ FRETHAM 24TH SECOND ADDITION 23 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2023- RESOLUTION APPROVING PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT, LLC FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE COTTONWOOD LANE SEGMENT LYING SOUTH OF THE HIGHWAY 55 SERVICE ROAD (2023 003) WHEREAS, Lake West Development, LLC has requested approval of a preliminary plat to plat one single-family lot on property presently legally described as follows: Outlot A, Fretham 24th, Hennepin County, Minnesota. AND The North 60 feet of the South 390 feet of the West 180 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 118, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public hearing and recommends approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve a preliminary plat for Lake West Development, LLC for one single-family lot at the above-described property, subject to the following conditions: 1. A preliminary plat is approved to plat the site into one single-family lot, in accordance with plans received by the City on February 1, 2023, except as may be amended by this resolution. 2. Prior to recording of the final plat, the applicant shall pay the park dedication fee in lieu of land dedication for one residential unit, in accordance with Section 528 of the City Code. 3. Building permits are required prior to commencement of the project. 4. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the applicant shall fulfill the requirements, submit the required information, and revise the plans as indicated below, consistent with the applicable city code, zoning ordinance, and engineering guidelines: a. Obtain City approval of final construction plans, including those for re-establishment of the stormwater BMP (best management practices) feature previously approved for Fretham 24th Addition (subject property and two properties to the north). b. Install silt fence prior to any grading or construction work on the site. c. Obtain any required permits and/or approvals from the watershed district. d. Complete a site improvement performance agreement (SIPA) and submit the related financial sureties. 24 Resolution 2023- File 2023003 Page 2 5. The address for the new lot would become 705 Cottonwood Lane North upon recoding of the final plat. 6. The requirement for a sidewalk is hereby waived for this one-lot plat within a previously developed neighborhood that contains no sidewalks. 7. Standard Conditions: a. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per ordinance provisions. b. The applicant shall remove any diseased or hazardous trees. c. The approvals shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner or applicant has started the project, or unless the applicant, with the consent of the property owner, has received prior approval from the City to extend the expiration date for up to one additional year, as regulated under Section 510 of the city code. APPROVED by the City Council on this ** day of ****, 2023. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on _________________, 2023, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this ______day of ______________________, __________. __________________________________ Jodi M. Gallup, City Clerk 25 Regular Planning Commission February 15, 2023 Agenda Number:5.2 To:Planning Commission Prepared by:Lori Sommers, Senior Planner Reviewed by:Maria Solano, Deputy City Manager File No:2022072 1. Applicant: Bass Lake Shore, LLC 2. Proposal: Preliminary plat and variances for “Bass Lake Shores” to allow the subdivision of a 2.35-acre parcel located at 12001 County Road 10. 3. Location: 12001 County Road 10 4. Guiding: LA-1 (living area 1) 5. Zoning: RSF-1 (single-family detached 1) 6. School District: ISD 279 - Osseo 7. Review Deadline: May 5, 2023 8. Brief Description: Preliminary plat and lot width variances for “Bass Lake Shores” to allow the subdivision of a 2.35-acre parcel located at 12001 County Road 10. 26 9. Attachments: Planning Commission Report Resolution Location Map Aerial Map Notification Map Applicants Narrative and Graphics 27 Agenda Number File 2022072 PLYMOUTH COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND ZONING STAFF REPORT TO:Plymouth Planning Commission FROM:Lori Sommers, Senior Planner (509-5457) MEETING DATE:February 15, 2023 APPLICANT:Bass Lake Shore, LLC PROPOSAL:Preliminary plat and variances for “Bass Lake Shores” to allow the subdivision of a 2.35-acre parcel LOCATION:12001 County Road 10 GUIDING:LA-1 (living area 1) ZONING:RSF-1 (single-family detached 1) REVIEW DEADLINE:May 5, 2023 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat and lot width variances for “Bass Lake Shores”. The request consists of dividing the subject parcel into two lots for property located at 12001 County Road 10. Under the proposed plat, the existing home would remain and another single-family lot would be created on the subject property to allow for the future construction of a residential home. Notice of the public hearing was published in the city’s official newspaper and mailed to all property owners within 750 feet of the site. A copy of the notification area map is attached. Development signage is posted on the property. 28 2022072 Page 2 CONTEXT: Surrounding Land Uses Adjacent Land Use Guiding Zoning North (Across County Road 10) Single-family homes (Bass Lake East Subdivision)LA-1 RSF-2 South Bass Lake NA NA East Single-family home (unplatted)LA-1 RSF-1 West Single-family home (Scherer Basslake & Bass Lake Shorewood Hills Subdivisions)LA-1 RSF-1 Natural Characteristics of Site The site contains a small amount of land in the Floodplain along the shore of Bass Lake and is entirely within the Shoreland Overlay District. There are no wetlands on the site. Previous Actions Affecting Site The home was built in 1978. The subject property was created in 2002 when the City Council approved a preliminary and final plat “Scherer Basslake subdivision” for two single family lots. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance. This is because preliminary plat review is a “quasi-judicial” action (enforcement of established policy). If a preliminary plat application meets the standards, the city must approve the preliminary plat. The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposal meets the standards for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards for a variance. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST: Preliminary Plat The applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary plat to allow the division of 2.35-acre parcel at 12001 County Road 10. Under the proposed plan, the existing home would remain and another single-family lot would be created on the subject property. Section 500 of the subdivision regulations and section 21355 of the zoning ordinance include standards that preliminary plat applications must meet. Staff used these standards to review the application as follows: 29 2022072 Page 3 Subdivision and Zoning Requirements Required Proposed Meets Requirements? Lot Arrangement Lot 1 – North lot Lot Width Lot Area Lot 2 – South lot (Existing home) Lot Width Lot Area Min. 110 feet Min. 18,500 sq. ft. Min. 110 feet Min. 18,500 sq. ft. 98.17 feet 20,540 sq. ft. 58.5 feet 81,995 sq. ft. No* Yes No* Yes Setbacks Lot 1- North lot Front Side Rear Lot 2 – South Lot (Existing home) Front Side Rear 25 feet 15 feet 25 feet 25 feet 15 feet 25 feet 62.2 feet 15 feet Approx..72 feet 300 feet 15 feet 60.8 feet Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Impervious Surface Lot 1- North lot Lot 2 – South lot (Existing home) 25% 25% 24.7% 24.9% Yes Yes Tree Preservation 50% saved (or reforest)92% Saved Yes * Variance requested, as analyzed later in this report. Comprehensive Plan The comprehensive plan includes single-family detached dwellings as an appropriate land use for properties guided LA-1. The LA-1 guiding designation specifies a minimum density goal of two dwelling units per acre and a maximum density of three dwelling units per acre. Density is based on net acreage excluding ponds, wetlands and related buffers. This method of calculating density is consistent with the procedures established by the Metropolitan Council. Based on the net acreage (approx. 2.35-acres) and the density guidelines in the LA-1 land use classification, one to two dwelling units could be proposed. The applicant’s proposal for two dwelling units would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Tree Preservation This application is subject to the city’s tree preservation regulations. Section 530 of the subdivision regulations requires preservation of at least 50 percent of the caliper inches of the significant trees 30 2022072 Page 4 for residential development sites, or reforestation and/or monetary restitution for any removal in excess of this threshold. A significant tree is defined as one being eight inches or larger in diameter for deciduous trees, and four inches or larger in diameter for coniferous trees. The tree survey indicates 1,517 caliper inches of significant trees on the site. The applicant submitted a tree plan indicating that (92 percent) would be preserved. Consequently, the proposal meets the city’s requirements for tree preservation. Water Quality Section 524.09, subd. 1(d) of the subdivision regulations requires treatment of storm water runoff for those developments that create more than one acre of cumulative impervious surface. The area shown for new home does not reach the one acre threshold requiring treatment of storm water runoff. Impervious Surface The property is located in the shoreland overlay district for Bass Lake and is subject to impervious restrictions. The applicant has submitted a site plan showing that the impervious surface on the proposed lots would not exceed the maximum of 25 percent. Both of the proposed lots would meet the city’s requirements for impervious surface however, Lot 2 containing the existing home is proposing to remove 1,642 square feet of bituminous driveway to meet the requirement. This matter is addressed in the attached resolution. Sidewalks/Trails Section 524.07 of the subdivision regulations requires that a sidewalk be installed along one side of all local streets. The applicant would be required to provide a five-foot wide concrete sidewalk along the Jonquil Lane unless this requirement is waived by the City Council. No sidewalks currently exist in the area along the local streets of Jonquil Lane. Therefore, staff requests that the City Council waive the sidewalk requirement for Jonquil Lane. A city trail exists along the northern boundary of the property along County Road 10 that will be maintained. Dedication of Park Land Park dedication would not be required for proposed Lot 2 containing the existing home. Park dedication would be required for proposed Lot 1 which would contain another home. Because the city’s comprehensive plan does not show a need for land dedication within this site, the applicant would instead be required to provide a cash fee in lieu of land dedication, in accordance with the city’s subdivision regulations. This matter is addressed in the attached resolution. Street/Access The plat would not include the installation of any new streets. Access would be required to come from Jonquil Lane. This is due to County Road 10 being classified as a minor arterial roadway. Roadways with a higher functional classification such as a minor arterial, generally provide for longer trips, have more mobility, have limited access and connect larger centers. The city does not permit single family uses to have driveways off arterial and major collector streets. No direct access would be granted to County Road 10. This matter is addressed in the attached resolution. 31 2022072 Page 5 Variances The applicant is requesting approval of variances to establish two lots that do not meet lot width requirements in the RSF-1 district. The subject property is located along the east side of Jonquil Lane, south of County Road 10. It is a corner lot with 317 feet of frontage on County Road 10, and approximately 156 feet along Jonquil Lane with roughly 404 feet in depth to Bass Lake. The applicant has submitted a plan showing the proposed lots gaining access of Jonquil Lane as required. Since access would not be permitted along County Road 10, both properties require a lot width variance. Lot width is measured from the street frontage where access is obtained and at the front setback for the principal structure which is 25 feet. The proposed lots would meet the lot area requirements but not the lot width requirements for single-family lots within the RSF-1 zoning district. Lot 1 is 98.17 feet and Lot 2 is 58.5 feet wide where 110 feet is required. If the applicant was allowed to provide at least one driveway access onto County Road 10 then no variances would be required. The proposed lots would be 20,540 square feet and 81,995 square feet, exceeding the lot area requirements of 18,500 square feet. As shown, the majority of the lots (shown in blue) off Jonquil Lane do not meet the minimum lot width of 110 feet for lots in the RSF-1 zoning district. The lot widths range from 45 feet to 120 feet in this area. The proposed lot widths for the two new properties would be consistent with the other properties in the neighborhood. Findings In review of the request, staff finds that all of the applicable variance standards would be met, as follows: 1) The requested variances, and resulting construction, would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and would be consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan. The proposed lots are for single family residential which is envisioned for this area. 2) The applicant has demonstrated that there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance regulations, because: 32 2022072 Page 6 a. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The applicant is proposing single family lots that are similar to other sized lots in the neighborhood. b. The request is due to circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the landowner. The applicant is proposing access to the lots off Jonquil Lane because access is not allowed off County Road 10. If the applicant was allowed to provide one driveway access onto County Road 10 then no variances would be required. c. The variances would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as the lots would be consistent for both lot size and for lot width with the lots within the neighborhood. 3) The requested variances are not based solely upon economic considerations. The applicant is requesting the variances in order to establish an additional single-family home site that complies with the city’s access requirements. 4) The variances, and resulting construction, would not be detrimental to the public welfare, nor would it be injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. The applicant has stated that the proposed home would meet all the required setbacks for the zoning district. 5) The variances, and resulting construction, would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, nor would it increase traffic congestion or the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood. The applicant has stated that there will only be one additional driveway added to Jonquil Lane as the driveway for the existing home will remain in the same location. 6) The variances requested are the minimum action required to address the practical difficulties. RECOMMENDATION: Community and Economic Development Department staff recommends approval of the requested variance at 12001 County Road 10, subject to the findings and conditions listed in the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution Approving Variance 2. Variance Standards 3. Location Map 4. Aerial Photo 5. Notification Area Map 6. Applicant’s Narrative and Graphics 33 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2023- RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCES FOR BASS LAKE SHORES LLC, FOR “BASS LAKE SHORES” FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12001 COUNTY ROAD 10 (2022072) WHEREAS, the Bass Lake Shore, LLC, has requested approval of a preliminary plat and lot width variances for roughly 2.35-acres of land presently legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, SHERER BASSLAKE, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public hearing and recommends approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by the Bass Lake Shore, LLC, for a preliminary plat and variances for Bass Lake Shores, subject to the following conditions: 1. A preliminary plat and lot width variances are approved to allow the property at 12001 County Road 10 to be subdivided into two lots, in accordance with the development plans received by the city on September 7, 2022, with additional information on December 5, 2022 and January 4, 2023, except as amended by this resolution. 2. The requested lot width variances are approved, based on the finding that all applicable variance standards have been met, specifically: a) The requested variances, and resulting construction, would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and would be consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan. The proposed lots are for single family residential which is envisioned for this area. b) The applicant has demonstrated that there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance regulations, because: 1. The applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. The applicant is proposing single family lots that are similar to other sized lots in the neighborhood. 2. The request is due to circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the landowner. The applicant is proposing access to the lots off Jonquil Lane because access is not allowed off County Road 10. If the applicant was allowed to provide one driveway access onto County Road 10 then no variances would be required. 3. The variances would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as the lots would be consistent for both lot size and for lot width with the lots within the neighborhood. c) The requested variances are not based solely upon economic considerations. The applicant is requesting the variances in order to establish an additional single-family home site that complies with the city’s access requirements. 34 Res. 2023- File 2022072 Page 2 d) The variances, and resulting construction, would not be detrimental to the public welfare, nor would it be injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. The applicant has stated that the proposed home would meet all the required setbacks for the zoning district. e) The variances, and resulting construction, would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, nor would it increase traffic congestion or the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood. The applicant has stated that there will only be one additional driveway added to Jonquil Lane as the driveway for the existing home will remain in the same location. f) The variances requested are the minimum action required to address the practical difficulties. 3.Prior to release of the final plat for recording, the applicant shall: a) Pay the park dedication cash fee in lieu of land dedication for one new dwelling unit, in accordance with the dedication ordinance in effect at the time of filing for the final plat, unless waived by the City Council as part of the final plat review. b) Receive city approval of final construction plans, including those related to drainage and treatment of runoff. 4. Lot 2 shall be required to meet the 25% impervious surface requirement by removing impervious surfaces such as the bituminous driveway to meet the regulation. 5. No direct access shall be allowed to County Road 10. 6. Setbacks shall be as required for the RSF-1 district. No variances are approved or implied. 7.Prior to construction of the home, the applicant shall obtain a building permit from the building division. 8.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall fulfill the requirements, submit the required information, and revise the plans as indicated below, consistent with the applicable city code, zoning ordinance, and engineering guidelines: a) File and record the final plat with Hennepin County. b) Install and request inspection of tree protection fencing and silt fencing. c) Provide a certificate of survey indicating: 1) a minimum of two front yard trees to be planted; and 2) erosion and sediment controls, i.e. silt fence, inlet protections, rock entrance, etc. 9. Standard Conditions: a) Silt fence shall be installed prior to any construction. b) Retaining walls over four feet require issuance of a building permit and a minimum 42-inch high fence installed on top. c) Removal of all hazardous trees at the owner's expense. d) No trees shall be planted in the public right-of-way. e) Compliance with the city’s tree preservation, reforestation, and restitution regulations. 35 Res. 2023- File 2022072 Page 3 f) The preliminary plat and variances shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owner or applicant has applied for final plat approval, or unless the applicant, with the consent of the landowner, has received prior approval from the city to extend the expiration date for up to one additional year, as regulated under section 510 of city code. APPROVED by the Plymouth City Council this _____ day of_______, 2023. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on _______________, 2023, with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this ___________day of __________________, 2023. ____________________________________ City Clerk 36 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w wwwwwwwwwwwww w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w K SITE Legend C, Comercial CC, City Center CO, Commercial Office IND w w w w w w LA-1, Living Area 1 w w w w w w w w w w w w LA-2, Living Area 2 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w LA-3, Living Area 3 LA-4, Living Area 4 LA-5 MXD MXD-R P-I, Public/Semi-Public/Institutional 202207212001 County Road 10Request for Preliminary Plat and Variance Jo n q u i l L n . Cou n t y R o a d 1 0 60th PL. He m l o c k L n . Bass Lake 37 K SITE 202207212001 County Road 10Request for Preliminary Plat and Variance Jo n q u i l L n . Cou n t y R o a d 1 0 He m l o c k L n . Bass Lake 38 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 0 230 460115 Feet Date: 1/11/2023 Buffer Size:750Map Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us 39 BA S S L A K E R O A D JO N Q U I L L A N E N BASS LAKE Δ Area = 20540 S.F. 1 2 111 5 0 74 15 3 5 2 7 8 1 1 0 61 BLOCK 1 Area = 1.9± ACRES TO OHWL Project No. Revised:Checked By: Requested By: Date:Drawn By:Scale: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.comdenotes 1/2 inch by 14 inch iron pipe set and marked by License #40062 denotes iron monument found 8-15-22 Joe Cheney T.R.K.1"=30'P.E.O. I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. _______________________________ Paul E. Otto License #40062 Date:_____________ Preliminary Plat of BASS LAKE SHORES N Feet 0 30 60 Vicinity Map N 40 BASS LAKE 1 2 BLOCK 1 BA S S L A K E R O A D JO N Q U I L L A N E N SHEET NO. OF SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com JOE CHENEY 2 4PLYMOUTH, MN 22-0285 10-27-22 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN N Feet 0 30 60 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared byme or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Paul E. OttoLicense # 40062 Date: 41 BA S S L A K E R O A D JO N Q U I L L A N E N 1 2 BLOCK 1 BASS LAKE SHEET NO. OF SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com JOE CHENEY 3 4PLYMOUTH, MN 22-0285 10-27-22 PRELIMINARY GRADING & EROSION CONTROL PLAN N Feet 0 30 60 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared byme or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Paul E. OttoLicense # 40062 Date: 42 BA S S L A K E R O A D JO N Q U I L L A N E N BASS LAKE BASS LAKE 1 2 BLOCK 1 SHEET NO. OF SHEETS REV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTION DESIGNED DRAWN CHECKED DATE: PROJECT NO: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES 9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.com JOE CHENEY 4 4PLYMOUTH, MN 22-0285 10-27-22 PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION & REFORESTATION PLAN N Feet 0 30 60 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared byme or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly LicensedProfessional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Paul E. OttoLicense # 40062 Date: 43 44 1 Lori Sommers Subject:FW: 2022072: Bass lake shores - PP 1. Please provide a written narrative describing the project and incorporating the following: · Description of the proposed variance, including an explanation describing how the proposed variance conforms with the following variance standards as set forth in Section 516.05 of the Plymouth City Code: a. The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Both lots would have the required 110 feet of frontage on a public road however Bass Lake Road is considered the front of the lot. But Access is not allowed on Bass Lake Road b. The variance would alleviate an unusual hardship existing upon the land such as physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions. Unusual hardship includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.It is unusal to have street frontage that is not able to be useded as access. The variance wuld all the property to have access off of the side street Jonquill Lane N. c. The variance and its resulting construction or project would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other nearby properties.The variance would be in keeping with the minimum lot sizes in the area. The only change would be one more driveway onto Jonquill Lane. d. The variance requested is the minimum action required to alleviate the hardship. The only way to alleviate the hardship would be to allow access for one home on Bass Lake Road. Hardcover is proposed to be removed to keep the existing home within the requirements for hardcover. a. The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. Both lots would have 110 feet of frontage on a public road however Bass Lake Road is not considered the front of the lot and Access is not allowed on Bass Lake Road. b. The variance would alleviate an unusual hardship existing upon the land such as physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions. Unusual hardship includes, but is not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.It is unusal to have street frontage that is not able to be useded as access. The variance would allow both parcels to access Jonquill Lane N. The layout has been designed to maintain the existing driveway. c. The variance and its resulting construction or project would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other nearby properties.The variance would be in keeping with the minimum lot sizes in the area. The only change would be one more driveway onto Jonquill Lane. d. The variance requested is the minimum action required to alleviate the hardship. The only way to alleviate the hardship would be to allow access for one home on Bass Lake Road. Hardcover is proposed to be removed to keep the existing home within the requirements for hardcover. 45 Regular Planning Commission February 15, 2023 Agenda Number:6.1 To:Planning Commission Prepared by:Kip Berglund, Senior Planner Reviewed by:Grant Fernelius, Community and Economic Development Director File No:2022092 1. Applicant: Brian and Kareen Swanson 2. Proposal: Variance to the side yard setback for a home addition to allow an 11.3-foot setback where 15 feet is required by the zoning ordinance. 3. Location: 2950 Larch Lane North 4. Guiding: LA-1 (living area 1) 5. Zoning: RSF-1 (single family detached 1) 6. School District: Wayzata (No. 284) 7. Review Deadline: April 21, 2023 8. Brief Description: 46 Variance setback request for a home and garage addition, along the south side of the existing home. The lower level would be located 13 feet, and the upper level cantilever would be located 11.3 feet from the west property line where 15 feet is required. 9. Attachments: Planning Report.pdf Variance Standards Location Map Aerial Notification Area Map Correspondence Received Applicant's Narrative Proposed Survey Home Addition Plans Resolution 47 Planning Commission Report Information 2/15/2023 Brian and Kareen Swanson - Setback variance request for the construction of a two-story home and garage addition 2950 Larch Lane North (2022092) INTRODUCTION: The applicants are requesting approval of a setback variance to allow construction of a tw o-story home and garage addition, along the south side of the existing home. Under the proposal, the lower-level of the addition would be set back approximately 13 feet from the west side lot line, and the upper-level addition cantilever would be located 11.3 feet from the west side lot line, where 15 feet is required by the zoning ordinance, for properties within the RSF-1 zoning district. Notice of the public meeting was mailed to all property owners within 200 feet of the site. A copy of the notification area map is attached. CONTEXT: Surrounding Land Uses Adjacent Land Use Guiding Zoning Site Single family home LA-1 RSF-1 North Single family home in RLS 599 LA-1 RSF-1 South Single family homes in Faber Place subdivision LA-1 RSF-1 West Single family homes in Rappaport Subdivision LA-1 RSF-1 East Medicine Lake NA NA Natural Characteristics of Site The lot is located in the Bassett Creek watershed, is within the shoreland overlay district for Medicine Lake, and contains a steep slope toward the lake along the southern and eastern sides of the property. Area below the ordinary high-water level for Medicine Lake, adjacent to the east side of the property, are shown within a floodplain management overlay district. There are no wetlands on the property. Previous Actions Affecting Site The subject lot was created in 1956 as part of the Registered Land Survey Number 599. The home was built in 1967. 48 2022092 Page 2 LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposal meets the standards for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards for a variance. ANALYSIS OF REQUEST: The applicants are requesting to allow construction of a two-level addition along the south side of the existing home and would also include a concrete porch addition along west side of the existing home. The southern addition would add an additional 1,118 square feet of living space and garage on the main level and an additional 745 square feet of living space and garage in the lower level. Under the proposal, a portion of the addition would not meet the side yard setback requirement. The lower level of the addition would be set back approximately 13 feet from the west side lot line, and the upper-level addition cantilever would be located 11.3 feet from the west side lot line, where 15 feet is specified. The proposed side setback is within 75 percent of the required 15-foot side yard setback (at least 11.25 feet). Therefore, the request could have been approved administratively through the minor variance application process. However, during the 14-day response period for all properties within 200 feet of the property, staff received one response in opposition to the request (five responses were received in support of the request). Therefore, the request could no longer be considered “minor” and must be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved or denied by the City Council. The applicants state that the proposed additions are configured for architectural and aesthetic purposes to maximize the original layout of the home. The new additions would add needed office space for working from home due to the changes with the pandemic, and garage space to fit vehicles, lawncare and snow removal equipment, and increasing kids sports and recreational equipment. The applicants state that the awkward shape of the front of the lot limits the area to increase the livability of the home. As previously mentioned, opposition to the request was received, and related to loss of privacy due to the proximity of the proposed addition. The opposition stated that they feel setbacks are created for a reason and should be enforced. 49 2022092 Page 3 The red line on the excerpt of the survey below represents the required 15-foot setback from the west side property line. The blue area shows the proposed additions. The highlighted area shows the area that would encroach into the side yard setback. The applicants state that the addition was designed to fit in both architecturally and aesthetically with the existing home, would match the architecture of the existing home, and would optimize garage space. 50 2022092 Page 4 The elevations above show the front and right elevations. The areas circled in red are of the cantilevered area showing how the upper floor of the addition would encroach 20-inches further towards the side property line than the lower level. Impervious Surface The property is in the shoreland for Medicine Lake and therefore the ordinance stipulates a maximum impervious surface coverage of 25 percent. The applicants have provided a survey that includes the proposed impervious surface coverage stating that, if approved, the impervious surface of the lot would be 20.3 percent (6,070 square feet of 29,969 square feet). Therefore, the proposed impervious surface percentage would remain at or below 25 percent and meet zoning ordinance requirements for properties located within shoreland overlay districts. However, a condition is included in the attached draft resolution requiring that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant submit a revised survey with updated proposed impervious surface details that includes the overall square footage of the existing water-oriented structure and compacted area located along the west side of the home. As previously stated, the impervious surface would need to remain at or below 25 percent of the area of the lot above the ordinary high- water level of Medicine Lake. 51 2022092 Page 5 Staff reviewed the request according to the standards listed in section 21030 of the zoning ordinance and has made the following findings: 1. The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, and would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2. The applicants have demonstrated that there are practical difficulties in complying with the Chapter because: a) The request is consistent with the residential uses listed for this land classification in the comprehensive plan, and the property would be used in a reasonable manner; and b) The request is due to circumstances not created by the property owners as they are not the original owners of the home. In addition, the lot does not meet the minimum width requirements for lots within the RSF-1 zoning district (68 feet where 110 feet is required), thus limiting the ability to expand off the southern side of the home; and c) The variance would not alter the essential character of the lot or neighborhood. The area was developed prior to the current zoning ordinance setback requirements adopted in 1996. Therefore, several homes in the neighborhood have existing non- conforming setbacks to the side property lines. 3. The variance request is not based exclusively upon economic considerations, but rather, is based on a desire to improve the livability of the home. 4. The requested variance and resulting construction would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. A portion of the addition would encroach into the required setback. The addition would maintain an 11.3-foot distance from the west side property line and not negatively affect the drainage pattern. 5. The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, nor would it substantially increase traffic congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood. The addition would match the architecture of the existing home and increase the property value of this lot. 6. The variance requested is the minimum action required to address the practical difficulties. The shape of the lot makes it difficult for expansion off the south side of the home and the proposed home addition would meet all other zoning regulations. RECOMMENDATION: Community and Economic Development Department staff recommends approval of the requested variance at 2950 Larch Lane North, subject to the findings and conditions listed in the attached resolution. If new information is brought forward at the public meeting, staff may alter or reconsider its recommendation. 52 2022092 Page 6 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Variance Standards 2. Aerial Photo 3. Location Map 4. Notification Area Map 5. Correspondence Received 6. Applicant’s Narrative and Graphics 7. Draft Resolution Approving Variance P:\Planning Applications\2022\2022081 Swanson addition setback VAR\Comm Dev\PC Report(2-15-2023).docx 53 Forms: ZOvariancestds.docx Community Development Department 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 (763)509-5450 FAX (763) 509-5407 ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCE STANDARDS The City Council or Zoning Administrator may approve a variance application (major or minor, respectively) only upon finding that all of the following criteria, as applicable, have been met: 1. The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, and would be consistent with the comprehensive plan. 2. The variance applicant has satisfactorily established that there are practical difficulties in complying with this Chapter. “Practical difficulties” means that: a. the applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter; b. the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the landowner; and c. the variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality. 3. The variance request is not based exclusively upon economic considerations. 4. The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would not be detrimental to the public welfare, nor would it be injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. 5. The variance, and its resulting construction or project, would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, nor would it substantially increase traffic congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood. 6. The variance requested is the minimum action required to address or alleviate the practical difficulties. Section 21030-Plymouth Zoning Ordinance 54 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w wwww w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w www w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w wwwww w w w w w w w w w w w w w wwwww w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w ww w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w ww w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 2 9 t h Ave N o r w o od L n 28th Pl o d L n L a r c h L n 30th A v e 2 9 th Ave M a gnoliaLn SITE ÊM e dicin e L a k e D r W LA-1 LA-1 P-I LA-1 Medicine Lake 2022092 Brian and Kareen Swanson 2950 Larch Lane North Request for a Variance K250 0 250 500125 Feet Legend C, Comercial CC, City Center CO, Commercial Office IND w w LA-1, Living Area 1 w w w w w w LA-2, Living Area 2 w w w w w ww w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w LA-3, Living Area 3 LA-4, Living Area 4 LA-5 MXD MXD-R P-I, Public/Semi-Public/Institutional55 SITE M e d ic i n e L a k e D r W MEDICINE LAKE L a r c h L n 29th A ve 30th A v e 2022092 -- Aerial Photograph K125 0 125 25062.5 Feet 56 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 0 100 20050 Feet Date: 12/27/2022 Buffer Size:200Map Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 18 December 2022 Brian Swanson 2950 Larch Lane N. Plymouth, MN 55441 City of Plymouth Zoning, Planning and Development 3400 Plymouth BLVD. Plymouth, MN 55447 To Whom it may concern: We are writing to request a variance to our property. As the world continues to go through a global pandemic, our need for additional space in our home has grown. With two growing kids as well as two parents working from home it has become clear that we need additional space for offices as well as storage. Prior to the pandemic, I did not work from home, but over the last couple of years our business has shifted to work from home 2-3 days a week. This shift has really caused us to reevaluate our space within our home. Our goal is to repurpose some of our existing space to get office space and add on a master bedroom with mudroom and garage to help gain some extra storage. The placement of this addition is ideal because it maintains the property aesthetics, it is not obtrusive nor does it break up the yard. It is in a space that is seldom used currently and a flat section right next to our house. There are no properties to back of our house (East side) and it does not affect the North, South, or West properties because of tree coverage and placement of the building in regards to their home. Our problem or hardship lies in the awkward shape of our lot. It is an irregular hexagon and due to that, the 15’ setback does not allow us enough room to place the two-stall garage in the ideal location. We have asked the neighbors if they would sell any portion of their land which was part of vacated easement that was granted to them. However, they would prefer we go through the variance process. We have also tried many design iterations to fit within the given space. Our best option is to have the foundation of the lower garage be 13’ from the property line and cantilever the top garage by 30”. The portion that would be non-conforming is the length of the 30” cantilever at 28’ versus code of 10’ and the setback of 13’ versus code of 15’. Since we are 75 percent of the required yard setback, we are requesting a minor variance of a 28’ long cantilever and a 13’ setback. The spot we chose was chosen with care and conscientiousness of our neighbors. We believe we fulfill the hardship requirements for a variance and kindly ask you to review and grant such a variance. Thank you for your time and consideration. Brian and Kareen Swanson 64 VARIANCE STANDARDS RESPONSE SHEET  Would the variance, and its resulting construction or project, be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and consistent with the comprehensive plan? Explain. o Yes, this addition is in harmony with the general purposes of the zoning ordinance. We are planning to add space for offices since my wife and I now work from home. Additionally, we are planning to add a garage in order to fit our cars, lawn tractor, snow blower, and our ever-increasing kids’ equipment (bikes, skis, hockey equipment, etc.).  Would the variance, and its resulting construction or project, be detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood? Explain. o No, this addition will be attached to the south side of our house and will be more than 60 ft. away from any neighbor’s house.  Would the variance, and its resulting construction or project, impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, or substantially increase traffic congestion in public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood? Explain. o No, the proposed addition of a two-stall garage and master bedroom will not increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, increase traffic congestion, impair adequate supply of light or air because it is more than 60 feet away from the neighbor’s house in any direction. Additionally, we are a family of four and this will continue to be used as a single-family house for our family. We are trying to improve the livability of the home.  Is the variance requested the minimum action required to address or alleviate the practical difficulties? Explain. o Yes, our hardship/practical difficulties lie in the awkward shape of our lot. We are not the original owners of the lot and after further investigation, I found that there was a vacated 50’ easement that was granted to my neighbors to the Southwest in the late 90’s even though over half of it goes up my current driveway. By granting the whole easement to my neighboring house, it left our property with approximately 70’ of frontage versus the typical 110’ of frontage. If this would have been granted half to my neighbor and half to the previous owner, then a variance would not be required since our proposed garage is right along the vacated easement line. We are trying our hardest to fit this proposed addition within the space we have been granted in order to expand the livability of the home. However, in order to get a two-stall garage within the area, a 13’ setback is being requested. 65  Explain the “practical difficulties” present by answering the following questions: - Do you plan to use the property in a reasonable manner, permitted by the Zoning Ordinance? Explain. - Yes, we plan to use the property in a reasonable manner permitted by the zoning ordinance. We plan to increase the livability of the home due to changes in the world with the pandemic and work from home environments. Additionally, we plan to address our storage need for our cars, lawn tractor, snow blower, and our ever-increasing kids’ equipment (bikes, skis, hockey equipment, etc.). - Is the variance request based exclusively upon economic considerations? Explain. - No, we love the area and just want to make our home more livable. We have asked the neighbors if they would like to sell a couple of feet of their land, but they would prefer we go through the variance process. - Is the difficulty due to circumstances unique to the property and was the issue created by the property owner? Explain. - The difficulty is due to circumstances unique to the property as listed in other sections of this document and was not created by the property owner. - Would the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? - No, the essential character of the locality would not be altered. See proposed plans. 66 67 68 GRADE LINES VERIFY ALL 29 5 0 L A R C H L A N E N , P L Y M O U T H TO BE S.P.F. #2 OR BETTER *ALL DOOR & WINDOW HEADERS RE S I D E N C E F O R : c Designed to Build Inc modified or used in any redesign without the prior may not be assigned or copied, and may not be may not be re-used for any additional structures, structure. Designed to Build Inc reserves all rights. These plans license is granted to use these plans to build one Copyright for these drawings is owned by Designed to Build Inc written consent of Designed to Build Inc 19488 HOLT COURT LAKEVILLE, MN 55044 PH. (612) 281-7116 Designed to Build Inc SEAN AUSLAND BR I A N & K A R E E N S W A N S O N #19-103 SMA 1 82019 FRONT ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 12 12 4 12 12 8 4 12 6" TRIM 4" FRIEZE BOARD 4" FRIEZE BOARD 4" TRIM 4" TRIM 6" TRIM 12x12 LP COL. ON 18x18x42 BOXED BASE CONC. PORCH 6" (3) ICAP2935 BLACKED OUT 6'-0" LP SHAKE 4,614 SQ. FT. 1,947 SQ. FT. 2,667 SQ. FT.1st FLR. BSM'T TOTAL LP SHAKE ALL SIDES PELLA ARCHITECTURE WINDOWS WDW. GRIDS AS SHOWN ALL SIDES ALUM. SOFFIT & FASCIA ALL SIDES LP SHAKE BOULDER RETAINING WALL VERIFY ON SITE 12/12 12 8 8" TRIM 6" TRIM 6" FRIEZE BOARD LP SHAKE LP SHAKE BRACKETS BRACKETS 12/12 8" TRIM FLOWER BOX RIGHT ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" 8 12 8 12 6" TRIM 6" FRIEZE BOARD LP SHAKE 12/12 2'-0" 4/12 REAR ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" LP SHAKE 6" TRIM 8 12 4 12 8" TRIM 1'-6" 6" FRIEZE BOARD 12x12 LP COL. ON 24x18x36 BOXED BASE 12 12 36" CIR BLACKED OUT 4 12 36" CIR BLACKED OUT 9 12 1'-6" LEFT ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" LP SHAKE LP SHAKE 18x8 OVH. DR. 4 12 12/12 8 12 6" 6" TRIM 6" FRIEZE BOARD 8" TRIM (2) BRACKETS4'-0" (2) ICAP2535 BLACKED OUT EGRESS WDW. WELL 9/12 2'-0"2'-0" 69 c Designed to Build Inc #19-103 2 8SMA2019 EXISTING WALLS EXISTING FOUNDATION NEW FOUNDATION NEW WALLS BASEMENT PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" STORAGE LT W D REC ROOM BEDROOM EXISTING STL. BEAM UP 15 R FILL *EXISTING *EXISTING *UNFINISHED 2x 1 0 J T S . 16 " O . C . 9 1 / 2 " I J T S . 16 " O . C . FURNWH98% 8 " P R E C A S T C O N C . P A N E L S *4" CONC. FLOOR LOWER GARAGE 2'-8" 16x7 O V H . D R . VERIFY RETAINING ON SITE 2'-6" 3'-0" FIRE DOOR GUEST ROOM *CARPET 1/2 WALL W/ WD. CAP 2- 2 x 1 0 F L U S H 2-9 1/2" LSL 76'-9" 11'-3"9'-2" 28 ' - 8 18" 40 ' - 1 " 19 ' - 7 " 9' - 0 " 28'-0" 10 ' - 4 " 3' - 6 " I . D . 5'-0"11'-8"7'-0" 29 4 7 D H 2- 2 x 1 0 59 2 5 F X 2- 2 x 1 0 3' - 1 " 5' - 1 1 " 1' - 9 " 2 5 ' - 0 1 8 " 10" EX. DR. EX. DR. EX. DR. EX. DR. EXERCISE RM *EXISTING FLOORING REMOVE OVH. DR. FILL W/ BLOCK REMOVE WALL FILL W/ BLOCK EXISTING 12" CANT. NE W 3 6 4 2 CS M T ME T A L WD W . W E L L REMOVE WDW. FILL W/ BLOCK 6' - 1 0 " LOWER MUD RM *C.T. *C . T . *C A R P E T F SD/CO SD 16x8 FTG. 1/2C. - 4" BLK. 2x4 - 16" O.C. 16x8 FTG. 1/2C. - 4" BLK. 2x4 - 16" O.C. 16x8 FTG. 1/2C. - 4" BLK. 2x4 - 16" O.C. 2- 9 1 / 2 " L S L 2-9 1/2" LSL FLUSH 6" LEDGE 2-2x10 MECH *UNFINISHED ”64)7 ”64)7 FINISHED SQ. FT. NEW ADDITION TOTAL BSM'T FRAME IN NEW FLOOR IN EXISTING STAIR OPENING 5'-0" TUB & SHOWER 1 PIECE FIB. FL U S H DN EX I S T I N G 2x 1 0 J T S . 16 " O . C . NE W 2'-8" E X . L N D R Y RAISE FLOOR TO MATCH EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR FAMILY ROOM *CARPET 4x4 STL. POST ON 24"x24"x42" PIER FTG. 36"x36"x12" PAD FTG. 10'-9"18'-4"11'-6" 10 ' - 0 " DROPPED STEEL BM. (SIZED BY SUPPLIER) 9 1 / 2 " I J T S . 16 " O . C . 9 1 / 2 " I J T S . 16 " O . C . REF'G 12" S.B. WET BAR *EXISTING 10'-0" 4' - 6 " 4' - 4 " TRT. 2-2x10 FLUSH TRT. 6x6 POST ON 18"x42" TUBE FTG. TR E A T E D DB L . 2 x 1 2 16 " O . C . EXISTING SPIRAL STAIRS RE-USE 3' - 2 38"± TR T . 2 - 2 x 1 0 F L U S H 3'-6"3'-0" VERIFY POST & FTG. LOCATIONS W/ STAIRS 3' - 9 58"± EXISTING BLOCK WALL 4' - 2 " 14'-4" 36" 12x12 LP COL. ON 18x18x36 BOXED BASE (VERIFY DIMS.) 5' - 4 " 5'-3" 2-2x10 3759-2 DH 5'-9"5'-9" 2-2x10 2541 DH U.C. OVEN RAISE FLOOR TO MATCH EXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR 3'-0" FULL VIEW 11'-2"3'-212" 2-2x10 3353-3 DH 11'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0" 2' - 6 " 7'-8" 66 " 2'-4" 6'-1" 2-9 1/2" LSL 2941-3 DH 4'-8" OFFICE *CARPET 2'-8" 2' - 3 " 9' - 1 0 " BU I L T - I N S 2'-10" 9' - 0 " *C.T.3'-7" 9'-4" 2x6 11 ' - 6 " 6' - 4 " 29 4 7 D H 2- 2 x 1 0 2-9 1/2" LVL DROPPED 2'-6" 2-2x10 7'-10" 5'-6" T.V. WALL 2'-4"2'-4" 3'-10"12'-1"3'-10" 2' - 4 " 2'-8" FULL VIEW 2' - 2 " 2- 2 x 1 0 8'-0" 3-2x10 8'-4" 6' - 6 " 4" LEDGE 4" LEDGE 77'-81116" 24'-61316" 33'-0" DROPPED STEEL BM. (SIZED BY SUPPLIER) 5'-6" 20" C A N T . STL. L I N T E L F O R 2 ' - 6 " 4 ' - 7 11 6 " STL. B E A M 12'-9" 3'-0" 36"x36"x12" PAD FTG. 22° UP 2 R 2-2x10 3780 FX 36" CANT. 3"3"3"3" 3780 FX 2'-8" FULL VIEW 12 ' - 4 316 " 6'-6" 4'-3"6'-6" 10 ' - 0 " 3'-0" PKT. 2'-8" SH E D 12 ' - 8 " LOW H D R M . H D W R . 36'-2" 10'-0" 70 c Designed to Build Inc #19-103 3 8SMA2019 EXISTING WALLS FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" NEW WALLS RE F ' G BEDROOM BEDROOM KITCHEN DECK *WOOD DINING LT W D WHIRLPOOL 3x6 TUB 4" REMOVE F.P. 2'-8" 3'-0" 3'-0" 3' - 0 " C . O . DN 15 R FIRE DOOR 1 8 x 8 O V H . D R . *4" CONC. FLOOR GARAGE 3'-0" SL SL 10" MASTER BEDROOM *CARPET W.I.C. *CARPET MUD RM *C.T. 28 ' - 8 18" 13 ' - 1 0 " 16 ' - 3 " WALL EDGE 12'-4"11'-0" 79'-114" 11'-8"5'-0" 3' - 6 " I . D . 4' - 3 " 12 ' - 0 " 14'-112"9'-6" NEW 3759 DH 2-2x10 2-9 1/2" LSL 29 4 7 D H 2- 2 x 1 0 29 4 7 D H 2- 2 x 1 0 3'-2" 2-9 1/2" LSL 5943 FX TEMP CONC. PORCH 76'-9" T. V . A B O V E *8 ' C L G . *9 ' C L G . 3' - 6 " 9' - 5 " 3' - 4 " EXISTING SPIRAL STAIRSFILL IN DECK 2,667 SQ. FT. 1,118 SQ. FT. 1,549 SQ. FT.EXISTING NEW TOTAL 20'-112" NEW 3759 DH 2-2x10 7'-10" 5' - 0 " 7'-10"5'-7"5'-7" BU I L T - I N S GAS F.P.36" MAKE UP 4' - 2 " LOCKERS & BENCH 4'-6" ROD & SH 5'-0" *C.T. 3' - 6 " 6' - 1 0 " 10 ' - 4 " *INSUL. & SHTRK. 2x6 F TR U S S E S 24 " O . C . STOR A G E TRUS S E S 24" O . C . AC C E S S AT T I C SD/CO SD 2-2x10 2-9 1/2" LSL2-9 1/2" LSL3-9 1/2" LSL 12x12 LP COL. ON 18x18x42 BOXED BASE 9' - 9 " EX I S T I N G BA T H R O O M *EXISTING *EXISTING *WOOD GREAT ROOM *WOOD 6' - 3 " 6' - 0 " 1'-8" *NEW EX . W D W . EX . W D W . EX. DR. EX. DR. EX. DR. EX. DR. EX. DR. 2'-6" 8' CEILING @ NEW ADDITION FRAME IN NEW FLOOR IN EXISTING STAIR OPENING NE W TR U S S E S 24 " O . C . TR U S S E S 24 " O . C . CA N T . N E W TR U S S E S 24 " O . C . 2 - 1 8 " L V L ( V E R I F Y ) NE W TR U S S E S 24 " O . C . 10 ' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 5' - 9 " 2'-4" 12 " S . B . 4' - 9 " 37 5 9 D H 2- 2 x 1 0 2-2x10 3759-2 DH RE-USE DN 2'-8" FULL VIEW SITTING ROOM *CARPET 11'-6"36'-0"25'-0"4'-3" 9'-0"16'-0"5'-9"5'-9" 5' - 3 " 15'-0" 13'-0" 60 *C.T. 19 ' - 4 " RIDGE OF VAULT OP T . T . V . L O C . 3"3" 2- 2 x 1 0 2' - 1 " 3' - 9 58" ( V E R I F Y ) 6' - 2 38" ( V E R I F Y ) 13'-6" W.I.C. *C.T. 2'-8" 3'-0" UP 2 R 2- 2 x 1 0 1' - 1 0 " GIRDERGIRDER TRUSSES 24" O.C. TRUSSES 24" O.C. 10'-712" 5' - 3 " 3'-0" 3'-0" 2' - 9 " PKT. 3' - 0 " 3'-8" PKT. BU I L T - I N S *FLAT *VAULT *F L A T *V A U L T FRENCH 3'-8" 1/2 WALL W/ GLASS PANEL 42" 36 *WOOD FOYER NEW 3759 DH 2-2x10 7'-1" REF'G WINE 29 1 7 F X 29 1 7 F X 4' - 1 1 " 3' - 8 " 2- 2 x 1 0 2- 2 x 1 0 25'-11 516" 28'-0" 2 5 ' - 0 1 8 " 1 1 ' - 4 " 5' - 6 " 3759- 2 D H 2-2x10 TOP @ 8 ' O F F GARA G E F L R 14'-0" 14'-0" RAINB O W A T T I C STAIR S L A D D E R F R A M E 22° 40 ' - 1 " 6 ' - 3 11 6 " 2-2x10 3757 DH 3' - 6 " 4'-0" 4'-6" 8' - 0 " 7'-0" 3'-0" 2-9 1/2" LSL 3"3" 7153 FX FULL VIEW 3'-0" FULL VIEW *VAULT RIDGE OF VAULT WA L L ED G E 2'-4" 42" 40" LIN. 32" GLASS DOOR *C.T. 3'-6" 2'-4" 1'-0" 12'-7" *BOX VAULT 1'-6" *WOOD OFFICE *BOX VAULT 1'-6" 3'-0" 3'-0" 10 ' - 9 " 9'-8" 2'-4" 7'-10"8'-2" 2-9 1/2" LSL 3753-4 DH NEW 3759 DH 2-2x10 3' - 0 " *WOOD PANTRY 2- 9 1 / 2 " L V L 3'-0" PKT. G I R D E R TRUSSES 24" O.C. 12 ' - 4 316 " 7" 5'-8"3'-4" 2-2x10 2943 DH *FLAT *VAULT 3753 DH 3753 DH 3" 10 ' - 0 " 30 ' - 1 " 1' - 6 " 6' - 5 34" 4'-7" 1' - 6 " 6' - 1 34" 9'-3" 71 c Designed to Build Inc #19-103 4 8SMA2019 OVERHANGS, & ENERGY HEELS TRUSS MFR. TO VERIFY ALL ROOF PITCHES, ROOF PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" 8 12 2' - 6 " 1'-0" 1' - 6 " 4 12 2'-0"2'-0" 1 ' - 0 " 8 12 4 12 12/12 12/12 4 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 4 " 6 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 0 " 12/1212/1212/1212/12 8'-412"6'-0"7'-6"6'-0"7'-6"6'-0" 1'-6" 12 12 1' - 6 " 2' - 0 " 12 12 2 ' - 0 " 8 12 8 12 12/12 12/12 12/12 12/12 4 12 9 12 9 12 4/12 4/12 72 c Designed to Build Inc #19-103 5 8SMA2019 TRUSS MFR. TO VERIFY ALL ROOF PITCHES, OVERHANGS, & ENERGY HEELS CROSS SECTION 3/8" = 1'-0" 8' - 1 18" R-21 SPRAY FOAM SHEATHING SIDING VB 1/2" GYP. BD. R-21 INSUL. 2X6- 16" O.C. 3/4" T & G FLOOR 9 1/2" I JTS. @ 16" O.C. R-21 SPRAY FOAM 2X6- 16" O.C. R-21 INSUL. 1/2" GYP. BD. VB 30'-1" 5/8" GYP. BD. W/ V.B. 1-2x6 TREATED 3 1/2" CONC. FLOOR POURED WALL 1/2 C- 6" BLK. 2x6- 16" O.C. 16x8 W/ REBAR PER CODE SILL PLATE 24x12 8' - 2 " ± W/ (2)#5 (VERIFY) 1' - 3 12" 8' - 4 " 8" PRECAST PANELS (VERIFY) PROOFING AS REQUIRED DRAIN TILE WATER POURED WALL GRADE 20x8 2" R-10 RIGID INSUL. VB 1/2" GYP. BD. R-21 INSUL. 2X6- 16" O.C. 1/2 C- 6" BLK. 2x6- 16" O.C. 16x8 7 316 " 6'-8" MIN. HDRM 1x8 RISERS 5/4x11 TREADS 4- 2x12 STRINGER STAIR NOTES: 10" RUFF CUT TREADS 1/2" SHTG. 15# FELT SHINGLES 8 12 ROOF VENTS @ 1/300 ATTIC 50% ROOF 50% SOFFIT (DESIGNED BY MFR) TRUSSES @ 24" O.C. R-49 INSUL. 1038" 6" 1" R-5 RIGID 6" 2" R-10 RIGID 1' - 0 " 24x12 W/ (2)#5 (VERIFY) GRADE 10 ' - 0 78" CONC. TOPPING MEMBRANESLOPE TO DOORS (DESIGNED BY MFR) TRUSSES @ 24" O.C. STORAGE R-49 INSUL. 2X6- 16" O.C. R-21 INSUL. 1/2" GYP. BD. VB 5/8" GYP. BD. W/ V.B. GARAGE LOWER GARAGE 4" CONC. FLOOR 8" POURED WALL W/ REBAR PER CODE 11 ' - 8 " SHEATHING SIDING MASTER BEDROOM GUEST BEDROOM LOWER MUD RM MUD ROOM “%(9(/ 1' - 1 1 116 " 16'-0" GIRDER 10'-0" SITTING ROOM 3" (TRUSS MFR. TO VERIFY) 2-9 1/2" LVL 9 1/2" I JTS. @ 16" O.C. 4' - 0 " “%(9(/ 13 ' - 8 " 1'-8" SLOPE TO DOORS 73 c Designed to Build Inc #19-103 6 8SMA2019 GARAGE 28'-0" GRADE FASCIA ALUM. SOFFIT VENTED ALUM. 1/2" SHTG. 15# FELT SHINGLES 2'-0" 8 12 ROOF VENTS @ 1/300 ATTIC 50% ROOF 50% SOFFIT VENTED SOFFIT FASCIA ALUM. ALUM.2'-0" 7' - 0 " 14'-6" 11 11 16 " 8" PRECAST PANELS (VERIFY) CONC. TOPPING MEMBRANESLOPE TO DOORS 24x12 W/ (2)#5 (VERIFY) GRADE POURED WALL W/ REBAR PER CODE 12 ' - 8 " 24x12 W/ (2)#5 (VERIFY) POURED WALL W/ REBAR PER CODE 2X6- 16" O.C. R-21 INSUL. 1/2" GYP. BD. VB VB 1/2" GYP. BD. R-21 INSUL. 2X6- 16" O.C. R-49 INSUL. 3/4" T & G FLOOR 2x10 BOTTOM CHORD (MAX OUT) (M A X O U T ) 10 ' - 0 78" LOWER GARAGE 4"6"4"6" 5/8" GYP. BD. W/ V.B. 8' - 1 18" 1/2" SHTG. 15# FELT SHINGLES 8 12 ROOF VENTS @ 1/300 ATTIC 50% ROOF 50% SOFFIT (DESIGNED BY MFR) TRUSSES @ 24" O.C. R-49 INSUL. 30'-1" (TRUSS MFR. TO VERIFY) FASCIA ALUM. SOFFIT VENTED ALUM.2'-6" GRADE EXISTING FOUNDATION 5'-0" 16x8 POURED WALL CONC. PORCH FILL TRT. 6x6 POST 3-9 1/2" LSL 12 4 EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL EXISTING 2x10 JOISTS GRADE 51316" 5'-4" 8 12 EXISTING BEDROOM FASCIA ALUM. SOFFIT VENTED ALUM.1'-6" EXISTING BEDROOM CROSS SECTION 3/8" = 1'-0" CROSS SECTION 3/8" = 1'-0" EXISTING FOUNDATION 5/8" GYP. BD. W/ V.B. TRUSS MFR. TO VERIFY ALL ROOF PITCHES, OVERHANGS, & ENERGY HEELS 16'-0" 8' - 4 " 14'-1" 4" CONC. FLOOR SLOPE TO DOORS 74 c Designed to Build Inc #19-103 7 8SMA2019 8' - 1 18" FASCIA ALUM. SOFFIT VENTED ALUM. 1/2" SHTG. 15# FELT SHINGLES 8 12 ROOF VENTS @ 1/300 ATTIC 50% ROOF 50% SOFFIT (DESIGNED BY MFR) TRUSSES @ 24" O.C. 3' - 7 1316 " 30'-1" (TRUSS MFR. TO VERIFY) FASCIA ALUM. SOFFIT VENTED ALUM.2'-6" GRADE EXISTING FOUNDATION FILL IN OPNG. OF EXISTING OVH. DR. 5'-0" 16x8 POURED WALL CONC. PORCH FILL VERIFY CONC. PORCH W/ EXISTING CANT. 12x12 COL. TRT. 6x6 POST 2-9 1/2" LSL 12 4 EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL EXISTING 2x10 JOISTS GRADE 1'-6" 12 4 51316"5 516" TRT. DBL. 2x10 JTS. @ 16" O.C. 10'-0" 5'-4" 8 12 DINING GREAT ROOM CROSS SECTION 3/8" = 1'-0" 5/8" GYP. BD. W/ V.B. TRUSS MFR. TO VERIFY ALL ROOF PITCHES, OVERHANGS, & ENERGY HEELS 12 5 11 ' - 1 1 1516 " 3'-0" C.O. GAS F.P. DIRECT VENT 20'-4"9'-9" 4x4 STL. POST 24"x42" TUBE FTG. 12x12 BOXED COL. 9'-978" 9'-41316" 5'-8 516" 14'-1" 18x18x36 BOXED BASE 18x18x42 BOXED BASE 13'-0" STL. BM. 10'-0" DECKING 2' - 1 1316 " 3'-0" R-49 INSUL. 1'-6"6'-134"1'-6" 1' - 0 " HEADER & BEARING/ KING STUDS PER PLAN PROVIDE SPACER TO FLUSH OUT HEADER TO WALL STUD THICKNESS AS REQD. EACH SIDE FASTEN TOP PLATE TO HEADER W/ 2 ROWS 16d SINKER NAILS @ 3" O.C. NAIL SHEATHING TO HEADER W/ 10d NAILS @ 3" O.C. EACH WAY TYP. (1) 2x6 BEARING STUD & (1) 2x6 FULL HEIGHT STUD EACH END OF HEADER 7/16" MIN. PLYWD OR OSB SHEATHING APPLIED TO EXTERIOR SIDE OF STUDS (NAIL SHEATHING TO ALL BACKING STUDS W/ 10d NAILS @ 3" O.C. TYP.) LOCATE PANEL JOINT WITHIN 2'-0" FROM CENTER OPENINGS AS REQD. 2x SOLID BLKG. RQD. AT SHEATHING JOINTS (ORIENT FACE TO SHEATHING, FASTEN SIMPSON STHD14 EMBEDDED HOLD DOWN ANCHORS AT LOCATIONS SHOWN (REFER TO POST-INSTALLED OPTIONS) SIMPSON LSTA36 STRAP ON INTERIOR STUD FACE CENTERED ON HEADER NAIL FULL HEIGHT STUD TO EACH HEADER PLY W/ 16d NAILS @ 3" O.C. PROVIDE 2x6 INFILL WALL ABOVE AS REQD. PROVIDE 7/16" MIN. PLYWD. OR OSB SHEATHING ABOVE GARAGE DOOR OPNG. W/ STANDARD FASTENING PROVIDE INTERMEDIATE FRAMING AS REQD. TO MAINTAIN 16" MAX. STUD SPACING (2) 1/2" DIA. ANCHOR BOLTS MIN. (7" MIN. EMBED) C.I.P. CONCRETE FOUNDATION PER CODE TOGETHER W/ (3) 16 d SINKERS BEARING STUDS PER PLAN (2-2x6 BEARING STUDS MIN.) 2'-0"±16'-0"±2'-0"± 11 ' - 8 ' M A X . LENGTH OF CONTINUOUS HEADER NOTE: INFO APPLIES EQUALLY BOTH SIDES OF OPENING GARAGE FRONT PORTAL FRAMING 1/2" = 1'-0" FLOOR SYSTEM ROOF TRUSS PVC T-FITTING TO SUPPORT VENT PIPE MIN. 4" OF GAS PERMEABLE MATERIAL 3 1/2" CONC. SLAB 4" PVC VENT PIPE SUPPORT STRAPPING FLASHING EXHAUST 10' FROM OPNGS. INTO CONDITIONED SPACES OF BUILDING 12" MIN. ABOVE ROOF SEAL 6 MIL POLY UNDER SLAB 10' OF DRAIN TILE EACH WAY FROM T-FITTING (ROCK) RADON GAS VENT SYSTEM 3/8" = 1'-0" 36" MIN. HT. CLEAR SPACE 24" DIA. AROUND VENT PROVIDE ELECTRICAL BOX POWER SOURCE R-4 MIN. INSUL. VENT PIPE @ UNCONDITIONED SPACE 4" MIN. CLEARANCE FOR FUT. FAN 75 c Designed to Build Inc #19-103 8 8SMA2019 EXISTING BASEMENT PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" GARAGE DN UP LT W D WH FURN FAMILY ROOM SCREEN PORCH BEDROOM STL. BEAM EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN 1/4" = 1'-0" F.P. RE F ' G DN BEDROOM BEDROOM MASTER BEDROOM GREAT ROOM DINING KITCHEN DECK 76 CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 2023-___ RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW A HOME ADDITION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2950 LARCH LANE NORTH (2022092) WHEREAS, Brian and Kareen Swanson have requested approval of a side yard setback variance for a home addition; and WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as: Parcel 1: Tract F, Registered Land Survey No. 599 Hennepin County, Minnesota. Parcel 2: That part of vacated Larch Lane as dedicated in the plat of Rappaport Addition lying Southerly and Easterly of the Easterly, Northerly and Northwesterly continuation of the curved segment of the Northerly line of Lot 6, Block 2 in said plat to the Easterly line of said plat, except that part thereof which lies Southwesterly of the following described Line A and its extensions: Line A: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Lot 6, Block 2; thence on an assumed bearing of North 22 degrees 27 minutes 50 seconds West along the East line of said Lot 6 a distance of 109.61 feet, thence Easterly 27.04 feet along the line, that if extended, would intersect the Easterly line of said vacated Larch Lane at a point distant 117 feet Northwesterly 12.81 feet on a line bearing North 37 degrees 36 minutes 44 seconds West to the existing right-of-way of Larch Lane and said point being true point of beginning of said Line A; thence Southeasterly to the above described Point B and said Line A there terminating. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said request at a duly called public meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request by Brian and Kareen Swanson for a side yard setback variance for a home addition for property located at 2950 Larch Lane North, subject to the following findings and conditions: 1. The requested variance is hereby approved to construction of a two-story home and garage addition, along the south side of the existing home. The lower level of the addition would be set back approximately 13 feet from the west side lot line, and the upper-level addition cantilever would be located 11.3 feet from the west side lot line, where 15 feet is specified, in accordance with the application received by the city on December 28, 2022, and additional information on January 12, 2023, except as may be amended by this resolution. 2. The requested side yard setback variance is approved, based on the finding that all applicable variance standards would be met, as follows: 77 Resolution 2023- (2022092) Page 2 a) The variance permitting the addition is consistent with the residential uses listed for this land use classification in the comprehensive plan. b) The applicants have established that there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance regulations, because: 1) The request is consistent with the residential uses listed for this land classification in the comprehensive plan and the property would be used in a reasonable manner; 2) The request is due to circumstances not created by the property owners as they are not the original owners of the home. In addition, the lot does not meet the minimum width requirements for lots within the RSF-1 zoning district (68 feet where 110 feet is required), thus limiting the ability to expand off the southern side of the home; and 3) The variance would not alter the essential character of the lot or neighborhood. The area was developed prior to the current zoning ordinance setback requirements adopted in 1996. Therefore, several homes in the neighborhood have existing non- conforming setbacks to the side property lines. c) The purpose for the variation is not based exclusively on economic considerations; but rather, is based upon a desire to improve the livability of the home. d) The requested variance and resulting construction would not be detrimental to the public welfare, nor would it be injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. A portion of the addition would encroach into the required setback. The addition would maintain an 11.3-foot distance from the west side property line and not negatively affect the drainage pattern. e) The requested variance and resulting construction would not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, nor would it increase traffic congestion or the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood. The addition would match the architecture of the existing home and increase the property value of this lot. f) The variance request is the minimum action required to address the practical difficulties. The shape of the lot makes it difficult for expansion off the south side of the home and the proposed home addition would meet all other zoning regulations. 3. A building permit is required prior to construction of the addition. 4. Prior to issuance of the building permit, the applicant shall fulfill the requirements, submit the required information, and revise the plans as indicated below, consistent with the applicable City code, zoning ordinance, and engineering guidelines: a. Submit a revised survey, with an accurate proposed impervious surface percentage, pursuant to zoning ordinance requirements, at or below 25 percent of the area of the lot 78 Resolution 2023- (2022092) Page 3 above the ordinary high-water level of Medicine Lake (889.1 feet), including the overall size of the existing water-oriented structure and compacted area along the western side of the property. b. Submit and receive approval of an erosion control plan that includes proposed silt fence location and details and applicable inlet protection. 5. The drainage pattern of adjacent properties shall not be affected as a result of the construction project. 6. Any subsequent phases or expansions are subject to required reviews and approvals per ordinance provisions. 7. The variance shall expire one year after the date of approval, unless the property owners or applicants has commenced the authorized improvement or use, or unless the applicants, with the consent of the property owners, have received prior approval from the city to extend the expiration date for up to one additional year, as regulated under section 21030.06 of the zoning ordinance. ADOPTED by the City Council on this **** day of *******, ****. STATE OF MINNESOTA) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) SS. The undersigned, being the duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Plymouth, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at a meeting of the Plymouth City Council on *******, **** with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this ____________day of ____________________. ____________________________________ City Clerk 79 Regular Planning Commission February 15, 2023 Agenda Number:6.2 To:Planning Commission Prepared by:Chloe McGuire, Planning and Development Manager Reviewed by:Grant Fernelius, Community and Economic Development Director File No: 1. Applicant: 2. Proposal: 3. Location: 4. Guiding: 5. Zoning: 6. School District: 7. Review Deadline: 8. Brief Description: 80 9. Attachments: Planning Report.pdf Staff Presentation on Accessory Dwelling Units Comparable Cities Regulations (2022) Family Housing Fund ADU Information (2019) Family Housing Fund ADU Regulations by City (2019) 81 Accessory Dwelling Units in Plymouth – Recommendations and Considerations Overview Accessory Dwelling Units are a housing option that leverages existing neighborhoods to create small- scale affordable housing opportunities. ADUs, often known as “carriage houses,” “in-law suites,” and “granny flats,” can also serve lifecycle housing needs for older and younger family members alike. Establishing a clear path to construct an ADU would help individual property owners determine if an ADU is right for their needs and follow the prescribed requirements. The Family Housing Fund recommends that to encourage and reap the benefits of ADU development, cities should establish a process framework that removes regulatory barriers while delineating clear parameters for what is permitted. This will help align the city’s intended housing goals with the outcomes from the allowed ADUs. The recommendations included below are potential guidelines for a local ADU policy to encourage responsible development in the City of Plymouth. Recommendations The City of Plymouth Planning Staff recommend the following zoning and process requirements – • Types of ADUs: Attached, Internal, and Detached • Process: Administration approval, unless a garage conversion • Owner-Occupancy: Owner must live onsite in either principal or accessory structure • Allowed Districts: Only in RSF-1/RSF-2 Districts on lots with single-family detached homes • Setbacks: All types of ADUs subject to principal structure setbacks • ADU Size: Minimum 200 square feet; maximum 1000 square feet • Parking: Required approval of adequate onsite parking based on garage stalls and driveway parking • Architecture: Matches or complements principal structure 82 Background Information Process – Some local communities require Conditional Use Permits for ADU development while others allow for administrative review and ADUs are listed as an accessory use in listed residential districts. In Golden Valley, ADUs are permitted by administrative review but a Conditional Use Permit is required for a detached ADU if it does not meet the same side and rear yard setbacks as the principal structure. Golden Valley permits ADUs on lots with a minimum of 10,000 square feet and applies principal structure setbacks to ADUs. The City of Plymouth could utilize the administrative review process for ADUs to allow for a more user-friendly process. To manage land use concerns, Plymouth’s policy could establish limitations related to the zoning district (i.e. ADUs permitted by administrative review in RSF -1 and RSF-2 but not RSF-3 or RSF-4 based on the minimum lot size) and limitations related to conformity with the principal or accessory structure setback requirements. Type – Many local communities permit attached, internal, and detached ADUs. The City of Hopkins differentiates the types by calling detached ADUs “backyard cottages” and attached ADUs “secondary suites.” Internal ADUs are accessible from the principal structure and do not have a designated separate entrance. Allowing for attached, internal, and detached ADUs would give residents the most flexibility to select an ADU type that works for their needs. For example, a detached ADU above a garage could be an adequate living arrangement for an adult child but this could be a poor living arrangement for an older family member who has a hard time climbing stairs and requires more direct support from those living in the primary structure. The City of Plymouth should permit the three different types of ADUS. The variety of types could also help property owners choose the kind of ADU that works with their living needs, current principal structure, and lot features. Zoning Considerations Size – Most cities have a maximum square footage for ADUs and a few also have a minimum square footage. The range for minimum is 200 to 300 square feet and the maximum range is 800 to 1000 square feet. 83 Some cities note that the footprint is not to exceed a percentage of the gross living area of the principal structure or a set square footage, whichever is less. A minimum and maximum size condition, in addition to references to the maximum structural coverage and the set number of accessory structures, could help manage the size of ADUs in neighborhoods. Owner-Occupied – A common requirement for ADUs is that the property owner is required to reside in either the principal structure or the ADU as their primary residence for at least half the year. Ownership of the ADU cannot be separated or subdivided from the principal structure on the lot. The Family Housing Fund argues that this requirement limits the use of the property over time, but this is requirement is standard to other local cities. Requiring the property owner to occupy the principal or accessory structure would be a valid criterion. Rental – Local communities take different approaches to the rental status of an ADU. Some cities do not allow ADUs to be rented at all, or for either the principal structure or ADU to be rented to individuals unrelated to owners, while others prohibit short term rental. Cities that do permit renting of ADUs require a rental license. The City of Plymouth could select an ADU rental policy that aligns with goals for ADU development. Regulations – Some cities regulate an ADU structure based on principal structure setbacks while others use accessory structure setbacks. Which setbacks are used can also relate to the type of ADU such as attached, internal, or detached. Height regulations for detached ADUs tend to be set at a maximum height like an accessory structure. Since an ADU is livable space, the City could establish regulations in line with principal structures and establish a maximum height for detached ADUs. Parking – Cities that prohibit overnight street parking require for the development of an ADU to include at least one off-street parking space in addition to what is required for the principal structure. 84 Plymouth can adopt a requirement for one additional parking space per ADU to manage parking concerns related to increased density. Location – Cities that permit detached ADUs note additional requirements for the location of the structure. The City of Golden Valley notes that the structure needs to be completely to the rear of the principal structure and located a minimum of 10 feet from the principal structure. The City of Hopkins requires that the structure is a minimum of 15 feet from the principal structure and the City of Minneapolis requires a minimum of 20 feet. A minimum distance from principal structure can help manage the lot usage and change to the property characteristics. Additional Factors – Additional factors to consider are the location of exterior entrances, the addressing of ADUs, and how many accessory structures are allowed per lot. Golden Valley requires exterior entrances to face the side or rear yard while Hopkins requires entrances not to face the side or rear lot line. For ease of access by emergency services, the ADU entrance should be clear and visible from the main street. Additionally, the address of the ADU could be different from the principal structure, the same as the principal, or identified as Unit B with the principal as Unit A. Designating the ADU as a specific, separate Unit at the principal address would make the most sense to ensure emergency services can still be delivered. Local communities that permit ADUs align with only allowing one ADU per lot. An ADU constitutes an accessory structure and contributes to the total number of structures on a lot. The City of Plymouth can maintain its limit on two detached accessory buildings to manage accessory uses by lot. 85 Preliminary ADU Conversation Planning Commission | Feb 15, 2023 86 What is an ADU? •Accessory dwelling unit (ADU)means a permanent residential dwelling unit, but not a mobile home, located on the same lot as a single-family dwelling unit, either within the same building as the single-family dwelling unit or in an accessory building. •An accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is a smaller, independent residential dwelling unit located on the same lot as a stand-alone (i.e., detached) single-family home. 87 What types of ADUs are there? •Detached •Attached •Interior/Internal 88 Why would we consider allowing ADUs? •Community Housing Goals •ADUs have the potential to increase housing affordability (both for homeowners and tenants), create a wider range of housing options within the community, enable seniors to stay near family as they age, and facilitate better use of the existing housing fabric in established neighborhoods. Consequently, many cities and counties have signaled support for ADUs in their plans and adopted zoning regulations that permit ADUs in low-density residential areas. •Resident Interest •Staff receives numerous questions about the opportunity for ADUs in Plymouth, typically from existing residents looking to have a caretaker onsite, child move back in, or care for an elderly parent. •Cultural considerations for multi-generational families. •Establishing a Process •Providing a process would get existing ADUs into compliance with City Code and safely regulate the likely rentals and conversions of existing residential properties. 89 What do other communities do? City Allows?Allowed Types Bloomington Yes Attached, Internal Burnsville Yes All Eagan Yes Attached, Internal Eden Prairie No NA Edina No NA Golden Valley Yes All Hopkins Yes Attached, Detached Maple Grove No NA Minnetonka Yes All St. Louis Park Yes All Wayzata Yes All Woodbury No NA 90 Typical Zoning Requirements •Types of ADUs: All three types of ADUs allowed •Process: Administrative approval, unless a garage conversion •Owner-Occupancy: Owner must live onsite, either in main home or ADU •Allowed Areas/Minimum Lot Size: Recommended only in RSF-1/RSF-2 Districts on lots with single family detached homes •Setbacks: All types of ADUs must meet principal structure setbacks •ADU Size: Minimum 200 square feet; maximum 1000 square feet •Parking: Administrative approval of adequate parking onsite based on garage stalls and driveway parking •Architecture: Has to match or complement principal structure 91 Plymouth-Specific Considerations •Variances: ADUs are not eligible for shoreland overlay (impervious surface coverage) variances or structural coverage variances? •Garage Conversions: If a garage does not meet setbacks for an ADU, would we allow a conversion to an ADU with a CUP? •Entrance for Attached ADU: Hopkins requires on side/rear; Golden Valley requires on front. Is there a preference? 92 Feedback Requested •Can ADUs be Airbnb’d or VRBO’d? •Are there any other items we should think about? 93 City Process Type Are setbacks same as principal or accessory structure? Size Rental Parking Address Are separate utilities allowed? Additional Terms Additional setback rules Detached, Location Max Height Handouts Apple Valley CUP Attached Internal 300 sq ft - 40% of main home's footprint 2 in addition to principal structure spaces No AUDs shall be permitted only where it is demonstrated that the accessory unit will not have an undue adverse impact on adjacent properties and where there will not be a substantial alteration of the character of the neighborhood. Bloomington Administrative Attached Internal Principal structure setbacks 300 - 960 sq ft or 33% of home footprint License is required Principal must have 4 No Burnsville Permitted Attached Internal Detached Attached - principal structure Detached - accessory structure 300 - 960 sq ft or 33% of home footprint License is required 1 in addition to prinicipal structure spaces Same Address No Burnsville Crystal Permitted Attached Internal Detached < 50% of primary home area May be rented 1 in addition to principal structure spaces ADU is unit B No Minimum 10 feet from principal structure Crystal Eagan Annual Registration Attached Internal 300 - 960 sq ft or 33% of home footprint 2 in addition to principal structure spaces No Eagan Twin Cities ADU Regulations Note that all listed cities: only allow 1 ADU, only allow ADUs in single family residential districts, require the ADU matches the home, and require the owner to live onsite, and do not allow separate ownership of an ADU 94 Golden Valley Administrative review, Conditional Use Permit for detached if does not meet same side and rear setbacks as principal Attached Internal Detached Principal structure 250 - 950 sq ft or 35% of home's gross living area (whichever is less) License required 1 in addition to principal structure spaces No Entrance to face side or rear yard, rooftop deck not allowed Completely to the rear of principal structure, minimum lot size of 10,000 sq ft, located no less than 10 ft from side or rear lot line, located no less than 10 feet from principal structure 12 ft Golden Valley Hopkins Permitted Attached Detached Accessory structure < 800 sq ft No short term rentals No additional parking required No Entrances not to face nearest side or rear lot line. Detached is referred to as "backyard cottage" and attached is called "secondary suite" 10 ft min front setback, 3 ft min side and rear setback (same as accessory structure) Minimum distance from principal - 15 feet Inver Grove Heights City registration Attached Internal Detached 250 - 1000 sq ft License required 2 in addition to principal structure spaces Detached has separate address No Lakeville Attached Internal Principal structure < 30% principal structure area Permitted 3 garage stalls for adu and principal Same address No Long Lake CUP Principal structure < 900 sq ft Cannot be rented to individuals unrelated to owners 2 in addition to principal structure spaces Minneapolis Administrative - Filing a covenant with Hennepin County, must be submitted to zoning administrator for building permit Attached Internal Detached All > 300 sq ft. Internal < 800 sq ft. Detached < 1,300 sq ft, and Footprint not to exceed 676 sq ft or 10% of lot No additional parking required No Shall be located on 1 level, no additional entrances facing the public street Side and rear yard may be reduced to 3 feet Minimum 20 feet from principal structure 21 ft Minneapolis 95 Minnetonka Conditional Use Permit for internal and attached, Variance+CUP for detached Attached Internal Detached Principal structure 200 - 950 sq ft or 35% of the gross living area of home Case by case No Front 35 ft, side min 10 ft, rear 20% lot depth or 40 ft, whichever is less Minnetonka St Louis Park Administrative review Attached Internal Detached Principal structure Detached < 800 sq ft or 25% of back yard. Attached < 40% of gross living area. All > 200 sq ft No short term rentals No additional parking required Yes Rooftop deck no allowed, permanent foundation is required, Unit must be lockable and not have direct access to the principal living space Side yard or Back yard only, Located minimum 15 feet from rear lot line, Located a minimum of 5 ft from side property 15 ft St Louis Park Ramsey Permitted use, CUP required for conversion of lawful nonconforming garage Attached Detached Accessory structure < 800 sq ft No additional parking required Must retain same address No Must have permanent foundation. ADUs contain complete independent living facilities with 3 or more of the following - living, sleeping, eating, sanitation Ramsey Richfield Permitted use Attached Detached Attached - principal, detached - garage 300 sq ft - 800 sq ft or the gross floor area of the home (whichever is less) License required 3 in addition to principal structure spaces No Must be attached to principal structure or garage 18 ft or height of home Richfield Wayzata Permitted Use, Conditional Use Permit Attached Internal Detached 10 ft setback 300 - 960 sq ft or 33% of home footprint Cannot be rented 1 in addition to principal structure spaces 10 ft setback 96 ADUs: Housing Options for a Growing Region Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are a flexible, neighborhood-scale solution to regional housing needs. Cities can encourage ADUs as part of their overall housing strategy by adopting proven policies. POLICY BRIEF 97 22 FAMILY HOUSING FUND | ADUs: Housing Options for a Growing Region | February 2019 What makes ADUs good for cities? ADUs provide affordable options in the private market: Most ADU rents are affordable to a household earning less than $56,000 annually.1 • ADUs represent gentle, or “hidden” density as a form of small-scale infill housing. • ADUs provide access for renters to established, well-connected neighborhoods. • ADUs are built by homeowners on existing lots, providing new housing without expensive land acquisition costs, and add value to the property, which can lead to increased property tax revenue for a city. • ADUs typically serve one- and two-person households, a growing demographic segment which comprises the majority of Twin Cities households.2 • ADUs support stable homeownership by serving lifecycle housing needs. Over time, rental income provided by an ADU can help homeowners pay their mortgages or save up. Homeowners may use their ADU to house family members who need care, or they may move into the ADU themselves to downsize. • ADUs are environmentally-friendly housing options because they are smaller and use less energy than the average home. They help reduce transportation- related environmental impacts when they are located near employment centers and established public transit routes.3 • ADUs support the local economy, as homeowners typically hire local construction and design firms to build them. • ADUs help create vibrant neighborhoods as new residents increase the customer base for nearby businesses and services. ADUs are often known as “carriage houses,” “in-law suites,” and “granny flats.” They are adjacent or attached to a primary home, and have their own entrance, kitchen, living area, and bathroom. ADUs can be located within a home, attached to a home, or as a detached structure in a backyard (sometimes above a garage). ADUs are a unique housing form created by individual homeowners and scattered throughout neighborhoods. What is an ADU? 1 Rent data from FHFund survey results. See also: Garcia, David. UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation. Dec. 2017. ADU Update: Early Lessons and Impacts of California’s State and Local Policy Changes. ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/ADU_Update_Brief_December_2017_.pdf 2 Metropolitan Council. Thrive MSP 2040 Housing Policy Plan. July 2015. p. 9 3 See Stephan, A., Crawford, R.H., 2016. The relationship between house size and life cycle energy demand: implications for energy efficiency regulations for buildings. Energy 116 (Part 1), 1158–1171. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2016.10.038 A 2014 study found that ADU residents in Portland were less likely than the average to own cars (State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 2014. Accessory dwelling units in Portland, Oregon: evaluation and interpretation of a survey of ADU 98 Why do we need ADUs as a housing option? ADUs can help reduce pressures on the regional housing market, including: • Increasing demand for more housing units: To meet the needs of anticipated workforce growth and other population trends, the seven-county Twin Cities region needs to add nearly 13,000 units of housing each year through 2040.4 ADUs engage private homeowners as a new set of partners addressing this housing need, without public subsidy. • Low supply of rental housing stock: Throughout the Twin Cities metro area, vacancy rates for studio and one-bedroom units are 2.1% and 2.3%, respectively— far below a healthy rate of 5% or more.5 Adding ADUs in existing neighborhoods helps to address this gap. • Cost pressures for renters: The greatest demand over the next 20 years will be for rental units priced below $1,875/month (in 2019 dollars), as ADUs typically are.6 • Smaller households: The type of new housing needed in the coming decades will be affected by changing demographic trends. Nearly half of the region’s projected household growth will be individuals living alone, and ADUs are typically designed for these smaller households.7 • Aging population: Four-fifths of household growth will be in older households headed by individuals aged 65 and older, many seeking options to downsize in their own neighborhoods; ADUs provide this option.8 Where can I find ADUs? Currently, an estimated 18 cities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area have policies permitting ADUs and approximately 150 permitted ADUs exist in the region. However, ADUs have always existed in the Twin Cities. 33 FAMILY HOUSING FUND | ADUs: Housing Options for a Growing Region | February 2019 Eric & Chrissi Larsen inside their ADU Hidden Density Can you spot the modern, spacious ADU behind this home in Saint Paul? 4 Met Council Housing Policy Plan. p. 9 5 Marquette Advisors Apartment Trends, 1st Quarter 2018. 6 FHFund/Lisa Sturtevant & Associates, 2018, forthcoming 7 Met Council Housing Policy Plan, p. 9 8 Met Council Housing Policy Plan, p. 9 9 Met Council Housing Policy Plan, p. 151: The region needs 9,550 new units of housing to meet the needs of households earning between 51-80% of the Area Median Income by 2030. Per Metropolitan Council 2017 estimates, there are approximately 721,035 single-family homes in the Twin Cities region. stats.metc.state.mn.us/profile/detail.aspx?c=R11000 How much housing could ADUs provide? ADUs are a cost-effective way to meet a substantial portion of the Twin Cities region’s future housing need without public subsidy. If ADUs in the seven-county metro area became as common as they are in Portland, Oregon (representing about 1.5% of single-family homes), we could create 11,000 new housing units, potentially meeting most of the region’s need for new housing for households who earn $40,000-50,000 per year.9 11,000 NEW HOUSING UNITS 99 How can local policies support ADU development? The evidence is clear: local government policies and practices that reduce regulatory and cost burdens make a critical difference in whether ADUs can reach their full potential for communities. • I n Austin, Texas, allowing larger ADUs (up to 1,100 square feet) and reducing other requirements10 paved the way for permit requests to rise nearly tenfold. • In Portland, Oregon, annual ADU permit volume increased from just 24 (in 2009) to 615 (in 2016) when it waived development fees for ADUs, saving homeowners $8,000-12,000 per unit.11 • In Los Angeles, California, ADU permits jumped from 80-90 per year to 1,980 in 2017, after California’s state legislature required cities to adopt ADU policies.12 44 FAMILY HOUSING FUND | ADUs: Housing Options for a Growing Region | February 2019 Flexible for Households Multigenerational Fue Lee’s parents live in the first-floor ADU attached to the family’s house in North Minneapolis. Fue and his adult siblings live in the main home. The Lees’ home and its neighbor to the north were developed by the City of Lakes Community Land Trust as the first two homes to be built with an ADU in Minneapolis. Encouraging ADUs: Best Practices for Cities REMOVE REGULATORY BARRIERS • Allow different types of ADUs as an accessory to all single-family or small multifamily homes, permitted by right rather than conditionally • Designate ADU experts within departments to facilitate a clear permitting process • Remove or reduce parking minimums • Remove owner-occupancy restrictions • Make design standards more flexible PROMOTE ADUs AND INCREASE ACCESS TO INFORMATION • Create a dedicated webpage and resource materials for ADU development • Host quarterly informational workshops about ADUs • Sponsor, promote, and participate in ADU tours LOWER COSTS AND INCREASE ACCESS TO CAPITAL • Offer homeowners waivers, discounts, tiered pricing, and payment plans for fees • Develop an ADU loan program for homeowners • Work with developers to incentivize building ADUs in new construction Illuminating solutions. Sparking change. FHFUND.ORG 10 Austin Development Services Department. Accessory Dwelling Units. ww.austintexas.gov/page/adu 11 City of Portland, Oregon. City Council Extends the SDC Waiver for ADUs, with Conditions. June 27, 2018. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/article/689356 12 Garcia, David. UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation. Dec. 2017. ADU Update: Early Lessons and Impacts of California’s State and Local Policy Changes. ternercenter.berkeley.edu/uploads/ ADU_Update_Brief_December_2017_.pdf 100 APPENDIX BEST PRACTICES FROM PEER CITIES Allow ADUs to be permitted by right for all single-family and two- family developments. In California, allowing ADUs to be processed ministerially (i.e. administratively/by right) has had a major impact, with a rapid rise in ADU permit applications after the enactment of SB 1069 and AB 2299 in January 2017.13 The City of Oakland had a sevenfold increase, from 33 permit applications in 2015 to 247 in 2017. The City of Los Angeles had a nearly 25-fold increase in applications, from 80 in 2016 to 1,980 in 2017. Remove or reduce parking minimums. In Oregon, a survey conducted by the Department of Environmental Quality found that ADUs had a negligible impact on parking congestion.14 ADU residents had a below-average vehicle ownership rate (less than one per household), and the dispersed nature of ADU development meant any additional on-street parking impact was also dispersed throughout the city. Remove owner-occupancy and household size restrictions. Most peer cities nationally and three Minnesota cities (Crystal, Stillwater, and Northfield15) do not have owner- occupancy requirements. These requirements limit the use of the property over time and may be a disincentive to homeowners considering ADU development or limit their financing options. Make design standards more flexible. After adjusting its regulations in 2015 to allow larger floor areas, Austin, Texas saw a marked increase in ADU development, from 250 issued permits from 1994 to 2015 to more than 600 in the three years since the change.16 Designate ADU experts in departments to facilitate a clear permitting process. To clear its backlog of ADU applications, San Francisco is working with multiple city departments to define a checklist of consistent guidelines to help homeowners successfully navigate city processes.17 Offer waivers, discounts, tiered pricing, and payment plans for fees. WAIVER FOR AFFORDABILITY: The City of Santa Cruz, California waives permit fees on a sliding scale in exchange for a commitment to renting an ADU to a low-income household. Approximately 39 households have used this waiver since 2016.18 TIERED PRICING: Most cities already offer tiered pricing in some form, such as for building permits. Offering tiered pricing for other fees, such as sewer access charges, can help reduce what would otherwise be a larger fixed cost for homeowners wishing to build an ADU. Develop an ADU loan program. The County of Santa Cruz in California,19 the City of Portland, Oregon,20 and the West Denver Renaissance Collaborative (WDRC) in Colorado21 are developing low- or no-interest loan programs for ADU development. Each program has an affordability focus, either creating affordable rental units or building wealth and stability for lower-income homeowners. Santa Cruz County also has a specialized My House, My Home ADU loan program to help low-income senior homeowners build ADUs so that they can afford to age in place.19 Work with developers to incentivize building ADUs in new construction. The City of Lakes Community Land Trust (CLCLT) builds and sells multigenerational-living homes with attached ADUs in Minneapolis. The homes are designed for flexibility, with ADUs at the back of the first floor that can open to the inside of the main home or can be accessed through a separate entrance, allowing the home to meet changing housing needs over multiple generations. REMOVE REGULATORY BARRIERS LOWER COSTS AND INCREASE ACCESS TO CAPITAL 55 FAMILY HOUSING FUND | ADUs: Housing Options for a Growing Region | February 2019 Encouraging ADUs in Your City Continued on next page 101 FEBRUARY 2019 ©Family Housing Fund 13 Garcia, David. 14 Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 15 Northfield is noted here but is not counted as part of the 18 cities that have an ADU policy as it is outside the Twin Cities metro area. 16 City of Austin. Open Data. data.austintexas.gov 17 Sabatini, Joshua. “Just 23 in-Law Units Built after Two Years as SF Seeks to Iron out Approval Process.” The San Francisco Examiner. 25 Feb. 2018. www.sfexaminer.com/just-23-law-units-built-two-years-sf-seeks-iron-approval-process 18 City of Santa Cruz 2016 Accessory Dwelling Units Fee Waiver Information and Application www.cityofsantacruz.com/home/showdocument?id=53802 19 Santa Cruz County. Accessory Dwelling Units. Plan Your Financing. www.sccoplanning.com/ADU/Planyourfinancing.aspx 20 Portland Housing Bureau. Accessory Dwelling Unit Pilot Loan Program. www.portlandoregon.gov/phb/article/661992 [PDF Slides] 21 Martinez-Stone, Renee. 28 June 2018. 22 Peterson, Kol. 2018. Backdoor Revolution: The Definitive Guide to ADU Development. Accessory Dwelling Strategies, LLC. p. 227-228 23 Eastman, Janet. 29 Aug. 2017. “Get inside 24 Rentable Granny Flats: Portland’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Tour (Photos).” OregonLive.com. www.oregonlive.com/hg/index.ssf/2017/08/granny_flat_adu_tour_pdx_kol_p.html. 24 Lee, Chris. 25 Apr. 2018. “Minneapolis & Saint Paul Home Tour Features Homes and Neighborhood Pride.” Midwest Home. midwesthome.com/124463-2 APPENDIX BEST PRACTICES FROM PEER CITIES …continued Create a dedicated webpage and host informational workshops on ADU development. City of Santa Cruz, California has become a national model by appointing dedicated staff to the development of its ADU program, creating a guide for homeowners, sharing prototypes of architectural plans, hosting workshops, and creating a webpage with ADU information.22 Sponsor, promote, and participate in ADU tours. The city of Portland boasts an annual ADU tour, run in partnership between advocates and the City. It has been a successful beginning point for many ADU homeowners, who embarked on their developments after attending the tour.23 Locally, a few ADUs already have been popular stops on the Minneapolis & Saint Paul Home Tour.24 PROMOTE ADUs AND INCREASE ACCESS TO INFORMATION Illuminating solutions. Sparking change. FHFUND.ORG 310 4th Ave South Suite 9000 Minneapolis, MN 55415 MAIN 612.375.9644 102 Cities in the Twin Cities Metro Area with an ADU Policy Updated: February 2019 Local Cities Where are ADUs allowed? Special Permit Required? Parking for ADU Owner Occupancy Water/ Sewer Min. Lot Size Lot Coverage Min. ADU Size Max. ADU Size Type Ordinance Section Notes # Built or legalized Apple Valley In R-1 zoning district Conditional Use Permit 2 off-street for the ADU and 2 off-street for the main home Yes Must connect to main house 40,000 SF Cannot exceed 35% 300 SF Shall be no larger than 40% of the main home's footprint Attached, Internal 155.382 ADU occupancy limited to 3 people; ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer 2 Bloomington* In R-1 and RS-1 zoning districts Primary home must have 4 off-street parking spaces Yes Must connect to main house 11,000 SF 300 SF 960 SF or 33% of the 4- season living area of the main home Attached, Internal § 21.302.03 ADU occupancy limited to 2 people; ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer 1 permitted and constructed Burnsville In R-1 and R-1A zoning districts 1 off-street for the ADU and 2 off-street for the main home Yes Must connect to main house. If not on municipal lines, must meet private well and septic standards 10,000 SF for attached 1 acre for detached 300 SF 960 SF or 33% of the footprint of the main home Attached, Detached, Internal 10.7.52 ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer; require park dedication and utility fees 0 Chaska In Planned Unit Developments Yes 768 SF Detached, above garage with alley access Ord. #708 10 Crystal In R-1 and R-2 zoning districts 1 additional for the ADU No Can be connected to property or utility main 6,000 SF Shall not exceed 50% of the finished floor area of the primary home Attached, Detached, Internal Chapter V, Subsection 515.23, Subdivision 3 1 permitted Eagan In Estate and R-1 zoning districts Annual Registration 2 off-street for the ADU and 2 off-street for the main home Yes Must connect to main house Cannot exceed 20% 300 SF 960 SF or 33% of the 4- season living area of the main home Attached, Internal Section 11.70, subdivision 32 ADU occupancy limited to 2 people; ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer 1 constructed and 1 legalized Inver Grove Heights In the A, E-1, E-2, R-1A, R-1B, and R-1C zoning districts 2 off-street for the ADU and 1 off-street for the main home Yes Must share with main house 1 acre for detached 250 SF 1,000 SF Attached, Detached, Internal 10.18.1 ADU occupancy limited to 3 people 5 registered Lakeville In RS-1, RS-2, RS-3, and RS-4 zoning districts and Planned Unit Developments 3 garage stalls for the ADU and main home Must share with main house Attached, Internal 11.50.11.F, 11.51.11.F, 11.52.11.F, 11.53.11.F Must be accessed from inside the main home 2 permitted Long Lake In the R-1, R-1A, R-2, R- 3, and R-4 zoning districts Conditional Use Permit 2 for the ADU Yes x2 the minimum lot size required by the zoning district 900 SF Cannot be rented to non-family members 110 3 Cities in the Twin Cities Metro Area with an ADU Policy Updated: February 2019 Local Cities Where are ADUs allowed? Special Permit Required? Parking for ADU Owner Occupancy Water/ Sewer Min. Lot Size Lot Coverage Min. ADU Size Max. ADU Size Type Ordinance Section Notes # Built or legalized Minneapolis As an accessory to a permitted or conditional single-family or two- family dwelling. 0 for the ADU, 1 space each for other units Yes Connect to main home or the street 300 SF Internal: 800 SF not to exceed the first floor of the main home. Attached: 800 SF Detached: 1,300 SF (incl. parking areas) or 16% of the lot area. Footprint not to exceed 676 SF or 10% of the lot area, not to exceed 1,000 SF Attached, Detached, Internal 537.11 ~120 permitted and built Minnetonka In R-1 and R-2 zoning districts Conditional Use Permit Determined on a case by case basis Yes Must connect to main home No more than 35% of the gross living area of the home, including the ADU or 950 SF, whichever is smaller. Attached, Internal Section 300.16.3.d 30 Plymouth Within residential subdivisions in RSF-R, RSF-1, RSF-2, and PUD zoning districts, that have received preliminary plat approval on or after June 1, 2001 and that include 10 or more single-family lots 2 off-street for the ADU Yes Detached must connect to utility main Shall not exceed the gross floor area of the main home or 1,000 SF, whichever is less Attached, Detached 21190.04 Can only be constructed at the same time as the primary home, as part of a subdivision of 10 or more homes 0 Richfield In R and R-1 zoning districts 3 off-street spaces are required Yes Attached and Internal may connect to home 300 SF 800 SF or the gross floor area of the principal dwelling, whichever is less Attached, Detached, Internal 514.05 Subd. 8, 518.05 Subd. 8 Detached units are only allowed as part of a garage. 2 existing Roseville In the LDR-1 zoning district 1 additional off-street space for the ADU Yes Attached and Internal may connect to home 300 SF 650 SF or 75% of the 4- season living area of the main home Attached, Detached, Internal 11.011.12.B.1 ADU occupancy limited to 2 people; ADUs must be one bedroom or fewer 5, 2 of which were legalized; 1 in processing Shoreview In RE and R-1 zoning districts Accessory Apartment Permit 3 off-street spaces are required Yes Must share with main house 500 SF No more than 30% of the building's total floor area nor greater than 800 SF Attached, Internal 207.01 ADUs must be two bedrooms or fewer St. Paul R1-R4, RT1, RT2, RM1, RM2 Annual affadavit of owner- occupancy No additional spaces if principal home meets minimum parking requirement Yes Must connect to principal home 5,000 SF 800 SF; if interior to the principal structure, the principal structure must be at least 1,000 SF and the ADU must not exceed 1/3 of the total floor area Attached, Detached, Internal Chapers 61, 63, 65, and 66 1 210 4 Cities in the Twin Cities Metro Area with an ADU Policy Updated: February 2019 Local Cities Where are ADUs allowed? Special Permit Required? Parking for ADU Owner Occupancy Water/ Sewer Min. Lot Size Lot Coverage Min. ADU Size Max. ADU Size Type Ordinance Section Notes # Built or legalized Stillwater In TR, CTR, and RB zoning districts In CTR and RB: Special Use Permit 4 off-street for the ADU and main house No Can be connected to property or utility main TR and RB: 10,000 SF CTR: 15,000 SF CTR: 500 SF, one story attached or 720 SF above a detached garage RB: 800 SF TR and CTR: Attached, Detached, Internal RB: Detached, above garage Sec. 31-501 16 approved, but likely more that were permitted by right in RB White Bear Lake Where single-family homes are permitted Conditional Use Permit Annual Certificate of Occupancy renewal Determined on a case by case basis Yes Can be connected to property or utility main 200 SF for the first occupant plus 100 SF for each additional occupant 880 SF or 40% of the habitable area of the main home Attached, Detached Section 1302.125 Maximum of 4 occupants 10 permitted * Updated policy is currently under consideration as of February 2019 310 5