HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2649City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY -_OUNCIL
NO. 2649
A RESOLUTION DEJYING
VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2, AND
SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8,
AND DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PER SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISIONS 19 a 20,
FILE #1391
WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Statutes 412 and 462, et.
seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted a
Community Management Plan and Zoning Regulations for the
protection of the Public health, safety and general welfare; and
WHEREAS, Terry Sadler (hereinafter the "applicant"), is
the owner of property located at 1396 Baldur Park Road and
legally described as follows:
Lbt 16, Block 1, BBLDUR PARK, 1 annepin County, Minnesota,
(hereinafter the "property") ; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of
Orono (hereinafter the "City") as follows:
1. For variances seeking approval of land alterations
conducted within 0-75' of the lakeshore of Lake !Minnetonka
where no land alterations are allowed per Section 10.22,
subdivision 2, and Section 10.55, subdivision 8; and
2. For a conditional use permit per Section 10.03,
subdivision 19 and 20, for land alterations including
placement of fill and construction of retaining walls within
the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of Orono has reviewed the
application; the recommendations of the City staff and Planning
Commission, the comments of the City Engineer, the written
statement submitted by the applicant's neighbor, and the comments
and written statements of the applicant.
Page 1 of 7
City of ORONO
RESOLUTI0N OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2649
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Orono, hereby denies the application for placement of
fill and construction of retaining walls in the 0-75' iakeshore
setback zone based upon one or more of the following
findings of fact concerning this property:
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1391.
2. The property is located in the LR -1C Lakeshore
Residential Zoning District and contains approximately 0.30
acres in area. The LR -1C District requires 0.50 acres in
area.
3. Applicant constructed a single family residence on the
property in 1984, at which time grades around the residence
were established. The applicant maintains that the grades
established at the time the residence was constructed do not
allow for ease of maintenance of the lawn in the area
proposed for fill, and that placement of fill and
construction of retaining walls as proposed will alleviate
this problem. Applicant also maintains that the fill and
retaining walls in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone are
necessary to prevent drainage from flooding the neighboring
property.
4. The applicant proposes a retaining wall along the side
lot line to a point as close as 40' from the shoreline, with
placement of fill as near as 30' to the shoreline.
5. The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and recommended
that the retaining wall be constructed no closer than 70'
from the shoreline, and that fill placement be limited to
only that necessary to fill behind the wall and such fill
being placed no closer than 45' to the shoreline.
6. On May 15, 1989, the Orono Planning Commission reviewed
the proposal and recommended approval subject to the
conditions recommended by the City Engineer as noted above,
finding that the retaining wall as originally proposed by
the applicant is not strictly necessary to accomplish the
Page 2 of 7
City ®f ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2649
applicant's objectives; and finding that the City Engineer's
recommended modifications to the proposal provide a plan
that is more consistent with past City practices regarding
fill in lakeshore areas, while still providing applicant
with the ability to improve his property by increasing its
maintainability and usefulness.
7. At the Regular City Council Meeting on June 12, 1989,
the City Council voted 5-0 to conceptually deny the
variances and conditional use permit in their entirety,
finding the proposal not supported by the necessary
hardships and as not being consistent with the City's stated
policies and past practice regarding work in lakeshore
zones. The Orono Council further directed City staff to
draft a resolution of denial.
8. Until after the application for variances and the
conditional use permit was recommended for only limited
approval by the Planning Commission, the City had received
no complaints from the neighboring property owner regarding
runoff and water accumulation problems on his property. The
accumulation of runoff waters on the adjacent property owned
by Charles Reid at 1400 Baldur Park. Road, has not been
demonstrated to place the neighboring residence in jeopardy
of f loodina. The adjacent property at 1400 Baldur Park Road
is naturally lower in elevation than the applicant's
property. Construction of the retaining wall and placement
of fill on applicant's property would not necessarily
eliminate any runoff accumulation problem that may exist.
Such a problem might be more appropriately addressed by
minor additions of fill or site grading on that neighboring
property.
9. The proposed retaining wall and fill will have a visual
impact from the Lake, and the proposed location of the
retaining wall abutting the lot line would not allow for
appropriate screening within applicant's property.
10. The land alterations proposed to he conducted within
the lakeshore protected area (0-75' from the lakeshore) are
found to be in conflict with the following principles and
goals set forth in Orono's Community Management Plan:
Page 3 of 7
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO.
2649
tMORELAND. FLOOD PLAN AND STORM WATER CONSIDERATIONS - C.M.P. 3-9
ORONO'S MANY MILES OF SHORELINE ARE ESPECIALLY SENSITIVE TO MISUSE OR
OVERDEVELOPMENT. As the interface between land and water, the shoreline
is ever changing. Shorelines are subject to continual erosion by wave
action, ice buildup or unstable soil conditions. Droughts dry out
vegetation and heavy rains or snow melt cause land slipage.
On top of these natural pressures, man is drawn to the lake and the
shoreline often becomes his battleground with nature. Lake access often
means active use and construction of buildings and structures causing
unnatural soil loadings, vegetation removal, and land alteration. Exposed
soil becomes more subject to erosion and man-made hardcover increases
direct runoff quantity and speed., powerboats increase wave action and,
more damaging, stir up the lake bottom causing release of nutrients and
increased turbidity. .
The impact, of course, is a degradation of water quality, impaired lake
access and a change in the natural aesthetics which drew people to the
shore in the first place. Legal considerations become entangled when
lot descriptions conflict or become inconsistent due to changing water
levels or shoreline locations. Therefore, planning considerations must
recognise the desirability of human interaction with the lake while at
the same time providing for protection of nature's sensitively balapcbd
shoreline ecology.
LAND USE - C.M.P. 4-6
A PRINCIPAL GOAL OF ORONO'S PLANNING PROGRAM IS THE PROTECTION OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL AMENITIES, PARTICULARLY THE WATER CtALZTY OF
LAKE MINNETONKA. The Environmental Protection Plan emphasises Orono's
unique environmental position in relation to the long-term health of Lake
Minnetonka. Land use and development will not be permitted at the expense
of environmental protection. Retention of natural vegetation, light, air,
and open space will be promoted. Shorelines will be protected from erosion
and alteration. wetlands and marshland will be protected and preserved
as wildlife habitats, unique open spaces and most importantly as the only
economically practical method of flood protection and storm water runoff
filtration.
GENERAL LAND USE POLICY NO. 2 - C.M.P. 4-12
2. ORONO'S LAND USE PLANS WILL BE BASED UPON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
POLICIES. Land use.and development must assure the
conservation, protection and preservation of sensitive
environmental resources in accordance with the goals
and policies of the Environmental Protection Plan.
Land use policies will encourage the wise use and
manaoement of natural resources while prohibiting their
ob
Pace 4 of 7
City of OR ONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2644
GENERAL LAND USE POLICY NO. 6 - C.M.P. 4-13
6. LAKE SHORELINES WILL BE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION.
shoreland areas, whether bluff, beach or floodplain,
are sensitive environmental features with significant
impact on lake water quality, aesthetic values and
land use function. These same factors act to draw
development which can be destructive if not properly
regulated. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas
will be preserved insofar as practical and reason-
able in order to retard surface runoff and soil
erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear -
cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or
wave action erosion, matlrial stone rip rap
shoreline protection will be encouraged.
GENERAL LAND USE POLICY 110. 13 - C.M.P. 4-15
13. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT MUST ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT.
Land development should respect and enhance the
unique natural features of the site and the
general environmental assets of the community.
Preservation of natural views, vegetation,
drainage and general respect for unique site
features always produces more aesthetic
results and lasting value for the property
owner and the community than does wholesale
alteration of the landscape•or mathematical
division to the highest possible density.,.
URBAN LAND USE POLICY NO. 13 - C.M.P. 4-14
13. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION 4
AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE.' Building heights will i
be limited to less than the typical tree height. .. ..._.
Minimum green belts will be provided with pro-
hibitions against clearcutting or excessive
thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will
be.preserved on slopes and retaining walls will
be discouraged except when absolutely necessary
to prevent erosion, in which case they will be
screened with natural vegetation. i
City ®f ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2649
11. The granting of the required variances would result in
the following violations of Section 10.08, Subdivision 3(a)
of the Zoning Code with which the applicant must first
comply before the requested variances can be granted:
a. The granting of the requested variances would
appear to serve merely as a convenience to the
applicant as there have been no valid hardships
demonstrated through the review of this application.
b. The granting of the application is not necessary
for the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial
property right of the applicant.
c. Granting of the variance will tend to alter the
essential character of the locality.
d. The property in question can be put to reasonable use
under conditions allowed by the official controls.
Alternative, low maintenance types of ground cover can be
established that will eliminate the applicant's stated
safety concerns.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota,
on this 26th day of June, 1989.
ATTLST :
e
P -L -7 Y - I •-
y M. allin, City C1eegC Jame Grabek,
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this
26th day of June, 1989, by James R. Grabek & Dorothy M. Hallin,
Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a N.innesota municipal
corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the
City. n i, r .
t a'R(cJ1 l� '� ,
i,otar}• PubcI: ;; LA5 IE K. SCHEMER
T- . .�. •Lr Mit t� fU1lK � rttN++1301•
•.: 4 NNWN COUNTY
0AV eerrr.+i:e;on eeairetE•8.93
My Commiss
Page 6 of 7
STA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
City of OR ONO
} ss.
)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2649
On this day of , 198
before me a Notary Public within and for said county, personally
appeared known to me to be
the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as
his (their) free act and deed.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this day of , 108_, before me
a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared
known to me to be the
person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,
and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his
(their) free act and deed.
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
Pace 7 of 7