Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-23 Resolution 2407Citi- of ORO, -NO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. -. J A RESOLUTION GRANTING VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 1 AND 2, SECTION 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8 AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER SECTIONS 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19 AND 20 PILE NO. 1223 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. 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, John and Lynn Waldron (hereinafter "the applicants") are the owners of the property located at 1951 Concordia Street and legally described as follows: The Southerly 1/2 of Lot 7 and all of Lot 8, Gust S. Johnson's Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, the applicant has made application to the City of 1.1rono for variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivisicn 8, for construction of a deck which constitutes structure and hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where no such hardcover and structure is normally allowed, and which encroaches on the required average lakeshore setback; and for a further variance to Section 10.55, Subdivision 8 and a conditional use permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 and 20 for filling, grading and excavation within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where such work is not normally allowed; and WHEREAS, on November 16th, 198'", the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing on this matter, at ,.hich time any and all members of the public wishing to comment on the proposal were heard. The Planning Commission then voted 4 in favor, 0 against, 1 abstention to recommend denial of the applicants original proposal to create a walkout by excavating within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone, finding that other methods for bank stabilization exist, that the walkout excavation was not related to the bank erosion stabilization needs, that the walkout excavation would not be in character or in comformity with the majority of neighboring residenc(-s, and that allowing the walkout excavation would set a precedent in conflict with current City philosophy and past denials of similar prop-sals; and Page 1 of 10 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. WHEREAS, on January 11, 1988 the City Council voted 4 to 0 to deny the applicants original proposal for excavati-)n within 75' of the lakeshore to create a walkout type yard area, finding that the proposed grading greatly exceeded that necessary to merely restore the lakeshore bank, that no hardship was presented to adequately support the need for such a walkout excavation, that such excavation would result in a negative impact on the character of the shoreline, and was not in keeping with the guidelines of the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Planning Commission recommended approval of a ground level deck as proposed, attached to the house, subject to concurrent removal of the existing platform structure near the lake; and WHEREAS, the applicant subsequently submitted a revised proposal to the Council, to create a 3' deep excavation between the house and the lakeshore Yank, rather than the deeper walkout excavation originally proposed. On February 8, 1988 the Council voted 5 to 0 to refer the application back to the Planning Commission for review of the proposed revision; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 1988 the Planning Commission reviewed the revised proposal and voted 3 to 1 on a motion to recommend denial of the revised proposal, making the same findings as their previous recommendation, and recommended approval of variances for average lakeshore setback and 75' lakeshore setback and for hardcover, to allow construction of a deck along the lakeshore side of the house, conditioned on concurrent hardcover removals, resulting in no net increase in hardcover in the 0-75' setback zone; and WHEREAS, on Marc '8, 1988 the City Council voted 4 to 0 to deny the 3' excavation from tr Irk to the house, making the same findings as their January 11, 1988 der.:.al and in that same motion approved the bank restoration method referred to as Option E of the March 23, 1988 staff memo;, and voted 4 to 0 to approve the necessary lakeshore setback and hardcover variances to allow construction of the proposed deck, subject to removal of existing hardcover so that no hardcover increase resu:ts. In addition, the council voted 3 to 1 to deny the continued use of tha existing drainpipe transporting roof run-off directly to the lakeshore bank, which does not allow for any infitration; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendations of the staff and Planning Commission; and the comments and written statements submitted by the applicant and his consultants. Page 2 of 10 r— Cit `T of ORO. -NO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. WHEREAS, the City Council hereby makes the following additional findings of fact regarding the proposal: 1. The property is located in the LR -1C, Lakeshore Residential Zoning vistrict and consists of 14,363 s.f. or 0.33 acres. The LR -1C district requires 21,780 s.f. or 0.50 acres in area. 2. The proposed land alterations on the property are located entirely within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where 0% hardcover is normally allowed. The e;tisting hardcover on the property in the 0-75' zone is 19.78. 3. The Council finds that approval of the proposed deck at grade level will have no significant impact on views enjoyed by neighboring properties, and in conjunction with concurrent removals of existing hardcover, and minor reduction in the size of the proposed deck, the goal of not increasing hardcover in the 0-75' zone can be accomplished. 4. The Council finds that restoration of the erosion occurring along the applicant's lakeshore bank as a result of the July 23, 1987 storm can be suitably accomplished without excavation extending all the way to the basement wall of the house. The Council finds that any hardship imposed on the property by the bank erosion is not significantly related to the excavation proposed to create a walkout or a 3' terrace level extending to the house. 5. The major land alteration proposed in conjunction with the excavation to create a walkout or a 3' terrace level within the lakeshore protected area (0-75' from lakeshore) is found to be in complete conflict with the following principals and goals set forth in Orono's Community Management Plan: Page 3 of 10 city of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2 40 7 SHORc►A'D, FLOOD PLAN AND STORM WATER CONSIDERATI2 - C.M.P. 3-9 ORONC'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. Drcughts 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 eroF- id ran-nade hardcover increases direct runoff quantity and speed. Power :-)cats 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 becor..e inconsistent due to changing water levels or shoreline locations. Therefore, planning considerations; must recognize the desirability of human interaction with the lake while at the same time providing for protection of nature's sensitively balanced 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 QUALITY OF LAKE MINNETCNKA. The Environmental Protection Plan emphasizes 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 management of natural resources while prohibiting their misuse, aLusc, overuse or exploitation. Page 4 of 10 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2407 GENER, L 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 exc3ss nutrients. Clear - cutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, material stone rip rap ' shoreline protection will be encouraged. GENERAL LAND USE POLICY NO. 10 - C.M.P. 4-14 10. PRIVATE STEWARDSHIP OF LAND AND RESOURCES IS PREFERABLE TO INFLEXIBLE PUBLIC CONTROL. Private ownership, maintenance and stewardship of the land, including open space and many types of improvements, is favored over public ownership as being in the best and most beneficial interests of the property owner and the public, providing for more intimate, responsive and economical land management. GENERAL LAND USE POLICY NO. 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 possib:e density. URBAN LAND USE POLICY NO. 11 - C.M.P. 4-19 11. A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NATURAL WOODLANDS AND OPEN SPACE WILL BE RETAINED ON EACH PROPERTY. Retention of the natural environment requires careful siting and preservation of trees and open space on each urban property. URBAN LAND USE POLICY NO. 13 - C.M.P. 4-19 13. RETENTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION WILL LIMIT THE IMPACT OF URBANIZATION AS VISIBLE FROM THE LAKE. Building heights will be limited to less than the typical tree height. Minimum green belts will be provided with pro- hibitions against clearcutting or excessive thinning of vegetation. Natural vegetation will be preserved on slopea and retaining walls will be discouraged except when absolutely necessary to prevent erosion, in which case they will be screened with natural vegetation. Page 5 of 10 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. X407 6. The granting of the variances to create a walkout or a 3' terrace level 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 property in question can still be put to its existing reasonable use as a single family residence under conditions allowed by the official controls, without creation of a walkout basement situation. B. The plight of the applicant in terms of his perceived need to have a walkout excavation or a 3' terrace level is created by the applicant, and has nothing to do with any unique hardship related to the land. C. The variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality, by creating i significantly artificially altered lakeshore topography which other properties in the locality generally do not have. D. The granting of the requested variances would appear to serve merely as a convenien^.e to the applicant as there have been no valid hardships demonstrated through the review of this application. E. The granting of the application is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants. F. The special conditions applying to the property in question are not peculiar to this property and are typical of many properties within the lakeshore areas of Orono. 7. The City Council finds that Option E of the staff recommendation which includes a 3' high retaining wall at the top of the lakeshore bank and regrading of the slope below that wall, is an acceptable method of bank restoration, which in conjunction with adequate vegetation screening will have the least visual impact on the lakeshore in the general neighborhood, will be relatively equivalent in stability to other potential bank restoration methods, and is one of the methods proposed by the Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District as an acceptable method of bank restoration. Additionally, the Council finds that this method does comply with the requirements of Section 10.08 Subd. 3(A). Page 6 of 10 City of ORO�+'O RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2407 cil conditionally approved the use of a 3' retaining wall on April 11, 1988 by a vote of 4 to 0. 9. On May 23, 1988 at the applicants request the Council reviewed a revised proposal to include an additional 2' retaining wall just below the originally proposed 3' wall. Contra tors bidding on the project all advised applicant that the second wall is necessary for structural stability. This was confirmed by City Engineer Glenn Cook. The Council approved this revision at their meeting of May 23, 1988 by a vote of 3 to 2. 10 -The Council finds that channelization of roof run-off water through a pipe directly through the lakeshore bank is not acceptable because that method of transport greatly reduces the possibility for infiltration of run-off water into the ground, in direct conflict with the City's goal of maximizing infiltration of runoff which tends to reduce the amount of impurities. Council recognizes the applicants concerns regarding saturation -related bank erosion, and finds that there are other potential methods available to reduce such saturation without piping roof runoff water directly to the lakeshore. 11. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this property are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property in this zoning district; that granting the variances would not adverse ly of fect traf f is conditions, 1 ight, air nor pose a f ire hazard or other danger to neighboring property; would not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but are necessary to alleviate a demonstrable hardship or difficulty; are necessary to preserve a substantial property right of the applicant; and would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. 12. The City Council finds that granting a Conditional Use Permit to allow the bank restoration method found to be acceptable by the Council will not be detrimental to health, safety, or general welfare of public, would not adversely affect light, air, nor pose a fire hazard or other danger to neighboring properties, nor will it depreciate surrounding property values, and finds that the proposed level of use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.22, Subdivision 1 and 2 and Section 10.55, Subdivision 8, for construction of a deck and retaining wall which constitute structure and hardcover in the C to 75' lakeshore setback zone where no such hardcover and structure is normally allowed, and which deck encroaches on the required average lakeshore setback; and grants a Conditional Use Permit per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 and 20 for grading, filling and excavation within the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone where such work is not normally allowed, subject tc the following conditions: Fuge 7 of 10 City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2407 1. Hardcover in the 0-75' lakeshore setback zone stall be maintained at the existing 1122.41 square feet or 19.95%, in conjunction with the addition of the proposed deck. The requirement that hardcover in the 0-75' zone not be increased shall be accomplished by the removal of equivalent areas of existing hardcover in the 0-75' zone, to be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit for the deck. 2. This approval is for a ground level deck that will extend no more than 5'-0" from the westerly wall of the house, and which will extend no more than 29' northerly from the south end of the house, resulting in an average lakeshore setback encroachment of l' based on the average deck setback line of the two adjacent residents. 3. Bank restoration shall be accomplished throught the use of two retaining walls near the top of the bank, no more than 3' and 2' in height respectively, as generaly shown in Exhibit A attached. Prior to issuance of the required permit for the retaining walls and grading, applicant shall satisfy City staff that the retaining wall is appropriately designed to provide the proper stability. 4. Proper erosion control methods as required by the City shall be maintained during all phases of the lakeshore bank restoratior project, until such time that the bank is stabilized and revegetated. 5. The tile transporting roof runoff directly to the lakes'► shall be eliminated, and applicant is advised to work with city staf! to find an acceptable solution to the roofrun off concerns. 6. Authorities granted by this variance run with the property no - with the applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised b- application for a building permit within one year of the date o Council approval, or this variance will expire on that date (May 23, 9i. 7. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms an conditions of this variance shall constitute a violation of the zonin code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, an shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. 6. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agree to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of thi resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 8 of 10 198 . ATT ST: City of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2407 Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 23rd day of May, zz"—AeA r orothy M allin, City Clerk (T Prop6tty Owners Page 9 of 10 Cite of ORONO STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENN.L:PIN ) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 2407 On this day of t 19e before me aotary Public within an or said county, personally appeared 1 �l 1C1,��4- known to me to be the person(s) descri.:. J in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. OTM1E i'NAAD TA COUNTY O*M 94-22 STATE OF MINNESOTA )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) NOTARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPIRES On this %� � day of < . t 198-,, before me a Notary Public, within and for .said.jCounty, personally appeared known to me to be the person s) described in and who executed the foregoinginstrume t, and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as (their) free act and deed. NOTARY ��,�, .vwwwv�■ r -;z VIRGINIA B. OCHSENDORF NOTARY PUBLIC—MINNESOTA r HENNEPIN COUNTY My Commission Expires July 29, 1993 MY COMM &-)�q /& r-14 mol-. /uo. ?—qo 7 (m4 S�o��� Wil, elewi -- 1 3' - ,� � L � 111 pct eJJ�r Y) 74 4L X' c�� -r ,c , �O I,,,,�t ,�7J _ N, ' rL d J ke-- > �_ - � tei►r�W �riJ�f Y��lxl f�c�� �f �%f �i t �