Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 806%., -,-If'& '' • 0 RESOLUTION NO. 806 RESOLUTION DENYING LARRY HORK, d/b/a NORTH SHORE DRIVE MARINA, AUTHORITY TO ERECT TWO DRY STACK BOAT STORAGE UNITS WHEREAS, Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes author- izes the City Council with the aid and assistance of its Plan- ning Commission to carry out municipal planning activities which guide the development of the city in order to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the city and in order to prevent the creation of a public harm, and WHEREAS, this matter was heard before the City Council, City of Orono, on April 27, May 9, May 23, June 13, June 27, July 11, July 18, and July 25, 1977, and Larry Hork was present and represented by his attorney, Bruce Douglas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council, having heard and reviewed all of the facts and arguments pre- sented by Hork, his attorney and by City Staff and Planning Commission and having heard and reviewed the evidence and law adduced by Hork, his attorney, and City Staff and Planning Commission, and being fully advised after due consideration, hereby refuses to grant to Hork any authority to construct the two dry stack boat storage units for one or more of the following reasons: 1. As of 1964 and 1965, Hork was allowed to have 75 water boat slips at said premises. As of 1966, Hork was allowed to have 15 water boat slips. 2. In 1973, the City allowed the increase of the water boat slips at the premises from 64 to 95 water boat slips. 3. As early as January 1, 1968 and as of December 31, 1974, the premises were in a B-2 Use District which allowed as permitted uses: 35.111 Repair. Repair and servicing of boats. 35.112 Launching. Launching and hauling of boats. 35.113 Storage. Winter storage of boats. 35.114 Sales, etc. Sale and rental of boats, motors, fishing equipment and sale of fuel, boats, boat supplies, bait and marine items. Additional restrictions were in part as follows: 35.152 Should the "B-2" Use District abut an "R" District along the side or rear lot line, a fence or approve landscape of not less than six feet in height which is 50% or more opaque shall be erected along the lot line except within the required front yard. Should the "B-2" District be across a street from an "R" District, a fence not less than six feet in height shall be erected along the required front yard line and the front yard shall be in grass and appropriately landscaped. 4. On January 1, 1975, the City rezoned the premises to LR -1C-1, a residential use district, in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the City and in furtherance of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the City of Orono. 5. As of January 1, 1975, the premises became a legal non -conforming use. Marinas and outside storage are not per- mitted in the LR -1C-1 residential zone. 6. Even if the premises had remained in the B-2 zone, they would have been subject to the new requirements of the B-2 zone. • 7. The premises have never had complete fencing along prior thereto. 8. The Zoning Code has never allowed the use of the wet or dry storage slips or racks for rent to members of the public for mooring or wharfage of boats during the spring, summer and fall. 9. The B-2 Use District regulations, effective January 1, 1975, attached hereto as Exhibit A, restrict outside dry boat slip storage and storage units to a height of 15 feet. 10. Hork owns and operates North Shore Drive Marina located at 3222 North Shore Drive. 11. Hork was authorized by the City in 1976, and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District to have 95 water boat slips at said facility. 12. Hork desires to acquire and install two storage units for storing of boats on the premises. 13. Those 95 rental water boat slips are non -conforming uses which are in fact illegal non -conforming uses since none Is of the prior zoning code have ever allowed as permitted or con- ditional uses the renting of mooring or wharfage to members of the public. 14. On February 4, 1977, Hork delivered his 1977 marina license application pursuant to Chapter 73 of the Municipal Code to 'the Orono City Hall. Hork gave Alan Olson, the Assistant Zoning Administrator, the license application and information. Hork then showed Olson a picture of some boat storage racks. Hork said he was considering the possibility of similar racks on the premises. -Hork asked Olson if Olson thought the storage units would be acceptable. Olson stated that he did not know. Olson asked if the storage units were to be a part of his marina application pursuant to Chapter 73 of the Orono Municipal Code, and Hork said it was not, the license application was to be unchanged from 1976. Olson told Hork that if Hork changed his mind, Hork should bring in more information about the storage units such as location, size, etc., when Hork had the informa- tion available. Olson did not say anything to Hork whether or not there would be a need for a building permit or a variance and Hork did not inquire concerning same. Hork said he would bring in the information prior to proceeding with the acquisi- tion of the racks. Because Hork seemed so tentative about the actual possibility and because Hork did not ask whether or not any permit or variance would be necessary for the storage units, Olson's understanding was that as of that day that Hork would not proceed with any acquisition of any storage units until he returned to the City Hall with the additional inform- ation or until Hork applied for the necessary variances or building permits. Hork never even indicated to Olson that he was considering the purchase of those units. 15. Prior to April 11, 1977, Hork commenced the con- struction of the storage units without first obtaining a per- mit or variance from the City. 16. The construction of the storage units would require a building permit pursuant to the Minnesota State Building Code and would require the obtaining of a variance from the City of Orono. 17. On April 11, 1977, Olson met with Hork and told Hork that a permit and variance would be necessary before the storage units or any part thereof could be constructed. 18. Hork presented his proposal to erect two storage units for the storage of 48 boats on April 18, 1977, to the Planning Commission. Hork said these dry storage units would replace all of the slips in the lagoon, some of the slips on the main dock and some of the current on -land slips. The racks were to be 25 feet high to the roof line with three decks. The two lower decks were eight feet high for storage of larger boats. The third deck was about a six foot clearance for smaller boats. Hork did not consider this deck as a storage • facility. The Planning Commission was concerned about the 25 foot height which exceeds the 15 foot height limitation on boat storage allowed in the B-2 Use District. Hork's premises were not even in a B-2 Use District but were in a residential zone. After a long discussion, the Planning Commission recom- mended denial of the proposal to construct the two storage units for each of the following reasons: A. The units would be an illegal expansion of a non- conforming use. B. Premises currently zoned LR-lA-1 (and storage units are not a permitted use). C. The stacked storage would create an objectional visual obstruction. D. The units would require a height variance. E. The units lack adequate natural screening from the road and lake and from adjacent residential properties. F. The units would provide additional open space avail- able for request of future storage and expansion in the future on property that was in a residential zone. • 19. On April 27, 1977, Hork and his attorney appeared before the City Council to review Hork's proposal. Numerous questions were asked by the council. George Johnson, attorney for property owners in the area who objected to the construc- tion of the storage units, was present and objected to the construction. The council tabled the request until May 9, 1977, to allow for additional staff review. 20. At the May 9, 1977 council meeting, Hork and his attorney were present and additional questions were asked. It was decided that additional information was needed and so the matter was tabled until the May 23, 1977 council meeting. 21. At the May 23, 1977 council meeting, the proposal was on the agenda at Hork's request, however, because neither Hork nor his attorney were present, the matter was tabled until the June 13, 1977 council meeting. 22. On June 2, 1977, at 10:10 A.M., Olson talked with Hork at the premises, which premises Hork had already graded and graveled without first obtaining an excavation and grad- ing permit from the City of Orono, as required by the Orono Municipal Code. At that time, Hork was having pier holes augered on the premises and Olson told Hork that Hork could not proceed with any kind of construction without prior coun- cil approval for a variance and until a building permit was • issued. Hork stated to Olson that he would not pour concrete until approval by the City. On June 6, 1977, Olson discovered that all the holes were filled with concrete and that anchor bolts were embedded therein. That work was done over the week- end within four days of Hork's promise not to proceed with the construction. That act constituted construction without a permit and a variance in violation of the State Building Code and the Orono Municipal Code. C� 0 23. The Zoning and Planning Director in his memo dated June 2, 1977, recommended denial of the proposed construction of the two storage units and noted that Hork still had not filed for a variance from the non -conforming use provisions of the Zoning Code. 24. Hork and his attorney appeared before the City Council on June 13, 1977, in order to review his proposal. Hork stated he would be willing to limit the total number of boats of any type at the facility to 150 boats, 95 of which may be in the water. Mayor Van Nest stated that the limitation should be to 130 boats of any type, 95 of which may be in the water and cited the following reasons why the proposed construction of the two storage units should be denied, which reasons are hereby adopted by the City Council. A. The proposal should be denied because the storage units would be over 15 feet in height in violation of the Zoning Code. B. The storage units would be an expansion of a legal non -conforming use. C. The storage units would be adverse to the compre- hensive land use plan. D. The storage units would promote a commercial use in a residential zone. E. The storage units would result in the diminution in value to the surrounding properties. F. The storage units would have an adverse visual impact on surrounding properties and cause additional noise and traffic problems because of the additional customers which would be attracted to the premises. G. The storage units and footings require a variance and building permit from the City of Orono. There has been no application for either a variance or building permit. 0 H. The storage units would result in an increased den- sity on a bay on Lake Minnetonka that is already congested and the LMCD has listed that they as a critical bay pursuant to its lake study. I. This sort of expansion would result in an unrea- sonable use of the riparian rights of the premises and would result in an excessive and illegal interference with the ripar- ian rights of others on Lake Minnetonka and specifically that bay. The council has already restricted other development on the bay because of congestion. J. The storage units are unacceptable in a residential or commercial zone and are not permitted by the Zoning Code in each zone. K. There is no adequate screening for the proposed storage units. L. The premises have only 290 feet of lake shore and the use of these storage units would allow Hork to place an abnormal number of boats into the lake from one small lot and would result in an abuse of his riparian rights. • J. The curb cut from the premises on County Road 15 is located on a curve and a hill and any use of that curb exposes the user and others on the road to a traffic hazard. The use of these storage units would result in additional traffic on an already hazardous road and additional traffic on a hazardous curb cut. 25. At a meeting on June 30, 1977, Hork and the City Council conceptually agreed to resolve the issues raised at Hork's request by a mutual agreement to experiment with the use of dry stack storage units on a temporary license basis to determine if the concerns as set forth in this resolution could be alleviated. 26. Hork at the council meeting of July 11, 1977, refused to be bound by the terms of the mutual agreement previously accepted by Hork. 27. The refusal to approve the request for dry stack storage units is unrelated to Hork's pending civil lawsuit against the City of Orono to obtain a Court review of the City's prior action in rezoning the premises. -a 28. The only effective manner in controlling the num- ber of boats on the premises is by the height, setback, yard parking and hardcover limitations imposed by the Orono Zoning Code for commercial marinas that are legal uses or legal non- conforming uses. 29. Additional reasons for denying the request for the construction of the storage units is that such construction is temporarily prohibited by the adoption of Ordinance No. 194 by the City of Orono which is a moratorium on all construction of .the on marinas and by the adoption of a moratorium by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District which moratorium prohibits the construction of such storage units. 30. Hork has failed to demonstrate any facts justify- ing the granting of a variance to construct the storage units above 15 feet or to grant a variance to allow an expansion of a legal nonconforming use. Nothing in this resolution is intended to deny Hork his rights to operate North Shore Drive Marina as a valid legal non- conforming use pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 73 of the Orono Municipal Code and the provisions of the annual license. The foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of • the City of Orono on July 25, 1977, by a vote of 5 ayes and 0 nays. William B. Van Nest, Mayor ATTEST: Walter R. Benson, Clerk/Administrator