HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 1411 �,��y � ' • P .
,F .
d C�t� o� ORONO
'� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Q��j 1411 .
� NO.
•
� - � � � A RESOLUTION TO DENY A VARIANCE AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DREDGING
BY C. REX WELSH
, GVHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized
and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City' of Orono, (hereinafter "City"
or "City Council") has � adopted Ordinance 125, Ordinance 167 , Ordinance 179,
and Ordinance 213 all for purposes of regulating filling, grading, dredging,
excavation and construction within the F1ood Plain and Wetlands Conservation
Area, which area is defined as including all areas within Orono below the
ordina.r�� highwater elevation of Lake Minnetonka; and
WHEREAS, C. Rex Welsh (hereinafter ."We1sh") has applied for
a permit to dredge approximately 510 cubic yards of material from the
bed of Lake Minnetonka in front of his property .within the City of Orono
• and within the harbor limits of Orono; located at 650 North Arm Drive,
. legally described as: '
.. _� That part of Lot 1 , Auditor' s Subdivision No. 362 ,
� lying northwesterly of 'a line bearing N 31 degrees
23 minutes 52 seconds E from a point in southwesterly
line of said lot distance 202 61/100 ft northerly
measured along said southwesterly line from most
southerly corner thereof; and �
WHEREAS, said• application has been reviewed by the Planning �
Commission and �he City Council; and
V7HFREAS, Section 31. 830 of the Orono Municipal Code requires
a determination that the application is in the public interest prior
. to issuance of any permit.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the information
submitted by Mr. Welsh and based upon the reviews by the Planning Commission
and Council, the City Council hereby makes the following findings of fact:
.
1) Welsh' s residence on this property was constructed in
1979 pursuant to .issuance of a front yard street setback
variance (file #�23 approved October 28, 1978) . Council '
minutes of that approval'. include the following:
, "In Mr. Welsh' s letter, he makes mention of a proposed
dock to be located 25 ' from the neighbor' s property
line at the southeast corner of his lot. The dock , .
� appears to meet all requirements as long as it does
not invol've any dredging, shoreline alteration, decks
or retaining walls on steep bank. "
. I
1 o f �1�,5� • � �
\.
� �
� � ' . .
.�
d Cit� o� ORONO
• RESOWTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� NO. ��( � ..
�
• � • • �
While this mention does not preclude consideration of the
current dredging application, it does indicate:
a) Recognition that the lakeshore at this location
was restricted by the steep slope and by apparent
shallowness. •
b) Welsh' s knowledge of these limitations and intention
' to install a dock for navigational access.
c) Council ' s intention to be certain that Welsh had
knowledge of the City' s shoreline policies and
regulations, including general prohibitions against
dredging and sho.reline alterations.
2.) A dredging of the public lakebed in front of the Welsh
property apparently occurred in 1961 or 1962�. A Minnesota .
Department of Natural Resources (hereinafter "DNR"� permit for
dredging a 300 foot long X 30 foot wide top, 10 foot wide
bottom X 4-5 foot deep channel was issued on September 1 ,
ti 1961. No City permit was ever applied for or issued for
- this dredging.
3) Comparison of 1961 engineering drawings showing the proposed
dredging, location with the surveys and soundings submitted
by Welsh indicate that the actual 1961. dredging was
substantially wider and in a different location than that .
shown in the 1961 drawings or written on the 1961 DNR permit.
4) Welsh applied to the Minnehaha Creek Waters"hed District
(hereina�ter "MCWD") for. a dredging permit in the spring of
1981. MCWD permit approval for dredging of 1040 cubic yards.
of material was granted on May 21, 1981 , subject to revised
plans , which were later approved. on July 16 , 1981 , and
subject to MCWD rules E.F. and K. MCWD rule E requires
board -denial of permits "unless it is � in .�he .public interest
and.consistent with state policy and muriicipal land develo-
ment guides. . . " (emphasis added) . •
5) Welsh applied to the Minnesota DNR for a dredging permit
on April 15, 1981. DNR permit 81-6257 for dredging of
a 25 foot bottom width x 210 foot long channel was issued
on August 4, 1981, subject to condition IX "The permittee
shall comply with all rules, regulations, requirements or
,� standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and other
applicable federal, state .or local agencies" (emphasis added) .
The expiration of this permit was extended to August 31, 1982,
by a DNR letter dated June 14, 1982.
2 �f l�
. 1
� Cit� o� ORONO
� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� NO. �L� (� ..
�
• - • •
6) Application for a City permit was not made until May 14,
1981, 30 days after DNR application, and only 7 days
before MCWD action.
7) The Welsh application was twi.ce reviewed by the Orono •
Planning Commission (June 1, 1981, and again on August 17,
1981) . In both instances the Planning Commission voted
unanimously to deny the application for reasons stated
in their minutes, attached hereto and made a part of this �
Resolution.
8) The current dredging proposal as indicated on plans
received by the City on May 14 , 1982 (Exhibit A & B
attached hereto) appears to be consistent with the •
terms of the 1981 DNR permit and appears to be in the
location of the apparent 1961 dredging. These plans
do not conform to the size or location requirements of
the 1961 DNR permit. The area of the proposed dredging
� is all open water and is not in any marsh area. The
� proposed depth may or. may not be to hard bottom. No
borings have been provided. The proposed four ft. (4 ' )
�' depth is 7.ess than the specified denth . in thP "' •
� ],961, DNR permit. � •
9) The revised plans submitted to the City on May 14, 1982,
are drawn on .a survey dated January 4, ]:982, "revised �
to show proposed dock, channel and rip rap as of March 9, �
1982" . These plans are consistent with the specifications
of the 1981 DNR permit issued in August, 1981, but are
not consistent with the "revised plans" submitted to and
approved by the MCWD on July 16, 1981. Therefore the
MCWD permit is out of date and is based on incomplete
plans.
10) The MCWD and DNR permit approvals were made without benefit
of imput from the City, not because. the City delayed
response to those agencies, but because:
a) The MCWD acted before the City was even aware
of the proposal .
b) The City was not officially notified by the
MCWD or the DNR of their respective considera�ion
of the Welsh applications . A copy of the DNR
application was transmitted to the City not by
� ' the DNR but by Welsh ' s attorney, and then only
in the middle of June, 1981, two months after
the date of the DNR application.
3 o f 1�,5'
. ,
d c�t� o� oR,oNo
� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� NO. ��
�
• � • • �
c The MCWD and DNR acted on the Welsh application
long before the City had completed its review,
and obviously before all the facts were known
to those agencies. This is confirmed by the � �
changing plans dated as late as March, 1982,
seven months after the DNR permit date and
8 to 10 months after MCWD review.
11) Welsh ' s stated purpose for dredging is that there is
insufficient water depth to have navigable access to
his property.
a) Welsh' s soundings submitted to the City (Exhibit B)
indicate the following:
Actual Existinq Water Depths �
� below below below actual
, dis.tance given standard May 31, 1982
- from shore 928. 8 elev 929. 4 e1.ev 929. 79 elev.
;�r 10-80 ft 2 ft 2.6 ft 3 ft
100 ft 2� ft 3.1 ft 3� ft .
120 ft 3 ft 3.6 ft 4 ft
150 ft 4 ft 4 .6 ft 5 ft
b) No agency including the City, DNR, MCWD or LMCD
specify any given depth as "navigable" .
' c) DNR regulations do not indicate navigable access
beginning at 4 feet or deeper as represented by
Welsh. Instead, DNR regulations indicate that
4 feet is the maximum depth considered necessary
for structures to extend lakeward in order for
complete navigable access to said structures.
d) City Planning Commission ' s. findings at their
August 17, 1981, meeting was that the existing
2% feet of water was sufficient depth for normal
navigation to a 100 ft long dock which could be -
built to conform to all City, LMCD, DNR and MCWD
requirements, and that 22" was the depth required
for the average boat on Lake Minnetonka. Further
Planning Commission information from Marina operators
indicated 2 '-7" to 2 ' -9" was the depth required for
� the majority of "large" boats serviced by Marinas
on Lake Minnetonka.
4 o f 15�
d c�t� o� oR,oNo
• RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
'� No. lQ I ��
C�
. - . .
' e) Hennepin County Sheriff ' s water patrol information
supplied to City staff and the Planning Commission
iridicates that most Lake Minnetonka inboards and
outboards can navigate in 3 feet of water, and �
sailboats in 5-6 feet.
f) During the summer and fall of 1981, Mr. We1sh ' s
1979 23 ' Sears inboard MN 8688EA was pulled up
nose onto the shore in the area of the proposed
dock, where his soundings indicate 2 feet of water.
Therefore Mr. Welsh ' s own boat and own navigational
, practices confirm that the existing water depth
throughout 1981 was "navigable" .
12) We1sh' s stated purpose for dredging is that he wishes
to install a short, permanent dock and does not wish
�\ to install a longer seasonal or permanent dock. Without
1 the requested dredging Welsh states he would need a
150 foot long dock to reach navigable water, and such
a dock:
_� a) would need a variance from the City and LMCD
b) would encroach on his neighbor' s setbacks
c) would be a visible in�rusion on the lake
d) would be a hazard to navigation
e) would cause him inconvenience because he is
handicapped
13) Welsh' s 1978 statements indicate he was planning a dock,
but there is no, evidence provided that he has ever
attempted to actually install a dock.
14) Welsh ' s 1931 �ractice o� bringinr, �ii� i�oa-c uo to thc
shoreline indicates lze had navigable water deptiz a�
the time he was requesting the dredging permits, and
, indeed that this navigable depth extended right up to
the shoreline. Therefore, his statements about
requiring a 150 ft long dock to reach navigable water
are clearlv erroneous and excessive.
• '
5 o f l r5'� �
� c�t� o� oR,oNo
• RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� NO. �/-� ��_ � ..
� r
• � • •
15) Welsh' s soundings indicate that he has at least.
2Z feet of water depth at a point 100 feet from
the shore. A dock cauld be constructed to this �
point without encroaching neighboring setbacks and
without requiring any variance from City or LMCD
standards, as indicated on Exhibit C.
16) Welsh' s dredging application requests a 4 foot water
depth below elevation 928. 8 . Welsh' s soundings
indicate that a 120 to 150 foot long dock would
also provide 4 feet of water depth without requiring
dredging, as indicated on Exhibit C.
17) A 150 foot lonq dock as indicated on Exhibi t C would
require a length variance from the City and LMCD, .
,� but could be constructed without encroaching neighboring
\ setback requirements, and because of its location within
35 feet of the existing wetland point, a 150 f�ot lonq
dock� would not encroach normal navigational lanes, nor.
would it constitute a distinct visual encroachment into
� the lake as it might along a straighter shoreline. �
18) The stated policy of the City of Orono (1981 CMP page �
3-21, Exhibit D) is that granting of a dock length
. variance where necessary is preferrable to any form of
, lake bed dredging.
19) Consistent with the City' s written Comprehensive
Planning policies, Minnesota DNR regulation -
1 .5022 AI "discourages" lake bed excavation "where
it is intended to gain access to navigable water
depths when such access .can be reasonable attained
by utilizing a temporary or permanent dock" , and ,
regulation 1 .5022B1c states that ."the proposed �
project must represent the 'minimal impact' solution y
to a specific need" . ;
20) In June 1982, Minnesota DNR Regional Hydrologist, Kent �
Lokkesmoe, stated to City Planner Olson, that DNR �
regulations were written with the intent of providing
4 ways to exercise navigational access rights, and that:
a) filling has more adverse impact than dredging
• � b) dredging has more adverse impact than a permanent dock �
c) a permanent dock has more adverse impact than a �
seasonal dock � �
,
6 of .1� �
- � . c�t� o� oR,oNO . -
• .
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� No. � ..
. - . . .
he existence of the 1961 Minnesota DNR permit and/or
the existence of any actual past dredging in this
area does not automatically grant perpetual rights to
"maintenance" dredging.
a) The apparent actual dredging of 1961 is not •
in the location, nor is consistent with the '
width specifications of the 1961 permit, and -
therefore was not a fully legal dredging.
b) The 1961 permit contains language making it
"subject to all conditions and limitations now
or hereinafter imposed by law" .
c) The 1961 permit contains no language granting
perpetual rights. to' "maintenance dredging" .
22) Evidence on the general topic of dredqing and Lake ecology
retained by the City in its general files, plans and reports ,
. and information contained within the specific file kept on
the Welsh application including a November� l7 , 1981 letter
_e`� from G.F.B. I. Director, R.S. Hanson (Exhibit G) al1 as
reviewed by City staff and the City Council �or the Welsh
application, supports the findings that any dredging is
- de'leterious to the quality of water in Lake Minnetonka for
many reasons , including: •
a) Suspension of silt, sediments and nutrients.
b) release of trapped nutrients " ` '"" �_-�.
• c) removal of • filtration capacity of � vegetation �
d) exposure of acidic sediments
e) scarring or removal of the lake bed seal
f) opening of a sponge-like siphon for pulling nutrients
into the lake from adjacent bottom muck
g) allowing increased flow of nutrients and sediments
into the lake through the artifical channel
23) The Welsh application clearly is made and intended solely ,
to benefit the Welsh property, and Welsh' s use of that ' 'I
property, and would not benefit any other property, any '
other property owner, or any member of the public at large. '
• 7 oi� i5t
�� -
•
� C�t� o� ORONO -
�� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ..
� Na [�(, I (
•
. - . . .
24 e potential impact caused by the proposed dredging
would adversely impact Lake Minnetonka and its water .
quality, would adversely affect neighboring properties
and. other properties in North Arm Bay, and. would
adversely affect the public generally. -
25) Issuance or denial of a dredging permit as proposed
is within the jurisdiction and authority of the City of
Orono:
� a) The dredging location is within a Bay of Lake
Minnetonka, which Bay is entirely within and
surrounded by the City of Orono.
b) The dredging location is within the 300 ft
. harbor limits of the City of Orono.
c) Dredging and other lake or shoreland alterations
are addressed in the City's comprehensive plans
adopted in 1974 , in the 1980 flraft Comprehensive
Community Management Plan, : and in the f inal November,
, • 1981 , adopted Comprehensive Community Management
Plan, (hereinafter "CMP") .
� d) Dredging and other lake or shoreland alterations �
are regulated by City zoning, flood plan and wetlands
management ordinances, including Seetions 31. 700
and 31. 800 et . seq . �
e) The 1981 permits issued by MCWD and Minnesota DNR
are both subject to compliance with 1oca1 municipal
regulations as speci�ically conditioned therein.
26) Based on City and DNR policies, and the facts of the
Welsh application, the Council finds ..that dockage,
even dockage in excess of 100 feet long, is the
minimal impact and therefore preferrable solution to
providing navigable access to the Welsh property.
27) Based on the facts in the record of this application,
the Council �%mds� that denial of a dredging permi.t would
not deny Welsh any riparian access rights since he •
enjoyed such use without dredging, and indeed without
a dock through the 1981 season, and since it has been
demonstrated that a dock could be built to reach
d'eeper navigable water, with or without the necessity
for a dock length variance. �
•
ts of 15�
d C�t� o� ORONO
• RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
2�e ouncil finds that Section 31. 700 of the Orono �
�uni ipal Code (adopted Ordi��ee #125 , DP.r-ember 1970)
�� bits dredging of any kind; that Welsh has failed
rmally apply for a variance to Section 31.700;
that even if Welsh had applied for a variance,
that he has failed to establish any practical difficulty
or particular hardship sufficient to justify approval
� of such a variance.
a) The conditions existing on_ the Welsh property,
including the steep bank, adjacent marsh land,
� and shallow shore, are .not 'unique to this property .
and do occur in other areas of the City.
b) Denial of thi s application would not alter Welsh's
ri•par.ian righ�ts or general property rights since
the lakeshore condition and navigable accessibility
continues unchanged from prior to Welsh' s purchase
� and prior to Welsh' s residential construction on �
the property. , '
c) Gr�nting of the variance would adversely affe�t
the water quality of Lake Minnetonka.
_• d) Granting of the variance would be solely �or the
convenience of .the applicant who wishes to construct
� a short dock rather than a long dock.
e) Granting of the variance would be contrary to the
. intent and purpose of Orono' s Comprehensive Community
�Management Plan and contrary to the intent and purpose
of the Orono Zoning Code. "
29) The Council fi.nds that Section 31.831 and Section 31.834
of the Flood Plain and. Wetlands Management Ordi nance
(Ordinance #125 adopted December 1970, as included within
Ordinance #213 adopted October 1978) provide for issuance
of a Conditional Use Permit for dredging only when such
use is compatible with the policies of the City as
expressed in the Comprehensive Plan (Exhibit D, E & F)
and wi.th the zoning requirements of Section 31. 700:
a) If a dredging proposal. conforms to CMP Environmental
Policy l0A (Exhibit D) such as if no other
alterna.tives are available or if channel dredging
wi11 benefit a large number of riparian owners, -
then a variance to Section 31. 700 may be granted
and only then will a dredging Conditional Use Permit
be issued, whi.ch permit would stipulate the terms
and conditions of the approved work.
• b) If a dredging proposal does not conform to CMP
Environmental Policy 10A, or if for some other
reason a variance to Section 31. 700 is not approved,
then issuance of a dredging .Conditional Use Permit
could not be qranted under Section 31. 830.
d C�t� o� ORONO
• RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� No. f�E l ( .
�
. - . .
The Council finds that the Welsh application as made
on May 14 , 1981 , and as amended with new documents
submitted on May 14 , 1982 , does not conform to City
of Orono Comprehensive Community Management Plan
Environmental Policy l0A and is therefore contrary
to the Community Management Plan:
a) Open scoop dredging is proposed because °
�hydraulic dredging is no longer available
� on Lake Minnetonka, and because no suitable
hydraulic disposal site is avai.lable.
b) . Dredging i s not the .minimal impact solution
available when dockage does appear feasible
and when no attempt has been made to� install
dockage.
c) Navigable riparian access exists_ on this site
as it did when �Welsh purchased the property, �
as it did when he built his residence, and as
i t di d when he navi gated hi s boa•t to .the shore
throughout 1981.
• d) Dockage alternatives are available and seem
reasonable. .
e) The. applicant has not attempted to dock out, and
has not applied for any dock length variance �
'(if necessary) . �
f) The bene�fit of the proposed dredging would accrue
only to Welsh and then only to the extent of
allowing a shorter dock to be constructed.
31) This application has been .revi.ewed on a factual basis
related to the physical, conditions of the shoreline
and the 7.ake bed abutting the Welsh property and has
not been reviewed in consideration of Mr. Welsh' s
obvious personal handicap, as. he stated he so wished.
However, the Council does note that Mr. Welsh or his
attorney ha�e made statements to the effect that
dredging is r.equired so he can install a short permanent
dock instead o� a longer temporary dock because of his
personal difficu7,ty in negotiating a ].onger dock; and
because he personally' could not participate in seasonal.
dock installation or removal. ' To this argument the
Council must reply:
• 10 of 1�'5
� C�t� o� ORONO �
• RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� NO. �� � � �
�
• � • •
a) An individual ' s personal situation is always
considered by this Council, but can �not be the •
sole reason- for granting of variances or
conditional use permits having a permanent effect
on the land and/or water resources of the City,
since such review is by law limited to unique facts
or circumstances directly related to the 1and,
and since individuals buy and sell property and
are never as permanent as are the physical
changes sought by such permits . .
b) �Even if Welsh ' s handicap were. a reasonable criteria
for review, Council notes that the We1sh property
has a very steep bank from the house to the shore
which is much more difficult to negotiate than is
any length�� of �horizontal dock, and. Welsh purchased
this property in full knowledge of both his handicap
and the steep bank. .
� c) There is no correlation between the length or width
of any dock and whether it can be permanent or
seasonal. If Welsh were to install a dock, even
a 150 ft long dock, permits would be granted to make
_ it as wide as necessary for his particular condition,
and to have it installed as a permanent rather than �
seasonal dack if °that were his desire.
32) A July 31 , 1981 , letter �rom Lal�e Minnetonka Conservation
District (hereina�ter "LMCD") Executive Director Frank
Mixa to th� DNR states no objection .to the dredging as �
propose�l at that time subject to certain provisions. It
• does not purport to grant LMCD approval for the dredging.
� The I,r�CD clearly has no jurisdiction over such dredging
apn7_ications. And the letter of "no objection" is purely ,
. the opinion o� the Director since the matter has never
� , been brought to the attention of the LMCD Board of Directors. �
33) , The City of Orono has found that ,the We1sh application
for� dredging is not consistent with "municipal ].and
development guides" as required by MCWD Ru1e E, and j
therefore the MCWD permit conditions ha.ve not been met. I
34) The City of Orono has found that the Welsh application for
dredging is not in compliance with local agency "rules,
regulations; requirements or standards" as required by
DNR permit condition IX, and therefore the DNR permit �
* conditions have not been met.
� 11 o f 1�5�_
. �
•
� C�t� o� ORONO .
�� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � ..
� NO. _T •
• -
• � • •
35) This has been a protracted and lengthly review caused
by many factors including:
a) Welsh delaying application to the City for at �
least 30 days after his application to the DNR
and MCWD. �
b) Poor quality and amount of data. �submitted with
the o'riginal Welsh application (no survey, "
conflicting information between information
supplied and prior surveys provided by We1sh .
for construction of his home) .
c) After the initial Planning Commission review
• and denial recommendation, We1sh brought forward
n.ew information including disCovery of the 1961
DNR permit. This was discussed by the City
Council on June 22, 1981, but no action was ,
• taken at the request of Welsh' s attorney who
instead requested reconsideration by the
Planning Commission.
d) Planning Commission reconsideration at their
� July, 1981, meetings was not possible because
the. promised docurrientation was not provided
by Welsh' s attorney until .August 7, 1981.
e) The new documentation was reviewed by the Planning
Commission on August 17, 1981, and again by the
City Council on September 28, �1981, at which
time the applicant requested tabling so they
could provide additional information to the
Counci�l. .
f) Instead of providing any information to the City
staff, We`lsh's attorney wrote directly to the
City Attorney citing legal arguements.
g) After completion of the City Attorney's 1ega1
review, �the �Welsh application was again heard
by the City Council on November 23, 1981,. at �
. which time the applicant again requested the
Council to table all action so as to clarify
. many questions raised concerning conflicting
� � surveys and documentation provided to date.
Revised surveys were promised "soon" but in fact
were not submitted to the City until May 14,
1982, six months later.
1 ?_ �f 1�5�
d
C�t� o� ORONO °
• RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
� NO. ���I . .
� h) Another Council review was scheduled on June 14 ,
• - • •
1982, at which time all revised and clarified ,
documents were reviewed, after which Council
requested staff to draft a resolution to deny
the application.
i) The requested resolution draft was mailed to Welsh
and his attorney on July 6 , 1982 , and was � scheduled
• for review by the City Council on July 12 , 1982,
of which Welsh and his attorney were notified.
j ) Neither Welsh nor his attorney appeared at the
July 12 , 1982 , Council meeting nor have either
party contacted the City staff regarding their
� absense either before or after siad meeting.
The Council tabled action until the applicant
was represented, and he was notified of said
' action on July 13, 1982 .
k) No other contact has been received from Welsh or
his attorney since July 12, 1982.
• AND FURTHERMORE BE IT RESOLVED, that based upon the above
findings of fact, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby denies
the application for a dredging permit by C.Rex Welsh for one or more
of the following reasons: •
1 . The Welsh dredging application is contrary to the
intents , purposes and policies of the Orono Compre-
hensive Community Management Plan, and is specifically
contrary to the intents and purposes of Community
Management Plan Environmental Policy 10A.
2 . Welsh has failed to make application for a variance
. from the requirements of Orono Zoning Code Section
• � 31 . 700, and 31. 705 .
3 . The Welsh anplication has �failed to conform to the
nerformance standard requirements and criteria of .
of Orono Zoning Code Sections 31 .800 thru 31 . 895 ,
including Section 31 .831 , and Sections 32 . 400 thru
' 32 . 465. '
4 . Welsh has failed to provide proof of physical property-
related hardshius suff icient to justify granting or any
variance to Orono Zoning Code Sections 31 . 700 & 31 . 705 ,
� ' Sections 31 .800 thru 31 . 895 , including 31 .831 , and
• Sections 32. 400 thru 32 . 465 .
, • -
13 of 15 �
d
. C�t� o� ORONO . °
• �
� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ..
� NO. �l{ ( �
• � • •
. �
5) jrTelsh' s facts and actions have demonstrated the
existe:�ce and useability of navigable wa�ers
�battinq the T+��lsh pronerty without requiring
dredging, a:�d even without a dock .
6) The minimal impa�t enviror.:�en4�1 solution to
nroviding a na�-igable access �o the t�elsh property
is a dock, either temporary or seasonal , instead
of dredging.
7) Granting of a dredging permit �ti�ould be adverse to .
the ecological 'e^vironment oi Lake Riinnetonka , and
:•:ould adversely affect neighboring property owners
. and the public in general .
8) Den?al of the dredging perr.lit would protect the
ec�logical environr,:ent of Lake Minnetonka, would
� �rotect the property and proper�y values of
' ' neighboring property owners, ar.d would protect the
gen�ral public he�I�h, safety and welfare .
9) Denial of the dredging perm?t would not deny Welsh
any riparia:� access rights , a:ould not deny TrJelsh
any pratical navigatior.al access that has �xisted
ana continues to e::ist , and would not deprive Welsh
of the uses of his land or riparian lakeshore that
he has used in the pas� and continu�s to use. '
IO) The grantinp of any of the permits or variances
in this case would� set an adverse precedent
because of the several other applications that
� have been discussed with others or are � pending
for similarly situated property owner to dred e
,, would also be requesting permission , g
the wetlands in front of' their properties for
. their own personal benefit.
• . 14 of 15
. �a
� C�t� o� ORONO °
• - .
� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL _.
� NO.
•
• - • •
AND, BE IT FURTHERMORE RESOLVED that based upon the above
findings of fact, the City Council of the City of Orono hereby advises
C.Rex Welsh that he should more thoroughly investigate the available
dockage alternatives and that based upon submittal of adequate plans
and documentation, the City Council would look favorably on granting
of a reasonable dock length and/or width variance if such should be
required to solve his particular needs .
•
� Adopted by the C.ity Co.uncil .of . tl�e City of Orono at their
regul�r meeting on September 13 , 1982 , by a vote of . 5 Ayes
and Q nays .
�
William B. Van Nest, Mayor
ATTEST: �
Mary S Woytcke, D puty City Cierk
• � " 15 of 15
e
.�,_• � �
. � . � - .. . 1e��. -� �.
,
. - - �xW c��T �,
• . . _ .
LAKE
. .
\� � N1 I N N ET0 N K A .
�� ,� � .
\ ( NORTH AR M ) � �
� , �, \, ,
—�
, A �� �
d�,�1`
�� •
yX `P^ , .
•' . . t
� ' �__ '
__� /j /�`l _ '. ' ' . .
��-�'r '� . � . :
'`^'� �---Rropose� 25' x 2t0'. Ghoann�l�
_ -�oo- _ ���' , • �
/ Gced9c.to 92�{.8 N.6.V.Q
�Ics I.e•+el 9ZB.9}:;Slope. � • . ` �
• ' .a11 �3ide9 a��4 1�iorizon�a!
-- � • .; � � .. ,.
to ''�� v er�r��o.�' 'upwa►rd` ��cor�
`\��'� �5' �'2to' -T�wt bo.i�on, .
��-��' . _ - �
•,� '\ r/ ,pFp�q�imo�ie Muc.i� Votume
. .� • .
�9 '� � , � '/2� (33) C2�o) C21 = 5J3 ��.yd. .
„� ��\ e �
• i� \
n Ftoposed 9' W i de CI a� A
�"�� R,p ko.� over S' 4��Iter blwnkc�
�.� �,a�t propo��ed doc.�
�
g�M 6/ d
so... M.M. � �I t�'t # � ' .
-r�,: O.e� � r _ �
lar=945.�� \ I OF ORONO
. �
\ � �
�
' \ � f
. ,
� ��
� �
�
� � . �
/ J,
' . J�J-� •
., r �- �
. t 1 . \_���~
- ` ; �
-� _ _ __ � -- �_:t. �pf l ��Jd. :.!t. ��O j_JvZ '
� - -
` .
� � ,
�
. � ' ,_�
. �. ,
\ � ` 92 9.4 coz four(Ni9h wd'r•-,�%n� �
. � �� . �
� .,.� .
\ 30,� \ � h9� . `
� ��r ,, \ � .
_ _ `C � :` - ,
rd;� � . r�.
• Ne„n, �. �j�..--�`�'`� . _ '
�Q . - �P, �` - 'I �£.\��_�� ,__-
\ � . . -� ( Jroposed : `�
; _ � \ �Ooct--1 �}��,'�
\ + ' . ,`` - .
' /( ` � aA -
t
� ' �/ ��6 j_ . �
, �-�j; t< <' ,�
� w
�- .
, .
�•• ` � ' ,� •
f . \ ; . ' , _ . -��; ,• .'_. ,.` � `, •
`�s�`
' '"• . � ' ' h ,
2 ^
. � _ .}- � ,� .
+ � � � . ;. .. _:t-
� f
� i ., ; -L�Ex',ST�
\ o���i
1 h
'y
. \ ' �3�,6 .
i
. \ ' G� �. � .
. - ,� �_ � �-
� _ � - . ..., � i �. E
. _ . ��
, . - . � .
� � �. � � � ..� . �
_ __ .: _ - �M � ��,��
_ , � ____ _��
. Typ�ca1 C hatn�tel Cro;S :.�t��'�+► - -�:��
5 c o1�� ►" = 10 . .w ; ' - . 4�# �
• •• �� .
. . . .;..�' •
= ;O � Clasg A R�p Ro►p .
�
�
� ��1No.+a.- Lev�l �92P.82
, ' � '_� . . ..,...-:.._. ._....,, �..,..-.�...ti,.r.
_ �t
9:� � �►.1 . f
_�
- .i'T:�yG�.�. .,h.��a:�,• ��.. �,• �� r-::a--- � : ,
. _ . +_ , <t���� �, ��. ��. . �ESO c... . � �1`��
. �,+��.:j .�.�,T,. .
57
. ' � ��r;'t:, , _ _---- _- . .- •--•----• . �XN l $ 1� $
� y M1
,�}�yy, :�'�,#�i t . ' o _
. .�'�; ,.��,�� , �3
,��� ,����t �
� ' . .fi'p9 � �.�5q, i I .
.r,+''� �v��i�' °p •
,��r�L, M}�o'�-' ��; �� � .
' ':.�9 - k z�rr.!, o' �W O � �
, �� �.'��k����: , �\� � � p v�' �"
''\ 's � . �
� t_��i?�e! .(�o'�,r,,�� v � 4a � � C � .
� 4F�'�M!�' f �� \/ � �
'�� ��i�.�dS�"' `� / r i � � G �
I}���. , �hF/ '\.� P . • , � ��\ .
. ;�r�.,�/ � \ , , �\�\�/ V
�'��"\`�! - ,``,`` \ .
.�G :�i�� \ S^ •� • �. • . '
, . ,�, 'j���� -1 `M ^� \ $\ . /
f4 �"�: � • ` « •� � \ \ . .
6 ��e \ � � �
.Vt� ``�I� ' �A \ r � 1. �.
'��' "�F�Y�. • -� �� ��' � ` v ' � �' �
. � ° a� ��'t_A '' `��r�:�°' ' � �� ` �8
" �� °`tJ�:i�`� , . \ � � / � .
Y r�� '�%���,�•,\, � .r I � .� � � , f..
„�n �, �ic' � , }`� • "�
� � , ..��� `����". ,l l) �V ��� /�� / , wQ-
.1D.'L'3f �. � � •� / i `
r r�F
� �•a� .�� .���j
jy'�, .� y ' � O
�s ��->� M•l�f:�� 1 �1 ' \p �.` � � �i/ �
\.a y� �� ���rt4 .. � 'O. '/' V'� � ..� � / � �/ •
r9.°�' ,� <�A.: , .�, �
� .d� ��M'r �i t • S a A � � � .
� v��} ���' ''•I *, , �� • t\� ` �/
• �• ����� �'Y..�f,�+.P�F.,i �F�.. •1•�a i' . . , . � • tr • � - � .
�a � .� � i 2
�.ti �`�;6I ��.1'�"�`.+'. '��= r. ! ' , . `0� .
� �r'�• ' `.}1 b� �, �:« `,` :s• ;� ( . �
' � a ��_st . �
Y ti F'. � a+!, Fn�t.r '� . . i 't .�� � .
o �! ��� , •G .
v §'A ��ti�,.} �i" � �� ' , � �� �!
�► 'd t?'�;. .� . �i ( v
� 'r��`` :`a�-�C� { - �� Q.
, A •:e$���'i r '� � •
Q)� :j�i � ' � I� `h .
O �,' ';�j t. ,� 4 •y+ '1 p:, 0
�
: '0 � g, � .. , ..� � �
0 r tii�` .� . � � 9° �
H � �'�• � '>.`.�, �
� � F .�w•� .
� o a.. l,�i,�.,* ' ;r �,° o
Q � -�".d,�'_�;`,r���fl ' � .� � �
J . � . � �-,:•,�:j. -� • � .
� . f w�' ,�.a•��•.� .p / • v � .
� ;L �,.a!' . ♦ \ e .
` , ��' , � � v ;c O � a � �_�.
r .�:•l���',;e y r'c.� � ' � _,u.� .d._u_
��.nl
�
.--�-----— . __
I
•
•. � � -, . . R E,�s�o� . � ;, ;r� ,
.�jCN 113 i T �
,�- -
.�. -
;-
� .,-�. - � _
: A�-r�.rt n�a.�Tt
;- ,-,� .
.-
/- 'r� � D�GK S�'��G CST IO�V �
. �'/� . rsA ot� �.3.g-Z
-`�_,�-_ `_� . . -
�''-�- L A K E �
. _ . -, .
�. ��z .
----.--_ � .
��, . MINNETONKA
�, ,� � � � � �
929.� Corifou✓(Nicly Wa=rr L%n� � .� '
���GTU ( .NORTH � . ARM )
�
, � �\ � � �
, e�o.a�er.��E �. ' . �cD .
. ��'fl . 4'p� N�'�'\\, , � � A�CK fls�
� . 4T ; . AQEa (�e�o'R,Es�b,)
. f" 3a� �So, �^ � _ .
• r ' p��,�.y,
, � s
�� '� ; Liu�
a� �
'_6�,�n. �_ � �i!" -��` �FF� r�cb� � /7�� E.XTENSIOII� �
\ I i ��'�- - � � iR .% .
�� �� t Ikoposed �� - �Q'j i . "� � �h ,
\ �� Oock--1 �,V�p��� �-_- �',�' �. ?pi
• ��� -� . vv� "` �
^� ^y .
� � , . .
�
�s _��o_ / Proposed 25 x 2t0 Gho.�ne{�
'l� '`•' �_ ' ' ,� G�ed9e, to 924.8 N.6.V. Q
. � � `� . ����Icc Level 928.8) , Slope
. . . . .a�l S�de9 a} q 1�oc�zon�o.!
. ��� � �.S`� to .1 v e c��co.� u pwc.rd Ccor� �
,5 � .
�82 ' ^h S So. �:' � 210 {�lo.i botton�
.�2 � . ��\ �' • ,:;
� ` �••, �• /Di Approxin�;tle Muc� �Volume
��l- �� ��c��ii�3 � . j '/2� (��) Cztio) C21 = 5�3 c�.yd. � �
� 7 9 �'. �
' �`' ' �� i
� �31.6 _ 1 ��. Fc o�x,5�d 9' W�3 e C l a�.,s A
• , ��' , h�p ha� over 9' �,I�er b1ar��ke�
\ G� °�o � Fa:t �ro�ost,i �30��
�� � � $,M . 0
. . � � �,. M.M. D - �6/� .
� T�: o.s, \ �c i ��¢.
lav: 945.c.� � CITY OF ORONO
� . '.\ ,'I
•\t � l.l �.' _�..T� `+1 . \,. \ �
� ' i,
a 1" •• 10� � i
. �
_ ;
� � �
. � ,., L . � - � o�a �� �',
.. . , , . T��so�, # �lI �
� ��ItgIT �
Novr.rlB��, 1981
�
.,
10. DREDGING OR OTHER ALTERATION OF LAKE BEDS OR WETLANDS WILL BE
�' DISCOURAGED BECAUSE OF ADVERSE SHORT-TERA1 AND LONG-TER1�1 EFFECTS
ON WATER QUALITY. Dredging releases large amounts of otherwise
trapped nutrients and silt, and removes .the filtration capacity
of lost vegetation. Open scoop dredging suspends as much or
more material than is actually removed. Nearby waters are
unuseable for days. And when. the nutrient-rich solids do settle
they fertilize the lake bed causing water quality deterioration
and greatly increased weed and algae growth that adversely
affects neighboring properties for extended periods of time .
Dredging scars the lake bed seal not only releasinc, the nutrients
trapped within the disturbed material , but also opening up the
sponge of long-bwried nutrients which are then sipiloned off �
into the open water. Because these adverse affects on water �
quality are suffered for long periods of time , dredging of lake
� beds or wetlands will not be permitted unless it is clearly
demonstrated that the dredging proposal is the minimal impact .
solution �to a problem of general public concern.
A. Open-water, lake bed dredging will be permitted only
in limited circumstances , only when absolutely ,
necessary to maintain existing natural riparian access
permanently lost by something beyond the control of
the landowner, and then only when no otYier alternatives
are available such as use of a longer dock, use of a
• �joint dock, or use of another area of the shoreline .
In most situations, granting of a dock length or setback
variance will be prefezrable to dredging. Dredging of
new channels or inlets will not be approved to provide
navigable riparian access where none existed naturally. �
Existing dredged channels � are expected to silt-in �I
naturally. Redredging is as environmentally disruptive �
as new dredging. Maintenance dredging will be subject
to the same standards of review as new dredging ,, and
wi1•1 not usually be approved unless a large number of
users are affected, such as in the public channels .
between b�ys. . Periodic low water conditions .or an
owner' s desire for deeper draft watercraft are not
sufficient reasons for disrupting sensitive lake beds .
. . B. Dredging or filling of up2and wetlands or shoreline
marshes destroys wetlands vegetation, removing nutrient
assimflative capacity and incressing the velocity of
storm water discha=ge to the lakes. Dredging , filling
or other alteration of desiqnated wetlands wfll be
prohibited unless nn overriaing hardship is demonstrated
to justify a variance from this policy. The crestion
of wildlife ponda or stormwater retention ponds is '
encouraged, but only if the area to be altered is not
withfn a designated aetland. All ail8life ponds shall
• be constructed to DNR standards, including upland
disposal and erosion control of spoils .
CMP 3-21
• c �
. . . . ��.spL, .� ` � , .__._.,,
�x-�ll�i� �
, �tRON ENT JUNE, 1980
� • , � '
, THE WETLANDS AND MARSHLANDS OF THE CITY WILL BE PROTECTED A1VD PRESERVED
AS WILDLIFE HABiTATS, AS UNIQUE OPEN SPACES, AND AS THE ONLY ECONOMICALLY
PRACTICAL I�tETHOD OF FLOOD PROTECTION AND STORM 4�iATER RUNOFF FILTRATION.
The Harza Study, the 208 �dater Quality Management Study , and Orono' s
Surface Water Manaqement Plan all recommend this approach to permanent
water quality management for Lake Minnetonka. In addition , the Orono '� �
Plan goes on to identify individual wetlands and marshlands that
require protection as part of the City ' s storm water inanagement progran.
It is the policy of this plan to effectuate the policies and recommen- �
dations of the 1974 Orono Surface Water Manaqement Plan .
PROTECTION OF THE CITY'S MARSHLAND, WETL�NDS AND DRAINAGE��TAYS SHALL
INCLUDE PROTECTION OF ADJOINING LANDS AND PREVENTION OF DRAINAGE,
- FILLING, DREDGING OR WETLI�ND'S VEGETATION REMOVAL. ordinances will
establish setbacks for all land alteration or construction. Wherever
possible , the City will acqui=e open space and flowage easements for �,
conservation of these lands. �
PROTECTION OF LAKE RESOURCES WILL ALLOW REASONABLE ACCESS, USE AND �
ENJOYMENT WHILE PREVENTING OVERCROWDING AND EXCESSIVE ENCROACHMENT. � � �
In conformance with Mn . DNR Shoreline Management regulations for
recreational development lakes , the City will prohibit overly dense �
development within 1 , 000 feet of Lake Minnetonka . Lake use regulations ��
�11 be pror�oted to limit excessive boat density and overuse o£ sensitive
ys. Land use regulations will be developed to provide reasonable ,�
control over building density, land alteration and lakeshore encroachment .
� LAKE SHORELINES IdILL HE PROTECTED FROM ALTERATION. Natural qegetation ' `
in shozeland areas will be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable �
in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion , and to utilize �
excess nutrients. Clearcutting will be prohibited. In areas of soil �
or wave action erosion , natural stone zip rap shoreline protection will ;
be encouraged: �
�LAKE BED ALTERATIONS WILL BE DISCOURAGED BECAUSE OF ADVERSE SHORT-TERM '
� AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS ON WATER QUA.LITY. Dredging of lake beds releases � ;
large amounts of otherwise trapped nutzients and silt which adversely •
affects water quality for lonq periods of time . Dredging of new '
=channels or inlets will t�ot be approved to provide riparian access � � �
where none existed naturally. Dredging will be permitted in limited �
- circumstances only where absolutely ne�eseary to maintain existfag �
� natural riparian access permanently 2ost by aomething beyond the
control of the landoaner. Peziodic lov vater conditioas oz the owner• s �
desire !or deeper dralt watercratt nre not sufficient zeaeons goz
disruptinq sensitive lake b�ds . . ,
• �'�
CMP 3-20 . �
'.. l, , . . . f,.��� �/ �yry ,
r;c'''f ��o �ll�e
� � �'�tiv'C ���� / /�-
� � - 9 - �
• 1Z ESOL , -�E ��
� �t-tt � �T �
B. Lakeshore Residential .
� Land area within Orono Village that is within close
proximity to Lake riinnetonka and Long Lake that has little �
tor no natural filtration or purification of stormwater runoff,
should make up the lakeshore residential classification. '
� Generally, all Iand within at least 1000 feet of the lakes
� should be included in this classification.
Environmental pratection of Lake Minnetonka should be .
� paramount in the land use restriction of this residential
classification. Housing should be limited to single family
� dwellings at locv densities 1/2 to 2 units per' acre. In
� areas where public sanitary sewer is nat available the mini-
• • mun building site should be not less than 2 acres. .
� . Other environmental protect�on requirements should include
a 75 foot buildin set back from the shoreline, non- !,
. g ,.
� polluting fertilizer, erosion control, a maximum hardcover
� . Zimitation, the prevention of major tree and shrub removal
within 75 feet of the� lakeshore, and a prohibition acrainst
� major chanqes of natural land contours by grading, filling, or
dredging. . TYiese standards are consistent with those of the
� Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the Lake Minnetonka � -
Conservation District, and the State c_. �linnesota. i
� . {
�
�•
� ' .
. � �<<-. ,�.i .��
'.. °, . , �1�t� .;�:. _..... .�:._.
�� . R,���...., .� Iq I .
1 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA � Gray F�eslnvater a1O1O9�Iancestitute
�x�cg�T �
� � ; CoUegt oi B�ologicat Sc
� TWIN CITIES
� P.O. Box 100
; County Roads 15 and 19
': Navarre. Minnesota 55392
�` �c�c�n�1��;,
D ;
. ; � h�1f i 7 t�i � � �
November 17, 1981 ' � •�•, .
. — _....�..--.
� ���TY�O� C��"� :.__
• Jean Mahusth
Orono City Hall ,
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, ht�� 55323 �
Dear Jean: .
I am responding to your �request for information regarding the potential
harm resulting fromdredgingof channels in wetlands. I cannot precise7y
predict the results because there is insufficient data to support my
. conclusions. However, I think the following consequences may result from
such wetland modifications.
� 1 ) An open channel to the lake will result in an increased flow
• of nutrients to the lake, particularly following heavy rain.
2) The filtering capacity of the wetland will be reduced and the
sedimentation rate in the lake will be increased.
' s
3) The dredging will suspend nutrient rich sediments and some
will reach the lake.
4) The exposure of acidic sediments that have been buried for
some time will result in the release af b»ried ,nutrients to the
lake. '
� 5) The opening of these channels can result in erosion of the H�etlands
that should continue to fill as sediments are filtered out. The ;
channels, in effect, function to drain the wetlands.
Therefore, I believe that the �water and nutrient retention capacities of
the wetlands will be reduced by channels dredged� through them. �
Sincerely, � . .
. .)�� ����� . . . .
�
R.S. Hanson
Director, Gray Freshwater Biological Institute
• RSH/d
�`�e+`r'.Y.,;y �� �',�1•• � '� 1�'� � ;V:=� ' \ `;' •.`- t \` �r9 ' �� .,
�`. � ` � "'" , �c 1 > � �` • 9
{.s�.-,— :�.� �J 4`. .v.n ' ^n \'v�-1, fr �t y. �i ¢ �
s,,� V.�;�'^'� °, ��,�r�= , , `-- ' .: �f ,` • .` . �¢ _, ���. • � .
�''�` ` � @',` � � f :.. ` y a .e * . `+•f � . � /'
,� d �, if ! ? r S�i t�-. �,F ;i.ti � '* � r �
.��� �\ � , t. k� � . ��t�'1 Y(��Sd ty'`� +�'�6,1y,� h'�� :� �F�'��*r 4 S� ' • . � i/(�',I a Y'c
�� Yl n , �. ` �" "r t "1�t�� � *!�'�.. y�-..K. . � `���r�� �• �1�• �,: 'l �
� �� y ��� {� ♦ J�� y� . ��.. J� �'1� y'X,��.�I` � . �, \ �`. . .. � • rt.
.. � �'� � t/. y~ � ��a�.�.t�'�.tj,1i___„A.���i�,�L_w e y',y w .t�. �� ' .y.j, k �r'• etv' o '�'i?X ��`
yF � 0��4y4t�±��y4a��� �-✓���"i�i + � `�'. �, ' '��.:
t � , � K _
��� ,^,�'17 $dA^' �-� t� s t'� . 1. r; - 'i .^Y�
-a� � R� ����?�i�'�'`lq„'^�'; ��, T q '�'•� .+ � .ty�. � .�s�i.e �'�.R' y.'4 '�"'�.. ���(y'+ix ' s+,`�'n,.
� � �C ��y,Sy�?4��.. �k e3c aZ� ;� 1� e } . y'� �r ''a _,�.�
'� t'' � ,���1� r� tJ:� �.�`Y t#`�c ' 4 V�-� t �,�y` i�i�y}'p�y r6- �.{'$��{� �4 Ct��t i�{"� �4pr'
Ir '�. 1� '�� f M y fiwivey�'HS��.��,.�W'V';yf�+�s i I-1 f/" ��,i qiJ 5`'�"x`'�l-'�l'4� F ����j ✓'
.$y, '��'i�yJ��}t�,' y�{�,Sat�.,,t'�11 f.! .'R�.�`(,t$�+d. .f�� ;..t.r��,��''��'s. �ti'?`, 'M++�1 � ''r
,
. ,
q�� ,y� � .
;i�x a�i t,'�e��4+�'�''�y`#y'�i�'�,,`��'�.�y 4,�r�.�� , ,+�3't ,;"'u x��,�� �.�iy�,�-e'�� ..� Si"�a S x.a f C�'j�,������' r 1!'"�
k �;' .c� � �7a.�'b7°"�J" "M M1.'7++�. K.L �4 '�MA<� t..b5r�# '�fL�'':� ��. ' a ts"1 �.-,}�y TY.
� . g'� .�i.YP tiYr ^��},'�'Jr`va � � a r T � t� ,M, . t �:`4Y-c�h"� 0 �y"`�4 +�
� .� sy�q ' . �.' S. �v. �t`�,�* ��;�i ',y #'+ ti.� `IA�4�a .�.�tar a� Y '�' -�s � .t:{ �-.�,�� �:;�
3
,. �` r � r w'yr s �� r. �� �i�i�� ka� s�.',,,y y r° . `. V/r} � �,�i'�3,�.}��"'�j �,� Ir�,' ,�,,.r r
� al� �` ��� - � t� ���� x:. P���;`�1���ry��,�, ��.� . ��� ,�r,,,,/'•��.�?}'�.:,.�f� "�q,.�y'r+��w-1 n�: ffR"J 4�'�� , 3�����` .
�`�.; , ,. ay.
, . W'��• • ' � •: 'yy ��1sMin t�,h��/�f�eYU.}�+"`" f . }� .E 1'�r;_�� r XaJ�'k �F'..� ..� p
�, °� �� � ��_L,y�.:t �k�a1y 3't p TY� �� �f� � x� � f f� �+A�"
� A�� :� "�,.� �� ¢TAx• J''��:7 �" ys'�p�' r�� V. -.�t�r y�SSy�� �'�y�"�,�4 6"tY* ��+"T ti 'a' '�A.�,�r�
� ,,�,. �' �,� ��r �;�ti� �'h �r
� y M�S:� � ;�! i `���.r.+�'���` ��� �r v,. �.��.+�y �r'1 1���`^i
� a' �4�Yt h�.
x �r +�.:. � � .. ���r f '{�. _ y�i1� l; i t _� <<.h,,.`F S!���.£�n���. .���. �z +v� � �
�.� ti i .1�.,� �. . ki.. � ��P ��l,rS�"F;_� ��; i,+-� l� Z y° a4:,�M
J��-. +� Y:z �r Kr „iX,,� .� `�#•s� 9 f .��" ,w ���r� y j�S�� 1 i 1 J�� �7 r iM � b' 1°r�
r n•'� , r R. ti '6y.� .�c � 's. � ' a. . :� 1> ��! ���+4 },,�� �-',
,7;e�_+�St�t�� , `v���;��,V'��y�,h.'�ba�y,�11i►Y.r� u� {�' /� Ti q�'C�X'„';� s;S.��.,,�*�;�,���y. ��+��� r' ?'rrf� ' �r, ptr���,
� �g S�R,'�..1�-'�t'���'� � g.. :r� �`33y'z'x�f,_�:.��"�ri::L� �'i..�.,t',i'• �4�$i� . ��_`2a� ..�.,5. " �r..��.t��,.'�.'��`r,a `�+'�§; �� 't�X .`.1ss�,7 ��`"� �.
' a�l � + {k•A .�'"y',+� . �t � 4 � "��}�T�p�,�' yy��� k� �� � ++'�i... );�. .�,� �J-,V,� ��,�.r�`;.'.,.
F 4 J� �`� ; Z A# lE�� { � {.� '3 t' p
, y����+�,�' . � 'k' ► Q �� S�I ��� �'? � Y �. �� L � f `t .s'� Rr'
� �}���e ����`��" � �I�,E.`���C �'�',Tr .�''�¢° .. `,rz a � �''�'s�s�' �6'.'�, " .�{ A'. • `�_n
i��`'L� Y-�A, �� yK{,.��i wl.. Y � � p x~d .� '�1\� F' 1 f �Y� � ,`,a.7 �.a1 • :j
�� -�f� �
::B .'�, �•,x7t s�}yS��+4'Sfe�t� .{3S."�1���.�' A,y 'St�'.' a�rTf,.�"r �2�•r�..r �� .�.�� , �:. ��::� �}A�'�� L.%k � :�`�.�f ,`K ..ry�� `•
C � e} 'W
._ � �.�,��.. �i��,F �i? �yy y,,, '�'. �k�q� " y��. ��. . . - �f .��„ � �� �✓ i'fF� ;�� s� ��� �
�`t p�� y�
� r3. r ¢ v - ..' r, d+ �- � , rF�•
R . :2 `� ra/y��� �{.� �� r.. -, k,�i q .!A� �rj� ,. ��' � F� �r j'S�t-��' s r j �t a �\;, r '1'
�,�t '`ykt'� ��.e�!�'y{�v,�+ ���vy��, � �����.�,W��1��� 1 `(`nJ.l � 4�h� T �"�M.� �, i��„e��,a,�� '•y- ,;��P�¢ .� �t i �Y , \
I '{ �}W � �'. x ' ��CM-.I L ��
�,a��r �> . '.
4� �,�. .'�^ K�w4��`M� }i�yv���nrge�. ;\ "� . �y,t�. t,� y ` !'. ` . .x � t���a"s."•` ` . �9 �,,Q + „ v-i . �
�� v i� t
4. � �� ^F�� A''{r��+,�^�i�d c,.�S..;"'�},�I� �� a^S�:'.\FJ�}� . . ` 5.., �.pY�,�P'a�dC�. �,�'�1��,;`'u t� :�; -. r.r^., ,�.
'r'F .a� Y � �� �`:s�GP F, ° � � 1 t��.' �� ��R • . , � � '�'`yG rtr ' � w; i� . � °t. �� o
� } .�,.n��K4tE �{�it"�.u" �"��� v���y Ys3�asa.a ,�.� 4 . �: � �4,�� . '.� ''. ' 1i' +'''��.�h1Y. :` ��a���a ,, ��c� \"' ' , p
iFa�L'�:},°'��'` " `�� �! '3�. l ��,+S� .�' c.r � +..! : � . / �'i , . • .��7�7�b �. �' � �����.�,ts' -. � � `. a
�+G w',,3'1 r;�.'X� �°. a:J �i ��3,]!+ r ' s�: s � . .t�.*,.'s*� r. ♦ d+ '.� J .;�•+ —i .
s �n ,� �� ae w �F� s r �,x'�,� ��,�1 Y C1 t tZ� ' ,� r�� j ti r r�s•,t� ,. �. -��}. � � ::� • �"
j.�� !}�1 �'�� �W�'�,,�� $a�C.t���y. ����;Y v'j 3 P�l.,.�,� > _. :'�` 4 l C ������ �� .+��`r� .�,'2 Y ♦ � _ � '•(�
�y��!�'��' ��+����:yi ♦ l��•" ~ �ti'k5 ..,Y��41����54l y^Y��'}�, Lti:t�l 5 ./e�✓ '.�,{{.+��' '��'� �>Y ir !� �� �i�Y�+n`r� '` �.
-i '4 �1 _Y�G IX Wy� ',r��ll�`.!U . � �.f�� fJ,h.: KK *y� "1. �l�Y.'• y"L�1�� R ��`.d"Y�Tr� c~i,''�:.Y"��' 1,.. �l . '•,,.••:
,�� �,Hf �.�4 �� 7 � •�
�y ��� �e. p ��� �}`�,t',,�wti`{ '�TC..y>S�F.l r/r�� .�' ��t i p KJ �S,�. + 3 j''�'��d�h�i.` s f �� w� '� '�n � 'h�i, . • , �� t
..a�� t H o '}� +Fit'k' � � � 1: ) t» ,� i � J. � .:! !SF' , .i �' . d c� t+�i ati
�+'T �i � ��_ ����ty pikd �7:^.t>�M�r��y � '�'T� i r� ��K.J�'yy`4 �,�^�-� Y-,F�;..4 ! '.; � ' f". \3 a � :y�j)a.r� '�
�. .� a2 Ei { rY¢'+c�:. S 4d, 4aa A � .�-t .+r Ka J �, 3s .T''sr .s�� 1 � ��' \ ��1
�� e� i�i�-si��`�� .�„y r f''�C r� �� ��4� ..5 ."�i._{}�'�}-'yv�� n -y �r�{`.�;S F. ,x� F ) � `� C� /
�, .��3�.t�z��. ��dc..�k�cb'� �rxs�:�}�*!"�-,`��,s'�F'�� � 4' c � '�.� �"t�l �� R 4•��,� �x r .y,� ��-py� ���y,h; � l�• /
��,�"� r a � i.0 � '�- � l'.
. se r'�'�}`�'y�Ay'F�+�'���L�."i' �A`x��'t`�l�,a,y .. '�i�.S-{��,'�.�t �,�j nt�r n.��s . ��1"�,_ ,i -t�f1'�} � i� y� �i i � � "t i
t�?4i� 43�i�}°aC-y��t Y� "_��•�_��,�'l��x.t•'aY�.'^�. 4L'S'.� a � at �µ Z.,�vy<r �7L � j- a C� * r,, �� �r�`..
n �.�� 1°"l, w� \ L�, +q i� �'" . R� ♦ . � � —.ga� FY or
` } '�Fk � q �'ts`t"�y�± '�'���� ' � "�"c nfii ��s'a+t�'a��,. � - j�.,k t� �}�jc . ,���% , � �•��?K�� a.�s' , ��(, M����
Z 4 7( "�-t�, o �?;. 'a� s � s r .� } �F'. • r
�` �r�£h� y�.is��`�i; a�:�4e'S"r �t .F�'�y dp y,'�1 .t�,.� 'f• � �� ��,J �. u.. ��^ i' ,
�� �� ��.-�,�� �.����.�'� ,��,�.�,�.�. _ �� �� ��,���� '�r_. ��-
���C . `f,� ,,�,<�
��f �`�g�X�'�-�4i'} � s'�' ,�al��� t;��r,�+,�,�t:�-•� �fy1' < i 'S'�.��•+ ''�'1 i•,J . � �e
��• c '� � �F'�`�' . ..�� a�,�s . ���r G^ J C� � �.�y ��.�y� .�.p i .
�"r�,, �' � �g' �� �,�t . y. ■ .',. Gl 7.L
�3�.-�� �fv;k�•���` ^� ,�,T� aj�f � ' .}.. �•., q,�.�.wr �rt �• ` �
-p : "' .` � 3�d "svet � ., z :1;� ��su ^���,�"�"
� �� `'t,'�.i _� ^ ��:' .:`� �, . . '.' +�,`f �r/5.�� \�4
' . : - ' .�� . , .;{ , � . .V ,.a\LM9 �.� {�
SI . 4, r ; _ ^„j, ��• 7►
. �. -, :s .�.i? � ' ' �. , ';,�`� � W �•
� . �• . � � . . . % YV `Ll�l, ', `�� �+ tl• �` �
� ,r•. . . , f . J� ' !'��,� �,yt,r �j q �/ � .
. , .. r . ( � � '�� �y ��°� V°,,,A. _ _ (� v �
, � �It� v � rs�F ?y. ,y , ..• � � �
� .. .b .+ �s�. •vi� , � .t� �%;,7t � . r.»� ��
. . , . .�, �- �pr:�... . 3W � .:. � � �.�. �y
. ' " ,% r n. ` ti° ��4�.���F `
^ 1r �
' ' � . s .�;i_ V •� �I yF�� �'�i
1`�� � b s
. • ' sj, . � '' 's�t. •� % �'r,'��:
� � �`}•?�� � /� �, � ��''��
+ u I���+ •d �. �r,1`• .OQ f ; . . y �i i "ys;'•',�, --
�41 �
�p'� �d6/ . " a� � „�' � 4 a�^ ''� .. `L'� 5�;6t... ,.
..I� .:� t � � .�.
�1 :u (n . ����i` •��'�= .e /� �f. r , �� `�. '
. . : � +�.. . � p���,. � .:• l�!�� �� 'r'�. . :'�`
, r.' h' , � 1 • �`�� �!'. T �� ����i� , �.
. • Q . • I. � ;•.�� �� •c4� �.�` �'�" ts
• �. _ . � � � ., 'r'� e,�,^ �:?� F' �• D'�',� S �S/�.Ijs , t
• c :S� .. ' f'.i�r,�y���� �� y �+� ;�`Y',�?�.
- '���'05 ;.�.;�^_ :�.`_ .�� ,a �� ;, ��
6� r� .1-/� �� , l � ._ •. • � . :� :.r,-
r/� 'r.� • ]' �t •' ' Fe :y�Sw-
1��"�l s.5 l..! .. ,,�� o
'�` 5
.-��,`{' `� � �, "ti�,,, 'I h� , - .��h,.,
� t '� � 4'�� t�i.�" �
�..�� � �__ _«_�. �' --- �t��%� . , _e - -----�-'- ' ! ��� — -----
:T, , . ��� � '•� � - � _
��� f: 'Yi�a Z�T�J:.z... •1r
.ti,� �'
� Yr,•.�: #,:4 �.;�
.c- �4 � I ..h � '`�l , ' .
" .��!� - �. •, `p0° i 0 x `y� "�' „� - `S
^.n�- , , ; / , � �r �M K� •
.r'' ' �� l � :
... �� . fv. . �F `'��14t��_/ �:� J , #� ����
���� .. � RESo� #-�.�--. �CN II�►T I'i
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1981 Page 3
.
and subject to the following conditions: REED (CQIST.�)..
�1 - City will not grant setback variances to Lots 1,
2, and 3 for any future construction.
2 - Prior to preliminary approval from Council the
following testing must be completed and reviewed
by staff: � ._.
a) Complete set of septic tests (main & alternate)
for f.uture new home on Lot l. .
b) Alternate septic site tests for residence on
Lot 2. .
c) Main septic site testing (4 peres + 2 borings) ' -_
for relocated drainfield for cottage on Lot 3.
3 - Approve conditional use permit for existing guest
house based on the following findings: • ,
a) Lot 3's area has not changed from original Lot
8 Bracketts Point.
b) Guest house is used only in the summer months.
, c) Guest house has existed for over 20 years. .
d) Guest house is a non conforming structure •and ` -T '
. governed by all ordinances dealing with non
conforming structures. . �
4 - Noting that the guest hnuse is� in excellent condition '
. , and is assessed at $3,000.00 fair market value. , ,
' ` � - �:t _ � • �
Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (3) , ,Nays (0) . _ �,,�, - y; .
•Applicant was not present. Planning Commission had no ,pro- ROBERT WHITE
blems with the final subdivision appTication of �Robert 320 Woodhill Rd.
Whi�te. . Final Subdivision�
� Resoluti`on
Jabhour moved to approve the plat of Edgewood Place subject �5804.. � •
to, the findings and conditions setforth in the staff , - . '�.:� '., -
resolution. � "
Goetten seconded. Vote: � Ayes (3) , Nays (0) . _ � _:�,:,
Mr. Rex Welsh and Becky Comstock, applicants attorney; were �'REX WELSH
present. Ms. Comstock reviewed with the Planning Commission 650 North Arm Dr.
the �history of the application. She confirmed .that in-1961 : Conditional Use
there was some dredging done. It was done with a, DNR permit. Permit
She stated that they were bringing it back to the Planning �618 '
Commission because they felt that they had met the standards.
for maintenance ,dredging. LMCD and MCWD have ,also given � �;Rr -r ,, •
-�'their''.�approyal _alonq with �the DNR for a maintenance dredge.
.a.�, � . . _ ... . - -
-r�_,. w �.... _...,.— --___ _ -
- _Goetten asked if this property was dredged in 1961 then why _ '
wasn't .it done again 10 years later? '- ��"�` -` 'L �
� ___. _
Comstock noted for the record the dock dimension�: 20' :long :
6' wide, meeting all LMCD requirements, � �
�iurr asked how will they rip rap it? Comstock noted that all
DNR standards would be met. Applicant asks for a channel
depth of 4� ' ; it is presently 2�,' .
� „ � • `
� �ZES�L. #'__��_(_- � ., �,itfll g IT S 2
- /INUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 17, 1981 Page 4 .
. Jabbour feels that tfie City is totally. against dredging. He WELSH (CONT. )
� stated that any type of boat except for a big cruiser would
'. make it in a channel of 2�'depth. He doesn't feel that the .
City is depriving the :property owner of his riparian rights � .
either. He asked what aUout a dock lengt�h variance? � �
Applicant explained that a dock length variance would obstruct .
lake access, also it would be ._physically exhausting for the �
applicant who is handicapped to ,walk an additiona1 �100 plus ft.
McDonald explained to the applicant that the lake is very -
low again this year. � � �
Mabusth stated that a longer dock would encroach on the
ne'ighbors property lines. City would have to consider both
a dock length and setback variance. . _
Applicant stated �that he never knew that he could not apply .
for a dredging permit. �Mabusth noted in the Council minutes �
� it stated that the ,applicant was forewarned that dredging
.
' would not �be allowed. _ _
, Comstock questioned �the owners riparian xights. She stated
• that once �the DNR permit had -been issued in 1961 this
- � �onveyed or recognized a certain property right of the owner. •
In approving a recent DNR permit for a 4• depth the agency
. determined �what is .navigable water. Does the City determine .
what is navigable •water or do other agencies? .
Jabbour stated that he felt that �the �City should decide this
, not the DNR. �. � • ,
Jabbour moved' to deny Rex �Welsh's request for a dredging
• permit in view of the City's policy of dredging and that there , ,
is 2�'.depth existing which is suitable for boat navigation. - . ',
Applicant was a�so given a warning when he received�a variance
which forewarned about future . request against dredging. �
Goetten seconded. Vote: Ayes (3) , Nays � (0) .
Allan Larson requested tabling ,of his application because he ALLAN C. LARSON
was not able fo� attend this meeting because of business 3852 Cherry Ave
'reasons. � • ., , Conditional Use
, . . Permit
. • McDonald moved to. table Allan C. Larson's application at the �629 ,
applicants request. � ,
Jabbour seconded. Vote: Ayes (3) , Nays (0) . � .
.� . -
�
. � �.^ �� .. � . �E�o�. �_L1.L.� �xHl6 iT J
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 1, 1981 Page 2 �
' ;
James McGowans, based on the hardship of tfie shape of lot, �' ;
� tlie location of the drainfield, topography to the east '
' and based on the following findings: i
' � 1) No factual evidence of the diminution of the property ' �
value claimed by the .property owner to the west. _
2) Proposed keeping of horses is consistent with the intent ,
of the comprehensive land use plan for �the rural area of . ;
the City and consistent with the comprehensive park plan , ' !
based on the proximity of horse trails within the Baker �ark �
Reserve. �
Adams secbnded. Vote: Ayes (7) , Nays (0) . � '
. ;
� Jack Vest, Mr. Welsh's attorney., was present. Staff re- �✓C. REX WELSH
viewed that there was never a dock constructed on the 650 North Rrm Dr.
property and that the applicant contends that they are Conditional� Use
unable to bring a boat into the area because of the shal- Permit
low waters in the area. � �618 `
. . �
•McDonald stated that everyone is having, pr.oblems with the g
lake being very low this year. She advises that�the dis-
turbing of the bottom of the lake will destroy the natural
wild life and the fish spawning in the area. �
' . !
Bill Wear who was present for another application, stated '
that he remembered dredging of the channel before and that � �
there was a dock at that time. . -
Jabbour stated that it was difficult to imagine that there � f
was a dock since there was no house. �
Frahm noted in the previous setback variance application
that Welsh submitted a letter stating that he would con- _
struct a dock meeting all the L.M.C,D's requirements and
the Council's minutes reflected a forewarning to the ap- .
plicant about the possiblity of dredging.
' I
McDonald asked how long a dock would have to be to bring �'
Mr. Welsh into navigable waters. Mr. Niccum stated that
the dock would have to be 150 ft. �
HanQaerel moved to deny the Conditional '.Use Permit for
dredging based on the findings that� there was no �uidence - � •
' of a legal dredging permit being issued at that site and the' `
--- previous warning given to the applicant concerning the,:dredging . -� .
and the construction of a dock noted in the Council minu�es `
,_,�=-_ of October 10, 1978. .� � , -_. ...- ----- �.0 ��.�.... _<<,�-_� � , �.
, _ - . -- -
� _Jabbour seconded. Vote: Ayes (7) , Naye, (0) . t ' �� - � � 4�'� " "
�i�