HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 3841 ' � +
7 O� .
i O O
��b. - CITY of ORONO
� ti .
'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
��`9ItE p��'G NO. 3 � � � �
� SH
A RESOLUTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 21 AND DENYING
VARIANCES PER MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTIONS 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2; 10.55, SUBDIVISION 8; AND
10.56, SUBDIVISIONS 16(I), (,n AND (L)
FILE #2196
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 zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety �
and general welfare; and . '
� • WHEREAS,Genmar Industries,Inc. (hereinafter"the applicant")is the owner of the
property located at 1449 Shoreline Drive within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the City") and
legally described as follows:
E�iibit A attached (hereinafter "the property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to the City of Orono for a conditional use
permit and variances to permit the construction of a 28 stall parking lot on the west side of Shoreline
Drive, requesting the following specific approvals:
1. Conditional use permit for land alteration in excess of 100 cubic yards per Section
10.03, Subdivision 21.
2. Variance for land alterations within 75' of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka per
Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2; 10.55, Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivision 16(J).
3. Variance for hardcover within 75' of the shoreline where no hardcover is normally
allowed, and for hardcover in the 75-250' lakeshore setback zone in excess of the
normal 25% hardcover allowance, per Sections 10.22, Subdivision 2; 10.55, .
Subdivision 8; and 10.56, Subdivision 16(L).
• Page 1 of 8
,r . .
� O�
O O
� ��b. � C ITY of ORONO
. � ' ti
'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
��`�$E Iip4�'G NO.
. S —
4. Variance for intensive vegetation clearing within 75' of the shoreline and in a bluff
impact zone per Section 10.56, Subdivision 16(I); and
WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendations
of the City staff and the Planning Commission; and the comments and written statements submitted
by the applicant. �
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono,
Minnesota hereby denies the requested conditional use permit and variances as described above
based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this property:
FINDINGS
� • 1. The property is located in the B-2 Lakeshore Business District.
2. The property consists of 3.3 acres in land area, of which 1.86 acres is located east of
Shoreline Drive and 1.44 acres is located west of Shoreline Drive. 72% of the
property on the west side of Shoreline Drive is within 75' of the shoreline where
hardcover, intensive vegetation clearing, and land alteration are prohibited by the
Orono zoning code. ,
,
3. On the west side of Shoreline Drive, hardcover in the 0-75' zone is proposed to
increase from .06%to 7.30%to accommodate the 25' wide access driveway at the
north end of the proposed parking lot. In the 75-250'zone,hardcover is proposed to
increase from 0%to 53.57%where only 25%hardcover is allowed.
4. The portion of property proposed for conversion to parking lot is by definition a
bluff, based upon the following criteria:
A. The feature lies within the shoreland district.
B. The slope rises at least 25' ab.ove the OHWL (according to information
submitted by the applicant the slope actually rises 40-45' above the OHWL).
C. The grade from the toe of the bluff to a point 25' or more above the OHWL
is greater than 30%. Based on the zoning code definition of"toe of bluff' the
, grade is 63%, although at some locations it is 100% or a 1:1 slope.
� D. The slope drains toward Lake Minnetonka.
5. The proposed excavation of approximately 5,000 cubic yards of earth would result
Page 2 of 8
� °� _
0 0
• ��b. � CITY of ORONO
� ' ti
'� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
��`9k'E Hp4�'� NO. i3 d
- S �--
in the complete destruction and removal of this bluff feature.
6. Shoreland Ordinance Section 10.56,Subdivision 16(I)prohibits removal of live trees
within the 0-75' lakeshore setback area that are 6" or greater in diameter, unless
permit has been issued by City staff. That code section requires replacement by an
equivalent number of trees of a size and nature found acceptable to City staff.
Section 16(I-2)prohibits intensive vegetation clearing within 75' of the shoreline and
on steep slopes and in blu�f impact zones. Intensive vegetation clearing is defined
as the complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip,row or block.
Because virtually the entire bluff feature is within the bluff impact zone,the proposed
excavation in an area approximately 100'wide and 200' long would be considered as
intensive vegetation clearing.
7. The 1980 City of Orono Community Management Plan ("Comprehensive Plan")
• contains a number of general land�use and environmental protection goals and
policies with which the proposed land alteration would be inconsistent, as follows:
A. General Land Use Policy No. 6 on page 4-13 indicates that "Lake shorelines
will be protected from alteration. Shoreland areas whether bluff, beach or
flood plain, 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 the shoreland areas will be preserved insofar as
practical and reasonable in order to retard surface runoff and soil erosion,and
to utilize excess nutrients. Clear cutting will be prohibited . . ."
B. General Land Use Policy No. 13 states "Future�developments 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 produce more aesthetic results and
lasting value for the property owner and the community than does wholesale
alteration of the landscape or mathematical division to the highest possible
density".
• Page 3 of 8
� o�
� o 0
��e. - C ITY of ORONO
� ' ti .
'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL
��`qkE p4�'G NO. � � � �
� SH ,
C. The Environmental Protection Goals on page 3-20 state that"Lake shorelines
will be protected from alteration. Natural vegetation in shoreland areas will
be preserved insofar as practical and reasonable in order to retard surface
runoff and soil erosion, and to utilize excess nutrients. Clear cutting will be
prohibited. In areas of soil or wave action erosion, natural stone rip rap
shoreline protection will be encouraged." .
8. The City of Orono has on past occasions relied on these and other principals
contained within the Comprehensive Plan, to deny land alteration conditional use
permits and specifically, variances for grading within the 0-75' lakeshore setback
zone, in cases where excavation and lowering of the natural lakeshore grades was
proposed in order to allow the creation of a walkout residence,for instance. The City
has long taken the position that such excavations create an artificial and unnatural
lakeshore appearance. �
• 9. � The existing blufF proposed to be excavated has the appearance of a natural feature
on the landscape. The State archeologist has given an opinion that this is a natural
remnant glacial feature and likely is not dredge spoil. The Council finds that the
alteration of this bluff as proposed would be inconsistent with the goals and policies
in the Comprehensive Plan generally and as noted specifically above.
10. The applicants have suggested that the property area and configuration are such that
the proposed use can only be accomplished if hardcover variances are approved. The
City Council finds that this fact is not a hardship to the property, but is clear
indication that this portion of the property is not suitable for the proposed use as a
parking lot.
� 11. Applicants have indicated that safety is a concern and should be considered a
justification for granting the variances. The Council fmds that the underlying reason
for this variance request is the overdevelopment of the dockage system on Tanager
Lake. In 1989 the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District approved an expansion
from the pre-existing 25 slips on Tanager Lake to 64 slips, an increase of 39 slips.
The LMCD approved this increase without apparent consideration of the ability of
the land base to support such an increase in intensity of use. Municipal Zoning Code
. Section 10.41, Subdivision 8(E) states that required parking spaces may not be
• Page 4 of 8
� °�
� o 0
�b. - CITY of 4RON0
� F .
'�' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
��9kE Spg'�L NO. e`� �.
� S
separated by a public roadway from the dock, a storage space,mooring space, floor
space, or ramp they are designed to serve. In 1989 the City Council upon advice
from the City Attorney chose to not oppose the LMCD in this increase of slips, and
allowed the property owner to increase the size of the parking lot on the east side of
� Shoreline Drive to accommodate the additional slips on the west side of Shoreline
Drive at the City required ratio of 6 stalls per 10 slips. A variance was granted at that
time to allow those stalls to be across Shoreline Drive from the slips they serve. It
is the City Council's finding that the need for parking area on the west side of
Shoreline Drive is a self-created hardship, created by the property owner increasing
the number of slips on the Tanager Lake side of the road where parking was not
available and is not allowed under the zoning code.
12. Council finds that creating an additional access point on Shoreline Drive at the
proposed new parking lot driveway access location will not necessarily enhance the
• safety of Shoreline Drive. The additional tra�c ingress/egress will add one more
potential problem point along that road. Further, Council finds that establishing
parking area nearer the Tanager Lake bridge than the current parking area has the
potential to increase the amount of trespassing and pedestrian traffic in the area of the
channel, and the applicants have noted that trespass and the safety of trespassers on
the property continues to be a problem especially near the bridge.
13. The Orono Police Department has provided an eight year history of incidents on
Shoreline Drive from the Tanager Lake bridge to just north of Windward Marina
adjacent to the property. The number of recorded incidents involving pedestrian slip
users crossing Shoreline Drive is indiscernible. While the City Council does not
dispute that lack of parking on the west side of Shoreline Drive is inconvenient for
users of the site and exposes them to a potential unsafe pedestrian crossing,this again '
is largely a result of a hardship self-imposed by the applicants.
14. The City Council finds that in granting a variance in 1989 to allow an increase in
parking on the east side of Shoreline Drive to accommodate new slips on the west
side of Shoreline Drive per Resolution No. 2638, and by granting in 1997 a number
� of variances to allow establishment of a retail boat sales use on the east side of
Shoreline Drive and allowing additional parking to support such use, the City has
. sent a clear message to the property owner that while the City will support continued
• Page 5 of 8
�
� o�
� o 0
��b. � CITY of ORONO
� ti
'� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
���kE o4�� No. 3 � �. �
� sx
use of this property as a marina and endeavor to provide the necessary approvals for
a viable business operation on the site, the City will not compromise its
environmental principals,policies and goals. The public interest in preservation of
the natural features of the shoreline far outweighs the rights of an individual property
owner to develop a property beyond its capacity and in violation of environmental
standards.
15. The granting of the requested variances would be contrary to the provisions of
Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.08, Subdivision 3(A)with which the applicants
must first comply in order that variances be granted. The Council finds that:
A. The essential character of the neighborhood will be altered if the proposed
variances are granted and the bluff is removed and parking lot developed.
• B. The property in question can indeed be put to reasonable use under conditions
allowed by official controls, and is currently being put to a reasonable use by
virtue of its continued use as a marina.
C. The plight of the applicants is created totally by the applicants and not by
circumstances unique to their property nor out of the applicants' control.
D. Granting of the proposed variances would appear to serve as a convenience •
to the applicants and the applicants have not demonstrated a reasonable
hazdship or practical difficulty acceptable to the City Council.
E. The conditions and zoning code limits imposed and e�cisting on this property
� generally apply to all other land and structures in the zoning district in which •
this property is located as well as in adj acent residential zoning districts.
F. The granting of this application is not necessary for the preservation and
. enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicants.
16. In review of the factual findings noted above,the City Council finds that granting of
the proposed conditional use permit and variances to allow the destruction of the
. bluff and development of a parking lot requiring hardcover variances, in addition to
• � Page 6 of 8
. . . , ,; .
� O ' Y
O O
• ��b. - C ITY of ORONO
� ' ti
�� �G'�' RESOLUTION OF �T�HE CITY COUNCIL
� 9kESH�g' NO. � � �
the necessary intensive vegetation clearing to accomplish such development, would
be in complete conflict with the environmental standards for lakeshore development
within the City and would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare.
The City also looks to the broader environmental principals and goals set forth in its
Community Management Plan and the intent of the specific zoning district when
dealing with matters of the public,health,safety and welfare. Issues involving public
health, safety and welfare are not only resolved by securing the obvious traffic and
drainage concerns, but the City also has an obligation to provide its citizens with a
designated and optimum level of density, open space and quality of life.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this l Oth day of February, 1997.
AT ST:
. • �
• C_`�
oro hy M. a n, City lerk Gabrie Jabbour, Mayor
STATE OF MINNESOTA ) .
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this l Oth day of February,
1997, by Gabriel Jabbour & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a
Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the City.
� _ � -� ��.��� �
otary Public
• Page 7 of 8
. � • , • �
, . . � . .
� . . . . • . EXHIBIT A '
� - - RESOLUT.ION NO. 3S�I .
, .- . _. __....__ ._._.. - ---
� . . . . ' . . . ' . .
. i, , . . .
� � • c-� m .t� � �3 «� ommm�� ?,r� � w �n �
. . . � ' � �v: w zs .�x � U o � a v� o. .-t . .
� • � .t� a � .v a� as•� �-r+ �+
. � ` m W O m .t2 .N ra�-t aD �.s m aC� � . � .
� b+ � r7-•i a7 f�+.0 �.0 .1.+ �.3 � � . .
' �� W . W � � G7 .i� ai � � 3-i-�-t O
• � R! C � D 4-i ti1'.�.,7 .ia �3 O O O . w
a ZT m 'l7 m L` � f�J �.Q7 tA [!] '�. �'a . -
• � b�� G3 � 't3 �D U Q' trl N O }� .
. .� � , � . . .' ��-�I 3��+ � U 41 � '1��Q1 �r,-�!'d � �,'.�� 3 '
. _ � S�+ v �s o, c� s� �r..i o � a N-�-�r as a� �
. Z � A � � O � t�A � .0 N � � � -r+ ,
. � !11 O �U Q� � !-t ;� � ' �
h � 'tY N O U � 47 � t� '��
� ' r-t O � r-1 � � Q)�.-1 L'�O ZT-r� tJ� Q� .
� U � rtmU � .c3 �av� � �.�: c; �O �
. . 7 �7 � .t� .i� �. O 3 Mt � -� �
' -� N O � �-pi O L-�.0 �C @ � r � ,
,� .. �C � 'd tT�.i � �'.'t N �
...+
� �
� • � 3 � U� � NOU.C � �+r-ta3 rd
3 O +sf � � ri 4J i� �3 r-i ,A � -N
� H � C i ow � � � 3 3 J � �+ � �
. ,4-�1 ��.-i N � W �+3� � y � � C! �
rl a1 'O d C+ '.-� � rti O S�t-►-1 .t.� � �
• ri U �i � tll �t-•i�G� 03 � nJ a
' . C1 G �d 3-��,-� 'G d �.s� � •�-t � O .
� � �Q � O� � �� � O U � O '.!1 U
,O. .0 r-1 a7 � � •t� �7 i� � O tsa-ri
-'-t 'C7 3.� 'CJ�•�1 U � � tA 4��.-� 'Q �
. � � a7 s� D+ a� O O � !-r U ss a� . -.i .
V A . Q O d t!I N � � C? � U JC � L`.
N 3-•-I.t r-i f-� r1 !-2 � � `.� �� m � � ' .
� U 3� .L� .0 W O C! O -� .i� J•+ � � �
' ' . oo � i� G U-•� GJ O t!1 a7 '� . ,
° . ' � `� � `� � o � dm�.�xa .-� � w � .
- �d � � cn � � � � � m� � � ti
� � ��� � -�s � .0 s� o X .r� � a .�
. c°.� � > � �� m �' a � � a � °
• � 'CRO � � " Nm � � oal
'-� l�t C7 G1 a7 � ?+.7� � O O s� C
• N 3�1 Q? �'.. .0 CO aC ri U�•-i }� J.3 N U •i� 'G �
' .i� G) � '�� �i-► Q' � Si � �-i Ql 'U a3 c�-r1 .
_ . . ►� �' �� •- om ..°.�°JC � ab� o `� �.�'
� � ca �+ .� a� msso � � ov • .
1.J'rtf 'd Cl C3 � ? J � e0 � � o � >. •
' • .. � tL-ri r•�1 � �S S-t � O ai E+ td N O O sJ '
��•i � O 3-1 G3 L'�,�t N U � � . . _
' � Z � U �A O Cl al '�.' ' �: o i-t r •
' , Q � C m U 4-� 'O �,�j�-'� O t11 � C� � U
• r e �"� �.,� �
�,., c� S� O-•t i� �a m-�� � M u� .� �
> a � a �a � x � v� m c� a� � �
L�. o. 3-i �3 • �o,cg .-+ .t� � is�
c7 .0 a� � � r r-��? tr o �-�-� �+ �.L
� .i� � y ca co �rf �.0 �d � � �o m . .
' . . . . . V �-t tn !-1 J-1 C3 A � •c0 07 O tA ��•-t . . A.G . , .
O O o � .s� �-+ � �.-� � F �
� ' . . � G1 U .� p-+ S�+ O. � e0 �.3 • m i� �. :
.t1.0 .i� O O' �Q as � co � . . . � � , .
Q ia ii � C1 r. i W .�'� EO � c' L'� �C .
00 t11 .0 C1 @ f-+ � U ?+m O � .J �
p�4+ cJ i� � V O O rl -.t �t! t1:�-s r�
—� O 3 � � C� �� Gf 3�+ m � c� c� _ s� �n
� . ,� d i� .LS .�.�1 1.�� �U', � �i3 .i� i�.� � ar !-�+-rs N:.i .
� R iA 1-1 O .9 ta Cf d1 � VS .73 v C►L'+ U e;f
. � . .0 N O r-1 O-•�i .��-� a-� Q} t-� :S �.! �s c.1 :/: .-. .
• , .-2 �t '� � e� C7 'd 3.J 13 .'�.' O :+ Q 4t 'C '_� � f�.l ^'.�
'
Y. . . � . " � . -