HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2538•
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2538
A RESOLUTION GRANTING
VARIANCES TO
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 2 AND
A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PER
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 10.03, SUBDIVISION 19
FILE #1339
WHEREAS, David E. F. Lee (hereinafter "the applicant") is the
owner of the property located at 2695 Casco Point Road within the City of
Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally. described as follows:
Lot 3, Auditor's 'Subdivision No. 265, Hennepin County, Minnesota
(hereinafter "property"); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has made after -the -fact application to the
City of Orono to permit retaining walls and certain land alterations within
75' of the lake where Section 10.22, Subdivision 2 would allow no
structures or land alterations and per Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 seeks
approval of a conditional use permit for the retaining walls and land
alterations within the Lakeshore of the property.
Minnesota:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Orono,
FINDINGS
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #1339.
2. The property is located in the LR -1C Single Family Lakeshore
Residential Zoning District requiring a minimum of .5 acres of dry
contiguous land in area.
3. The property consists of approximately .4+ acres in area.
4. The Orono Planning Commission reviewed this application on October
17, 1988 and recommended approval of the proposed after -the -fact
variances and conditional use permit as set forth above, based on the
following findings:
A) The proposed lakeshore improvement will prevent the continued
• erosion of the lakeshore bank and provide stabilization of the
lakeshore bank.
B) The Orono inspection staff has confirmed the former retaining
walls and access stairs were in a deteriorated and unsafe
condition.
Page 1 of 8
•
City of oR,olvo
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2538
5. The Orono Council conceptually reviewed this application on
October 24, 1988 and recommended approval of the after -the -fact
variances and conditional use permit but asked for specific
alterations of the existing retaining wall and changes in the final
grades within the upper wall sections. This approval was based on the
following findings:
A) The lakeshore restoration plan as amended by the Council is
more consistent with the guidelines established by the City in
the consideration of similar after -the -fact applications.
B) As amended, the wall sections would continue to provide
stability for the bank but wall exposure would be reduced by 60%.
C)- The proposal as amended by the Council would retain the sub-
structure of the upper retaining walls that would continue to
provide the needed stability of the disturbed bank area. Final
• grades at 2k:1 slope within the upper retaining wall areas will
also allow for vegetation to return.
6. The City Council finds that the conditions existing on this pro-
perty are peculiar to it and do not apply generally to other property
in this zoning district; that granting the variance would not
adversely affect traffic conditions, light, air nor pose a fire hazard
or other danger to neighboring properties; would not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate a demon-
strable hardship or difficulty; is 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.
7. The City Council finds that granting a conditional use permit to
allow the retaining wall structure to remain in the lakeshore yard as
amended will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general
welfare of the 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 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.
Page 2 of 8
•
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2538
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City
Council hereby grants after -the -fact variances to Municipal Code Section
10.22, Subdivision 2 and an after -the -fact conditional use permit per
Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 that would allow the existing retaining wall
to remain as modified by the Council in addition to approving certain land
alterations within the lakeshore protected area, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The existing retaining wall to be altered per Option 2 as set
forth in the City Engineer's report and sketch enclosed with this
resolution as Pages 6, 7 and 8.
2. Banks to be restored to 2k:1 slopes within the area of the upper
two tiers of the altered retaining walls. Applicant's landscape
architect may advise on appropriate ground cover and plantings for
• this area. Erosion control must be maintained at the time of the
commencement of the restoration until ground cover is restored.
3. Installation of a soils separater blanket and stone rip rap at the
base of the lower wall and drain holes installed near the base of each
wall as recommended by applicant's landscape architect, James Robin,
in his letter to the applicant dated August"31, 1988.
4. Access stair structure to remain subject to planters being
installed along one side so that only a 48" stair width remains.
Appropriate plantings to be provided within the planter box areas.
Detached lower access stair structure to be re -aligned and permanently
attached to lower wall structure.
5. The applicant must complete the entire restoration as set forth
above and on Pages 6, 7 and 8 of this resolution by June 30, 1989.
Applicant shall call for regular inspections by the Orono inspection
staff upon the commencement of the restoration. Applicant must apply
for a. building permit from the City of Orono prior to the required
improvements.
6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and condi-
tions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning
code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and
shall be punishable as a misdemeanor.
• 7. The undersigned applicant has read, understood and hereby agrees
to the terms, of this resolution and on behalf of himself, his heirs,
successors and assigns, hereby agrees to the recording of this
resolution in the chain of title of the property.
Page 3 of 8
•
•
~` City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
_.., NO. 2538
Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of November,
1988.
AT ST:
D'oLothy MaHallifi
Property Owner(s)
ty Clerk Jam
Bar
R. Grabek, Mayor
a A. Peterson, Acting Mayor
Page 4 of 8
•
•
City of ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. 2538
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this �f7-� day of , 1982
before me a Not ry Public within and for said county, personally
appeared I)AVIO LLP
known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the
foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he (they) executed
the same 'as his (their) free act and deed.
LAURIE K. SCHEI RER
140TA91 PUILIC -MINNESOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY
My commission expires6.8.93
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
On this 1(94-1 day of 198_g, before me
a otary Pub is within and for said County, personally appeared
phlqA& . U -e– known to me to be the
person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument,
and acknowledged that he (they) executed the same as his
(their) free act and deed.
�AAB
NNMTA
wINNEPf" COUNTY
M1MINr011 MpIfM MA2
•
NOTARY PUBLIC
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
Page 5 of 8
There are three basic options for addressing the problem with many variations
of each option. The first would be to leave the walls in place and camouflage
them with bushes and shrubs as proposed by Janes Robin. The second would be.
to modify the walls leaving sections in place to stabilize the bank. The area
would then be graded and ground cover established to restore the bank. The
third would be to remove the walls entirely and restore e a to its
original condition.
Option one is not consistent with previous city approvals. The proposal is
structurally sound but does not provide the lake shore continuity desired by
the City.
Option two would leave the lower lake shore wall exposed and the upper two
walls would be buried. The wall sections would continue to provide stability
for the bank but wall exposure would be reduced by 60 percent. We have indi-
cated the amount of wall to be removed on the attached drawing.
• Page 1.
24
Page 6 of 8
2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600
Otto G. Bonestroo. P.E. Keith A. Gordon, P.E. Thomas W. Peterson, P.E. Charles A. Erickson '
Bonestroo
Robert W. Rosene. P.E. Richard W. Foster, P.E. Michael C. Lynch, P.E. Leo M. Pawelsky
Joseph C. Anderlik, P.E. Donald C. Burgardt, P.E. James R. Maland, P.E. Harlan M. Olson
Rosene
Bradford A. Lemberg, P.E. Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E. Susan M. Eberlin
Richard E. Turner, RE Mark A. Hanson, P.E. Keith A. Bachmann, P.E. Mark A. Selp
•
Anderlik &
James C. Olson, P.E. led K P.E Mark R.P.E. Glenn R. Cook, P.E. Michaell T. 7. Rautmann, P.E. Robert C.. RusRus sek, A.I.A.
Thomas E. Noyes. P.E. Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. Thomas E. Angus, P.E.
• Associates
Robert G. Schunicht, P.E. David O. Loskota, P.E. Howard A. Sanford. P.E.
Marvin L Sorvala, P.E.
Engineers & Architects
RESOLUTION #2538
September 27, 1988
City of Orono
'�.i� ,� •� �'
�Cj�a
Box 66
i� R
Crystal Bay, MN 55323
is
Attn: Ms. Jeanne Mabusth
-
i
Re: File No. 139-1339
David Lee
Dear Jeanne,
We inspected the David Lee
property at 2695 Casco Point Road. The lake shore .
has been altered by the construction
of several retaining walls.
We do not know what condition
the lake shore bank was in prior to construc-
•
tion. We did review the
site several years ago with the previous owner and
the lake shore bank appeared
stable.
The retaining wall construction will stabilize the bank and minimize the po-
tential for future slope failure. The construction, however, is not consist-
ent with City approvals on other applications.
There are three basic options for addressing the problem with many variations
of each option. The first would be to leave the walls in place and camouflage
them with bushes and shrubs as proposed by Janes Robin. The second would be.
to modify the walls leaving sections in place to stabilize the bank. The area
would then be graded and ground cover established to restore the bank. The
third would be to remove the walls entirely and restore e a to its
original condition.
Option one is not consistent with previous city approvals. The proposal is
structurally sound but does not provide the lake shore continuity desired by
the City.
Option two would leave the lower lake shore wall exposed and the upper two
walls would be buried. The wall sections would continue to provide stability
for the bank but wall exposure would be reduced by 60 percent. We have indi-
cated the amount of wall to be removed on the attached drawing.
• Page 1.
24
Page 6 of 8
2335 West Highway 36 • St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 • 612-636-4600
• City of Orono
Orono, MN
Re: File No. 139
•
September 27, 1988
RESOLUTION #2538
Option three would not have any wall exposed and the bank should be reinforced
with fabric or buried cribbing for stability. It may be possible to leave
small sections of the upper wall in place for stability. The bank would be
steep and special ground•cover mats would be required to hold the new grass or
plantings inplace.
We would recommend that the City follow option two or three. If you have any
questions, please contact this office.
Yours very truly,
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Glenn R. Cook
GRC:li
Encl.
Page 2.
24
• •
Page 7 of 8
RESOLUTION #2538
?ev" o ve -3
{� I �1 1
-1 �eJy►e vim. 3 . ... _. •
two
oii 5
(9)
C ��►�U w.� - h0�arlort I
v^ -r 1
james
.robin
andscape
architect
2 3 4 2 0
park street
excelsior,
minnesota
5 8 3 3 1
612/474=3948
t--4
1-4
.—I
)e0o"'. I
I�e,rno V G
r —a
5 Page 8 of 8
ee"', w,,,o 3
3 ( Id) 6 SIt'l-
(7)
5 Page 8 of 8
ee"', w,,,o 3
3 ( Id) 6 SIt'l-