HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27-1979 Council Minutes ' cT^Y or or��rio
Re�ular i7eetin� of the Orono Council, 7 : 00 P.P4.
February 27, 1979
- �he Orono Council r�et on the abo�e date with the
following members present: r4ayor Van Plest,
Councilnertbers Butler, Paurus, and Pesek. Council-
ner.iber I4assengale absent. Also gresent: Cit��
Adninistrator Benson, City Planner Olson, City
�ngineer Cook, and City Attorney isal}cerson.
i4ayor Van rlest announced that now was the tir*me and PUBLIC HEARING
place for the Public Hearing concerning the r2oratorium Stubbs Bay P4arina
on development in the Stubbs Bay Area. Dick Benson, Area
City Adninistrator, presented the rlotice of Puhlic
Hearing, the Affidavit of Publication, and the
Certificate of P4ailing.
P�4r. Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record
the following inforr.lation addressed to the Planning
Cor.tnission dated February 16 , 1979 , which states :
The Council has called a public hearing for February 27,
1979 at 7: 00 P.Pi. , regarding future use of the r�arina
site. You are each sPecifically invited to attend
and narticipate in this hearinc�.
Additionally, the Council has requested reports from
every conceivable source to help theri decide the
issues. The Council has made a coru�itrient to Georc�e
Johnson that, on February 27, 1979 , the Council will
decide whether or not to perriit continuation of a
marina on the property.
ihe Council will- receive reports and recor.u�endations
fron rtyself, other departr.ient heads, the Planning
Consultant, etc. The Council desires that the Planning
Comrtission also make a recorimendation. I feel that
any reconmendation you may arrive at will have a very
- strong position in influencing the final Council
decision.
In sur.unary, it is the Council' s desire that you provide
a recommendation to them regarding future use of the
Stubbs Bay 2�iarina property. If the Planning Comr.iission
should be divided on opinions, you should be pre�ared �
to provide separate reports. Perhaps individual -
mer_tbers will wish to provide the Council with separate
letters of recoru7endation.
Planning Comrtission Cor.unents - Februar�� 26 , 1979
Gregg I�annah - Exclusive �of professional opinion, which -
I have not seen realll, I ar_t very intrigued by the �aay .
the architect has made use of the site anci I am very
encouraged by the fact that the restrictive covenants
would set a ceiling on the ar.►ount o.f conmercial business
(Continued)
Ri,GULAR MEEmIrIG OF THE OROPIO COUPdCIL, FEBRUARY 27, 1979 Page 2
that would occur on the site. I thinY. it certainly PUBLIC HEARING
is the nost attractive use of this site that I Stubbs Marina Area
have seen presented to date. _ (Continued)
��,
-" Gloria 24cDonald - P10 comment
Steven ��ilson - I think the construction of a rmarina
in Stubbs Bay is not consistent with the residential
nature of the area and I am concerned that the boat
traffic coming out of i4axwe1l Bav c�ith two marinas
there would be increased because+ Stubbs Bay' s only
access is out �through t�axwell Bay and I think that
is a najor traffic probleri. I am also concerned
about the nature of Stubbs Bay as a snall shallow
bay and with too much boat traffic ,it will take the
use of the bay away frorl the residents. I arm
suPportive of Alan Olson' s recor.lmendation for a
down-zoning and denial of the application.
Tom Frahri - I think rnost of the writing I have
seen here is concerned with sewage, and either
way, whether. we allow a single family dwelling or
a rlarina on the site, there will be a need. for
holding tanks and pumping so it really has no bearing
on either choice. Either way, it will harm boat
and car traffic_ I c�uess at this point I an not
enough of an expert to say whether either one of
them will have anv major effect on the area_ I
tend to think not. I am kind of worrieci about
- elir_Zinating marinas as much as I would like to see
traffic on the lake down, I believe there is a big
push by Iiennepin County and the State of *iinnesota
to make Lake Minnetonka more accessible to the
general public, and if we start elir_iinating r.iarinas
and- accesses to the lake, I think we will be forced
into soriethinc� that will be a lot less favorable
than what we have now. I guess I ar.i in favor of.
the rtarina being permitted.
John Hai*tmerel - I have to look at the pluses and
rtinuses of this thing fror_�► all the balloonist
reading I have done and I have to agree it is in
a residential area and does not belong there.
1) It is really grandfathered in by the days when
it was a beer joint and, I understand, it was
originally put there to rent rowboats for fishing.
2) The flood plain. 3) If what Dr. Taoods states _
is true a bout Stubbs Bay that it is going to harr.i
the bay, I would have to go against it. The only
reason I can see for it being there is that there
has been a rtarina there and if we are locked in,
I do not see why it could not be residential. _
(Continued)
I2i:,GULAR i�EETING OF TIiE ORONO COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 27, 1979 Page 3
JoEllen Hurr - I feel the staff and consultants PUBLIC HEARING
have done a very extensive study of the problems Stubbs Bay Marina
within the Stubbs Bay Area. I would second_ Mr. (Continued)
� Isberg' s recor.umendation about� studying all �resent
B-2 Lakeshore Business Districts in Orono with an
awareness that they have an adverse effect on
residential neighborhoods. I question his classi-
fication of the area as basically low density rural.
It would be interesting to know the average lot
size in the moratorium area. I feel that r_�ost
hor.►es are located on substandard lots (not two acres) .
P4r. Pesek notes that there are nine structures on
one-acre adjoining this property and other �roperties
one-fourth acre in size - not really low density rural.
This area has many Probler.ls with or without the
r,larina and we riust look at "future public expenditures
to alleviate several adverse conditions" as st�ted
by Alan Olson.
After studying the issues and talking with many
individuals, I feel very uncomfortable down-zoning
this pro�erty without coripensation and am concerned
about our ability to justify our actions in court
without incurring a great deal of e�pense.
If we succeed in doc�n=zoning, then we have a start
toward rlore effectively dealing with non-vested
rights to commercial use of the lake. Great, but
� �' we have had trouble in this area in the past.
If we do not succeed, we have, I believe, lost the
co�itment of a horie owner. and developer, on Stubbs
nay, He has by his previous actions in riany areas,
before this Council, the LMCD, etc. , shovm a concern
for preserving what we feel are our goals for Orono.
� This would be difficult if not impossible to say for
other marina operators . What then - another blue
fence, stop work orders for dredging, traf�ic problems
and violation of doc}: lengths. '
I feela limited use marina following the ordinances of the
City, the LPiCD, etc. with a variance to construction in
the flood plain, a holding tank sewer system and effect-
ing natural screening is the best position for Orono.
The above variances would also be necessary for a
single family residence.
P�r. Alan Olson also entered - into the record his �emo
dated February 23, 1979, which states:
Attached are reports from John Gerhardson, P'Iel Kilbo,
�Gunnar Isberg and rlyself. Note that Isberg ' s draft
report contains sorne factural errors which I intend
to have him correct in the final copy. These do not � �
affect his conclusions. (Continued)
�RF:GULAR P7EETIPIG OF 7'HE ORONO COUNCIL, FEBRUAP.Y 27, 1979 Page 4
I have met wit:� Dr. John 47ood of the Gray Freshwater PUBLIC HEARING
I3iological Institute who is preparing a letter Stubbs Bay Piarina
regarding ecological concerns and imnact on Stubbs (Continued)
Bay. I have had extensive dis�cussions �aith the City
Attorney regarding legal implications of various
planning alternatives. I have spent many hours
researching City records and basic reference
material obtained from many sources.
The recor.unendation contained in the attached report
is my professional opinion resulting frorn r_lj� education,
experience and research including review of neighbor-
hood opinions, exPert opinions and the extensive City
records on this area and this property. The report
will not repeat facts and conclusions contained in
earlier memos or reports but is obviously based upon
such record.
I subMit this report to the City Council with the .
firm belief that I have recommended the best course
of action. �
Report and Recor_unendations to the Orono City Council
From: Alan P. Olson, City Planner
This report and my recommendations are based upon
my professional education, experience and research
including review of the following resources:
� - Reports by Gunnar Isberg, City Planning Consultant
- Reports by Patchin Appraisals , Inc.
- Corunents by the Orono Planning Comi:lission and
Planning Conr_tission r.iei*ibers
- Cor.unents by Stubbs Bay axe� residents '
- Cor:u-►ents by Dr. John ti9ood, Director, Gray Freshwater
Biological Institute �
- Policy Statenents, Re�ulations and Reports b,-� the
Lake Minnetonka Conserva�ion District .
- Publications and Regulations of the Piinneliaha Creek
Watershed District '
- Publications and Regulations of the Piinnesota De�art-
nent of Natural Resources
- Publications and Regulations of the P4innesota Pollution
Control Agency
- Publications and Regulations of the PZinnesota Health
Department
- The 1971 "Harza Report" entitled "A Proc�rar.i for Preserving
the Quality of Lake P�innetonka"
- The 1977 Flood Insurance Study for the City of Orono •
by the U.S. Departr_ient of Housing & Urban Development,
Federal Insurance Adriinistration
- The Comprehensive Plans, Ordinances, Resolutions, Policies
and Public Records of the Citj� of Orono
- Conunents and Reports by City Staff and Consultants
(Continued)
REGULAR I•iEETING OF TIiE ORO:IO COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 2 7 , 19 79 Page 5
- Applications, Conments and Proposals of James K. PUBLIC HEARIN�
ticCleary, Stubbs Bay Marina owner between 1973 - 1979 Stubbs Bay �Sarina
- Applications, Conments and Proposals of George R. (Continued)
Johnson, Stubbs Bay Marina Contract Purchase�, 1978/1979
- Personal involvement with the subject property and all
applications and proposals therefore since January, 1976 ,
including numerous personal inspections of the property,
on land and frori the lake, since that time.
I. RECOI4TIENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, I recoi-inend to the City
Council that the property known as Stubbs Baj� PSarina
(le�ally described as Block 7, Bayside Addition to
Lake P4innetonka and Lots 21 & 22 , Auditor' s Subdivision
No. 203) be zoned and restricted for use as One Far_lily
Lakeshore Residential property, District LR-lA, consistent
with the zoning designation and actual use of all
surrounding properties. � .
I sunport this reconmendation with my conclusion as
a professional planner that this zoning designation
is entirely consistent with the goals, intents and
purposes of the City' s Coriprehensive Plans and that
any other designation ,is inconsistent with those goals ,
intents and purposes.
I further recoru:�end to the City Council that the
:; future development and use of the subject property
" be restricted and linited to those perr.�itted and
conditional uses specified as appropriate uses for
the LR-lA zoning use district.
I supnort this recomr�endation with riv conclusion as
a professional planner that said pe�itted uses are
indeed approPriate for this property given all neighbor- " .
hood, topographic, c�eographic, ecological, historic
and legal restrictions ir�posed on the property by
its very location and intrinsic characteristics and �
that all other uses, including limited commercial
use as a marina, are in fact, inappropriate for the
property and the neighborhood.
II. COURSE OF ACTION
The Council' s first responsibility is to acce�t the
r.►any reports and recoru�endations �repared on this ,
subject and to hear the coil�ents and recor.u-�endations �
of the property owners, neighbors and public at larc�e.
I recomr,lend that a�ter receipt of all facts and
opinions , the City Council adopt a RESOLUT?OrI OF' INTE'�IT
regarding future zoning developr.ient and use of this property.
• (Continued)
RE�ULAR IIEETIPIG OF TIiE ORONO COUNCIL, rEBRUARY 27, 1979 Page 6
This resolution would be concentual in nature, allowing PUBLIC HEARIPdG
staff an opportunity to include all new inforr.iation Stubbs Bay Marina
, received at the public hearing, to include exactly (Continued)
all findings of the Council and to ensure that the
final resolution be correct in detail prior to passage
at the next r.teeting. I have attached a suc�gested
draft of such a resolution. .
I recor•.inend that the Council ar�end the 1974 Conprehensive
Plan consistent with the findings of this rmoratoriur►
area study. .
I recor.u-�end that the Council coru-►ence an action to
rezone the subject proPerty fror_1 B-2 , Lakeshore
- Business District, to LR-lA, One Family Lakeshore
Residential District.
I recoru-�end that the Council thereafter deny the 1979
Cor�lnercial Dock License application of Georc�e R.
Johnson and that the Council deny an� and all
apPlications for cor.u-�ercial developr.ient on the subject
property.
I recommend that the Council deny continued use of
the property for coru�ercial purr�oses including on-land
storage and in-lake dock construction anc� that the
Council institute conderination procedures for the
- existing unsafe dock structures finding, as the Council
�` did in the 1978 Dock License Resolution #971, that
such structures �ose an immediate hazard to �ublic
health and safety. .
I reconmend that the Council (and staff) continue
study of the Stubbs Bay Psoratoriur_i Area in regard
to the other issues of sewage treatnent and disposal,
flooding hazards , housing deterioration, crowding and - _
the need for future public e�enditures to alle��iate
such conditions. Such study is intended to be completed
prior to the end of the current moratoriurTi exniring on
July 31, 1979, with the findings and conclusions of
such studies to be incorporated in the current review
of the Corlprehensive Plan of the City.
III. SUGGESTED I'INDINGS IPi SUPPORT OF THIS RECOPZ�iENDATION .
These findings are not considered to be a complete list
but are only representative of the detailed findings
which would be incorporated in a final resolution of �
the City Council.
1. The Council confirms the findings and conclusions of
the 1974 Cor►prehensive Guide Plan regarding the
parariount objectives of� a) the nreservation of the '
quality of Lake Psinnetonka as a unique, yet fragile •
ecological and recreational asset, and b) the
naintenance of low-density rural land use Policies
as opposed to urban development �ahich developr�ent
(Continued)
R�C�ULAR PIEETIPIG OF TI3E OROP70 COUTICIL, FERP.UAAY 27, 1979 Page 7
often results in increased public and private PUIILIC HEARIPdG
costs while serving to benefit a linited nur.►ber Stubbs Bay i4arina
_ of developer/land owners to the deterir�ent of (Continued)
the citizens in general.
2. The Council acknowledges that, while the findings
and conclusions of the 1974 ComPrehensive Guide
Plan were and still are valid, the designation
of the subject property for cor.u;lercial use was in
error and was unsupported by any logical planning
or land use criteria which error should noca be
corrected as part of the overall Comprehensive
Plan Review.
3. The Council confirms the findings and conclusions
of Resolution ;�938 regarding increased boat
density on Lake P=linnetonka.
4 . The Council confirns the findinc�s and conclusions
of Resolution �943 regarding prior development,
use and applications for use of the subject property. .
5. The subject Property is not currently in use as
a r►arina as �errsitted under B-2 zoninc� use district
regulations.
6. Tlie subject property has, in fact, not previously '
been used to the full extent rec�uested, licensed
and permitted by the City and the LriCD, which
fact underscores the unwarranted increase in
marina developnent in recent years, the nh��sical .
linitations on the site and the unsubstantiated
need for any coi*uaercial developrient of the property.
7, lhe existing zoning is obviously unplanned "spot"
zoning. .
8. Residential zoning and use is completely cor:l�atible
with all adjacent and nearbj� zoning and land use.
9. New information available since 1974 , including
the Federal Flood Insurance Study, increased local,
State, and Federal knowledge concerninc� sewage
treatnent and disposal, and increased knowledge
of lake ecology have becorie cause for new nlanning
conclusions regarding use of this property independent
of any City initiated action.
10. Stubbs Bay is a shallow bay, otherwise conpletely
residential in character, and has been classified
as a potentially critical bay for boating use.
11. P4axwe1l Bay, through which all boat traffic must
pass to reach Stubbs Bay, is already classiried �
as a critical boat use bav, (Continued)
' REGJLAR i�EETIIIG OF iHE OROT10 COtJP1CIL, FEBRU2I�ZY 27, 1979 Page 8
12. The bay and the Property are not physically PUBLIC HEARIPJG
� suited for cor_uaercial marina develoPrient. Stubbs Bay Plarina
� (Continued)
- 13. The City, the LtiCD and the DNR would never permit
a "new" marina on this site.
14. The proposed development would he a "new" marina
because no viable, active r�arina exists today.
15. Allowing developr*ient of the Property for rnarina
use (or boat slip rental use) would adversely
affect neighboring pronerties , properties abutting
Ma�aell and Stubbs Bays and the quality of Lake
P4innetonka. Such adverse ir.mpact could be described
as a legal "nuisance" which is substantially
unwarranted. The benefit to the property owners
would be at the exnense of the neic�hboring owners
and the public in c�eneral.
16. Use of the property for residential purPoses is
compatible with the neighborhood, would not increase
the demand for public services and expenditures ,
and is physically compatible with the condition
of the property and the condition of the bav.
17. Because of the physical flood plain restrictions,
any developr_lent of the property has s�ecial concerns
or requirements but on the whole, residential
-�`a inpact appears to have more positive aspects and
fewer (or the same) negative restrictions as would
coru-iercial development.
18. Any diminution in value which riight occur because
of the cessation of comrtercial activity can rlost
likely be attributed to arbitrary or at best
speculative value associated with the previous
non-vesting licensed rights to some given nuriber
of boat docks construction on and in the public waters.
19. The private right to unlirlited cor:u*�ercial development �
of maringal property, and the private exploitation of
public waters is far outweighed by the most general
public right to reasonable, compatible land use
planning and c�eneral benefit.
20. The continued zoning and use of the property for
cor_uzercial purposes is not in the �ublic interest.
End of report and findings
Mr. Douglas Carney, attorney representing ?ir. George
Johnson, and Mr. John I3owe, architect, displayed plans
for the area showing detailed drawings for a loia-profile
�_operation comrienting ttiat there will be no r.iajor repairs, •
no food served, and no drinks. . �
(Continued)
R�GULAR P1EE`�'IiJG OF THE OROiJO COU2JCIL, FrB_T2UARY 27 , 1979 Page 9
Mr. Howe discussed the proposed site, landscaping� PUBLIC HEARING
design of docks , seawall, gardens, proposed building Stubbs Bay Marina
, to house sr_►all sht�p and boat storage. (Continued)
Mr. Carney comr.iented that there is no intention to
dredge the area. We night rec�uire a side yard variance
to accommodate slips and a variance to the 100 ft.
dock length. _
Mr. Alan Olson read the following letters into the record:
"T�e are unable �to attend the hearing on February 27,
but we would like to express our interest in keeping .
the Stubbs Bay area residential with liMited docking
space. As stated in our letter of June 19 (a copy
of �ahich is enc losed) , we are opposed to coru-�ercial
expansion. ,
By far the nost desirable marina site option would
be rezoning for residential use only. If the site
is to be used as a marina there should be strict
lirnitations on the distance the docks can extend
into the bay. The docks should not extend in front
of the property of others. "
Dr. & tirs. Vincent H. Larson - February 19 , 1979
.:..''` Jar.ies Fullerton, III, letter - February 23, 1979 _
"I want to e�press to you and the Orono Council the
feelings that I, Jaraes G. Fullerton III, and riy
parents Mr. and 2Srs. James G. Fullerton, Jr. , have
on the proposed Stubbs Bay tiarina. Both families
are totally against such a project. There are
several reasons for this feeling and let ne express
the more dominant ones.
It is our opinion that Stubbs Bay has by far too �
little surface area to support any more boat traffic �
as we feel it is already congested with the existing
traffic; rT►uch of it brought on by the several
marinas in P4axwell Bay.
jve feel that the narrow channel connecting Stubbs and
P�saxwell Bays will becor.te more dangerous. than it
already is with the increased boat population.
In my r.ienory, Stubbs Bay also is a fairly shallow body
of cvater and the ecology may be upset by any nore boat �
action on its surface.
Another point that may be taken is that there have been
more hor,►es, therefore more docks, therefor r,iore boats
� .,�y� created in the last several years on both tiaxwell and '
Stubbs Bays, which has increased the boat traffic with-
out an added marina.
We would like to .see the proposed site rezoned "Residential" . "
(Continued)
REGULAR IIEETIrdG OF THE OROiIO COUNCIL, I'EBRUARY 27, 1979 Page 10
Dr. John Wood - letter - February 23, 1979 PUBLIC HEARING
Stubbs Bay P4arina
� "Last sur:uner scientists at the Gray Freshwater (Continued)
Biological Institute surveyed each lake basin of
Lake P7innetonka. Stubbs Bay was shown to be the
most eutrophic bay in terms of turbidity, algal
bloorn, and nutrient content. In fact,. it was worse
than Halstead' s Bay on the upper lake. Since Stubbs
Bay is sr.iall and very shallow, it is clear that a
. multiple dock for large power boats would r.iake the
situation worse in several respects :
1) The movei*►ent of sediments in shallow areas will
cause increased nutrient wash-out fror.t the
sediments into the lake.
2) The adjacent shoreline properties will be sealed
in by a sediment bank causing stagnation especially
on the shoreline southeast of the project and
causing residents problems with filamentous algae,
aquatic riacrophytes, and foul odors fron stac�nation.
Also, these resid�nts will have to dredge their
way out eventually if they wish access to the lake.
If the dock is designed for low horsepower boats , then
of course, the above detriraental factors would not apply. "
J. 24. �aood, Director
C. Langert - 373 Westlake Street - February 26 , 1979
"Being unable to attend (we are in Floric�a) we say
no to a marina, or even boat rental, because it would
ruin the local boating, especially fishing in Stubbs
Bay. The traffic would be too great, 7iot only on
the roads but the lake also.
As far as the City sewerage system coming to Stubbs
Bay, we would like to say, yes, ar�en to that! ! " _
Mr. Carney submitted a Petition entitlec�: "���e suPport
the application of George R. Johnson for a perr►it �nd
license to re-build and operate the Stubbs Bav Marina"
Candace Rowlette subr_iitted a petition which states:
"�Thereas the undersigned Stubbs Bay area resident and
concerned citizens recognize the fragile ecologic and
demographic balance of Stubbs Bay, we hereb1� Petition
all authorities with jurisdiction regarding Stubbs Bay
usage to deny authorization for a marina in any form at
the site of the present Stubbs Bay P4arina. It is apparent
that the present "spot" zoning is non-conforming and out
of character with the neighborhood and environs. We believe .
- the present marina site should be returned to residential
zoning category. In the meantime, under no circumstances
should the numbers of slips be increased. "
(Continued)
' R�;GULAR P�SEETING OF THE ORONO COUi7CIL, FEBRUARY 27, 1979 Page 11
Candace Rowlette also commented that Stubbs Bay is too PUBLIC F3EARING
crowded on a weekend now to accommodate more boats. Stubbs Bay Marina
, "`. �� (Continued)
•' t4arilyn Nelson, 500 Tonkawa Road: The Stubbs Bay is
too fragile to accor-u�odate further densitv. .
Peggy iaatson, 900 Partenwood Road: �•7e were not asked
by the petitioners for P�r. Johnson if the project
r.iet our approval. ���e were only told if P1r. Johnson
�vas not allowed to proceed, he would sue.
L�nory Smith, 3420 Bayside Road: The people at Stubbs
nay do want a low-Profile operation and not a lot of
boats piled in the air.
Gabriel Jabbour, 780 Tonkawa Road: I feel that there
are discrepancies in this proposal and that the
drawings are not accurate. I feel that the bay. has
too much vegetation now and it can only get �aorse
if we allow this marina.
24r. I'ord Robbins , attorney representing Darryl Carlson, ,
3470 Bayside Road, commented that: P4y client owns
part of Lot 22 & Lot 23. �1e oppose the marina and
the docks. ��e believe the bay overl1 crowded now
and we question the noise level and oppose the application.
��e feel there are questions with the title and that
the proposed marina does not have title to all of_ the
�' land it clair.is.
Doug Carney: ��7e are not here to clear a title.
This can be settled at a later date. Lot 23 is a
non-lakeshore lot_
2laureen LaJoy, 770 Tonkawa Road: I believe the bay
is polluted now and we oppose the marina.
Iir. John Howe, Architect, cor_�unented that: The marina
site will be staffed by someone at all tines.
Mr. Victor Narton, 3550 Bayside Road, questioned what
iripact the loss of taxes would be.
Unidentified person: I would believe that we should
encourage design of high standards, limited uses of
the area, and a valid license to limit 66 slins
and an approved landscape design. I believe that the
rights of an individual should not be taken away.
Iiayor Van Nest: This site was never used as a marina
but was used as a fishing area. Traditionally, this
area was not a full-scale marina for high powered boats.
. ��e have recognized that this area is not conducive for
. a full-scale marina and we certainly have no right
to grant riparian rights to operate 66 slips "for a
r►arina. (Continued)
REGULAR ?1EETING OF TI�� OROiIO COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 27, 1979 Page 12
Gabriel Jabbour: S�7ould 27r. Johnson continue if he PUBLIC HEARING
cannot get 66 slips? Stubbs Bay D4arina
- (Continued)
Douc� Carney: I do not belive Psr. Johnson ��ould
continue with this application if he were not allowed
66 slips. Mr. Johnson wants to rlake the best of a
bad ssutation. 47e take the position that we have some
rights to use the property. We also take the position
that you are taking over property if it is down-zoned.
We need 66 slips to allow for adequate revenues for
this high price.d property. We need the income to
supnort the proposed expenditure.
Gunnar Isberg, City Planning Consultant,presented his
pronosal commenting that our concerns are:
Ingress and egress. The sight distance is bad.
The entrance should be moved 150 ft. to the east.
The applicant n��ds permits from the DPIR, � PCA, and
Hennepin County Highway Departnent.
41e recomr.iend rezoning to a single far:iily residential
site or create another district and reduce present
proposal to 10-15 slips in place of 66.
Gunnar Isberg, City Planning Consultant proposal
:�
Pages 14- 33
�''�Mayor Van Nest requested a poll of:
1. How many support limited marina use?
2. i�ow many support area as it is now?
3. How many support residential uses?
It appeared that the riajority present favored a limited
use of the area as it is now,opposed to a full r.larina - .
use,although the poll was not conclusive.
After all persons present had an opportunity to be '
heard,the public hearing was closed at 8:-45 P.P�I.
P4ayor Van Nest requested comments fror,► the Councilmembers.
Councilmember Butler: I approve of staff recortmendations.
Councilmember Paurus: I believe that a riarina cannot
be justified because of environmental concerns.
Councilmember Pesek: I would approve a limited marina
use, not to exceed 45 slips and no selling or storac�e of
boats.
.: P4r. Louis B. Oberhauser, attorney for James K. 2ScCleary, �
�� arrived late at the meeting. -rie rnade no cor-►ments:�
• � (Continued)
RE�ULAR 2�lEETING OF TFIE OROPJO COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 27, 1979 Page 13
Mayor Van Nest rmoved, Butler seconded, to direct staff PUBLIC HEARING
to prepare a resolution for the 24arch 13, 1979 Council Stubbs Bay Marina
meeting to include data reviewing rlarina uses and to (Continued)
consider either a lir�lited marina use or to rezone
property, noting that 66 slips are not suitable for
this property. This action continues the rioratorium
and denies the application before us this evening.
Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
; ISBERG, RIESENBERG, CHELSETH AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
2116 Second Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404 612-871-5628
._.,, _ .
ANALYSIS OF THE STUBBS BAY MARINA PROPOSAL
b�
Gunnar C. Isberg
Page 15
Ar�ALYSIS OF THE STUBBS BAY MARINA PROPOSAL
I. Introduction "
The Stubbs Bay Marina has had a varied history going back for some time
with a documented history going back to the early 1960's. The history of
the original operation of the marina, subsequent expansions and the
relationship of the marina with the city and other agencies is quite
extensive and has been documented elsewhere and therefore will not be
repeated in this report. The major purpose of this report is to analyze
the proposed marina in relationship to existing and future planning and
development of the City of Orono. Thus, this report will only bring in
and discuss those facts related to its previous operation that deal
specifically with planning and development issues.
Since the time the marina burned down in 1976, a number of different
proposals have been developed and presented on an informal basis of future
use of the property. More recently, a formal proposal has been presented
to the City of Orono by the property owner for constructing a marina on the
property. Basically, the proposal is to construct a building on the property
wh�ch would contain a 26' x 40' workshop for servicing boats which would
be part of another building housing office space, lounge and washroom
facilities. A total of 66 boat slips and a major launching ramp for the
boats would also be constructed on the property. In addition, a total of
73 parking spaces for. autos and 24 spaces for boat trailer storage would
be developed on the property, of which there would be parking for 77 boats
in winter storage. A six foot chainlink fence would be constructed around
the property with screening consisting of shrubs and trees being provided
on all sides of the property except on the lake side. An entrance and
exit would be provided on the northern end of the property directly on
County Road #84.
In response to informal discussions between the property owner and the
City Council, the city staff, city attorney and planning consultant under-
took some brief� reviews of the proposal and suggested that the City Council
seriously consider passing a moratorium ordinance to prohibit the issuance
of building permits in the Stubbs Bay Area, including the property, for a
short" period_of time to provide the opportunity for the city staff, city
- attorney and planning consultant to make an in-depth study of the area and
to analyze the existing proposal as .well as to recommend a land use for the
- site from �6e perspective of future planning and development of the City of
Orono. On January 23, 7979, the Orono City Council passed a moratorium
ordinance prohibiting the issuance of building permits in a prescribed
area in the northern portion of Stubbs Bay for a period of six months to
provide the necessary time for additional studies of the area and to hold
additional public hearings on the proposal .
Subsequent to this, the City Council requested that I.R.C., Inc. , the
planning consultant for the city, undertake a study of the area, analyze
the proposal in terms of future planning and development of the City of
Orono and make a recommendation for a proper use of the site from a
planning perspective. � The city had prepared a Comprehensive Guide Plan
; ; which was adopted in 1974 together with an amended Zoning Ordinance to
reflect the policies of the plan. At the present time, the city is in
, Page 16
the process of updating its Comprehensive Guide Plan and the various
ordinances such as the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations in
response. to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and the Metropolitan
Council 's System Statement. It is expected that the current planning
program will be completed before the end of 1979. To date, much of the
background data of the community has been updated and the city is currently
in the process of developing specific goals and policies for future plan-
ning and development of the city. The following is an analysis of the
Stubbs Bay Area, including the marina proposal from the perspective of
future planning and development of the City of Orono.
II. Analysis of Background Data of Stubbs Bay Area .
A. Physical and Natural Features
l . Topography
� The site for the proposed marina is located in the northeastern
part of Stubbs Bay and is approximately two acres in size.
Generally speaking, the site itself is relatively flat with an
elevation of 930 to 931 . However, the elevation increases
relatively rapidly immediately north and northeast of the property
with elevations of 940 immediately north of C.R. rr84 and 960 at
Leaf St, and 970 at Watertown Road north of the area. As a result
of the �opography, an unnamed tributary flows from Lake Classen
south and enters Stubbs Bay from the northeast near portions of
the property of the proposed marina. Thus, portions of the property
are located in a sheet flow area from the tributary. Another
result of .the rise in elevation immediately north of the property
is that it effects the sight distance around the curve along
C.R. #84 west of the property. -
- 2. Soils
As indicated in the Hennepin County Soils Survey, the major soil
type on the property is Lc (sandy lake beaches). While this soil
- type has a fast percolat:ion rate for purposes of private sewer
systems, the water table is also high, being within one or two
feet of the surface. Another soil type on the property includes
Ha (Hamel Loam) wfiich has a high water table.
Due to the generally high seasonally adjusted water table of these
soils on the site (one or two feet) there are severe limitations
to any type of building or private sewer systems. In addition, the
� relatively rapid percolation rates of the sandy soils (Cc) could
- lead to pollution of the Stubbs Bay from any conventional private
sewer systems on the site. .
-2-
� o � Page 17
. -
• � �
. _
- � �
. _
.. � � � �
• � �
� t �
o -
. �
o - .
.
s - - -
i n �
� • i
. . ! _ � _
i � � _
� � � �
.
. � -
. .
� - . _ - ;
. - . _
. . � - . �
.
� � -
. _
. � � � d
� ;
. ! ; �
� . - - � ; �
! � i
.� �- � -
. W � � ,
r ! . � ; -
,- � �
� � - - � z � -
' � �
� _ - _ . -
♦ _ s� - � - . _ � - _ .- _
. - - -
o - - . - � - �
� � � _
i � � _
I � � i �
! . --�
. � � -
�
1 � -
. ; 1 ,
:, 1 � .
_ . .
-
i - -
_ �
1 -
-
, __ � __ . ._ . _. . ..,, , .... ,
� . 1
`..r . ' l/�� 1 ' � ' t••)1� . ..
� s � � � � 1 � 1 � 1. ♦, , ,
♦, <s ' ,
' ,�,, j
. ��
♦, ,
(�1.�.� u�� 1�L ,�'� 'y � �
� '♦
. ,,
'�.
'♦
'♦ �
� '� � ,
.,
, E ���` .
' . , , ���.,
, •`
' . . � ���,. '
. GO� . ���. � �
. �- , 0��►
� . � ' .. �O
.. , ' ' � ��
. �♦
�♦
,�
' ' �� ���
I � , . . �� r,
; . .
' ' ' ' , ` ����,.'•li,' ' . .
r+ ,''
� ;
�� �i�� .
' . ,��MR�^� ��+�k�J��'t` •
• ;��'{Jt'��.f 1 �'�'��(..
� ��f��: i�}1 � � .
r
� . ,e �t������Y. kt,
L�� 1�'�IN�I�TU�I�A � , �� .��„��,��4��, v�, � , �� .
� :��`'•k��4,?: "'.
E�` y ��;�,'"�������. �'�
� �y � �t� „'J' yi.�y`� �
• �ti,1 �����?�;�,�.r�����. _ �,:,�;�
a� � � � � � � �.� � � w� � � � � � un � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ' t• � � � � � � � � � �. � � �
' ' b
��Z•�f� ' , +�I u 1 'I� )ti i{' ���C�\� t�
���\ lJ I � 1 �D
. • � f--'
;�.:;s,wr.�a i� .�z ��n �
, ��
,� � � .,���,. � Y� N
� , � Page 19
3. Floodplain
According to a r.ecently completed study commissioned by the
_ Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for purposes of
the f ederal flood insurance program, the site is located in a .
floodplain and in a sheet flow area from the unnamed tributary
coming from Lake Classen. Approximately half of the site is
located in the 100 year floodplain with .the other half located
in the 500 year floodplain.
The practical result of the fact that the property is located in
the floodplain is that the property would be subject to the stan-
dards in the State Floodplain Zoning Act which has been incorporated
in Orono's Floodplain Zoning Ordinance. While under the state
standards, residential and commercial developments may be allowed
in the flood fringe as a conditional use, the proposed uses would
� be subjected to certain standards related to flood-proofing of the
structures and the sanitary sewer systems. For example, the
basement or first floor of the structures must be located above
the flood protection elevation and no new waste treatment facilities
� are permitted in the floodplain unless there are emergency plans
and procedures to be taken in the event of flooding which must be
filed with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. If the structure
is built or sewer systems provided in violation of the state
. standards, it could affect the ability of the property owner to
obtain federally backed property insurance as well as lead to
pollution problems.
Thus, the fact that the site is located in the floodplain and a
sheet flow area places some severe limitations on the type of
structures as well as private sewer systems located on the site.
Most likely, it would require filling of portions of the land
(which requires a permit from the Department of Natural Resources),
no basement would be allowed and a sealed septic tank or holding
tank as recommended by the city's environmental planner would also_
be required. �
4. Summar - �
In summary, because of the soil types (some of which are sandy
soils) , the generally high water ta61e (1 or 2 ft. ) , and the fact
that the area is located in a floodplain and sheet flow area from
the unnamed tributary, there are some severe envirionmental limita-
tions to any type of urban development. Any proposed development
in the area would be subject to the floodplain standards in Orono's
Floodplain Zoning Ordinance and any filling in the area would require a
permit from the DNR. As has been indicated by Mr. Michael Gaffron,
environmental planner for the city, the only practical solution
to a waste disposal system appears to be a sealed holding tank which
wou7d have to be pumped out on a periodic basis. However, allowing
a holding tank on this site should be weighed in relation to the _
precedent it might establish for similar requests in other floodplain
areas of the city.
-3-
� – — �
' � O � , � Page 20
. �
� - � � . � �
� . �
,. � � _
0 � � �
� �
d o � � s ; �
. � -
o • o • 4 , 1
-
� � • �ao�a � �-• � � .
� ' • • e o o °� 1
9 -
. � � �
_ . � I a • _
.
I � - • 1
. _ � � � -
- � - �
I - ° �---.
_ _
I . - �
. _
I � o � . �
� � � • � - 1 � }--
' �
- I • � d --
I • • � � �
.=-�� i _ � - � �
_ � , � . . - � � -
. . - . � , � �
o , .. . - �
, . _ - ,� � , �
. - � �- _
w - .
. . - � � � -
� - � -_ .
� � � � � �_ - - � " �
� ; ';� • � 1
- - z
I � . • - . � �
.
I - . �
' � r
� � ,
♦ '
�
I - � � /
I � • �
, .
� � . -
. • � •• �
' _ .
' � • � __ � Q
- � �..a, .
- t1� • - - ' • •
_ � - -
/ � .
; _ . - �
_ i � �
r ,
� • � • -
� f •
� �
� �
1 � • �
Page 21
- B. Land Use In Stubbs Bay Area
The land use in the Stubbs Bay area is exclusively devoted to either
single-f amily homes, lake cottages, vacant land or open space. There
are three single-fa�ily residences located immediately north of the
site of the proposed marina. A total of 25 single-f amily homes or
summer �ottages are located northeast of tfie site in Bayside Addition.
There are alsa. a total of nine structures located immediately south
o� the property along East Lake Street, some of which are single-
family residences and others which are summer cottages.� Larger lot
residential developments are located east of Rayside Addition as well
as west and northwest of the site along Stubbs Bay.
In addition to the residential developme„t i� thz area, the Luce Line
Trail is located north of the site, which is an abandoned railroad
being converted to a recreational trail . The City o� Orono is
currently developing a city park along this trail adjacent to Stubbs
Bay Road. -
Thus, the area surrounding the site is devoted either to single-
family residential development, lakeshore cottayes, or park and
recreation use. Residential development has taken place at varying
densities with the older developments consisting of modes� structures
on relatively smaller lots and the newer developments consisting
of larger houses on larger lots to conform to t��e existing minimum
lot sizes of two acres for the area. The other lan� in the area is
_ either vacant or devoted to parks and recreation.
C. Transportation Facilities ,
Accessibility to the Stubb� Bay Area and the site is provided primarily
through County Road �84, which runs in a general east-west direction
adjacent to the northern shore of Stubbs Bay. In addition, there are
a number of local streets connecting with C.R. #84, including Tonka
and Crestview Avenue, which provide access to the Bayside Addition, -
East Lake Street, .which provides access to the housing structures
located immediately south of 'the site and Stubbs Bay Road which pro-
vides access �o the area northwest of the site including the city
park and the Luce Line Trail . In addition, there are a number of
� residential access roads which front directly on C.R. T84.
The traffic count on C.R. #84 was 950 per day in 1977. The Hennepin
County Department of Transportation has projected that the traffic
count on this road will increase to 2,000 by the year 2000.
Generally speaking, the street and highway al.ignments in the area
adjacent to the site are at best awkward and in some cases poor. For
example, there are a number of curves in C.R. #84 adjacent to the
site, and the intersections of Tonka Avenue and East Lake Road with _
C.R: #84 is at awkward angles making turning movements and sight. .-- _
distar.ces poor. � ��- � - - -
-4- -
Page 22
The topography immediately north of the sitE and C.R. �84 coupled
with several curves significantly reduces sight distances for cars
traveling along C.R. n84, Access to the site proposed for the
marina would have to be located on the northern part of the sit2
directly on to C.R. �84, since the Orono Zoning Ordinance prohibits
access to marinas from residential streets. The sight distance in
either direction along C.R. rr84 at this point is limited due to the
rising topography of the land north of the site as well as the various
curves in C.R. rr84 in this area. This problem may be compounded by
the proposed screening of the site along the northern and eastern
borders. Thus, the projected increase in traffic along C.R. T84 as
well as access to the proposed site consisting of boats and trailers
could potentially result in traffic and safety_ problems. The Hennepin
County �epartment of Transportation is currently reviewing the pro-
posed marina in terms of potential traffic problems along C.R. �84
and the report of this department �s attached to this report.
D. Sanitary Sewer Service _
The subject of sanitary sewers has been covered in a separate report
prepared by h1r. Michael Gaffron, environmental planner for the city and
that information will not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that
there are currently no central sewer facilities available to the site-
Alternative cost figures for providing sewer services to the Tonka-
Crestview-East Lake area were developed by McCombs-Knutson Associates
in 1974; . however, these figures are currently out of date.
At the present time, all of the residences in the area are served
by private sewer systems. As will be indicated at further length
below, the city currently has no plans for extending sewer services
to this area in the near future. � In fact, the extension of sanitary
sewer services to t�is area would be directly contrary to existing
development policies of-the City of Orono of not extending sewer
services into basically rural areas. Thus, it can be assumed that
any proposed development on the site will have �to be served by private
sewer systems- in the foreseeable future.
-5-
�, [ � � �) g � C
� `` � � �a e 23
~� � �1 -._, l`.—•------ --- ----•- .---- .—.—.
_'_�'"_\�'-J"_'_.�*_'_'_'_'_�I _—i�.s.—�� — I_r�. �, � � �1
� P � �� ,�����I
'� �' ` � �
: �`�.Y . � ��: � `�- �. -
_ .�. -� - . �.�
: , �
� __"�;—��� �o�G �4
L i�
���� i r-��
:�. �� � , �
-- �-� -
=„�_ . j , �
' -�J���-q�r�, ! � �� -
- J. \�� ;��:
( s
�,k ��.�-�'� �, ���. - --
� �_�- .
_ - -�- �-�--��
- -"L- � �._
ti ��----� a I�'r �=� �
J � �`�_=�"— f t
�� ... � � � �'� I'S�
,� ';.� o �. _ �_�. ��" � �
� �.9 �
� '�ii �� r� �
� � �a � �� _ �
� �
�.:.y .�a �` i
�� �� _...... �� �
��F� a. � -���� � -�� �
: � :
_ . .r..
. �.
. _,. . _ � """r"�
� . ,
�,,�. .�...� Zi
!~��'� - ; r� �
_ ; v i, f;� . �
-�`�-� � .,t� .,..�„.a,.
���� � i
_ •�. �., � � ` .o..
� . / ` � !
i �' _ a""` �/,��� - �
j`�•�_ _.. E �:_"'_ � •
.�1 ��� - - __ , ��.,�,� I
,. .
- - - " �t � �---� _� � -
�.� . J
� - --..�- t
�� ���� ,
�_��� �s.�,,-, _ .....r,,._ \ � .
: � . � � /
_, .
�' a ; ` - � ./
�-. �� ,,_
� � .�..r_ v t� _ _r ^ � .
.: � ' � . '� b .�•�. _ �
. ♦ �
� '�° .
� � �� �' � ��
' �.• _�
•` . �.i `.—.—.—
. ,�.
�.� —.�
�i�y of �rono, �1[en�esota � � �°°°�µ �°°�n �.
� `� FI GURE D-3 .
EXISTING SEWER SERVICE AREAS .�
�-� �� � , � �-�-��i � � Ep a g e 2 4 � `-�
!� �_.� ----• ._.�..-- .---� r --•—
---= ;—• ,— ---•----`-------•�r—•_-�y =_— s�-� � �� _�._ _ �1 �
-� � � . .� ��TT• ��� ��.�-�:
� � � f�� �
, �. "„ — r��` - �.."t'
o..... � =�
� i � .
� -- ��Z�� ,0.. ..4 '
� � � r�
1 LO�/G L�� _._� �
._" �1� '.�_ '� i�� � i
-1-� �������r• � � ' SE��
� ���_ �. \
.���', .� ����� � �
I`���'''��-� �j � f�=�`�
— _= �� � " �_� ✓��I+.�. �-.-`_"���
��
= :�.� ''��'-� r'_
� I i�� (
,,� �� �..-_.� � 1� �
° , � r —�'�" � � � � _�� i 111� —
�j� ' n.�.� � � ,��F£��lt�l�t�ti�
� � ���. _�
o �` �� _� �
, � , ' �. .
, -� ���� ;
�I `�k__-�... r- ��3�
� �� �
-- � '
1; - '� �
�� .<.�; . --� ° =-_ -\�t�i`� �
`� �1 �...au ... �� ``•� i-��
�"� �is�-� /\ '
• .,
...�
� �� L
� �� �
"�
(1"
� ,� -� .o.,• .�.. -- .� �^-",���r'-� i
� T =_ ��11�111//#t) — �,.� . �
��� r _ . > �
a ��,��� r/' wou.,..... '
I
��•`� •� � � ' �
� "..Y
•
/ J/T] � onfv r '� ` �
;,`;!�' ra.�. 9✓
`�' ` • '
`� �\ / 1 � Lsi,c I.Srrxlonks
�/.r� ����� —�-�
• �"—� � —�� � � �
� - � ��- � J
� - � x^,::� ,
- 1 "� _ ���� _ ....m... � .
� ` , '� , ,/
Q��--� �_; � ,
1--� ._ �--�_ � f�.. � ___ � ,
`-� ir p •�.�•• -� ~`/
`: � � , i / ` �
� a j � /
• � /
�. .�' •`._.._._.�
�'� .i'� �
.�.._,�
�i� of O�orio, ��nnesota � � � �°° °°°�� �=n �
Y
FIGURE D-4 �
; .
PLANNED LQNG LAKE — ORONO INTERCEPTOR ROUTE AND SERVICE AREA
Page 25
III . Gomprehensive Guide Plan and Zoning Ordinance for the City of Orono
A. Past Land Use Trends
The past development patterns and trends in the City of Orono have
been greatly influenced by the fact that the city is located along
the northern shore of Lake Minnetonka. This lake has been, and
continues to serve as, a major regional recreation facility. The
result of this is that urban development has historically been
attracted to the entire shoreland of Lake Minnetonka inlcuding
several of its bays.
In addition, development in the city has been influenced by its
high proportion of marsh and wetlands which has presented and
continues to present severe limitations to urban development in
different parts of the city. For example, it has been estimated that
approximately 50 percent of the total area within the city boundaries
is currently made up of water bodies, wetlands and marshes. The city
has, for a long time, been concerned over protecting these natural
- resources to minimize pollution problems of Cake Minnetonka. Thus,
the practical results of the extent and location, of these natural
� resources in the city as reinforced by official city policy, is that
most of the urban development to date in the city has taken place
along the shorelands of Lake Minnetonka with most of the remainder
. of the city consisting of low density development. Thus, in a very
real sense, the city consists of two distinct and separate areas - the
urbanized portion along the shorelands of Lake Minnetonka and several
bays such as West Arm, North Arm, Crystal Bay and the western and
southern portions of Maxwell Bay, with the remainder of the community
consisting of a rural area of low density residential development or
no dev�lopment in the wetlands and marsh areas. This separation of
the city into an urbanized and rural portion has been reinforced by
a policy of the city against extending sanitary sewer services into
the rural areas and thereby "opening up" the rural area to urban
development pressures. -
B. General Policies of the Comprehensive Plan
In 1974, a Comprehensive Guide Plan was developed and adopted by the -
city along with an amended Zoning Ordinance which had first been
officially adopted in 1967.
The Comprehensive Guide Plan contains several guiding principjes or
policies which deal with the overall future development of the city.
Perhaps the basic overriding policy of principle of the plan is to
preserve and protect the many natural resources in the city, including
� Lake Minnetonka, by carefully regulating the location and density
of development. More specifically, the basic philosphy of the plan
and ordinances is to "retain tfie basic single-f amily character of the
city, to preserve and maintain open space and existing natural resources
including such features as lakes and wetlands and to provide for a -
� limited diversity of housing types and densities consistent with the
_ maintenance of open space°. � : -
-6-
� Page 26
From this it can be seen that, in essence, tMe basic philosophy of
the plan is to continue the low density, large lot development in the
rural areas of the city with a consequent moderate population growth
rate in the city in the foreseeable future. The implications of this
development philosphy are that the city will oppose any urban develop-
ment proposals or extension of sanitary sewer service into the rural
areas of the city which is likely to "open 'up" additional areas
for urban development pressures. The only areas which are likely
to receive central sewer service in the near future are some select
areas immediately south of Long Lake as part of the proposed Long
Lake-Orono Sewer Interceptor Project.
In relation to commercial lake development, both the Comprehensive
Guide Plan arid the Zoning Ordinance contain strict standards for
these type of developments, indicating that the city intends to
carefully regulate future commercial developments to minimize
environmental pollution problems.
From the previous analysis, it is clear that the city intends to
retain its present basic rural character and will oppose any {
extensions of sewer service into the low-density rural areas or any
proposed urban development that would require the extension of
sewer services.
C. Relationship of Comprehensive Guide Plan and Zoninq Ordinance To
Proposed Mar.�na Site
Both the Comprehensive Guide Plan and the Zoning Ordinance have
designated the area around Stubbs Bay for single-family lakeshore
residential development with a minimum lot size or two acres. The
permitted uses in this district are single-f amily dwellings, parks
and playgrounds, and municipal buildings.
At the time: the: Comprehensive Guide Plan and Zoning Ordinance were
adopted in 1974, the site proposed for a marina was being used as
a marina. As a result, the city designated the site in the land use
plan for Lakeshore Commercial and zoned the site for B-2 Lakeshore
Business District where one of the permitted uses is marTnas. In
view of the existing policies of the comprehensive plan and zoning
ordinance which has designated this general area for low-density
residential development, this may have been a mistake on the part of
the city and the city shoul�d have treated the marina as a non-
conforming use. The reason that the zoning of the site for B-2
Lakeshore Business District may be considered a mistake on the part
of �the city is due to the remote location of the site in a general
rural area and the basic policy of the city not to allow any land
use in the rural area which could result in the need for, or extension
of, urban services into a basically rural area. Since one of the
major purposes of a zoning amendment. is to correct mistakes made at
the time a zoning ordinance is adopted, certainly the City would be -
within its rights to now rezone the site for a land use more in
keeping with the rural character of the area. �
-7-
Page 27
IV. Analysis and Evaluation of Potential Alternative Land Uses For Site
There would appear to be at least three major alternative land uses for
the site. One is. for a marina or lakeshore commercial use. A second
alternative would be for single-family residential use. Yet a third
alternative is for some type of public or private park or open space
use. The following is a brief evaluation of these alternative land
uses in relation to several criteria including future planning and
development of the city, provision or urban services, natural resources,
neighborhood, traffic and potential pollution problems.
A. Marina or Lakeshore Commercial
One alternative 3s to allow a marina on the site either as proposed
or a scaled-down version of the proposed marina. The following is an
evaluation of a marina on the site.
(1) Overall City Development - A marina on the proposed site would
no e �n con ormance w�th several of the policies in the
Comprehensive Guide Plan and the new goals and policies being
developed for the community, especially at .the scale proposed,
in that it would be a rather intensive urban use in an area
. planned and zoned for low-density, residential development.
It would also require urban services in an essentially rural area.
(2) Provision of Urban Services - a marina at the scale proposed
would require a host of public services such as additional fire
� , and police protection in an essentially rural area.
(3) Natural Resources - a marina on the scale proposed would
definitely have an impact on the natural resources in the area.
Because of the fact that the site is located in a floodplain,
there would have to be substantial alteration of the site, _
including filling, in order to construct a building and provide
a private sewer system. The effect could be somewhat mitigated -
through design standards and requirements that proper vegetation
be replanted on the site. _The marina would also have an effect
on Lake Minnestonka and more particularly Stubbs Bay, with
additional boat use and traffic on the bay which could be quite
heavy at times. In fact, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District has classified Stubbs Bay with 66 slips as a Potential
Critical Area. - .
(4) Nei hborhood and-Aesthetics - a marina on the scale proposed would
very definite y have an effect on the neighborhood since this area
is otherwise a single-family residential area. The_number of ,
siips proposed for the lake would obviously effect the aesthetics
of the lakeshore. The number of cars and trailers parked and
boats stored in the area obviously would have a negative effect
on the aesthetics of the area. The hours of operation also could _
have a negative effect on the neighborhood. Again, this negative �
effect would be somewhat mitigated through screening requirements,
� controlling the signing and hours of operation, scaling �down the
proposed marina, etc. � .
-8-
Page 28
(5) Traffic - a marina at the scale proposed would have a great deal
of e#�fect on the amount of traffic in the area unless the
proposal was drastically scaled down. Since the access would be
provided directly on to C.R. �84, it would not mean added traffic
on local streets. However, the sight distance in the area is
already somewhat limited due to the number of curves in C.R. n84
and the topography. Screening of the .site will further cut down
the site distance. This could create potential safety problems
due'to the fact that trailers with boats will be �oing into
and coming out of one entrance.on the site, espec�ally during
times of heavy use of the marina.
(6) Pollution Problems - due to the fact that the site is located in
the floodplain and sheet flow area from an unnamed tributary,
there would be problems with constructing a suitable private
sewer system. The only feasible alternative would be to
require a holding tank which would have to be pumped periodically.
In addition, there would be potential pollution problems from
runoff from the site when flooded due to the fact that boat
� repairs will be taking place on the site with resultant oil and
gasoline spills as well as sediment runoff from the gravel
parking spaces and boat storage areas:.
B. A Single Family Residence
A second alternative would be to allow a single-family residence on
the property in conformance with the zoning around the area. The
following is an evaluation of a single-family residence on the site.
(1) Overall City Development - a single-family residence on the site
would be in conformance with overall city development and the
policies being developed for the city under the current planning
program, in that the site is located in an essentially rural
area consisting of single-family homes. A residential use on,
the property would not require added services or pressures for
extending sewer services to the area.
(2) Provision of Urban Services - a single-family residence on the
site would place minimal demands for urban services.
(3) Natural Resources - a single-family residence on the site would
have some effect on the natural resources in that the site would
have to be modified to flood-proof the building. However, it
could also have a positive effect through replanting of vegetation
� in the area. • A single-family residence would have a minimal
effect on Lake Minnetonka or Stubbs Bay. .
(4) Neighborhood and Aesthetics - a single-family residence is
likely to have a positive effect on the neighborhood and
� � aesthetics in that it would fit in iaith the residential character _
. of the area and would mean a removal of the old slips:
� -9- �
Page 29
(5) Traffic - a single-family residence on the site woul"d have �
virtually no i.mpact on the traffic in the area. In fact, an
entrance could be provided to the property from East Lake Street
removing the necessity of providing an additional access to
C.R. �84.
(6) Pollution Problems - due to the fact that the site is located in
the floodplain and sheet flow area, there would be problems with
constructing a suitable private sewer system. Due to the require-
ments of the Orono Floodplain Ordinance, there would be several
� restrictions on the construction of the building and the private
sewer system. The building would definitely have to be flood-
proofed and without a basement and a holding tank for the sewer
system would also be required.
C. Pleighborhood Park - In view of the various environmental limitations
of the site, a third alternative could be to establish a neighborhood
park on the site. This would require the city to purchase the site
and develop the park. The following is an evaluation of a park
on the site.
(1) Overall City Development - while a neighborhood park could be in
conformance with the residential character of the neighborhood,
there is some doubt whether a park is really needed on this
site in view of the fact that the city �is currently developing
a park a few blocks away adjacent to the Luce Line Trail .
(2) Provision of Urban Services - depending upon the type of park,
this use aefinitely would require a number of urban services
� including additional police and fire protection, maintenance of
the site, etc.
(3) Natural Resources - a proposed park on the site could have a .
• positive effect on the natural resources in that vegetation
would be replanted on the site. OFl the other hand, to the degree
that the park was designed for active use, it may require
buildings and parking spaces which could mean a substantial
modification of the site.
(4) Neighborhood and Aesthetics. - a neighborhood park on the site
could have a positive effect on the neighborhood. However, to the
degree that the park is used for active recreation, it could
mean increased traffic an the area and the hours of operation
would have to be carefully controlled to minimize potential
� noise problems.
(5) Traffic - a proposed park could result 'in increased traffic in
the area to the degree that the park served needs beyond the
immediate neighborhood and if the park was oriented to active
uses. However, for a neighborhood park, the traffic impact would
probably be minimal . A park on the site may require pedestrian
access to the site across C.R. #84. '
-10-
Page 30
(6) Pollution Problems - a park could presumab7y have a minimal
impact on potential pollution problems of Stubbs Bay or Lake
� Minnetonka. However, to the degree that a sanitary sewer
system .would be required and parking spaces for the park
users, it could result in some potential pollution problems. .
V. Analysis of Alternative Actions Available to the City of Orono
In view of the past history and use of the site, the present zoning for
the site, and alternative uses available for the site, the following are
some alternative courses of actions available to the city from a planning
perspective. Please note that this analysis does not deal with any legal
issues which will be dealt with 5y the City Attorney.
A. Leave Site Zoned for B-2 Lakeshore Business District
One alternative course of action would be to leave the site zoned for
B-2 Lakeshore Business District and to allow a marina on the site
subject to the various development standards found in the Zoning
Ordinance. as well as other ordinances such as the Floodplain �Zoning
Ordinance and Septic Tank Ordinance. In addition, permit approval
would be required by the Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency and Lake Minnetonka Conservation District.
These rev3ews could result in the necessity to modify the existing
proposal in terms of size, etc.
B. Create an Additional L'akeshore Business District and Rezone the
Property to This District
A second alternative would be to create an additional business .
distr. ict, perhaps called Neighborhood Lakeshore Business District,
which would be sp�cifically designed to allow some lakeshore
businesses and marinas in �asically residential areas, but, at the
same time, to minimize �he adverse impact of a marina or other lake-
shore business in the residential neighborhood where it is located.
This would mean the development of some imaginative but strict
_ standards. For example, the number of slips could be regulated
through standards dealing with the size of property and shoreline,
traffic impacts, impacts on the neighborhood, etc. This would
conceivably cut down the present proposal to 15 or 20 slips (or
less) which would also cut down on the size of the buildings, boat
storage areas, and the number or parking spaces. This district would
be designed primarily to meet the needs of the neighborhood or general
area where it is located. The hours or operation, signing, screening,
boat storage, etc. , could be. strictly regulated on the theory that
it would be a_ neighborhood facil�ty.
If this approach is considered, it would mean that the district would
have to be created, and the Zoning Ordinance would have to be amended _
and the site would have to be rezoned prior to the expiration of the
moratorium ordinance. .
-11-
Page 31
C. Rezone the Site for .LR-lA One-Family Lakeshore Residential Development
A third alternative would be to rezone the site for single-f amily
lakeshore residential use �LR-lA) .which would allow one residence
on the property since the minimum lot size is two acres. The basic
rationale for this action would be that a r�istake was made in the
original Comprehensive Guide Plan and Zoning Ordinance passed � in
1974 in designating this area for B-2 Lakeshore Business District.
The reason this can be considered a legitimate mistake is in view
of the basic rationale of the exist�ng policies in the Comprehensive
Plan to confine urban uses to the urbanized portion of the city where
sewers and urban services can more easily be provided and to avoid
locating any type of land use in the rural area which would require
urban services and may lead to demands for extension of sanitary
sewer services. In addition, a residential development on the site
would be more compatible with the general character of the area and
. neighborhood.
D. Acquire the Site For a Park
� Yet� a fourth alternative action available to the City Council would be
for the City of Orono to acquire the site and to develop a park or
other recreational use on, the site. The basic problem with this
approach is that the city �s already developing a park (Beder Wood
� Park) a few blocks from the site along the Luce Line Trail . In
view of this, there would appear to be no major demand for an
- additional park which would justify the expenditure of additional
public funds. Another potential recreational use of the property
would be to establish a municipal operated neighborhood type of
marina in. conjunction with the park. However, the city officials
have indicated that they would be opposed to municipal ownership and
oper-ation of marinas. Furthermore, a municipal operated marina could
have the� same environmental effects as a privately operated marina,
unless the size was substantially reduced.
V. Recorrenendation '
The following recorrunendat�on is based upon a technical planning perspective
and is based upon the previous analysis which deals with future planning
and development of the City of Orono. Every effort has been made to
consider alternative uses for the site which could be in conformance with
the existing and proposed planriing and development policies for the city,
while at the same time be compatible with the Stubbs Bay Area arid
neighborhood. Because of the location of the site and the characteristics
of the area and the� site, the number of practical alternatives are very
limited.
In addition to recommended use of the property, an alternative has also
been included to provide more flexibility to the c�ty in making a decision. -
The following is the recommendation of the consultant.
-12-
Page 32
A. Rezone the Site for LR-lA, Lakeshore Residential District
.,,� .
Based upon the previous analysis related to future planning and
development of the City of Orono, it is recommended that the site
be rezoned for a single-family dwelling for several reasons. For
one, the land uses in the area consist of single-family dwellings
and lake cottages and the existing and proposed development policies
for the city is to retain this area as a rural area with loia-
density residential development in the foreseeable future. Thus,
single-f amily residential deveiopment would be in conformance to
the existing and proposed development policies of the city.
Secondly, a residential land use on this site would place a minimum
impact on the need for urban services, traffic problems and potential
pollution problems in this area. Third, a residential land use would
be compatible with the neighborhood and general area and could
. improve the aesthetics of the area and the Stubbs Bay shoreline with
the removal of the existing slips.
Admittedly, the site is not ideal for residential development due to
the fact that the site is located in the floodplain and portions of
the site are located in a sheet flow area. Thus, the site would have
to be modified to permit flood-proofing the bu7lding. In addition,
a holding tank would have to be used for the sanitary sewer system
. to minimize pollution problems. However, weighing all the factors,
considered in this analysis, a single-f amily residence would be
the recommended use of the property.
B. Alternative - Create a New Neighborhood Lakeshore Business District
Of the various alternatives considered, an alternative recommendation
to the rezoning of the property for residential use would be to create
a new Neighborhood Lakeshore Business District, amend the existing
zoning ordinance and rezone the property for this district. It
- should also be made clear that this new zoning district would also
� be applicable to other potential areas of the city. This district
would be specifically designed to minimize the impact on the
- neighborhood, and yet allow limited lakeshore commercial development
including marinas which specifically meet the needs of the neighborhood
or general area of the city. Standards for the number of slips and
the general size of the marina operation would be developed in
relation to several factors including the size of the parcel , the
length of the shorelir�e, and the character of the general neighborhood.
In addition, there could be a requirement that a certain percentage
of the slips be designated fflr use by the property owners in the
area. This could conceivably reduce the scope of the current�
� proposal to one-third or one-fourth of its present proposed size.
In addition, strict standards could be incorporated:in relation to
signing, hours of operation, maintenanc e of the area, etc.
-13-
Page 33
Regardless of the disposition of the current proposal , this consultant
would recommend that the present B-2 Lakeshore Business District
be amended to regulate the number of slips in a marina and that a
new Neighborhood Lakeshore Business District be created to deal
with similar problems elsewhere in the city. �he reason for this is
that there is likely to be increased demands for marinas in the future
and stricter standard are necessary to minimize the adverse effects
� of marinas in residential neighborhoods.
:_-:j
-14-
P.EGULAR 21EE1^ING OF THE OROP10 COUidCIL, FEBRUARY 27, 1979 Page 34
PeseY. rioved, Butler seconded, to approve the COPISEP1m AGENDA*
Consent Agenda* , excluding nurlber 10 , with all �
staff data and supportive inforr,iation to be
. included in the Psinutes in the sec�uence they
occur. Piotion, Ayes (4) - �iJays (0) . _
No comments fror,l the Park Corunission. PARK COPu4ISSION
Councilriember Paurus, representative to the Lake LMCD REPORT
iiinnetonka Conservation District, announced the
Li�ICD r.teeting to be held February 28, 1979 concern-
ing Stubbs Bay t�arina, �1ind��ard Isarine, and the
P�innetonka Boat �•7orks.
i�iayor Van Nest introduced P�r. George Rovegno, Jr. GEORGE ROVEGNO, JR.
to the City Council concerninc� his rec�uest for Planning Commission
a position on the Planning Comr,lission. Applicant
P�ayor Van Piest introduced iir. Gabriel Jabbour GAB.RIEL JABBOUR
to the City Council concerning his request for Planning Commission
a position on the Planning Cor.unission. Applicant
I�r. Alan Olson, City Planner, informed the Citi� SUBDIVISIOtd
Council that Mr. Burt Corwin, 1125 F�unter Drive, 1125 Hunter Drive
has coinpleted the necessary items as outlined in #�432
� the Planner' s letter of November 30, 1978. Staff Burt Corwin
recor.u�ends approval of the plat in accordance
with the enclosed resolution.
iir. Bob Scott was present to represent r2r. Burt
Corwin, 1125 Hunter Drive, in his request for
a subdivision, Ten Oaks.
IIutler rioved, Pesek seconded, to adopt Resolution RESOLUTI0�1 #999
#999, A Resolution Approving The Plat Of Ten Oaks. Ten Oaks
IQotion, Ayes (4) - �ays (0) . 1125 Hunter Drive
l�sr. Alan Olson, City Planner, inforried the City VARIArdCE
Council that Mr. Paul C. Clabo was in St. Cloud 1388 Park Drive
attending a business neeting and could not be Paul Clabo
in attendance this evening. #428
2�ayor Van Nest moved, Pesek seconded, to table the
request for a variance of Paul C. Clabo, 1388 Park
Drive, until the next Council r,teeting. Psotion,
Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
REGULAR NlEETIIIG OI' TFiE OROY10 COUi1CIL, FEBRUARY 27, 1979 Page 35
Iir. Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the record SUBDIVISION
the following inforr.iation concerning the subdivision 2700 Sixth Ave.��:
request of Roger Fazendin, 2700 Sixth Avenue Plorth, Roger Fazendin
dated February 22 , 1979, which states: #354
This rier_io will be sent to P4r. Fazendin and to Isr. rTeils
for their inforr.�ation prior to the February 27, 1979
r►eeting.
isr. 2leils, in his letter of February 19 , 1979, attempts
to prove gross inconsistency on the part of the City
in our review and approval of subdivisions, particularly
those fronting on County Road Six, in regard to:
l. Drainage and utility easerients
2. Additional road right-of-way
3. Flowage and conservation easer_ients
iiy experience and ny review of the Citv records leads
me to the conclusion that the City has been consistent
in its review of subdivisions, and further, that Mr. �
i�7eils '. contentions are wi�.hout substantial rlerit.
Ubviously, requirer,ients and standards change frori
tirie to tine. 2�r. Neils fails to take into account
such changes and he fails to appreciate that the
aPplicable lav� is that law in effect at the tine of
final decision, in this case, the tine of rinal plat
° a�proval.
Application #354 was r.iade on January 24, 1978 , �a'�ich
date is critical in review of anv conparison between
the requirenents r.iade of Mr. Fazendin and t�-:e require-
r.ients rtade -of� Pir. Fazendin an�, the requirerments r_iade
oi others. _
tir. IJeils has apparently dropped his earlier contention
regarding platting requirer►er.t_� v�ersus a r.letes and
bounds divisions, since January, 1975 , have been
approved only in two situations:
1. To divide a property when both parcels will
exceed five acres exclusive of road right-of-way.
2 . To rearrange a lot line between two pronerties
when no new lot is created. Since 1976, even this
rearrangement has rec�uired platting when the
resulting lots were less than five acres.
The record also shows that the eastern parcel or the
Fazendin property is less than five acres as proposed
and that Fazendin was offered the opportunity to
change the location of the dividing line.
. ;-, (Continued)
- . REGULAR IIEETING OF THE OROPdO COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 27, 1979 Page 36
Since 1977, the City has realized that RLS "plats" SUBDIVISION
are, in fact, not "plats" at all, but r.ierely carefully 2700 Sixth Ave. .
drawn raetes and bounds divisions. Property corners (Continued)
� are not necessarily surveyed or narked and dedications
(for roads or drainage easements) cannot be made.
Therefore, the City no longer pernits RLS divisions
except where metes and bounds are permitted. Psr. Neils ' •
comparisons , including the RLS ' s are invalid because
of when those divisions were approved (1976 and before)
and because of the legal linitations of RLS' s.
I. Drainage Easements
iir. Neils cor.lpares easement requirements along
County Road Six whereas a correct cor,iparision
would be ar:iong contemporary divisions (the road
has no bearing on easer►ent needs) . •
Orono has required drainage and/or utilities
easements as far back as 1961 when Long LakE
Country Club was platted. Recently, divisions
such as Farview (10/76) , Johnson (10/77) etc. ,
have had exclusive drainage easerients platted.
"Drainage and Utility easer.►ents along certain
lot lines has been a requirement of all plats
approved since fall of 1977 (#�285 Kelley and
I:elley 10/77) . Easements along all lot lines of
all plats have been required since early 1978.
This division (#358 3/78) r.1a1�, in fact, have
been the first to receive preliminary approval
with such a requirement, but since that time, 13
plats have been finally approved with drainage
and utility easements along all lot lines and
ten others have had such a requirement included -
in preliminary approval_ - '
Since March, 1978, only two plats have received
final approval without drainage and utility ease-
r.ients on all lot lines and both received pre-
liminary approval prior to the ap�lication for
this division. (#323 Tanglewood, Areliriinary
1/23/78, final 4/78 and #317 The Farri, prelir:linary
12/77, final 4/78) . Al1 divisions finall1� approved
since 4/78 have had drainage and utility easements
on all lot lines.
Pir. Neils' argur.ient regardinc� consistency in .
drainage and utility easement requirer.ients is
entirely unsupported by fact. .
II. Additional Right of 47ay
The City' s rec�uirenents for right-oy-way dedication,
��� where unplatted property .extends to the center of a �
' public road, has been a continuous practice as far
as records are available. The rec�uirer_ient for �
dedication of additional right of way along County
Road Six (to a minimum 50 ft. half width) east of (Continued)
� REGULAR P4EETII�G OF iI�E OROPdO COUNCIL, FEB?:U7�R�' 27, 1979 Page 37
[Jatertown Road has been consistentl�� ir_i�osed since SUBDIVISION
Ilovei*iber, 1976, with but one exce�tion. The exanples 2700 Sixth Ave.
cited by Mr. Neils includes RLS 's and plats d.ating (Continued)
well before the scope of current reviews and are not
comparable.
Tne foot additional right of way has been acc�uired
as follows: •
�317 - The Farn, prelir,tinary 12/77, final 4/78 by
easement to Fiennepin County
�325 - Conley F3rooks, Metes and bounds 3/78 by deed
#356 - Garden Grove, final 8/78 by plat
#363 - Willow Run, final 8/78 bv plat
and new preliminary approvals all include the 10 ft.
dedication:
;�348 - Ledstrom, preliminary 1/79
#354 - Fazendin, preliriinary 3/78
#412 - Hollander, �reliminary 10/78
The exception is #299 , Eckstrozn, finally anproved
1/23/78 wtiich fronts on a right of way varving from
80 ft. to 125 ft. ��rhere 10 ft_ additional right of
way should have been acquired along the western
corner of the property. As an aside, this property
has recently been sold and the new owner has inquired
� about a redivision which will afford opPortunity to
correct this error.
Three plats were ap�roved between 11/76 and this date
without additional right of way, but those plats
front on a right of way meeting or exceedinc� the
nininum 100 ft. width currently desired.
# 95 - Evergreen Ridge, 130 to 170 ft. (dedication
110 ft. ) (never filed by owner, final 11/76)
�307 - Douglas Estates, 100 to 130 ft. (never included
Row) -
#323 - Tanglewood, 100 to 130 ft. (never included RO[•7)
t�sr. Neils ' arguments regarding consistency in right-
of-way acguisition is supported by only one case out
of eight and is supported by no cases approved since
Fazendin made the subject application.
III. Flowage Easement ' •
Orono's history of wetlands conservation dates to 1971
and earlier. The City' s use of the "Flowage and
Conservation" easement has been consistent since at
least October, 1977. All subdivisions containing �
wetlands approved since that date have included such .
an easement requirement. These ir�clude apPlication
nur.tbers 200, 258 , 261, 266, 285, 306, 317, 323, 344,
346, 356 , 363, 367, 372, 380 and prelirtinary plats
348, 354, 360, 399, 408 , 312, and 432. There is no
exception. (Continued)
'FtEGULAR TZEETIPIG OF TIi� ORONO COU?1CIL, FEBRUARY 27, 1979 Page 38
�ihe easement has also been required for certain SUBDIVISION
conditional use perr_�its. P4r. Neils ' argument 2700 Sixth Ave.P�
^�, regarding consistency in flowage easer.ient require- (Continued)
' rients is unsupported by fact.
Pdr. P7eils further argues that conditions 3-8 of
Resolution #889 should be omitted. Condition 3
requires a Hennepin County access permit which is
a County as well as a City requirer�ent, also
undisputably consistent as a requirerient (and subject
to Hennepin County enforcenent) . Conditions 4 & 5
relate to right of way as previously discussed.
Condition 6 relates to the flowage easement.
Condition 7 relates to the drainage and utilities -
easements. Condition 8 relates to the issue of
platting versus metes and bounds. P4r. Fazendin
has proceeded with the plat making this request
seer_1 moot. Reverting to a r_Zetes and bounds division
at this point would involve additional dracaing costs,
not save any money.
S urmriary.
id?-.Ideils is not the applicant, i�ir. Fazendin is.
t�r. Fazendin has not requested reconsideration but
has evidenced good faith in trying to cor.lplete the
division. Because of his contract with tir. Neils,
-� however, Fazendin r.iust have Psr. Neils ' approval
.� for coripletion of the division.
The approval granted by Resolution #889, on March 16 , .
1978, expired on August 16, 1978. 2ir. Fazendin in
August asked staff for a "brief" extension and there-
after supplied the final plat copies. I would
recor,iriend extension of the deadline, but not
indefinitely, upon rir. Fazendin's request.
Iir. Neils has not supported any of his clairis of
discrimination. On the contrary, he has caused
staff to research the record compilinc� statistics -
not previoulsy available in direct support of the
City' s actions_ Allowing his division to be approved
without these r��;re�nts would be discriminatory
against the many other applicants who hav.e completed
the City requirer_ients.
Even if the division has proceeded as a r.ietes and
bounds division (as the City provided for) , the
City would still have required right-of-�vay
dedication (by deed or easer.tent) , �lowac�e easement
dedication and the other conditions of Resolution #889.
_ I repeat r,iy recorunendation of February 2, 1979, that
�; the Council adhere to the findings of Resolution #889. �
(Continued)
.1 `
REGUL�R i4EFTING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 27, 1979 Page 39
Since the February 13, 1979 Council neeting, I have - SUBDIVISION
spent two hours helping lir. Neils research the City 2700 Sixth Ave.'_
'' records and an additional seven hours in resnonse (Continued)
to his letter of February 19 , 1979. I view this
tirie as "unusual adr_iinistrative expense" and
"variable additional costs" chargeable to the developer
per 32. 652. Staff spends many hours with all
applicants explaining City ordinances , policies,
and procedures, but the amount of time necessary
to answer P4r. 2deils is clearly extraordinary. -
Council P�eeting - February 27, 1979
24r. Bruce Malkerson, City Attorne�, commented that
Mr. Thompson, Mr. Pleils ' attorney, had stated that
P�r. Neils will provide necessary easerients .
P�r. Neils comriented that Hennepin County' s requirement
to provide additional right of way is not justified -
and should not be required.
Councilmenbers Paurus and Butler conr.iented that the
City should be consistent with past actions. If we
have required additional right of �vay with other plats ,
this should be no exception.
Mayor Van ilest: I believe we should receive some
: =, justification from Fiennepin County for this requirement.
Mayor Van P1est moved, Paurus seconded, to amend the
original resolution to rer.love the 10 ft. right-of-way
requirement unless Henneoin County can justify the
need. Motion, Ayes (3) - Nays (1) . Councilmer.tber
Pesek Nay. -
r�ayor Van Nest r:loved, Pesek seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION #100C
Resolution #1000, A Resolution Directing Staff To Wayzata Yacht
Issue A Joint Use D�ck License To Wayzata Yacht Club License
Club Subject To Conditions Noted Fierein For The
Period Of January 1, 1979 To Deceriber 31, 1979 ,
amended to require adequate restroor► facilities.
24otion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
Piayor Van 2Test moved, Pesek seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION #1001
Resolution #1001, A Resolution Directing Sta�f To T•Sinnetonka Boat
Issue A �omnercial _Doc,k License To tiinnetonka Boat j•7orks License
�4orks, Inc. Subject To Conditions Noted Herein For
The Period Of January 1, 1979 To December 31, 1979.
Motion, Ayes (4) - Navs (0) .
I2EGULAR N`�,ETIidG OF THE OROP10 COUNCIL, I'EBRUARY 2 7, 19 79 Page 4 0
i�r. Steven Eru�nings, representing Plorth Shore P4arina, NORTH SHORE MARINA
presented the City Council with an affidavit to LICENSE
controvert the City' s proposed resolution.
P�Zayor Van Nest moved, Butler seconded, to enter
the r:latter of the North Shore Marina on the next
Council agenda to allow the City sufficient time
to review the affidavit. Motion, Ayes (4) - Nays (0) . .
Councilmember Pesek, P�Iarina Committee Chairman, riARIr1A COMMITTEE
announced that he will attempt to arrange a meeting i7EETING
with the P�arina Committee for t�arch 6, 1979 at 4: 00 P.M.
tir. Alan Olson, City Planner, entered into the APPLICATION FORMS
record concerning revised application forms , dated
February 16, 1979 , cahich states:
The attached forr.is are provided for your revie�� and
cor.lment before they go into use. These �orms will
be used only for variance applications. Sirmilar
forns will be developed for subdivisions, conditional
uses , etc.
The intention is to provide a check list to aid in
assuring complete reviews, to provide inforr_iation
in a consistent forr.iat, and to reduce or eliminate •
the need for typing repetitious memos.
The first sheet, Exhibit 1, is •to be cor.lpleted by
the applicant.- Note the list of exhibits which will
all be marked and kept in order in your packets.
The second sheet provides a brief descrintion of
requirements and procedures for the applicant' s -
information. This has been in use for some time now.
The third sheet, Exhibit 5, lists technical data
(nur,ibers) per inforr�ation supplied by th� applicant
and inforr.lation in the public record. The e��tent
of the variance is listed. Staff completes exhibits.
The fourth sheet, Exhibit 6, provides staff comments
and recommendations. If the application extends
into several meetings , you r.iay have two or rlore
successive exhibits #6. The ordinance rec�uires
that findings 1-5 be made for each application,
plus additional findings specifically relating to
the subject application.
After Planning Corunission reco�endations are r_lade, the
Council will get the sar►e inforr.iation Plus Planning
Conmission r►inutes. The •Planning Corunission representa- �
tive will also be able to assist �the Council in arriving
at the final decision. �
REGULAR P7.E�TING OF THE ORONO COUNCIL, FEBRUARY 27, 1979 Page 41
iir. Glenn CooY., City Engineer, informed the Cit� RING ROUTE
Council that plans and specifications for the
. proposed ring route will be completed in Psar_ch
with subsequent advertisements for bids and start
of actual construction sometime in June. Soil
borings will be initiated within one week. All
property owners will be notified before borings
are initiated.
Mr. IIruce Malkerson, City Attorney, corunented that
all Right of Entries have been signed by the affected
property owners, except _for rir. & PSrs . I:enneth
Turnham. Papers have been served on the Turnhams
for a quick take in order to assure a construction _
start in June.
PZr. Glenn Cook, City Engineer, announced that a pre- PRECONSTRUCTION
construction meeting was held with representatives COPdI'ERENCE
of the i4etropolitan [aaste Control Commission and Orono-Long Lake
contractors on February 22 , 1979 concerning the Interceptor
construction of the Orono-Long Lake interceptor and
the Tanager Lake Bridge. Their schedule is to
start construction bl� April 2, 1979. Local traffic
will be provided for and boat traffic will not be
interrupted at the channel. Staff will draft a
letter to be mailed to a11 residents in the near
future.
22r. Glenn Cook, City Engineer, and P4r. Bruce P4alkerson, MEDII7A-ORONO SEWER
City Attorney, discussed the pro�osed 2�edina-Orono PROJECT
Sewer Project cor.u�enting that staff are wor}cing on
an agreement with PZedina and proposed areas to be
assessed for this project,all to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission. .
i�iayor Van Nest requested that a Public Coinments PUBLIC CpM1�iENTS
section be entered on all future agendas for SECTION
citizen participation.
P�s. Tracy Y7hitehead, Orono representative to the TRACY WHITEHEAD
�aest Fiennepin Human Services Planning Board, was �J.H.H.S.P.B.
present to discuss the goals of the T9.H.H.S.P.B.
The appointment to the Planning Comr.iission was PLAPdPlING COP��IISSIO'.
tabled until the next r.ieeting. �
R�GUI,I�R i4EETIiJG OF �IIE OROP10 COL'NCIL, FEBRUARY 27, 1979 Page 42
Piayor Van ilest moved, Butler seconded, to aPpoint VICE-CHAIRhiEP-iBER
Jo�llen Hurr as Vice-Chairmember to the Planning Planning Commissio:
Coirimission. 14otion, Ayes (4) - Pdays (0) . JoEllen Hurr
1lppointments to the Human Rights Cortmission were HU1•'1ArI RIGHTS
tabled until the next meeting. CO2�i..MISSION
Pesek moved, IIutler seconded, to increase the SALARY ADJUST��7EP1T*
salary of Bruce Anderson, Police Departr.lent, Bruce Anderson
to $l, 302. 76 per rtonth, effective P3arch 1, 1979 .
riotion, Ayes (4) - 21ays (0) .
Pesek raoved, Butler seconded, to adopt Resolution RESOLUTIOPI #1002*
;�1002, A Resolution On ��7estern And Piorthwestern Law Enforcement
Hennepin County Law Enforcement Study. Tiotion, Study
Ayes (4) - Nays (0) . .
Dick Benson, City Administrator, presented to the LOCAL PLANNIt1G*
City Council a memo fror.i Thomas Kuehn, Finance ASSISTAIICE. GRANT
Director, dated February 15, 1979, which states:
The iietropolitan Council has made available $2, 519
of funds for 1978-79 in addition to the $2, 874 of
funds for the 1976-77 period under the Local
��{ Planning Assistance Grant. In order to obtain
these funds, the City must r.lake a rec�uest in the
form of a resolution and niust amend the Grant
Application. City Planner Olson and myself have
completed the amendment to the application.
Council Meeting - February 27, 1979
Pesek rioved, Butler seconded, to adopt Resolution RESOLUTION #1003*
�1003, A Resolution Requesting 1978-79 Local Planning AssistancE
Planning Assistance Grant Funds From the Pietropolitan Grant Funds
Council. P�otion�, Ayes (4) - I�ays (0) .
Dick Benson, City Administrator, read a letter POLICy LETTER
received from the City of Long Lake, dated LOP1G LAKE
February 23, 1979, which states:
"The Long Lake City Council has appointed a ten
r.ienber advisory cor.unittee to study various means
of police protection for the City of Long Lake. . -
This cor_unittee is r.iaY,ing an in-depth study of our
police needs and how they can best be met. Since
the advisory coru:littee is studying every possible
aspect of police protection, it is necessary that
we get certain information and data fror► the City �
of Orono.� (Continued)
� r �
" T
• " R�GULAR P�EETIPIG OF �HE ORONO COUPICIL, FEBRUI�RY 27, 1979 Page 43
The Long Lake Council, therefore, would like to POLICE LETTER
know if the City of Orono would consider entering LONG LAKE
into a Joint Powers Agreement for police protection (Continued)
in 1980? 4Je would appreciate having this matter
discussed at your next Council meeting so we r.►ay
continue our research, based on your answer. "
Diane Gallagher, Mayor
Council r4eeting - February 27, 1979
The consensus of the Council was to encourage an
in-depth study of local police needs with the
City of Long Lake which parallels our participation
with the HennePin County Criminal Justice Coordinating
Council in evaluating law enforcement needs in west-
ern Hennepin County but not to consider a Joint
Powers Agreement in lieu of our present law enforcer.lent
contract.
Pese}: moved, Butler seconded, that the All Funds BILLS *
Accounts 7442 through 7478, 10707 through 10711,
3365 through 3426 , 11616 through 11620, 11623 and
Liquor Store Accounts 12949 through 12980 , be paid.
P4otion, Ayes (4) - Idays (0) .
2�4ayor Van P1est moved, Pesek seconded, that the ADJOURNr-1ENT
meeting be adjourned at 10 : 45 P.r'i. Motion,
Ayes (4) - Nays (0) .
. �
G�� � '1. ,1� �
L•Tilliam B. an Nest, Piayor
�-:—
Attest: ������� � _ �
Laalter . Benson, Clerk-Administrator