HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: dock installation � °�
o .,, o
�F��l�,��r ,, CITY of ORON4
� �'�'4 ���, j� ti Municipal Offices
��'� �:.��` '�
��,� � ;,'•,,��\����;���,�G SVeet Address: Mailing Address:
9$Eg'H04' 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66
Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323•0066
May 25, 2005
Bradley M. Jones
_ ___-- _-..---._._.._�Ieaglrer�i-�Geer-�Li:;� _----- --- ---_ __ __. ______.-_ ____. _ __. _.._ _ .___ _ __--_ _____ _ _ __ __ ._ __ _
33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Re: Dock Installation at 2545 North Shore Drive
Dear Brad:
Since we have had difficulty connecting by phone, this letter should provide you with
some optional courses of action regarding your dock installation.
I've attached the City code section (78-1432) that is applicable to your situation, as well
as a copy of a 1994 court case that established that the ordinance has validity, and that
docks axe considered as accessory structures. The original ordinance language dates back
to at least 1967, and states that"no accessory building or structure shall be constructed on
any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory."
The ordinance was amended in 2004 to clarify that nonconforming accessory structures
must be removed at the time of principal building demolition, but that conforming
accessory structures may be allowed to remain under certain circumstances in
conjunction with timely constxuction of a replacement principal building. Since your
demolition occurred in December 2004 ,and no dock was existing at that time, the
provisions for retaining a conforming accessory structure do not apply.
The City has established a policy that docks may be constructed once the principal
building framing is underway. The basis for this timing is that once framing has
commenced, home construction is at stage where it likely will move forward to
completion, whereas before framing a foundation might sit empty for weeks or months.
This policy has been implemented as a less burdensome alternative to prohibiting docks
until a certificate of occupancy for the principal building is issued.
Your options appear to me to include the following:
1. . Commence house construction and proceed to the framing stage as soon as
possible. I understand this does not solve your immediate problem.
Telephone(952)249-4600 • Fax(952)249-4616
www.ci.orono.mn.us
Bradley Jones
May 25,2005
Page 2
2. Appeal the staff interpretation of the ordinance per the provisions of zoning code
sections 78-96 through 78-99. This process involves Planning Commission
review of whether there has been an error in an administrative action or
interpretation of the ordinances. The fee is minimal ($100). However, I would
expect the result to be that our interpretation of the code is correct, and this
process may not gain you anything.
3. Apply for a variance to Section 78-1432 per the provisions of zoning code
sections 78-121_throu_gh 7$-.129. .__The a��1�c�.�Q���__is_��Q4. _This_is.a_mQr� ___ ____-_____
--___.__ _____ . __--- --_---
formal review procedure in which the Planning Commission and Council consider
whether enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship. From my
perspective, I do not see that there is a hardship, and you should not expect staff
support for approval of a variance.
4. Attempt to convince the City Council that the ordinance should be amended to
allow docks for certain vacant property categories such as yours. Again, this may
not be a solution to your immediate dilemma. The zoning code amendment
process could easily take many months, as it must move through the public
hearing process at the Planning Commission level and requires a 4/5 vote of
the City Council.
Timing with either of options 2 or 3 is such that you will not have an answer until the end
of July. The deadline for applications for the June 20 Planning Commission meeting has
passed; the application deadline for the July 18 Planning Commission meeting is June
22. Council review and action would be no earlier than July 25.
As an aside, in reviewing your situation it has become apparent that your lot is subject to
the 2-acre minimum lot size requirement, and that a significant portion of the lot is
wetland, which is not credited towards buildable lot area. Based on the provisions of
zoning code section 78-72(b)(2), if the non-wetland axea of your lot is less than 1.0 acre
(43,560 s.f.) a variance will be required in order to rebuild on the property. While I ha�e
little doubt that such a variance would be granted, the approval process typically takes 6-
8 weeks. I would encourage you to have the wetland delineated if that has not already
been done, and have your surveyor verify the non-wetland acreage.
I'm enclosing the application packets for both the appeals and the variance processes.
Please feel free to contact me at 952-249-4600 or email at m affron(cr�,ci.orono.mn.us if
you have further questions.
Sincerely,
�w�� ��
Michael P. Gaffron
Planning Director
encl.
ORDINANCE NO �, THIRD SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ORONO ZONING CODE
SECTION 78-1432
REGARDING TIME OF CONSTRUCTION
The City Council of Orono ordains as follows:
Section 1: Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1432 is hereby revised as follows:
Sec. 78-1432. Time of construction.
`
No accessory building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time
of construction of the principal building to which it is accessory. At the time of
demolition of the principal buildin� all nonconforminQ accessorv structures must be
removed Accessory structures which comply with this title are allowed to remain
contin�ent on a si�ned a�reement statin�the following:
1. Applicants a�ree to obtain a buildinQ permit for construction of the replacement
residence within 60 days of demolition• to begin construction on the new
residence within 120 days of demolition: and to complete all exterior work within
1 vear of buildin� permit issuance and interior work within 2 vears of buildin�
permit issuance.
2. In the event that anv activity described in item 1 has not been accomplished
within the defined timeframe the applicants sha11 remove the accessorV structures
at the applicants' expense or the applicants shall applv for an extension of this
a�reement.
3. If one of the item 1 events occurs and the applicants fail to perform their removal
obliQations per item 2,the applicants herebv a�ree as follows:
a. The Citv may enter upon the property and remove the accessorv
buildinQ(s).
b. The Citv may assess the costs of removal to the propertv. -
--.__ _ .___. ______. _. ___ ------------- ----- --------.._---w--------------- ---__. _---- - --- __ - .__.____
4. The aQreement shall be binding upon current and future owners of the propertv,
and shall be filed within the chain of title of the property.
5. Fee owner(s) of the propertv if not the applicants consent to the execution of the
agreement and to its terms as shown by his/her/their siQnature(s)upon the
document.
The s��lanauage is deleted;the underiined language is inserted.
Page 1 of 2
6. Applicants shall indemnifv and hold harmless the Citv, the Citv Council, and the
aaents and emplovees of the Citv from and a�ainst all claims, dama�es, losses or
expenses, including attorney fees, which the City, City Council and agents and
emplovees of the City mav suffer or for which it may be held liable, arisin�out of
or resultinQ from the assertion a;ainst them of anv claims, debts or obliQations in
consequence of the performance of the terms of this a�,reement.
(Code 1984, § 10.03(9)(A))
Section 2: This Ordinance shall be published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER
newspapers and shall become effective upon approval and publication.
Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this 24�' day of May, 2004 by a vote of
4 ayes and 0 nays.
Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
��� �f'- �/e—
�
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk
Published in the Laker/Pioneer newspapers the week of Mav 29 , 2004.
The�e�t language is deleted;the underlined language is inserted.
Page 2 of 2
.j .
4 l � . .� , .-... : --. � :� '<•-. . . " . �. �.��4u
i �, �ti;�r.r:1','�. CE,` "�=�i . .��� :� � ' �
� �.� �i:)�i :., ., : ,_. �. ' . . , . ' i
;�, •� �•�: :�� ~ c'1;::r� �.�; �.;1.
�1�()i,;! \.i r.��i;����_1W1�.1 �b`e� iun� ubl:is�ie����arid'
T is o inion , '�,•,as;'`'�c�r�c��l�Fb
ma n k:1�Z �F�k'c e'�%���'�
,4${��, n.a• - qubd.:.�3 (1992)
Minn Stat § ,
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
C2-93-2445
Crippen, Judge
Hennepin County
Distric.t Court File No. 91-8308
Jeffrey A. Carson
Richard Stodola, et al . , gteven C. Hey
Respondents, Carson and Clelland
�n5 $rp�1{d3�e Corporate Center
6300 Shingle Creek Parkway
Minneapolis , NII� 55430
vs .
Leon R. Erstad
City of Orono, Sandra L . Jones
Appellant . Erstad & Riemer, P .A•
1000 Northland Plaza
3800 West 80th Street
Minneapolis, IrII�T 55431
Filed: June 21, 1994
Office of Appellate Courts
Considered and decided by Forsberg, Presiding Judge, Crippen,
Judge , and Mulally, Judge .`
II N P U B L I S H E D 0 P I N I O N
CRIPPEN, Judae
Appellant City of Orono challenges the district court ' s
determination that the city acted arbitrarily and capriciously in
refusing to allow respondents to build a shared dock. Appellant
also contends that the district court exceeded its authority in
°Retired judge of the distri ursu nt �toeM'inng ConstagartL VZe
Court of Appeals by appointment p
§ 2 •
� ,
ordering the city to adopt a specific shared dock proposal . We
reverse.
. FACTS
In September 1987, respondents Richard Stodola and Merri�
Peterson bought a lot in the City of Orono from Ewald Gustafson for
the purpose of building a dock, but not a residence, on the
property. Glen Tillotson owned an adjoining lot that had a hous�
on it . At the time of the purchase, there was an existing dock
that had been constructed in 1960 . The existing dock was believed
to. be on Tillotson' s property, but it was later discovered it was
on respondents ' property.
In a letter dated July 30 , 1987, Gustafson' s attorney wrote
Peterson:
This is to inform you that Mr. Gustaf son was told by
a member of the staff of the city of Orono that it is
necessary to own a home nearby in order to place a dock
on a piece of property in Orono. We understand that you
have made eSuin convincingt he�ity of Or no to granttyou
your chanc
a variance .
We just want to be on record as not having made any
guarantees in regar P t of this 1 t er so t hatewe may have
you kindly sign a co y
it in our files .
Peterson signed the letter and dated it September 24 , 1987 .
Respondents built a new dock in the spring of 1988 . Short`�.'a�
after they built it, the city "red-tagged" the dock, indicating
that it was an illegal dock . The city wrote to Peterson to inform
him that the dock was illegal .
After meetings with city officials, respondents filed �.
variance application, seeking "authority to construct boat dock ry�a
-2- .
� .
a nonbuildable lot (no primary structure) . " The planning
commission denied respondents ' proposal and the city council passe�.
a resolution citing the following reasons for denial :
(A) The lack of the principal structure means that there
is no individual responsible for protecting the dock nor
the boats maintained at that dock.
(B) A19607 dock] locatedronTTra�tSFn] already has a dock
[the
(C) The property is not wide enough to provide adequate
parking. * * *
(D) Approval of the use of an accessory structure such as
a dock, without a p-rincipal structure wouid zstablish a
negative precedent in dealing with a similar requests for
lots of similar size .
Respondents later sent a memo to the city council, outlining
the concerns the city council expressed and suggesting a different
proposal that they thought would satisfy those concerns .
Respondents proposed conveying some property to Tillotson to
provide him legal access to the lake, and building a single common
dock to be shared by Tillotson, Peterson, and Stodola .
At a city council meeting, the council denied the shared dock
proposal . At a later meeting, the council adopted a resolutivn
denying the shared dock proposal . The resolution indicated that :
Council refused to accept the interpretation
of the acceasorycantssbaseduon the f llowing
proposed by pp
findings :
(A) The City has never credited a preliminary
structure on an adjacent property to allow
accessory uses or structures on lots that did
not sustain principal residences .
(B) The credit of the principal residence fdr�
' � ` an accessory use/structure• serving an adjacent
proper.ty will establish a negative precedent
� -3-
. ' 1
for the City when dealing with similar
requests for accessory uses and structures on
unbuildable, substandard lots .
(C) The applicants ' proposed interpretation of
the accessory structure ordinances is in
complete conflict with the original intent of
the code .
Orono, Minn. , Resolution 2576 (Feb. 13 , 1989) . The resolution
required the removal of the dock and it was subsequently removed by
Tillotson.
In May 1991, Stodola and Peterson filed a complaint, alleging:
(1) iliegal removai of a :�or.-confor<i�ing boat dock, (2)
unconstitutional taking, (3) arbitrary and capricious conduct , (4)
vague and ambiguous regulations, and (5) denial of equal
protection. The trial court determined that the denial of
respondents ' application was arbitrary and capricious, and ordered
the city to approve respondents ' application for a shared dock . It
stayed the order for 30 days to allow the parties an opportunity to
negotiate the specif ic terms of the shared dock proj ect . When the
parties could not agree, the court issued an order adopting
respondents ' proposal . This appeal followed.
D E C I S I O N
In zoning matters, this court independently reviews the record
and the city' s decision. Northwestern College v Citv of Arden
Hills, 281 N.W. 2d 865, 868 (Minn. 1979) . For both legislative
(zoning) and quasi-judicial (special use permits and variances) ,
decisions by a city, the standard of review is whether the action
was reasonable . VanLandschoot v Citv of Mendota H_eiahts, 336
N.W. 2d 503 , 508 (Minn. 1983) . The nature of-' the action bears on
-4- '
� .
what is reasonable :
In enacting a zoning ordinance or in amending an
ordinance to rezone, the approach is legislative; what is
involved is a kind of municipal planning in which a wide
range of value judgments is considered. On the other
hand, in granting or denying a special use permit, the
inquiry is more judicial in character since the zoning
authority is applying specific use standards set by the
� zoning ordinance to a par�icular individual use.
Honn v CitY of Coon Rapids , 313 N.W. 2d 409 , 417 (Minn. 1981) .
Thus , a zoning authority is less circumscribed by judicial
oversight when it acts legislatively than when it acts in a quasi-
judicial role . la.
Still, a municipal decisionmaking body has broad discretionary
power to deny an application for a variance . VanLandschoot , 336
N.W. 2d 503 , 508-09 (Minn. 1983) . The fact that a court reviewing
the action of a municipal body may have arrived at a different
conclusion, had it been a member of the body, does not invalidate
the judgment of the city officials if they acted in good faith and
within the broad discretion accorded them by statutes and the
relevant ordinances . Id. at 509 . In variance cases, reasonableness
is to be measured by the standard set out in the local ordinance.
Id. at 508 n. 6 .
The city argues that its decision to deny the shared dock
proposal was legislative, and that even if the decision were quasi-
judicial, it sti11 was reasonable. The city argues that, because
under the Orono City Code an accessory use is limited to the
exclusive use of the principal supporting structure, any dock on
Tillotson' s land can be for the use of the people living in .
Tillotson' s house only. •
-5-
. , �
The parties do not make it clear whether respondents ar�
seeking a declaration that the ordinance permits the shared dock
proposal, or whether they seek a variance from the ordinance as the
ordinance does not permit such a use . There is , at least.
initially, an ordinance interpretation question.
The Orono City Code def ines "accessory use or structure" as a
��use or structure subordinate to and serving the principal use or
structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto . "
Orono, Minn. , � 10 . 02 {1) �1984� • The code also defines "use-
accessory" as a "use subordinate to the principal use on a lot and
exclusively used for purposes incidental to those of the principa l
use . " Id. , � 10 . 02 (72) . The code provides that : "No accessory
building or structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the
time of construction of the principal building to which it is
accessory.
�� Id, , § 10 . 03 , subd. 9 (A) . The code indicates that a
dock is an accessory use under section 10 . 23 , subd. 5 (A) , which
lists " [a] ny accessory use as regulated in the 'R-lA' District and
private docks ' subject to the City Code and other applicable
' including boat storage density regulations" as a
regulations
��permitted accessory use . "
Construing these provisions together, we conclude : (1) a doc}:,
is an accessory use, and (2) the definition of the accessory use
and the prohibition against building an accessory use before a
principal use indicate that the code presumes there has to be a
primary structure on the property in order for an accesso:.'r--��
• structure to be permitted. �
� -6- , .
Thus , building a boat dock without a primary structure on the
property would not be permitted by the code . This construction
explains the denial of respondents ' first dock proposal . At issue
in this appeal is respondents ' shared dock proposal .
The code makes it "unlawful for any person to engage or
participate in business use or joint use without first having
obtained a license therefor from the City. " Id. , § 5 . 42 , subd. 2 .
The code defines "joint use" as "more than two persons joining for
the purpose of using lakeshore property for swimming, bathing,
fishing, docking or mooring boats, or for any other purpose . " Id. ,
subd. 1F . In this case, Tillotson and respondents wished to use
the same piece of property for docking boats . In addition, the
code indicates that "private" docks are a permissible accessory
use . The use of the dock by both Tillotson and respondents did not
seemingly transform it into a business use, but the proposal did
not call for a purely private dock for the Tillotson home . The
definition of "use-accessory" provides that it is a use
"exclusively used for purposes incidental to those of the principal
use . " Id. , § 10 . 02, subd. 72 . In this case, the principal use,
the house, was Tillotson' s . The accessory use, the dock, was
respondents ' . The use of the dock by respondents would not have
been incidental to Tillotson' s use of his house and the dock would
not have been exclusively used for purposes incidental to the '
house . Read together, these provisions did not permit respondents '
shared dock proposal . ,
' ' Next, we consider whether respondents were entitled to �a
-7-
variance. The district court correctly noted that the shared dock
proposal ad.dressed some of the concerns expressed by the city
council regarding the original dock proposal . But addressing the
concerns raised by the first proposal did not necessarily address
tre concerns raised by the second proposal . Even though the shared
dock proposal may not have had the disadvantages of the earlier
dock proposal, it had disadvantages all its own. The city council
properly considered these disadvantages in denying the variance .
The Orono City Code provides that : �
In considering applications for variance, the Council
shall consider the advi�o osed vari n ce upon he healtha
and the effect of the p P existin and
safety,
and welfare of the community, g
danger o
anticipated traffic conditions , a d the effect on values
fire, risk to the public safety,
of prop
erty in the surrounding area. Before granting a
variance, the Council shall hear requests for variances
from the literal provisions of this Chapter in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship
because of circumstances unique to the individual
property under consideration, and to grant such variances
only when it i hees°iritaand intent of thi� ChapteYbe in
keeping with t p y
Orono, Minn. � 10 . 08 , subd. 3A (1984) . The code defines "undue
hardship" :
1 , The property in question cannot be put to a
reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the
official controls .
2 . The plight �o e�� lno°�eated byethe landownernczs
unique to his p p Y
* * *
g . The special conditions applying to the structure or
land in question are peculiar to such property or
immediately adjoining property.
* * *
11 . The granting of , the proposed variance will not in
� any waY impair health, safety, comfort, mora3s, or in any
-S- -
i
other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning
Code .
Icl. , subd. 3 (A) (1) .
As the city correctly argues, respondents were aware when t�.��
purchased the property that they might not be able to build a dock
without obtaining a variance because the property had no primary
structure . Respondents ' plight is at least partially their own
doing . In addition, in denying the variance, the city cited �.hn
concern that it would set a negative precedent for other pieces of
property; respondents ' "hardship" was not a condition unique tc�
their piece of property. Furthermore, the city reasonably
considered the shared dock proposal to be contrary to the aims of
the Zoning Code . As measured by the standards set forth in Lh�
Orono City Code, the city' s action in denying respondents ' shareii
dock proposal was reasonable .
Because we determine that the city' s denial of respondents °
second proposal was reasonable, we do not reach the issue �'�i
whether the district court exceeded its authority in ordering i:.��.F'
city to adopt a specific shared dock proposal .
Reveraed. �
<,...
�June 15 , 19 9 4
-9-
, ... ►
LEO�R ERSL�D
ERSTA.D & RIEMER, P.A. °�o`�E�R,�.=
RICHARD RIE�tER D41NA L.BRE,�'NAN
JEFFREY H.\ELSO`i 1000 Northland Plaza p���•���
L�1WRE:`�CE J.SKOGLt1\�D TN05415 H.SCH.aEFER
GEORGE G.HOTfI\GER 3800 West 30th Street S.�4YDR.�L.JO\'ES
JEFF 4t.Z�[.�15h'Y �iinneapolis,Nlinnesota 5�431 Lau�u�.vxamEs
jON K.IVERSOY
�uca�LJ.sos�c�u. Telephone (612)896-3700 •A150LIC&YSF1)INR'ISCO�SIV
SiEVEY E JtAITAl`iI Fax (612) 896-3717
June 21 , 1994 ��������
JUN 2 4 1994
Ms . Jeanne A. Mabusth c{Tl( O�ORONO
Building & Zoning Administrator
CITY OF ORONO
Post Office Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
RE: Richard Stodola and Merritt Peterson v. City of Orono
Your Claim No: 56527-19355
Our File No: 10008 .0008
Dear Ms . Mabusth:
As you know from our telephone conversation this morning, we just
received the decision from the Court of Appeals. The Court of
Appeals reversed the trial court and concluded that the City's
denial of the plaintiff 's proposals were reasonable. Enclosed is ,
a copy of the decision.
The Court of Appeals noted that prior to purchasing the property,
the plaintiff ' s were aware of the ordinances prohibiting their
intended use of the dock. The court also pointed out that the fact
that a court reviewing the action of a municipal body may have
arrived at a different conclusion, had it been a member of the
body, does not invalidate the judgment of City officials if they
acted in good f aith and within the broad discretion accorded them
by statutes and the relevant ordinances . The court then looked
specifically at the City ordinances which supported the City
Council 's decision. It concluded that the Councils decision was
justified by those ordinances . The court also concluded that the
plaintiffs did not qualify for a variance. Even though the shared
dock proposal addressed some of the concerns addressed by the City'
Council, it had disadvantages of its own which the City Council
properly considered.
The plaintiff has the right to petition to the Minnesota Supreme
Court for a Writ of Certiorari within 30 days . This is not the
type of case that I believe the Supreme Court would be interested.
in reviewinge Furthermore, the plaintiff has no right to appeala
� �
June 21 , 1994
Page 2
They can petition to the Supreme Court for its discretionary review
of the case. If the Supreme Court rejects that petition, the
plaintiffs have no right to take the matter further.
I will keep you further advised.
Sincerely,
ERSTAD & RIEMER, P.A.
� ��
�
Leon R. Erstad
LRE:dd
Enclosure
pc : Bob Weisbrod, Berkley Risk
Doug Gronli, LMCIT
Tom Grundhoefer, LMCIT
Bob Weisbrod, Berkley Risk
i � -
ORDTNAl\TCE 1\TO 9 , THIRD SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF ORONO ZOI�TING CODE
SECTION 78-72
REGARDI�IG LOTS OF RECORD
The City Council of Orono ordains as follows:
Section 1: Municipal ZoninQ Code Section 78-72 is hereby revised as follows:
Sec. 78-72. Lots of record.
(a) A lot of record is any lot for which a deed or registered land survey has
been recorded in the office of the register of deeds or the registrar of titles for the county
prior to January 1, 1975, and after approval by the council if required.
(b) A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975, in an R district, which does
not meet the requirements of this chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single-
family detached dwelling purpose, provided that in the judgment of the council or
administrative approval bv the Plannin� Director. such use does not adversely affect
public healtli or safety and the following requirements are met:
(1) In R distf•icts of one acre o�• less and with public sanitary sewer. A lot of
record existing upon January 1, 1975, in any R district of the city of up to
and including one acre, which lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and
which does not meet the requi.rements of this chapter as to area or width
only, may be utilized for single-family detached dwellina purposes
without council approval if the area measurements and width of that lot
are within 80 percent of the requirements of this chapter. However, the lot
of record shall not be more intensely developed unless combined with one
or more abutting lots or portions so as to create a lot meeting the
requirements of this chapter.
(2) In R districts of g��eater• than one acre and served by public sanitary
sewer. A lot of record in any R district in the city in excess of one acre
which does not meet the requirements of this chapter as to area or width
only may be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes �
administrative approval if the Planning Director Ee�i�finds that the
followin�conditions are met:
a. It is at least one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at
least 100 feet;
b. It is served by public sanitary sewer; and
The s�ke�r lanb a?e is deleted;the underlined lanjuage is inserted.
Page 1 of 2
c. It otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter or other
applicable Code provisions.
(3) In R districts not served by public sanitary sewer. A lot of record in any R
district in the city not served by public sanitary sewer must meet the area and
w-idth requirements �f this chapter and shall not be utilized for single-family
detached dwellin�purposes without council approval. Administrative
a roval mav be Qranted for a lot of record not meetinQ the lot area and width
re uirements if the PlanninQ Director finds that the followin� condition� are
met:
__-_ --� -------
---- ---.-_ __ __--...._. --: --,-- --- ---
---
a: -'I'he T-o�area-and��t�wrdf��a�m-ee�-a���as���°!o a- � _ - ����� --_. ._ _
staiidard.
b. Suitable primary and alternate septic sites are identified_on the
�ropertv and are protected from future development bv execution of a
covenant.
c. All other zonin� ordinance requirements must be met. includinv but
not limited to the followina:
� i. Setbacks
ii. Hardcover
iii. Lot covera�e bv structures
iv. AccessorY structure requirements.
Section 2: This Ordinance shall be published in THE PIONEER and THE LAKER
newspapers and shall becoine effective upon approval and publication.
Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this 24`h day of May, 2004 by a vote of
4 ayes and 0 nays.
� { ,� J ....
I��� 7 '�—.�.,��✓�J-G'�
Barbara A. Peterson, Mayor
ATTEST:
,•��;� ,�:�.� �'� ��;z-�
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk
Published in the Laker/Pioneer newspapers the week of Mav 29 , ?004.
The s��Language is deleted;the underlined lanjuage is inserted.
Page 2 of 2
§ 78-72 ORONO CITY CODE
�. width only may be utilized for,��5ingle- method of operation shall be reviewed,
family detached dwelling purpo�es if the and the council shall find that the pro-
co�ncil finds: �f�r posed or e�cisting stock farm will not in its
a. �T�is at least one acre irr�'size, and the opinion be detrimental to the public safety
� and the general welfare.
avexage width of th,e lot is at least
100 feet; f� (2) The establishment of any new building for
b. It is served by p�blic sanitary sewer; the housing of animals or fowl shall be
_ ---—.—._:--�ud._ ----�'----T_.__----=--__ -- - ---___].ocatad.l�D�'eQ��nm.�h�..nearestln�.line _ ___ --- -___ _---
c. It otherwise'me�ts the requirements (3) Products produced on the farm may be
of this c�'apter or..other applicable sold at retail. One temporary roadside
Code rovisions. stand may be established for conducting
P, � `'.
such business. One temporary business
(3) In R districts not serued by pitblic sanitary sign not over eight square feet i.n area
sewer. r'�lot of record in any R district in may i�e located in the front yard during
the city not served by public �anitary the period when products are for sale.
sewer must meet the area and width Off-street parking must be provided for.
requirements of this chapter and shall not (Code 1984, § 10.03(18))
�e utilized for single-family detached dwell-
ing purposes without council approval: Secs. 78-75-78-95. Reserved.
(�o�e 1984, § 10.03(6)(A))
Sec. 78-73. Separation limited. DIVISION 3. APPEALS AND VARIANCES
The separation by the'transfer or sale of non- Subdivision I. In General
conforming,undeveloped lots not served by public
sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrange- �c. 78-96. Board established.
ment, undivided by a public or private road or
road easement and under same or common own- (a) A zoning boaxd of appeals and adjustments
ership is not permitted without council approval. is established. The planning commission is con-
Council approval is not required if the separation stituted as the board of appeals and adjustments.
of such lots results in individual building sites The decisions of the board are advisory to the
that satisfy the area and width requirements of council. The board shall have the following pow-
this chapter. ers:
(Code 1984, § 10.03(6)(C)) (1) To hear and decide appeals from any
affected person where it is alleged that
Sec. 78-74. Farming. there is an error in any order, require-
All farms in existence on January 1, 1975,shall ment, decision or determination made by
be permitted to continue operation subject to the � administrative officer in the enforce-
following conditions: • ment of this chapter.
(1) No new stock farms shall be created or �2) To hear requests for variances in accor-
e�sting stock faxms enlarged more than dance with this chapter.
25 percent over the total number of ani- (3) 1b exercise other functions as provided in
mals that existed on the farm as of Janu- this chapter.
ary 1, 1975, with animals over one year �}�� Subject to such limitations as may be im-
old except under the provisions of a con- posed by the council, the board may adopt rules
ditional use permit. In considering a.ny for the conduct of proceedings before it. Such
such permit, the ma�mum number and rules may include provisions for the giving of
type of animals to be kept shall be deter- oaths to witnesses and the filing of written briefs
mined by the council. The site design and
supp.No. 1 CD78:26
ZONING REGULATIONS § 78-100
by the parties. The board shall provide for a give published or mailed notice to individual
record of its proceedings, which shall include the property owners or defects in the notice shall not
minutes of its meetings, its findings and the invalidate the proceedings.
action taken on each matter heard by it,including
the final order. (b) In addition, a notice shall be published in
(Code 1984, §§ 2_54(1), (2), 10.06(3), 10.08(2)(C)) the official newspaper once at least ten days
before the day of the hearing. If the board autho-
rizes the issuance of a permit, the council shall
Sec. 78-97. Hearings. have six months from the date of the decision of
_ _the boarsl to in���v���r9�sQsiix�s�Q�cs�ixire�such .:_:,
-"'��'�"�`"' "'""`"`"'"""��`�"'fieanng"""�`bs y�Tie�ioar�-o�appea�s`an��adjus�= land or interest in the land• and if no such
ments shall be held within such time and upon proceedings are started within that time, the
such notice to interested parties, as follows: ofi'icer responsible for issuing building permits
(1) The board shall within a reasonable time shall issue the permit if the application otherwise
make its order deciding the matter and conforms to this chapter. The board shall specify
shall serve a copy of such order upon the the exact location, ground area, height and other
appellant or petitioner by mail. details as to the extent and character of the
building for which the permit is granted.
(2) Any party may appear at the hearing in (Code 1984, §§ 2.54(3), 10.06(3)(C), 10.08(2)(B))
person or by agent or attorney. State law reference—Notice of hearings to be as pro-
vided by ordinance,Minn. Stat. §462.354,subd. 2.
(3) Subject to such limitation as may be im-
posed by the council,the board may adopt Sec. 78-99. Appeals procedures.
rules for the conduct of proceedings before �e applicant or other person or officers of the
it; and such rules may include provisions city affected may appeal by filing a written notice
for the giving of oaths to witnesses and stating the action appealed from and stating the
the filing of written briefs by the parties. specific grounds upon which the appeal is made.
(4) The board shall provide for a record of its The notice shall be accompanied by a fee in the
proceedings,which shall include the min- �ount prescribed by the current city fee sched-
utes of its meetings, its findings and the �e payable to the city, which fee shall not be
action taken on each matter heard by it, refundable.
including the final order. (Code 1984, § 10.06(3)(D))
(Code 1984, § 10.06(3)(F))
Sec. 78-100. Subdivisions.
Sec. 78-98. Notice of hearing. Appeals to the board of appeals and adjust-
' ments may be taken by any affected person upon
(a) A notice of the time, place and purpose of compliance with any reasonable conditions im-
the hearing on an appeal or variance shall be posed by the subdivision regulations. The board
mailed at least ten days before the day of the has the following powers with respect to the
hearing to each owner of affected property and subdivision regulations:
property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet
(150 feet in the case of a variance hearing)of the �1) To hear and decide appeals where it is
property. For the purpose of giving mailed notice, �eged that there is an error in any order,
the person responsible for mailing the notice may requirement, decision or determination
use any appropriate records to determine the made by an administrative officer in the
names and addresses of owners. A copy of the enforcement of chapter 82.
notice and a list of the owners and addresses to (2) To hear requests for varying the regula-
which the notice was sent shall be attested to by tions as they apply to specific properties
the responsible person, and shall be made a part where an unusual hardship on the land
of the records of the proceedings. The failure to e�sts,but variances may be granted only
CD78:27
Sent by: MEAGHER GEER ATTY 480 607 9780; 05/20/05 11 :55AM;#210; Page 1/2
.�
�
� 33 SOUTH S1XT!(3TRC�"C, SUl'I'I's 4Z�o
MINNEAPOLIS,MINNBS�TA 55402
TELEPHONE: (612)338-06b1
aTro �s • wr • ��w
FACSIMILE� (�1a)33S•8384
w•ww.mearher.com
Br�dlcy M. Jones
DIRECT D[AL: (612)347-9]96
YNTERNET: bjones aQmeag6er.com
May 20, 2005
To facsimile 95Z-249-4616
Mike Gaffron
Planning Director
Cily of Orono
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay,Minnesota 55323
Re: Dock installation at 1245 North Shore Drive
Dear Mike:
We spoke by telephone in late March and Y believe my wife Cher�l also called you.
'17Ve would like to instal l our dock now so that we can keep our boat al our property rather
than paying for a sli�at a marina. We purchased Ld Callahan's loi last November and �ave the
house to the City of Long Lake and its Fire Department for search and rescue practice and other
training. The house c�me down about February 26, 2005. Wa intend to construct a new house at
that site.
We hope to break ground before September I, 2005. We vuill be looking at close-to-final
drar�vings and site plans with our architect next Tuesday. We hope tha,t the building plans will be
submitted without the need to seek any variances. 'W'o do not foresec impediments to obtaining
the permit and starting construction,except for weather.
'�Vhen we spoke, I soughl information about installing a dock at our property. We had
purchased a boat. W�wancad io keep the boat at our lot on a lift installed as part of a dock
system. To my surprise and chag�in, Y learn�d that Orono prohibits its property ov+mers from
installing docks unless there is a house on the site. Y believe khat Orono is the only City on the
I.ake with that restriction. Apparently, if we ha.d left the vacant house standing until we starte�d
new construction,we could have installed the dock, The dietinction escapes us.
Sent by: MEAGHER GEER ATTY 480 607 9780; 05/20/05 11 :55AM;#210; Page 2/2
•1
J
Mike Gaffron
May 20, 2005
Page Z
We talked about the reasons for thc ordinance: People thinls that a dock on a lot without
a house is a concern to the neighbors because it might be an attraclive hazard. Y have spoken to
both of my neighbors: Jeff Martineau and Joe Jesfier. Both of them have authorized mc tu share
their views lhat they do not object to my i�stallation of a dock. plcase note that we share a
dri�veway with the 7esters. No one ean get to our lot or dock without going down the shared
driveway. The�esters have been vigilant about obs�ving visitors to our property since we
ptuchased it l�t Fa11. They let us kno�uv when stran�gers come and go. 1Vloreover,the dock�t�vould
be installed exactly where Ed Callahan had install�his dock,which is very close to the
Martineau property. Yn other words,both neighhors would notice unauthorized use,
immediately.
Under these circumstances,we seek direction from �rou about haw to proceed. We ace
not happy spending thousands of dollazs to keep our boat in a marina when we ha�e our own
facility and equipment. Criven our lax burden,we feel that this restrictian is unreasonable.
Please call rne.
truty yows
�
W ,
Bradley M. J
BMJ:gss/54506
cc: reffMartineau, 2565 North ShoreDrive, Wayzata, Ml� 55391 •
Joe 7ester, 2515 North Shore Drive, Wayzata,Ml�55391
Cheryl A.Janes
���o�����
� �u-+e�t.�se�. �p ('.�3 v�-�-�r l�bc4t� ��! /�o�/, C��
��2.- � �, S��/y�
� ��� P�� tssc� e� 1�2� d'y
� /Uo .�r�V� ol� �/L�'f �,�1.�' Sca-�-i�� �+���� �J ���
���2�1 �N4dc.e���� �" �.`��'� !"�l�G��t�-" �.� /Vt� r�-t�
7`�+�'-� ��d � � 2-,`�"�(�� ��a r�0 ��'. � �9�va w�� ��
��s s � rN� w N� � t.�-� �-�� V',���c� /�
(�v�-�7--t�►•� ���z��v��N7�n� �,eo v�� �r��� l S t.-c_-�s
-� �. O � c�F fl� ,�fu�v�-Q�--�
`� lr��°� r,�+� � �-�_..- �,,�-�. �a,�.��--� o ti 3�y o.s � ;
�
���;--�N t� � r ���-C�- - H-�`� �.a� 7� � ����..._ �.� rr-��,
�
?� G�j� ri'�E-c_=� 1fio�...�-� s�/�� �i'�2- co�c-� �o
�r�c�r c_y
� ��� S i!/`ti! G.�A2.� �t.��Glc�t �� w w I� G�E�Q/�/L .1 . QN m2
��u� �/2/��� � g�Qa S
�,-� �
� ( � � �"_ 2� • C�� ���-o� ��C.z�t�TI�� � �✓�S� �J,r,�
�,�
�� w �� ����
, ;
; i
� � .
; ; _
; �
; ;
; ��
� �