The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About#3356-variances-1993 � 1 � ��' CITY of ORONO � ��.� � � � �,,.,�_� � RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ,''�,� ��' � NO. .� ��o Y, N � ��9x og�G ESI; � A RESOLUTION DENYING AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 10.22, SUBDIVISION 3 AND SECTION 10.56, SUBDIVISION 16 (n . FILE #1884 WHEREAS, the Ciry of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State Statutes 412 et. seq. and 462 et. seq., the City Council of the City of Orono has adopted zoning regulations for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; and WHEREAS, Orville Fisher (hereinafter "the applicant") is the owner of the property located at 475 Oxford Road within the City of Orono (hereinafter "the Ciry") and legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Stielows Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS, applicant has applied to the City of Orono for after-the-fact variances for approval of tree removal and intensive vegetation clearing within 75' of the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka where no tree removal or intensive vegetation clearing is normally allowed per Municipal Zoning Code Sections 10.22, Subdivision 3 and 10.56, Subdivision 16 (I); and � WHEREAS, tlie Orono Planning Commission after due public notice held a public hearing on October 18, 1993 to review the application, at which time the applicant, his agents, and all other interested members of the public were allowed to comment on the proposed variances; and WI�REAS, the Planning Commission on October 18, 1993 recommended on a vote of 6 ayes, 0 nays, that the after-the-fact variances be denied and that the applicant restore the site per a revegetation plan to be approved by the Ciry Council; and Page 1 of 5 ti.saaa ura�. - . . � ��' CITY of ORONO 0.;, O �;��> ,} RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � � �� , , ,� I�� '�� NO. �. , ,ti ��9xE og�G SII WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application; the recommendations of the City staff and the Planning Commission; and the comments, written statements, and restoration plans submitted by the applicant and his landscaping consultant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the after-the-fact application as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning this properry: FINDINGS l. This property is located in the LR-lA Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 2. The property is located within the Shoreland Overlay District as defined in Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, and therefore is subject to the standards applicable to that district. 3. Municipal Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (I.1) prohibits the removal of live trees with a diameter of 6" or more and located within 75' of the shoreline without first obtaining a permit from the City staff provided at least equivalent number of replacement trees of a size and nature found acceptable to the staff are planted at the same setback from the shoreline as those removed. 4. Municipal Zoning Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 16 (I.2) prohibits intensive vegetation clearing within 75' of the shoreline, but allows limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than 6" in diameter and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees of any size, to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of pernutted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and water craft access areas, and permitted lock boxes, provided that screening of structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. 5. Municipal Code Section 10.56, Subdivision 3.13 defines intensive vegetation ��• clearing" as the complete removal of trees or shrubs in a contiguous patch, strip, row, or block. Page 2 of 5 ►..��. � ��' CITY of ORONO �-��.� � � �,,.,�_� ,� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � 1 �� . �, ��., `;� � NO. , ,y ��9�E o¢�G SS 6. The applicant or his employee under his direct control did remove twelve trees with a diameter greater than 6" located within 75' of the shoreline without first applying for or obtaining a permit from the Ciry. 7. The applicant or his employee under his direct control did intensive vegetation clearing within 75' of the shoreline on the property by removing approximately forty-eight trees of diameter 2" to 6" and dozens of trees with a diameter of 0" to 2 , removing virtually all woody vegetation in the 0-75' zone except for three „ 24" to 30" hardwoods near the north boundary of the property. The Council fmds that this activity meets the definition of intensive vegetation clearing. 8. The applicant upon notification of the violation indicated a knowledge of the code prohibitions on tree cutting, and at the Planning Commission public hearing indicated that while his intent was to gain additional views of the lake from the existing residence, it was not his intent to have the employee remove trees within the 0-75' zone. He stated that the employee did not follow his instructions, but that the applicant is ultimately responsible for the employee's actions. 9. The Council fmds that no acceptable hardship has been presented by the applicant nor has any justification been presented that would support after-the-fact variance approvaL 10. The Council finds that the intensive vegetation clearing that occurred is clearing in excess of that "limited clearing of shrubs and trees and cutting, pruning and trimming of trees which might be allowed by code if screening is not substantially reduced. The Council finds that screening has been substantially reduced, to the detriment of the neighborhood and the users of the lake. 11. The Council finds that the intensive vegetation clearing and tree removal in the 0-75' zone, if approved after-the-fact, would result in the alteration of the essential character of the neighborhood; that the plight of the applicant is created totally by the applicant and not by circumstances unique to the property nor out of applicant's control; that granting of the proposed variance would appear to serve as a convenience to the applicant and the applicant has demonstrated no reasonable hardship or practical difficulty; that the conditions and Zoning Code requirements imposed on this property apply to all other properties in the Page 3 of 5 r.eson ar�a�w� � � ��' CITY of ORONO O ,:� O - �:e�T� ,� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL � �. , � ,� � , '`�;� �, NO. ., ti t��9$ pg�'G . E38 Shoreland Zoning District in which this property is located; and that granting after-the-fact approval is not necessary for preservation and enjoyment of a substantial properry right of the applicant. 12. In review of the factual findings noted above, the Council finds that granting of the proposed after-the-fact variances to allow tree removal and intensive vegetation clearing in the 0-75' zone would be in complete conflict with the environmental standards for lakeshore development within the City and would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The City looks to the broader environmental principles and goals set forth in its Community Management Plan and the intent of this specific zoning district standards when dealing with matters of the public, health, safery and welfare. The City has an obligation to provide its citizens with a designated and optimum level of density, open space and quality of life, which includes the preservation of lakeshore areas in their natural state to the greatest extent possible. 13. The applicant had every opportunity to verify with the City and the staff whether or not the tree removal and intensive vegetation clearing were allowed or whether such activity required a permit, prior to that activity. The intent and full purpose . of the City's Zoning Code and Community Management Plan have been violated in a manner so severe that the City Council must act to deny this application. The City Council cannot approve the illegal actions of a resident or his agents when similar actions would have been denied through the normal review process. FLTRTHERMORE BE .IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby orders the restoration of vegetation on the property within thirty days of the day of this resolution. The applicant and the agents of the City shall.be guided by the following directives in the process�of restoration: 1. Applicant shall replant trees, shrubs, and grasses per the approved restoration plan attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. 2. � Appropriate erosion control measures shall be maintained in place during restoration until the disturbed earth areas are suitably revegetated. Page 4 of 5 �� ' CITY of ORONO O_,�� O ��,�-� ,� RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL '� ti NO. � '� �� ' r � G �9kESH0g'� Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 8th day of November, 1993. . A EST: Do thy . Ha in, City Clerk Edward J. Calla n, r., Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) . The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 8th day of November, 1993, by Edward J. Callahan, Jr. & Dorothy M. Hallin, Mayor & City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Ciry. � �.��w ,� ��-� Notary Public LINDA S. VEE � � N07ARY PUBLJG- MINNES07A �HEN��a� Page 5 of 5 ►«.��.�«. � . � ... � EXHIBIT A.,, , �' RESOL. NO��z' : > �, a � . ' 01 a, o� o� , � �a � � , . _ � � � . � � � � i � , . � , � � � • ' Y m O g � W . � � � • �� _� n� � � �� . ; I i �9 • g � a 8 � c�. . . � �S $ � I U 0 n 1 � � � �i � 1 Rl � � � � a � 1 �. �� , '� 1 N �- ��'— � � � r � r �\ C $� / .�� m , � � � � 1 n � s� 1 \ / �$ � C � . � � � 1 g � � ✓ � � � � � ; � � �'I / � g ` w�� w� � � � � . i i � . 1 � i i� 1 � �. � � i � � . , -- , \ '� '" � � � � �, �� . ` � a3 � y� � � . � �, - .- ° � 3 � � o Q N p � o Bc� 2 . �4L A O