Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: Narrows Dock lot issues r � � �O� �O_, .. . O ;! ,; J f�;,i ,� CITY of ORONO a , _� l4 Municipal Ot�3ces \�'�1 '� ��", � 1 '�, � ,� � -����.;� �.r�`�`�'�� Street Addross: MaiUn�Addross: �� , �'�+gg0g' 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066 August 9, 2000 Jim Zimmerman 2745 Shadywood Road Excelsior,NIN 55331 Re: Narrows Dock Lot Issues Dear Mr. Zimmerman: We are in receipt of your July 20 memo. The City's position on the various issues surrounding the Narrows dock lots is as follows: 1. Re: Ownership/rental status of the boat "Chop Chop". It is our understanding that the boat "Chop Chop", docked at Wittman's lot, was formerly owned solely by Wittman, but is currently owned by Wittman and Bates jointly.Bates claims that he is the principal owner of the boat and that Wittman's share in the ownership is minimal. Our previous discussion with a representative of Bates resulted in a proposal to re-title "Chop Chop" solely in Wittman's name to eliminate any question that Wittman is an owner of this boat. If such a re-titling did occur, the City would have no basis to consider this as a rental slip situation. The fact that the primary user of the boat is a co-owner not on the title, or is any person not on the title,is a non-issue from the City's perspective,because the code does not prohibit a person from allowing others to use his boat (this would not be the case in the situation where a pure rental or charter craft was being operated as a business in a residential zone). The code sections that apply to slip rental read as follows: 5.43 (Marina Business License): Subd. 1 A: (Definition): "Business Use" means engaging in either a marina business or the business of docking, mooring or storing boats. Subd. 1 C (Definitionl: "Business of Docking, Mooring or Storing Boats" means renting or otherwise providing space,including boat buoys,for docking,mooring or storing one or more boats belonging to persons other than the owner or occupant of the property, except when licensed as a joint use. Telephone(952)249-4600 • Faac(952)249-4616 www ci.orono.mn.us .. • Jim Zimmerman August 9, 2000 Page 2 Subd.2: License Required.It is unlawful for any persons to engage or participate in business use without first having obtained an annual license therefor from the City. Subd. 6: Business Use Licenses Limited to B-2 Zone. No business use shall be licensed in any zoning district other than B-2,except when a business use is allowed by ordinance in another zoning district,such use conducted in said district shall not be required to obtain a license. Per the above,a business use requires a license and a business use license may only be issued for a site in the B-2 zone,hence business use is not allowed in any residential zones. However, the Bates/Wittman situation seems to be ever-changing. We were advised last Thursday by a representative of Bates that Bates has no intent to re-titling the boat to Wittman. Bates claims to have been leasing the land (and its attached dock space) from Wittman for a few years. Bates' representative claims he has a right to use the dock space because he is renting the land which includes the dock space, and is technically the `occupant' of the property. The code allows a boat to be docked when it is owned by the occupant of the property. The City Attomey has reviewed the term `occupancy' in this context and has concluded that `occupancy' likely does not require actual living on the property,but merely requires an occupant to have the leased rights to use the land. City staff will be following this up by attempting to obtain a copy of the lease. We aze advised by Bates' representative that "Chop Chop" will be moved to a different site next year, hence the immediate issue may be resolved in a few months. City staff will be considering possible code revisions prior to the 2001 boating season to close this apparent loophole. Please be aware that until last week the City Attomey has had no direct involvement in this specific matter. We know of no action by the City Attorney to force the removal of"Chop Chop" in 21 days, in 5 days, or in any number of days. Staff has had a number of ongoing discussions with Bates' and Wittman's representatives over the last month,and the issuance of deadlines for action is a fluid process as information is gained. 2. Ginther/Ault Docks. A. Potential CUP Withdrawal. Ginther and Ault have not yet withdrawn their CUP application. We are not convinced that they will withdraw it. They have the right to withdraw it if they so * _. Jim Zimmerman August 9, 2000 Page 3 choose. If they withdraw it,the City will have to decide what actions to take. The decision on what action the City might take is affected by a number of factors, including: . The CUP application was not forced upon Ginther and Ault. They chose to apply for a CUP at the request of City staff, based on the same method of regulation that the City chose to pursue in 1985 for Narrows docks that were owned by persons who did not live in the immediate azea. As you know,the Ginther/Ault dock lot was owned by a neighborhood resident as of 1985, hence no CUP was required at that time for this site. . In 1985 the City appazently concluded that the narrows docks were legally non-conforming by virtue of being in place and generally continually in use since prior to 1-1-68 when the "no accessory use without a principal use" code was first adopted. The City therefore chcsse not to pursue removal of the docks. . The City apparently concluded that those docks owned by persons in the � immediate neighborhood could be considered as accessory to the neazby principal residence, which met the intent of the ordinance (security, primarily) if not the letter of the ordinance. . The City in 1985 chose to further regulate the docks owned by persons who did not own a principal residence in the immediate neighborhood. Absent clear direction in the code,the City chose the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit as an effective way of establishing suitable controls on the non- resident docks. The CUP established minimal standards for parking and dock length, but not much more. The CUP appazently was voluntarily accepted by the non-resident owners of dock lots as a reasonable method to establish their continued rights to use the docks. . Because the Ginther and Ault dock lot was owned by a neighborhood resident in 1985, it was not subject to a CUP. If Ginther and Ault choose not to accept the CUP method of establishing their rights, the City has limited recourse via the CUP process,because the zoning code technically does not require a CUP for a dock. • City staff agrees that expansion from one slip to two slips is an expansion of a non-conforming use.However,removing the second AuldGinther dock slip based on it being added after 1-1-68 is not necessarily as simple as providing an airphoto showing only one dock at some given date in 1971. ._ • Jim Zimmerman August 9, 2000 Page 4 . The findings made by the City Council in the 1985 CUP's support continued use of the existing docks subject to a small number of conditions. At this time the Citv does not intend to�ursue removal of the docks from anv of the dock lots. City staff believes that it will be virtually impossible to legislate these docks out of existence, given their long history of continued use. The issue of whether the second dock on Ginther and Ault's lot is legally nonconforming is extremely murky in our opinion. The factthat the City has allowed this property to exist unhindered with two slips for nearly 30 years makes it difficult for the City to make the case that this use shouldn't be allowed to continue as it has in the past.Had the second dock appeared very recently,the City would be in a much better position to pursue its removal. It is my understanding that the Mayor has had numerous discussions with you and with various dock lot owners in an attempt to gain for you and your neighbors a`first right of refusal' for purchase of the non-resident dock lots as they come up for sale. City staff fully supports the concept that dock lots should be owned by property owners in the immediate neighborhood. City staff will support your efforts to establish covenants which will disallow the separate sale of dock lots from the neighborhood principal residence property to which they are accessory. Such a covenant would provide you with more neighborhood control of the situation than currently exists. B. General expansion of use at the docks: 1. We do not consider the flagpole as an intensification or extension of the nonconforming use or a violation of any past CUP conditions, and we will take no action regarding the flagpole. 2. We do not consider the provision of electricity at the docks as an extension or intensification of a nonconforming use,even though electricity allows the docks to have certain amenities which may be offensive to the neighborhood such as lighting, etc. 3. We do not consider the addition of canopies over the individual docks as an expansion of the nonconforming use. 4. We do not consider ovemight occupancy of boats stored at the docks as an expansion of the nonconforming use. The City has not adopted any ordinances prohibiting overnight occupancy of boats. � , i Jim Zimmerman August 9, 2000 Page 5 5. Based on staff ineasurements this year, none of the docks subject to an existing CUP have been extended past the lengths allowed by the CUP. Docking of boats that aze longer than the docks is not specifically regulated in the City code nor in the existing CUP's. C. Issues Citv Will Address. 1. We believe that the City can address lighting issues through the Zoning Code. The City can require the shielding of the source of lighting(the bulbs)so that it is not visible from adjoining properties. This is normally enforced by the Zoning Department. You or the neighborhood will have to advise us of any specific lighting issues before we will take action. Generally, City staff supports the idea of security lighting for these docks as a deterrent to theft and vandalism,which can spill over into the neighborhood. 2. Noise issues with the use of security alarms, loud music, etc. can be dealt with via the noise ordinance which is enforced by the Police Department. False alanns would be dealt with in the normal manner by the Police Department. City staff supports the use of security systems and alarms as a deterrent to crime. 3. The•issue of the driveway hardcover within 75'of the lake is a zoning matter which the Zoning Department is pursuing. While the placement of gravel does not require a building permit,the location in which it was placed is not legal given that it is considered as hardcover when used as a parking azea. The City has asked Ginther and Ault to remove the hardcover parking azea. Their response is that they will request a variance for the parking area hardcover because the City has eliminated their street parking. 4. The Police Department has advised that pazking on private property is only required to be 3'from a fire hydrant;the norma110'pazking separation is not enforceable on private property. D. Other Issues. 1. I am advised by the LMCD that there may be issues with certain Narrows docks in relation to the dock use areas defined by extended lot lines. This is a separate matter that would have to be addressed through the LMCD. ♦ � � � Jim Zimmerman August 9,2000 Page 6 2. The City intends no additional action in relation to the dock lot parking along County Road 19. The parking ban remains in effect. I hope that this letter provides you with a clear picture of the City's position on this matter. Please contact me at 952-249-4600 if you have any questions. Sincerely, . r/G� U-�/ Michael P. Gaf&on Senior Planning Coordinator cc: Richard Gay Dick Ogle Ron Moorse , Greg Gappa Paul Weinberger Gary Cheswick Thomas Barrett City Council