Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-13-2019 Council Work Session PacketOrono City Council Special Work Session Monday, April 13, 2019 Council Chambers 5:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Marina Licensing 2. Crystal Bay Road Lake Lots 3. Wayzata Country Club Boundary Adjustment Request Annual: • Budget: Part of June, All of July, August and October. • City Administrator & Police Chief Update (3 times per year for 15 minutes) Previous Work Session Topics April 22, 2019 • Orono Planning and Road Funding March 19, 2019 • Policy Discussion February 25, 2019 • Park Commission Applicant Interviews: • Planning Commission Applicant Interviews: • LMCD Update — Mark Kroll CITY OF ORONO MEMORANDUM DATE: May 13, 2019 TO: Mayor Walsh, City Council FROM: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP, Community Development Director RE: Marina Licensing Councilmember Seals has requested the City Council discuss Marina Licensing, with the potential of re -instituting Orono's Marina licensing program. Staff seeks direction based on the three options identified below. The City currently has 5 marinas, at 3324 North Shore Drive, 3222 North Shore Drive, 1955 Shoreline Drive, 1444 Shoreline Drive, and 1449 Shoreline Drive. All of these marinas are located within the B-2 Zoning District. The City Code requires licenses for Marinas within the B-2 zoning district; though no license has been issued since 2005. In 2008, applications were received and fees were paid for both 2007 and 2008, but licenses were not issued by the City Council. Since 2008, no license activity has occurred. The City Code (Sec. 94-74) includes the following business license operational standards: (1) Parking facilities on the site shall be managed so as to eliminate traffic or parking congestion, eliminate illegal on -street parking, and avoid pedestrian traffic through neighboring property. (2) Boat engine testing and charging shall be limited to the hours 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (3) Retail sales and service shall be limited to the hours 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. except as necessary to accommodate normal fishing activity or private use of premises -stored boats. (4) The site shall be kept neat and orderly, and free of garbage. (5) On -land storage of boats shall be managed so as to eliminate any view obstructions for traffic entering and leaving the site. (6) Parking and on -land storage of boats, trailers, materials and equipment shall be limited to those locations shown on an approved site operation plan, which plan shall be submitted or updated as part of the annual license application. Such site operation plan shall also indicate seasonally variable uses. (7) Lights shall be shielded from the road, the lake and adjacent properties. Attached as Exhibit B are the site plans reviewed as part of the 2005 licensing process. Also attached (Exhibit C) are pictures taken May 8th of the 5 operating Marinas. Additional pictures will be available on Monday. If Council direction is to reinstitute licensing, the license application would be reviewed based on the licensing standards above. If the Council desires to add or remove conditions or standards, a formal ordinance amendment would be required. In the past, it appears that license application information was sent out in March, and inspections occurring later in April. Staff recommends that license administrative activities occur in the winter, for the upcoming summer season. This avoids impacting the businesses during their busy time of the year. Marina licenses have not been created in Citizen serve, however, this can be incorporated into that process in a relatively short time. Given the recent history of no license, it is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing to facilitate a dialogue between the marina owners/ operators and Council regarding issues and concerns. Options Staff has identified three options, to be acted on at an upcoming City Council meeting: 1. Remove the requirement for a marina to obtain an annual license. (Requires an ordinance amendment, public hearing) 2. Re -institute the license program, with no changes to the standards. (Requires formal Council action, public hearing recommended. Staff will draft a resolution and review process for consideration at an upcoming Council meeting.) 3. Re -institute the license program with changes to the standards. (Requires formal Council action, public hearing recommended. Staff will draft a resolution, ordinance amendment, and review process for consideration at an upcoming Council meeting.) Attachments Exhibit A. Summary of Marina information Exhibit B. Pictures of active marinas Exhibit C. Site Operation Plans Exhibit D. Section 94-74 Exhibit E. Section 78-661 — 678, B-2 Regulations Winter/ Parking Parking Marina Name Address Owner Governing Resolutions Boat Storage required by approved (by Transistion Units parking (20% of Code resolution) required) Brown's Bay Marina 1444 Shoreline Dr. EOF 2442 (VAR, inc. Park); 2674 (Var 97 77 73 per resolution 15 Investments, and Site Plan); 6037 (CUP Boat 2674 LLC Club); 6369 (Site Plan) North Shore Marina East (fka 1449 Shoreline Dr. RLA Family LP 2308 (CUP and Var); 2638 (CUP, 114 per Res 78 71 (per 14 Windward Marina) Attn: Richard Site Plan, and Var); 3835 (CUP, 2638 (111 resolution 3835) Anderson Site Plan, and Var, inc. Parking); per Res 3835) 68 per resolution 3841 (Denial of CUP and Var) 2638 Marina (fka Sailors Word Marina & 1955 Shoreline Dr. EOF 2193 (CUP); 2194 (Site Plan and 75 per Res 48 42 (must provide 9 Boat Club) Investments, Var, inc. Parking); 2306 (CUP 3582 written LLC and Var); 2648 (Site Plan and discussion, confirmation of *Presumed, Var. inc. Parking); 2891 (Site 79 per 2003 25 off site stalls Ownership data Plan and Var. inc. Parking); 3371 license not updated Var and Site Plan); 3478 (Var and Site Plan); 3582 (CUP Boat Club) North Shore Marina Maxwell Bay 3222 North Shore Dr. RLA Family LP 1623 (Var) 165 (158 per 103 21 Attn: Richard 2003 license) Anderson Wayzata Marine 3324 North Shore Dr. Maxwell Bay No Resolution 82 total (77 95 No Resolution 19 Properties, LLC in water, 5 on land) per 2003 license 1 y(fa Skovllw e - - - n►, �,�aT � Ccs S , _ f i �c/A_,G-5$_'AC•CS._.12-�-T-'c.<1,2.�iJ— — - - —' - cF � i L)ir� - —- 7 zsa UNC' nA1NN�� S OWNfs BAY —t°' OSEAKWAT EA THIS UNE 13 107 fa0u EXISTWG SN011EUME/ ( - - _ — - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ ` .\ �G J_. _—_—j! f«:+-K�Lf% ___ _ _ _—___ •_ CAZ ----- ,, O`' __ _ ty, 17 .r r A ` a'P,.G �^Z ` 1 FUN \ 81� 1 _ G:.)_ Ga w ..vim/+y.. "` `"a (/ • ./////j�jjhh,�; ?� , \ \ a,a.a (a �) PROPOSED PAFKING�LAYOD\T 68 SPACES GRAVEL'SURFAC���/�/ IN------------ _ `_ � _ 1 ,�V/ Sru•nt.�1 G 6 co.+or+a 6ry1..1 \ 1� _ ICES•• E1[ISTwI(. �_e .vCL ---_ � •'.1F� , � \�•. 11 ^y - � H` �� +ate_ �1� � "'�� „'• \ r ujoo) o C�1 el 21 /1 -` i' tistiNEi3'ooFp���®� syO \\ �A = ,�,„ ► X75 1 `�•se`ti�� • we � . RUN U kii twisf w0owe ►�) . N P� l � P__ P.4s7�}PPP.vUA2 S>---- -IS L4 w-tLno— 7 -- o ilkH _ �vLz� S �® z r f AIR". I" . I N In rn cu Pte' �, �'`•� . `'jD BSC. . NOT N" Y'^a tdkc { r ,AY44 G _r,o2 C4P- FA iX1CiE__-- O 66 5 A -DI ro �3 � 20 ± At>\ VII • we � . RUN U kii twisf w0owe ►�) . N P� l � P__ P.4s7�}PPP.vUA2 S>---- -IS L4 w-tLno— 7 -- o ilkH _ �vLz� S �® z r f AIR". I" . I N In rn cu Pte' �, �'`•� . `'jD BSC. . NOT N" Y'^a tdkc { r ,AY44 G _r,o2 C4P- FA iX1CiE__-- O 66 5 A -DI ro �3 � 20 ± At>\ zx \\\K\\,,� x AjLyf— Aepiwvzs--. Sri P4AjQ 2-41jr,>,S CAelAJ O I I 14if 64oeAiit 7-s 2-s 0 L4 2- WaAVA SP -c-tklc-ek MDP-C-4-rUA--IMA- t4F- K-- 4 1-00.2 lot BttlLb!N6 5zz z A+ice woo ��ll� 5 T ve )n ar—p- A 4 -ee AJ 2s— ------ 2- -7 0--"" .0 961 I EDO _ �• t / / 'ry cot)lq t),q i PAIZV4&JC,1gAe-b(:Ovr� P� (ADAP-r� Fgotvt IA5� /A) Me-,APPL,,-�92-3) WRIoA VJks APPrWet, Pe(,, - P' - L #/&Z3 Fo a- e -AV I c 6 9tAL-D/N(, St-TM&k- VAYZIA,"JC--.S) r=50 1 cve3- 2? I,- /AIT 0-75 so 7 g,- 7, so, -vo If 0--"" .0 961 I EDO _ �• t / / 'ry cot)lq t),q i PAIZV4&JC,1gAe-b(:Ovr� P� (ADAP-r� Fgotvt IA5� /A) Me-,APPL,,-�92-3) WRIoA VJks APPrWet, Pe(,, - P' - L #/&Z3 Fo a- e -AV I c 6 9tAL-D/N(, St-TM&k- VAYZIA,"JC--.S) r=50 1 cve3- 2? I,- /AIT 'ry cot)lq t),q i PAIZV4&JC,1gAe-b(:Ovr� P� (ADAP-r� Fgotvt IA5� /A) Me-,APPL,,-�92-3) WRIoA VJks APPrWet, Pe(,, - P' - L #/&Z3 Fo a- e -AV I c 6 9tAL-D/N(, St-TM&k- VAYZIA,"JC--.S) r=50 1 cve3- 2? I,- /AIT (NASXA hiAR/Nf EXHIEBIT Hwy. 212, Chaska, MN 55318. (612) 448-2075 (Ahu LGROMF A21A 562ulit' AuesL I'PATA VI c I-) ICNIN IXVI\\ \0D 9:3 SG20�e A 17'm Ul 7 A 7 jilm-E- 7: zo Q -7 S__ 2- go -Sr- 'WoZel V A�R or Pnm,. -Foe Figure 1: 1444 Shoreline Figure 2: 1444 Shoreline Figure 3: 1449 Shoreline Figure 4: 1955 Shoreline ARTICLE III. - MARINAS DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY Sec. 94-71. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Boat slip, water, boat slip, /and, boat slip, permanent, and boat slip, transient, shall have the meanings given them in section 94-36. 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. Business use means engaging in either a marina business or the business of docking, mooring or storing boats. Marina business means engaging in one or more of the permitted, accessory or conditional uses allowed within the B-2 zoning district. (Ord. No. 117 2nd series, § 2(5.43(1)), 6-28-1993) Cross reference— Definitions generally, § 1-2. Sec. 94-72. - Zoning standards. Businesses required to be licensed under this article shall be subject to the requirements and performance standards of the B-2 zoning district. (Ord. No. 117 2nd series, § 2(5.43(5)), 6-28-1993) Cross reference— Zoning, ch. 78. Sec. 94-73. - Designation of primary operator. The primary business operator on the property shall be the licenseholder and shall be responsible for notifying the city of any and all businesses subleased on the premises. Such secondary businesses shall not be separately licensed but shall be allowed only when in conformance with the provisions of the B-2 zoning district standards. (Ord. No. 117 2nd series, § 2(5.43(5)(B)), 6-28-1993) Sec. 94-74. - Operation standards. Each business licensee shall adhere to the following minimum operation standards: (1) Parking facilities on the site shall be managed so as to eliminate traffic or parking congestion, eliminate illegal on -street parking, and avoid pedestrian traffic through neighboring property. (2) Boat engine testing and charging shall be limited to the hours 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (3) Retail sales and service shall be limited to the hours 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. except as necessary to accommodate normal fishing activity or private use of premises -stored boats. (4) The site shall be kept neat and orderly, and free of garbage. (5) On -land storage of boats shall be managed so as to eliminate any view obstructions for traffic entering and leaving the site. (6) Parking and on -land storage of boats, trailers, materials and equipment shall be limited to those locations shown on an approved site operation plan, which plan shall be submitted or updated as part of the annual license application. Such site operation plan shall also indicate seasonally variable uses. (7) Lights shall be shielded from the road, the lake and adjacent properties. (Ord. No. 117 2nd series, § 2(5.43(5)(C)), 6-28-1993) Secs. 94-75-94-95. - Reserved. DIVISION 2. - LICENSE Sec. 94-96. - Required. It is unlawful for any persons to engage or participate in a business use without first having obtained an annual license from the city. (Ord. No. 117 2nd series, § 2(5.43(2)), 6-28-1993) Sec. 94-97. - Application. Any person or group of persons making license application for a business use shall do so on forms provided by the city and shall provide such information as may be deemed necessary by the council in order to act on such application. The fee for license application shall be set by resolution. (Ord. No. 117 2nd series, § 2(5.43(3)), 6-28-1993) Sec. 94-98. - Hearing. Upon filing of any application for a business use license, the council may call a hearing upon such notice as it may deem appropriate. No such hearing shall be mandatory but wholly within the discretion of the council, except that a hearing shall be held at the request of the applicant in cases of license revocation or denial. (Ord. No. 117 2nd series, § 2(5.43(4)), 6-28-1993) Sec. 94-99. - Insurance required. Each business shall provide certification of liability insurance coverage for the duration of the license period. (Ord. No. 117 2nd series, § 2(5.43(5)(A)), 6-28-1993) Sec. 94-100. - Business use licenses limited to B-2 zone. No business use shall be licensed in any zoning district other than B-2; except that when a business use is allowed by ordinance in another zoning district, such use conducted in that district shall not be required to obtain a license. (Ord. No. 117 2nd series, § 2(5.43(6)), 6-28-1993) Sec. 94-101. - Revocation. Failure to adhere to this article shall be cause for license suspension or revocation. (Ord. No. 117 2nd series, § 2(5.43(7)), 6-28-1993) Secs. 94-102-94-135. - Reserved. DIVISION 13. - B-2 LAKESHORE BUSINESS DISTRICT Sec. 78-661. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Charter boat means a watercraft carrying passengers for hire on Lake Minnetonka and which is required to hold a certificate of registration from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. Marina business means engaging in one or more of the permitted, accessory or conditional uses allowed within the B-2 lakeshore business district. (Code 1984, § 10.41(2); Ord. No. 132 2nd series, § 2, 1-23-1995) Cross reference— Definitions generally, § 1-2. Sec. 78-662. - Purpose. The B-2 lakeshore business district was originally intended to provide areas where limited commercial businesses could be located to service boats used for recreational purposes on Lake Minnetonka. However, many of the operators of the lakeshore businesses have stripped the trees and vegetation from the shorelands and have expanded the operations so that now the B-2 lakeshore business district adversely affect the lake water quality and the real estate values of adjoining properties. The purpose of this division is to provide regulation of these businesses in a manner that will ensure protection of adjacent residential properties which have previously suffered from the unregulated expansion of commercial activities, while protecting and enhancing the quality of the lake and shoreland environment. (Code 1984, § 10.41(1); Ord. No. 132 2nd series, § 2, 1-23-1995) Sec. 78-663. - Business license required. Each marina business within the B-2 lakeshore business district shall obtain an annual marina business license per the provisions of this Code. (Code 1984, § 10.41(3); Ord. No. 132 2nd series, § 2, 1-23-1995) Sec. 78-664. - Site plan review. All site plan reviews in the B-2 lakeshore business district shall be reviewed as set forth in article II, division 4 of this chapter. (Code 1984, § 10.41(4); Ord. No. 132 2nd series, § 2, 1-23-1995; Ord. No. 68 3rd series, § 5, 2-8-2010) Sec. 78-665. - Permitted uses. Within the B-2 lakeshore business district, no land or structure shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) Rental of in -water boat slips. (2) Sales of boats, motors, trailers and marine accessories. (3) Repair and servicing of boats. (4) On -land storage of boats, winter and summer. (5) Marine fuel sales. (6) Bait and fishing tackle sales. (Code 1984, § 10.41(5); Ord. No. 132 2nd series, § 2, 1-23-1995) Sec. 78-666. - Conditional uses. No conditional use permit shall be granted unless the property is found to be in compliance with the landscaping and screening requirements of this division. All conditional use permit applications shall be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of article V of this chapter. Within any B-2 lakeshore business district, no structure or land shall be used for the following uses without a conditional use permit: (1) Boat clubs (time share). The applicant shall demonstrate that adequate parking is available on the site. (2) Public boat launching, on -demand (on -demand launching of customer -owned boats stored on the business site). The applicant shall demonstrate that adequate parking is available on the site. Approval shall be subject to Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) permit for such use, but the city shall not be obligated to approve such use if approved by the LMCD when parking is inadequate. (3) Public boat launching, transient. (Launching of boats via a ramp or other means for or by customers when such boats are not stored on the site). The applicant shall demonstrate that adequate car -trailer parking is available on the site. Hours of operation shall be at council discretion. (4) Charter boat port of call. A charter boat port of call shall be defined as a location where a charter boat may pick up passengers other than the owner or operator or employees of the charter boat, whether or not the charter boat is normally berthed on the property. The city may place appropriate conditions on a charter boat port of call regarding minimum parking requirements, hours of operation, etc., as may be appropriate to protect public interest. The applicant shall demonstrate to the council that all such conditions are met. (5) One caretaker dwelling unit, subject to conditions and limitations for such use that may be imposed by the city council. (Code 1984, § 10.41(7); Ord. No. 132 2nd series, § 2, 1-23-1995) Sec. 78-667. - Accessory uses. Within any B-2 lakeshore business district, the only permitted accessory uses and structures are the following: (1) Signs, as regulated in this chapter. (2) Boat head pumpout/sanitary boat waste dumping facility. (3) Fishing tournaments, subject to all other permit requirements of this Code. (4) Sale of prepackaged foods or food from vending machines. Prepackaged food includes only food which has been professionally prepared at a location other than on the premises and does not include full - course meals or any food preparation other than warming by use of an infrared or microwave oven. Sale of food from vending machines is allowed. (5) Dive shops. (6) Clubhouse (assembly/lounge/kitchenette area for use by slip rental or boat club customers only). (7) Lessons/teaching (sailing schools, etc.). (8) Rental of boats. (9) Sailboard sales/rental. (10) Ice boating sales/rental/service and operations base. (11) Ice fishing tackle sales. (12) Cross-country ski sales/rental/service. (13) Other uses that are customarily incidental to, and subordinate to, the allowed permitted and conditional uses in this district. (Code 1984, § 10.41(6); Ord. No. 132 2nd series, § 2, 1-23-1995; Ord. No. 106 3rd series, § 14, 6-10-2013) Sec. 78-668. - Parking requirements. Within the B-2 lakeshore business district, the off-street parking facilities shall be sufficient to eliminate any traffic or parking congestion likely to be caused by the business conducted. The parking areas need not be paved but shall be provided with appropriate stormwater runoff quality/quantity controls as may be required in this division. The minimum parking requirements shall be as follows: (1) Six parking spaces shall be provided for each ten boat slips on water or on land. (2) At least eight off-street parking spaces, plus one additional space for each 800 square feet of floor area over 1,000 feet, including warehousing, and all outside sales and storage areas related to the sales and service functions. (3) If the proposed use is to include the launching of boats owned by the public for the day from trailers (i.e., public boat launching, transient), ten additional auto -trailer parking spaces shall be provided for each ramp. (4) If the proposed use is to include a charter boat port of call, one additional parking space for each three seats of gross charter capacity shall be provided, or a plan for off-site parking and shuttle service shall be provided to the city subject to council approval. (5) The required parking spaces may not be separated by a public roadway from the dock, a storage space, mooring space, floor space or ramp they are designed to serve. (6) Required off-street parking space may not be utilized for open storage of goods or for the storage of boats; except that during the winter storage season each year, the required off-street parking may be used for winter storage of boats, provided that 20 percent of the required parking spaces remain as a functional parking area. During the transition seasons (April 15 to May 31 and September 16 to November 15), adequate parking shall be maintained on the site, sufficient to eliminate traffic or parking congestion; but in no case shall parking be reduced to less than 20 percent of the required spaces. (7) Parking may not be allowed in any required yard or landscaping area. (8) Employee parking spaces shall be in addition to the parking spaces required in subsections (1)—(7) of this section. The number of employee parking spaces shall be designated on an official parking plan to be kept on file with the city. (9) Where these minimum parking requirements prove to be inadequate for a given use, additional parking may be required in order to continue that use. (Code 1984, § 10.41(8); Ord. No. 132 2nd series, § 2, 1-23-1995) Sec. 78-669. - Yards. The minimum required yard areas for the B-2 district shall be landscaped and planted with evergreen and deciduous shrubs and trees in accordance with a detailed landscape plan. Storage of boats, vehicles, equipment and materials shall not be allowed within any required yard. (Code 1984, § 10.41(9); Ord. No. 132 2nd series, § 2, 1-23-1995) Sec. 78-670. - Landscaping areas. In addition to the landscaping required in the required yard areas for the B-2 district, the following landscaping areas shall be landscaped in accordance with the following provisions: (1) The minimum landscaping areas shall be as follows: a. The lakeshore landscaping area shall be an area that is parallel to the entire lakeshore adjacent to the licensed marina operation and equal to ten percent of the average lot depth, but in no case shall it be less than ten feet nor more than 75 feet. Breaks in the landscaping area for access to the lake shall not exceed an aggregate width of 30 feet for each marina operation. b. Side yard landscaping area shall be an area that is parallel to the side lot line and not within the lakeshore landscaping area or front yard landscaping area and shall not be less than ten feet deep. c. Front yard landscaping area shall be an area that is parallel to the street or opposite the lakeshore landscaping area and shall not be less than ten feet deep. Breaks in the landscaping area for access to the public road shall not exceed an aggregate width of 50 feet for each marina operation. (2) The detailed landscape plan for each landscaping area shall provide for a natural woods area containing primarily evergreen and deciduous trees not less than six feet in height. Shrubs not less than two feet in height shall be interdispersed among the trees so as to eventually provide, at maturity, a natural screen that will not be less than 50 percent opaque during the summer months. No uses shall be allowed in the landscaping area except the required landscaping and access roads. A privacy fence may be required in addition to the natural landscaping which has been planted to meet the requirements of this district. The use of any fencing shall not satisfy the requirements of providing natural landscaping and solid visual screening. Any yard area requiring landscaping to meet the requirements of this district shall be planted with nursery stock, balled and bagged trees and shrubs. All landscaping shall be maintained in a healthy growing condition. (3) All the required improvements in the landscaping will be completed prior to the date of issuance of an occupancy certificate or as otherwise provided by this division, whichever date occurs first. (4) All landscape areas shall be sufficiently delineated by berming, curbing or other acceptable physical barrier so as to eliminate the encroachment of vehicle parking, winter and summer boat storage, and other materials or equipment storage into the required landscape areas. (5) All ground cover in the required landscaping areas shall be natural living materials, such as grass or other planted ground cover. Decorative rock beds and the like, whether or not lined with plastic, fabric or other weed inhibitors, shall constitute no more than ten percent of the required landscape areas. (Code 1984, § 10.41(10); Ord. No. 132 2nd series, § 2, 1-23-1995) Sec. 78-671. -Additional performance standards. Within the B-2 lakeshore business district, any land use must meet the following performance standards: (1) Suitable sanitary facilities connected to public sanitary sewer shall be provided on the premises for men and women, and, further, suitable facilities shall be provided for the disposal of wastes accumulated in boats docked or serviced at the marina, including head pumpout facilities and a designated porta-potty dump station. (2) Insofar as practicable, all means of access to the operation from any street shall be so located and designed as to avoid the routing of vehicles from the property over streets that primarily serve abutting residential areas. All access roads from the operation to any public paved roadway shall be paved for a distance of at least 30 feet adjacent to the public roadway to minimize dust and noise conditions. All access roads from the operation to any unpaved public roadway shall be treated to minimize dust conditions at least to the extent the unpaved public roadway is dust controlled. (3) All lighting on the premises shall be shielded so that no direct glare can be seen from adjoining residences, from the lake or from the roadway. (4) The hours for running engines or operating any boat engine for the purpose of charging batteries, running auxiliary equipment or testing shall be between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Noise shall be limited per the provisions of this chapter. (5) The maximum hours of operation for retail sales and service functions shall be 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., except as necessary to support normal (nontournament) fishing activity or private (noncharter) use of the boats stored on the premises, unless other permission is specifically granted by the council. (6) Persons in charge shall at all times keep the docks, sea walls and premises in a neat and orderly manner and free from trash, rubbish, repair parts, machinery, equipment and debris of all kinds. (7) Persons in charge shall prohibit the dumping or throwing of garbage, paper, bottles, cans, refuse or debris into waterway. Persons in charge of mooring areas shall provide garbage cans of sufficient size to hold garbage or refuse to be collected. Dumpsters shall be screened so as to not be visible off-site. (8) No commercial docks or boat buoys shall extend further into the waters of any lake than is reasonably necessary to accommodate the docking and mooring of such craft as shall customarily and lawfully be used on the lake or so as to interfere with, obstruct, tend to obstruct, or render dangerous for use or passage a body of water within the primary harbor limits of the city. The length of docks and the location of buoys shall be regulated by this Code. All such commercial docks and wharves shall be constructed and maintained of such materials and of such type of construction as will not render them unsafe or likely to endanger public enjoyment of the waters. The use of nonencased expanded -bead polystyrene foam as a dock flotation material has been prohibited in section 90-1. Commercial docks shall be maintained in a neat and orderly manner at all times. (9) If on -land boat storage facilities are provided, the boats shall be stored in such manner that they do not create a fire hazard. Any outside structures for the purpose of storage of boats may not exceed 15 feet in height. On -land boat storage areas may not be located in the required yards or landscaping areas. The premises shall at all times be maintained in a neat and orderly manner. (10) Any gasoline offered for sale or stored on the premises shall be placed in tanks or containers as may be required by the council, and as required in chapter 46, article II. Such tanks or containers shall be stored in such a manner and location so as not to create a danger to the community. (11) On -land boat density shall be as follows: a. Summer boat density. The number of boats stored on the premises for any and all reasons shall not exceed that number which can be safely stored in allowable locations while maintaining appropriate ingress, egress and emergency access to the site, as well as maintaining the required number of acceptable parking spaces. Boats shall not be stored in required auto parking spaces during the summer months Qune 1 through September 15). b. Winter boat density/storage. The number of boats stored on the premises for any and all reasons during the winter season (November 16 through April 14) shall not exceed that number which can be safely stored in allowable locations while maintaining ingress, egress and emergency access to the site, as well as maintaining the required number of winter parking spaces. c. A site plan designating the location of summer and winter boat storage shall be submitted for council approval no later than three months after January 23, 1995, and shall require council approval for any future revisions. (Code 1984, § 10.41(11); Ord. No. 132 2nd series, § 2, 1-23-1995) Sec. 78-672. - Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in any B-1 district shall exceed 30 feet in height. (b) Minimum requirements. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: (1) Lot area, two acres. (2) Lot width parallel to lake, 200 feet. (3) Lot width perpendicular to lakeshore, 200 feet. (4) Lakeshore yard, 75 feet. (5) Side yard, ten feet. (6) Front yard along street, 30 feet. (Code 1984, § 10.41(12); Ord. No. 132 2nd series, § 2, 1-23-1995; Ord. No. 18 3rd series, § 3, 9-27-2004; Ord. No. 173 3rd series, § 12, 6-27-2016) Sec. 78-673. - Setback, hard cover and tree removal regulations. All property in the B-2 lakeshore business district is subject to the requirements of article IX of this chapter. In addition, the following standards shall apply: (1) Lakeshore setback regulations. The building setback from the shoreline shall be 75 feet. (2) Setback to residential. No operation or activities except for storage and parking may be conducted closer than 50 feet to the boundary of an adjoining property line which property is used for residential purposes. (3) Setback alongstreets. No operation or activities except for storage and parking may be conducted closer than 50 feet to the right-of-way of any existing street, road or highway. (4) Lakeshore hardcover regulations. Within 75 feet of the shoreline there shall be no excavating, filling, hard cover, temporary or permanent structures. Within 75 to 250 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 25 percent hard cover. Within 250 to 500 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 30 percent hard cover. Within 500 to 1,000 feet of the shoreline, there shall be no greater than 35 percent hard cover. (5) Tree removal regulations. No trees within 75 feet of the shoreline with a diameter of six inches or more shall be removed without first obtaining a permit from the council. Tree removal and other vegetation management shall be in accordance with the ordinance. (Code 1984, § 10.41(13); Ord. No. 132 2nd series, § 2, 1-23-1995) Sec. 78-674. - Drainage. No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant any time a new use is applied for, whether through subdivision, variance, conditional use permit or building permit. Such plans shall be provided in such detail as required by the council, and those plans shall be reviewed by the city engineer before submission to the planning commission and the council for approval. Such stormwater runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural watercourse, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Construction of facilities to manage the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff may be required. Any change in grade affecting water runoff, whether onto adjacent property or otherwise, must be in compliance with the surface water management plan and articles VIII and IX of this chapter, and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations or provisions of this Code, and is further subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. (Code 1984, § 10.41(14); Ord. No. 132 2nd series, § 2, 1-23-1995) Sec. 78-675. - Nonconforming use. Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, any nonconforming use of land not involving a structure and any nonconforming use involving a structure with an assessor's fair market value on January 1, 1975, of $3,000.00 shall be allowed to continue as a nonconforming use subject to the provisions as set forth in article II, division 2, of this chapter. (Code 1984, § 10.41(15); Ord. No. 132 2nd series, § 2, 1-23-1995) Sec. 78-676. - Variances. (a) Variances may be granted to the provisions of this division in accordance with the provisions set forth in article II, division 3, subdivision II, of this chapter. (b) The council may grant a variance allowing a four-year installation and planting period to meet the requirements of the landscaping and planting provisions of this division to any applicant who: (1) Submits a detailed landscape plan showing sufficient planting and landscaping in each of the four years in order to provide at the end of the four years a natural screen that will not be less than 50 percent opaque during the summer months and not less than 25 percent opaque in winter. (2) Submits a four-year planting and landscaping plan which shall provide that in each year of the plan at least 25 percent of the necessary landscaping and planting (as determined by the council as of May 1, 1995) be planned and completed for each required landscaping area according to the other provisions of this division. The council may vary this requirement in order to allow a higher percentage of the landscaping and planting in any required landscaping area and credit the applicant for the landscaping and planting which otherwise would be required in other landscaping areas. (Code 1984, § 10.41(16); Ord. No. 132 2nd series, § 2(10.41(16), 10.41(17)), 1-23-1995) Sec. 78-677. - Regulation of structures within the lake; adoption by reference. The city adopts by reference and makes a part of this chapter as if fully set forth in this division, chapter II of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Code as codified on May 27, 1988, including sections 2.001 through 2.12 and subsequent amendments. The city expressly reserves the right to deny any variance to the provisions of chapter II as amended, even though the same variance was granted by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. (Ord. No. 132 2nd series, § 2(10.41(18)), 1-23-1995) Sec. 78-678. - Reference to other ordinances. This division is expressly conditioned upon the effectiveness of the ordinances of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District pertaining to marina regulations; and if all or a portion of such ordinances are declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, no marina shall have a longer dock, more boat slips or more boat buoys than what was permitted by the terms of that ordinance on the date it was declared invalid, or than was last approved by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, whichever is less. The city expressly reserves the power to be more restrictive in its regulation than the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Ordinances if the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city so requires. (Ord. No. 132 2nd series, § 2(10.41(19)), 1-23-1995) Secs. 78-679-78-700. - Reserved. CITY OF ORONO MEMORANDUM DATE: May 13, 2019 TO: Mayor Walsh, City Council members FROM: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP, Community Development Director RE: Crystal Bay Road Lake lots The City of Orono owns 4 parcels between the platted portion of Crystal Bay Road and the Lake. Periodically, staff receives inquiries from property owners wishing to purchase one of these lots. These inquiries expanded in number this winter when 3407 Crystal Bay Road was for sale, and the advertisement suggested potential buyers contact the city to inquire about dock rights. More recently, a realtor contacted the administrator regarding the parcels. This winter, observing the placement of private property, including at least one dock, on the city lots, city staff sent a letter to all four adjacent property owners advising them to remove their private property. Two of these owners ignored the letter, there is one dock installed, and another stored on shore as of May 3, 2019. There is substantial, complicated history on the properties, summarized in a 2011 staff memo, attached at Exhibit C. ■ These four lots are subject to bathing and boating rights (Rights) potentially provided to the property owners of 4 plats, illustrated on the attached Exhibit B. ■ Title examination to fully understand the reach of these Rights has not been completed; in 2011, the cost was estimated at $25-30,000 ■ The Rights would not be extinguished on the sale of the lots, meaning the buyer would necessarily have sole use of the lake shore. ■ It is unknown if property owners (assuming adjacent owners) could place docks, as it may impact the boating and bathing rights. In 2011, staff identified a number of options. More detailed explanation of these options can be found on page two of Exhibit C: 1. Sell the lots. Though the process (to who, how much, etc.) would need to be determined. 2. Do nothing. Do not resolve the ownership/ reach question. 3. Determine reach of Rights. Have title work completed. This item is not included in the 2019 budget. 4. Require Dock removal. Enforce the placement of private property on city land. Staff seeks confirmation of the city policy to not sell these properties and to enforcement the placement of private property on city land. Hennepin County Property Map Date: 5/3/2019 PARCEL ID: 1711723430119 OWNER NAME: Town Of Orono PARCEL ADDRESS: 38 Address Unassigned, Orono MN 00000 PARCEL AREA: 0.03 acres, 1,199 sq ft A -T -B: Abstract SALE PRICE: SALE DATA: SALE CODE: ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 PROPERTY TYPE: Vacant Land -Residential HOMESTEAD: Non -Homestead MARKET VALUE: $0 TAX TOTAL: $0.00 ASSESSED 2019, PAYABLE 2020 PROPERTY TYPE: Vacant Land -residential HOMESTEAD: Non -homestead MARKET VALUE: $0 Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 TOGO RD NORTHERN -AVE VE �Iv TP A i ss�00 c tT- T - CRYSTAL -PL PT� O I-T- uj oa W LIVINGSTON-Q > y Q AVE <� Z z � LYRIC AVE � Shoreline Dr t� i Q° Gay0o R�c�sl 14 m ySTpl.BPy,R� GRAV\�\ PJ Summary of Background Information Provided to City Council: Crystal Bay Road City Lots The City of Orono owns four lakeshore parcels across from residential properties at 3407, 3415, 3435 and 3445 Crystal Bay Road. These parcels were quit -claim deeded to the City in the mid - 1930s. They are subject to deeded "bathing and boating" rights dating back to 1911 for as many as 150 residential lots in the Navarre area (including the four opposite lots), only a few of which have exercised that right. Staff regularly receives questions from realtors, sellers or potential buyers asking what this means and whether their off -lake properties have the right to have a dock. The City's position is that they do not, for a variety of reasons - primarily that a dock is an accessory structure not allowed without a principal structure. It is unknown how many of these 150 can actually claim "bathing and boating rights" pursuant to the Marketable Title Act. The City Council in 2006 had the Lots surveyed and authorized the City Attorney to commence a Torrens action, with an expectation that Hennepin County would do the extensive title work needed to determine what properties had formalized and retained their legal interest in the parcels. In 2008 it was learned that the County would not do that title work and that it would cost the City $25-30,000 to have it completed. Council chose not to proceed. An additional factor is that the four privately owned residence lots directly across Crystal Bay Road have in the past had docks extending from the City parcels. The City has never formally advised the owners of three of the four to remove their docks from the City property; the fourth, 3445 Crystal Bay Road, was the subject of a principal structure tear-down/rebuild variance a few years ago. That variance approval resolution states that the residence property does not include the lakeshore and does not enjoy riparian rights. The other three continue to have docks. In October 2008 (and again in March 2010 and again in August 2010) Karen Elshazly of 3415 Crystal Bay Road asked for a resolution to this issue because she is having difficulty selling her property without established dock rights. In March 2009, Jon Eiss of 3445 Crystal Bay Road requested that he be allowed to have a dock and was turned down by the Council but the Council did offer to look further into the matter of these lots. See Council minutes of 3-9-09 and 4-14- 09. At its April 14, 2009 work session Council was presented with a variety of options to consider for dealing with these lots, including doing nothing; requiring removal of the docks; selling to the opposite landowners; leasing the lots individually or as a group to the four opposite owners; develop the site for rental City dock space; or acquire the nearby properties for park or stormwater management purposes. The Council indicated their preference would be to have staff discuss with the City Attorney the pros and cons of selling the parcels. There was no movement on this issue during the remainder of 2009. In a letter dated March 31, 2010 Karen Elshazly indicated to staff she would be satisfied with an easement granting permanent dock rights rather than full ownership of the lakeshore parcel across from her home. Her follow-up letter of August 23, 2010 suggested that sale of the properties to each opposite homeowner would be the least desirable option unless they can be sold at a nominal price. In reviewing the various hypothetical options prior to the September 2011 Work Session, the City Attorney indicated that granting an easement over City property was not a viable option, Page 1 of 2 and the various scenarios for leasing suggested that the lessees would expect to enjoy some exclusivity of use which the City could not guarantee, or would likely result in ongoing management issues for the City. The three remaining options (sell, do nothing, or require dock removal) each had plusses and minuses: Sale of the City lots to the opposite owners would give them ownership of the lakeshore, but the initial transaction is necessarily quite involved due to the need for a subdivision/re-plat to guarantee the public's use of the traveled roadway (see the survey attached, which indicates the traveled roadway is partly within dedicated right-of-way and partly within the 4 Lakeshore parcels). An appraisal to establish land value would be needed. Also, the City would have to transfer the lots via quit -claim deed, as that is how the City acquired them, and therefore all the potential off-site "bathing and boating rights" become the problem of the new owners. Doing nothing does not resolve the issue for property owners who are having difficulty selling their properties without a definite conclusion to this issue, but requires no further City action. Requiring dock removal potentially reduces the value of these four homes without providing a clear benefit to the public, given the nature and relative difficulty of public use of these parcels everi if docks were removed (lack of parking, proximity to traveled road, etc.) Staff recommended that if the sale option was pursued, it would be appropriate to vacate portions of the unused 66 -foot right-of-way and dedicate portions of the City lots for future roadway, as the existing traveled road is not fully within its dedicated corridor. The following process would be necessary: 1. Prepare initial subdivision/vacation sketch 2. Formulate necessary easements/covenants to retain 3. Discuss concept with opposite owners 4. Establish value and price (appraisal) 5. If buy -in from opposite owners, hold a public hearing 6. Proceed with subdivision/vacation/dedication via standard City approval processes The above is a summary of the information provided to the Council for the September 12, 2011 Work Session at which the Council directed staff to take no further action on this issue. Page 2 of 2 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Monday, September 12, 2011 5:30 p.m. Present: Mayor Lili McMillan, Council Members Doug Franchot and Aaron Printup. Representing Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Assistant City Administrator for Long Term Strategy Mike Gaffron, Planning & Zoning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, Building Official Lyle Oman, City Clerk Lin Vee and City Attorney Soren Mattick Oman presented information on properties that are in disrepair. Council directed staff to continue to pursue hazardous building action when complaints are received. Council also suggested that it may be helpful to have a list on file of parcels that the city may want to acquire in the future for city improvements such as stormwater management or parks. Mayor McMillan presented an updated version of the city logo and will continue to work with David Maass on the design. Gaffron reviewed the status of Lurton Park. Council discussed potential improvements, including the parking lot, picnic tables and benches, trails, vegetation and signage. A dedication ceremony will be planned for late October. Gaffron provided a brief history of the Crystal Bay Road city -owned Lakeshore lots. Council discussed options for the lots and determined that the city will retain ownership of the four lakeshore lots under discussion. Discussion continued regarding the temporary sign samples provided by Curtis. Council directed staff to obtain sample ordinances from area cities for further discussion at a future work session. The dock rental ordinance discussion will be continued at a later date. There were no comments regarding Information Update items. The meeting closed at 6:52 p.m. ATTEST: Linda S. Vee, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor Page 1 of 1 DESCRIPTION: - That part of lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block 1, Wiley's Park Lake Minnetonka, a plat that is on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of a roadway as labeled on said plat as "Old Road". Containing 3,612 sq. ft. or 0.0829 acres of land. F01 Benchmark 0 20 40 o Set iron with cap No. 12282 Scale in feet N • Denotes Iron Pipe found 0 PP Power Pole Bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System \ _ Water Elevation = 930.00 as Located 04/05/2006 t 6.6 _ Benchmark: N1 g22 11 ,,f 1 9 c� - —Edge of Water as of 04/05/2006. Double spike in power _ 179,32 pole, North side Crystal �.3p \ _ 70.;;,4 �\ N8� 20 W 82.58 Bay Road, 400 feet North -3,612 sq. ft. of Shadywood Road (Co. 0.0829 acres , _�- RD No. 19), Elevation: 932.76 feet Survey Line - (NGVD 1929) g_= r `• a aKZi •Y� 3 pt/ I r y I —W/L E �V sib *,I �-��I = V IS0 I • r sad Ocna�t, c0 r 4. 0 fj K / 4 BLOCK 1.:.. CRYSTAL BAY 3e (LAKE MINNETONKA) aia N"ter N88'29'48"W 98.98 East Line of Lot 1 ` I > t 4.45 7-NOt'20'06"W 3.17 5.45 -- South Right of Way as Platted 1 1 I S f� A 1 OF 1 August 23, 2410 Mike Gaffron o�� City of Orono /VQ Dear Mike: We just have a few thoughts in follow up to our phone conversation we had last week regarding the various options the city is exploring regarding resolution of the lakeshore issue. We understand the complexity and we very much appreciate the efforts being made to take this lakeshore out of limbo —which would also result in taking the investments we have made in our property out of permanent limbo. All we are seeking is the formalization of what has been in practice for a long time and what makes sense for the homeowners, the city, and the defined neighborhood. As I mentioned, when we purchased our home in 1999, the disclosure statement stated the lakeshore was "technically deeded." You replied that the other houses in the defined neighborhood could state the same. However, we do feel there has been and is a distinction as this home has had a dock for many years (85 or more?) and the reason that has been allowed is due to the distinction of this property (and the two other properties in question) being physically on the lake. We realize the actual shore is owned by the city — but the three homes in question are physically/visually on the lake which is what has allowed the city to allow us to have docks. The city has stated to us on more than one occasion that no one living physically/visually off the lake would ever be allowed to install a dock — due to security and liability issues — not being able to monitor its use or protect it. So there is and has been a physical and practical distinction — it is the legal distinction that we are requesting to resolve. This distinction is furthered by the fact that the city/county has been able to tax this property (and the two other properties in question) based upon the practical use of the lakeshore and this is not the case for the other properties in the defined neighborhood that are not physically/visually on the shore. We are sincerely hoping this distinction can be further applied to allow for some permanent and legal deeded access — not just access to the lake like the homes above — but permanent and legal access to have and utilize a dock. The intent of the kind gentleman who owned this property and who included the defined neighborhood in his wishes was envisioned before the time of boats requiring a dock to access the lake for boating and there were also very few homes in the defined neighborhood. With that thought in mind, we would like to comment on the options you mentioned. The sale of the lakeshore to the three homeowners that can feasibly have a dock is the least desirable as the homeowners have already paid for that value (in varying degrees increasing by time), based on the long history of docks and the assumption that docks would continue to be allowed. If the city no longer wants to own the shore —that is fine — but the sale of it at any substantial price would seem redundant and excessive. The city paid nothing for this shore —if a sale is deemed the best option for the city we would respectfully propose that it be done for a nominal fee. The fourth homeowner (3445) is in a different situation as you explained — since there is not room for a dock ... but that was made clear and legally binding before the most recent sale of that property and that sale price reflected that distinction from prior sale prices for that property. You also mentioned the option of issuing the homeowners in question a license to have the dock — but if that is not permanent— it really doesn't change the current dilemma. And how would that differ from the taxes we currently pay for use of the shore which we do not own? We would hope that a resolution can be found that would resolve the issue for us but would not necessarily have to change the status of the defined neighborhood and they would, therefore, not need to sign off on the resolution. Is it possible to take a "quiet title action" for a permanent easement for the three properties? If anyone does protest, it can then be explained that this action is simply formalizing what has been practiced for many, many years and that it does not change their status. And we have to note here, once again, that the other homes off the lake in the defined neighborhood do not utilize the type of access that is possible for them (picnicking on the shore, launching a kayak or row boat, etc.) because such activities are more practical and enjoyable at take locations that have public facilities - but if they choose to do so — there is nothing preventing them and the docks do not in any way hinder this type of access. I think we all recognize that without some formalization of how things have been for some time — and in today's market/economy, these houses could return to a "lakeshore slum" —the values would decrease as well as the tax revenues. This formalization is logical and beneficial to all concerned — the city, the three homeowners, and with no negative impact on the defined neighborhood. Again, we would like to sincerely thank you and the City of Orono for its efforts to resolve this issue. Kind regards, Yousry and Karen Elshazly 3415 Crystal: Bay Road Orono, MN 55391 952-471-8012 952-288-6234 (Karen Cell) 234. Ellen DeHaven Peterson, a single person to Michael 3. McEnany and Deborah A. Williamson, as joint tenants 233. Michael 3. McEnany, Deborah A. Williamson, husband & wife to Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation, which is organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey WARRANTY DEED Dated September 16, 1998 Filed March 11, 1999 Document No. 7074998 That part of Lot 2, Block 1, Wiley's Park, Lake Minnetonka lying South of Country Road, including perpetual right to use for private bathing and private boating purposes only, all that part of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 in said Block 1, lying between the Northerly line of County Road and Crystal Bay. Subject to building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and federal regulations; Restrictions relating to use or improvement of the property without effective forfeiture provision; Reservation of any mineral rights by the State of Minnesota; utility and drainage easements which do not interfere with existing improvements. MORTGAGE Dated September 16, 1998 Filed March 11, 1999 Document No. 7074999 Amount $327,000.00 Due October 1, 2028 That part of Lot 2, Block 1, Wiley's Park, Lake Minnetonka lying South of County Road, including perpetual right to use for private boating purposes only, all that part of lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 in said Block 1, lying between the Northerly line of County Road and Crystal Bay, 236. There may be local or county ordinances filed with the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin. County, Minnesota. Unless captioned premises is specifically mentioned in said document, no ordinances are set forth in this abstract and are excluded from the certification of this abstract. March 31, 2010 RECEIVED APR 05 2010 City Council of Orono G17y.0F0a0N0 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: 3415 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD / DOCK RIGHTS .Bear Members of the Council: I am writing to follow up on our letter of October 27, 2008. At that time we were trying to sell our house as i had lost my job of 28 years - and I still remain unemployed. We had several buyers who were going to come in with offers — but they all decided it was too risky after they further explored the dock rights issue with the city. Given the market, then and now, buyers were too fearful of the -house maintaining its core value given the lack of resolution of the dock rights. Our house at that time was valued at $784,000. We have watched the value drop today to $647,000 ... and we know we cannot even attempt to sell this property until the dock rights issue is solidified. I spoke again with the City Administrator last year about this issue and he suggested that I check local libraries, etc. to see if there were any issues of neighborhood newsletters/newspapers from 1934— which is the year when the City of Orono received the lakeshore for our home (and three others) on a "quit deed". I did check and found no records. Perhaps that is the year in which the farmer who lived up above and who built these properties passed on; perhaps there were issues with the estate or perhaps the four cabins he built were no longer in the family and the easiest action was taken. We'll likely never know the answer to this question. However, the important point is that it is now 2010 and there is no other viable use of this Lakeshore in front of our home other than how it has been utilized for many years —for the homeowner. We have maintained it, we have had a dock (as have prior owners), and we are taxed on it. More importantly, we have paid for it via the purchase of our home. There were two other houses on this street for sale when we purchased this home in October of 1999 (3235 and 3393 Crystal Bay Road) and we paid more for our house than the list price of either of those two homes and they both have deeded access ... and they were comparable homes to ours. Similarly, the house next to us (3407) sold a couple of years ago with an assessed value and sale price that reflected lake rights. These houses have sold over the years with dock access and prices reflecting such (with the recent exception of 3445 Crystal Bay Road — as explained to me by the City Administrator). We have also invested in our home based on the assessed value. The seller's disclosure statement at the time we purchased our home stated that access was "technically deeded." That has been the understanding since there is no other feasible use for this land. We would like to once again respectfully request that the small piece of Lakeshore in front of our home be deeded to us. The City of Orono paid nothing for it, we are taxed on it, we utilize it and maintain it and we feel we have paid for it. But we cannot even consider selling our home unless dock rights can be determined. We realize you have many important issues on your agenda —but this is very important to us and we are respectfully requesting that this issue be resolved. Is it possible to get this added to a City Council Meeting agenda in the near future? Please let us know if there is anything else we can do to promote this issue towards resolution. Sincerely, /! Yousry and Karen Elshazly 3415 Crystal Say Road Orono, MN 55391 952-471-8012 Orono City Council Committee of the Whole April 14, 2009, 6:15 p.m. Orono City Council Chambers Present: Mayor Jim White, Council Members Cynthia Bremer, Doug Franchot, Lili McMillan, and Jim Murphy; City Administrator Bill Wells, Finance Director Ron Olson, Assistant City Administrator for Long -Term Strategy Mike Gaffron, Building Official Lyle Oman; Public Works Supervisors Don DeBaere and Scott Oberaigner and City Clerk Lin Vee 1. Assessor's Review for Local Board of Appeal and Equalization — Nate Stulc, Hennepin County Assessor Residential Lakeshore growth of -1.8%; residential off lake growth of -6.3%; overall gross value growth for the city of -2.7%, down about 1% in taxable market for City because of removal of limited market value. +� last year. There are not a lot of foreclosures or short sales in Orono. mar. Handouts will be available including +" from the Department of 28 was the oritn. " - Staff is working with Wayzata to finalize a scam„,, asked for help in working with Wayzata Country Club to dispose of greo_,�_ r. _ has been submitted to Wayzata to add utilities to the Kuruvilla and Comforts of Home properties. There may be a need to extend 12” water pipe from Wayzata Public Works to the Comforts of Home property. The Fire Chief will review for flow rates. 5. Crystal Bay Road City Lots — Response to Jon Eiss Request for Dock • The city owns 4 lots on Crystal Bay Road through a quit -claim deed in the early 1900's. • Council discussed options for action related to the lots and preferred to "sell each parcel to its opposite off -lake landowner (the city acquired them by Quit -Claim Deed, so would have to sell them that way, i.e. no warranties) and let each owner deal with the consequences of the potential multiple holders of "bathing and boating rights". • The city has an easement to the lake which is often used by the public for winter access to the lake, • Staff will discuss the proposed action with the City Attorney. LL/Orono Fire Contract and Addendum - When the Navarre station was built, there was discussion that this building would be part of the 20 year agreement. -�' =k? has had the Addendum but hasn't been signed. -- �,m refined to include the address of the Navarre station. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2009 7:00 o'clock p.m. (PUBLIC COAWENTS, Continued) Murphy suggested th ouncil review the records in this particular instance and also r riew the City's account receivables fort t period of time. Murphy stated he does recall discussi b this situation in a work session, with the outco\ebeing that the Council was agreeable to redu ' g it to the original fee of $1200. McMillan requested Mrs. Feyo put do in writing her version the facts and the reasons she is requesting the waiver. McMillan indicate she would like see the invoices. Mrs. Feyo stated she has never seen an invoice. McMillan requested Staff provide a cop>zf the invoice Mrs. Feyo so she can review them. McMillan asked Mrs. Feyo to put down in writ her thoughts and ra ale regarding the situation and the request for the waiver. Mrs. Feyo stated she ha ked how many other applications were charms extra fees at that time but that they did not receive y information from the City. White corn ted he does remember a couple of larger projects in that time perio at were charged extra fee . pointed out that engineering fees on top of the application fees are applied when the ances warrant the additional cost. John Eiss, 3445 Crystal Bay Road, stated he is here before the Council tonight to request a dock for his property. Eiss stated he is paying taxes based on a Lakeshore lot but is not allowed a dock. Eiss noted his r other neighbors with lots similar to his have docks and that he is the only one that does not have a dock. White noted Lot 38 is located in front of this lot and that this lot is not immediately adjacent to the lake. Eiss stated those four smaller lots are city -owned. White stated the City clarified a couple of years ago that residents who do not have a principal residence adjoining the lakeshore would not be entitled to a dock but would be able to swim or launch a canoe from the city -owned property. White noted that policy has been upheld by the City for a number of decades. White stated in his opinion the issue of paying taxes based on a Lakeshore lot is a separate issue from the dock issue. Eiss noted his lot is classified as a residential Lakeshore and that the title to his property says he has lakeshore rights. White commented that assessors do not always classify properties correctly. White asked if Mr. Eiss has contacted the City previously regarding his request. Eiss indicated he has not. Eiss stated he does not want to jeopardize his neighbors' docks to the east with his request. White asked whether there are other docks located on the city -owned lots. PAGE 3 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2009 7:00 o'clock p.m. (PUBLIC COMMENTS, Continued) Gaffron indicated the other three properties do have docks on the city -owned lots in front of their lots that are taken down in the fall and are put back in in the spring. The City distinguishes this property from the other three in that there was a variance application for the house located on this property. The survey that was completed was incorrect because it showed the lot running all the way down to the lake and the City required anew survey. The resolution approved for that variance application contains an annotation stating that the City does not consider this lot to be riparian. Gaffron stated the City has not taken any formal action to notify the other properties that a dock is not allowed. The City had considered starting a title registration process but elected not to do the required title research due to the costs involved. The City's position during the construction and marketing of Mr. Eiss's property has been that it is not entitled to a dock, so it was not an unknown at the time of purchase. Gaffron stated the issue is whether the City should notify the other properties that a dock is not allowed or attempt to arrive at a solution where the four properties could have a dock. Murphy stated when he purchased his property approximately 20 years ago, it turned out that the nonconforming barn was constructed considerably prior to the residence and that it was grandfathered in. Murphy stated as Iong as no substantial changes are made to the footprint of the barn, they are allowed to retain the barn. Murphy asked if the docks would be a similar situation. Gaffron stated docks are considered accessory structures and that this is an area of the lake where, if the dock is left in year-round, it would need to be constructed considerably different. Gaffron stated a legal nonconformity would not apply in this situation since the docks are taken down in the fall. Mattick noted some of the other lots are continuous lots abutting the lake and that they are allowed a dock as long as there is a primary residence. Mattick stated on the lots where there is a dock, it does not necessarily mean that the City has approved them and that the City has taken a position in the past that docks are not to be placed on the city -owned properties. Eiss stated the lots with the docks are worth more but yet he is being assessed for a lakeshore lot. Mattick stated riparian lots are worth more but that the city's position has been that in order for a lot to have a dock, it requires a principal structure. Murphy stated the City's position is generally one of not trying to create trouble for its residents and that if Mr. Eiss were to press the issue, the City would then need to inform the other three lots that they would not be allowed a dock. Murphy suggested that perhaps the City discuss this issue further and look at its options for dealing with this situation. McMillan stated other cities have created outlots and allows its residents to have a dock on the outlot, but that the LMCD has found over the years that there were a number of problems created in the neighborhoods by people wanting to utilize the docks. Orono has attempted to avoid that issue by not creating the outlots. Murphy stated there is a situation on County Road 19 where there are four or five docks with very minimal land and no houses. PAGE 4 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2009 7:00 o'clock p.m. (PUBLIC COMMENTS, Continued) Gaffron stated that situation is located primarily in Minnetonka Beach, and at the time the City of Orono approved the five lots that are located in Orono, it was specifically spelled out that those lots could not have lake access. Gaffron indicated the City has owned these lots for a number of years. White stated he is willing to have the City look into this situation further and that perhaps Mr. Eiss would be entitled to a reduction in his taxes, which he should address with the assessor. White noted unfortunately this month a number of the council members will be absent and that he would recommend this situation be discussed in approximately a month. andy Gilbert, Long Lake Mayor, stated he is here to thank the City of Orono for its continual c eration with Long Lake on many issues ranging from such things as the fire department ai polix department. Murphy stated he did bring the issue of the Old Highway 12 corridor up with Long Lake reviously, and that he is av�are that there are continuing issues relating to the unsafe condition of the d Highway 12 corridor as it c cerns the potholes. A meeting was held on Thursday with Mn/DO representatives on an issue relating the Montesorri School and that the condition of old Highway was discussed at that time. Scott Peterso with Mn/DOT indicated they were looking at the situatio and that there might be a resolution by the end the year. Murphy stated he indicated to Mn/DOT t the sign issues as well as other issues has resulted " the city officials being vilified by the business wners and that faster action should be taken to resolve ese issues. Gaffron stated it was his impression that Mn/DOT was not in a hurfv to resolve the issue. Murphy stated in his view the City sh Id draft a letter addres'sed directly to the commissioner of Mn/DOT which lays out exactly the situ on and request at the situation be addressed in a prompt fashion. Murphy noted Old Highway 12 is heduled t be turned over to the county in approximately six months but that some attention should be dire do he situation given the unsafe nature of the potholes. McMillan concurred that a punch list/letter sho db created and that photographs depicting the potholes be submitted along with the letter. Murphy moved, McMillan seconded An conjunction with he City of Long Lake, compile a list of issues to be set forth in a joint Tette between the two cities ected to the Commissioner of Mn/DOT, pending formal appr al of the letter by the Long L e City Council. Gilbert noted LongLake has meeting next week and they could addre it at that time. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0 Gilbert commented at Mn/DOT has taken away approximately 10 percent of Long�,ake's tax base with the new U.S. Hie, way 12 corridor and that they have been left With a substandard road b ing through their town. the road should be repaired in the near future. PAGE 5 of S March 5, 2009 Dear Mayor and Orono City Council, I am writing today to get your permission for a dock in front of our house at 3445 Crystal Bay Rd I understand that this has long been an issue for the city. I would like to be a good neighbor to the 3 families in the houses to the East of me that currently have docks that don't own the property in front of their house. The last thing I want is to open up a can of worms that would jeopardize their docks. I also want to be a good neighbor to those neighbors off the lake that use that area. I recognize that I don't own that property and others can use it. However, I do pay Lakeshore taxes, as it is listed as, "residential Lakeshore" on my tax statement. I am hoping to be allowed to have a dock that is small and out of the way from the landing. I have a 23 foot ski boat. Thank you for your efforts. Sincerely, The Eiss's (Jon, Kelly, Drew, & Fisher) Jon Eiss H:952-471-0576 W:612-303-5911 C:612-840-2221 e-mail: jonathan.d.eiss@ubs.com October 27, 2008 City Council of Orono City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: 3415 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD / DOCK RIGHTS Dear Members of the Council: f xL..yL'r '., L : 3 0 2008 We reside at 3415 Crystal Bay Road in Orono and have lived in this home for nine years. We are selling our home due to the unexpected loss of one income and the need to buy at a lower price point. We have been very open in the documentation for the house relevant to the lakeshore issue and the fact that it is owned by the city but the dock is allowed. We have had our home on the market since mid-June with full realization of the slower market and we have priced our house to sell - $81,000 below assessed value. However, eve -had four-diff-er-ent-and-ver-y-int-west-ed-b�Ta3yers�o--havve-stated-that�_e_w.ouldhear— back from them within days with an offer. These potential buyers have all called the city for clarification on the lakeshore issue and they are told: "Yes, you could lose your dock privileges, we just can't say if or when." And then we never hear from them again. The history of this situation was told to us by neighbors whose family had owned 3407 Crystal Bay Road dating back to the time of the events that lead us to where we are today. As explained to us: One of the larger houses behind us (on the other side of the Dakota Trail) owned this land (and more) and around the year of 1910 he built these four cabins for his four daughters. He did not want the creation of these cabins to inhibit the neighbors, at the time, to feel they could not still come down to enjoy the lakeshore. We think that was a beautiful thought then and still is today. People are welcome to use it but they don't. Our abstract states that this lot is "assigned perpetual swimming and boating rights" and that "similar rights are extended to the houses in the neighborhood defined as Wiley's Park, Navarre, and in Block 10 in Langdon Park." At the turn of the century, that defined neighborhood likely consisted of a small number of houses. I understand that, today, that neighborhood consists of approximately 150 houses. I have discussed with the offices of the City of Orono what could possibly happen and what possible uses exist that would be viable for this defined neighborhood. It seems that it is quite a conundrum. There is no parking or room to create parking. There are no public restrooms and no room to create such. No one from the defined neighborhood comes down to use the lakeshore - it is not conducive to picnics or swimming for reasons stated above. It is not the docks that deter any such activity — there is plenty of room to swim or launch a canoe or kayak — but with no room for parking or public facilities, it is simply not functional. These four houses were basically a Lakeshore slum for many years because of the uncertainty of property values relevant to dock rights. That has changed, and we have invested heavily in our property based upon the assessed value, as have others in recent years. We understand that there is an estimate of approximately $30,000 for researching all titles of the houses in question in the defined neighborhood, but that the City Council is reluctant to invest this amount of tax dollars for such a small issue. We would certainly agree, especially when there is no viable solution or plan that would be undertaken and that would be able to accommodate this defined neighborhood. We feel this is now infringing on our rights to be able to sell and realize the value of our home and our investment in it, based on its value. We are assessed and taxed as if we have deeded access. When we purchased nine years ago the documents indicated that access was "technically deeded" but that the actual shore was owned by the city and we spoke with the city and were told there were no plans to change this status. We would like to respectfully request that the City Council consider undertaking a "quiet title action" which would grant permanent dock rights to our property and which should not trigger any need to address anything that already exists as far as people being welcome to come down and enjoy the shoreline... again, even though they do not currently do so. We also feel that the legal concept of "adverse possession" — relevant to the fact that this house has had perpetual boating/dock privileges for almost 100 years - would support such an action. Sincerely, x yq� Yousty and Karen Elshazly 3415 Crystal Bay Road Orono, MN 55391 952-471-8012 karenelshazly(2c amail.com CITY OF ORONO MEMORANDUM DATE: May 13, 2019 TO: Mayor Walsh, City Council members FROM: Dustin Rief, City Administrator RE: Wayzata Country Club Boundary Adjustment Request The City received a request for a municipal boundary adjustment for the Wayzata Country Club at 200 Wayzata Blvd W, Orono, MN 55391, parcel ID 36-118-23-43-0001. Currently, the municipal boundary between Orono and Wayzata bisects portions of the structures around the club house area. Wayzata Country Club's reason for the request is to streamline building, construction and inspections when they conduct some remodeling projects on the buildings that fall in both city's area of responsibility. Wayzata Country Club Proposals 1. Move boundary line so the entirety of the parcel is in Wayzata 2. Set a new parcel line as see in Exhibit A page 1 Parcel ID 36-118-23-43-0001, 200 Wayzata BLVD W 3. Market Valuation $3,427,000: $3,068,000 building value and $359,000 in land value 4. Proposal 1 would result in a loss in $3,427,000 in city valuation 5. Proposal 2 would result in a loss of all structural value $3,068,000 plus some land valuation Below are potential courses of action: 1. Respond noting no interest to adjust boundary with current proposal 2. Respond with Counter proposal and begin discussions with City of Wayzata and associated property owners. (Exhibit A page 2 and 3) 3. Accept proposal and begin discussions with the City of Wayzata and associated property owner City Administrator seeks authorization and direction to begin discussions. Hennepin County Property Map Date: 5/8/2019 No qri "_ 6A MP PARCEL ID: 3611823430001 1 Comments: OWNER NAME: Wayzata Country Club PARCEL ADDRESS: 200 Wayzata Bl\td W, Orono MN 55391 PARCEL AREA: 39.66 acres, 1,727,617 sq ft A -T -B: Torrens SALE PRICE: SALE DATA: SALE CODE: ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 PROPERTY TYPE: Commercial -Preferred HOMESTEAD: Non -Homestead MARKET VALUE: $3,427,000 TAX TOTAL: $111,187.48 ASSESSED 2019, PAYABLE 2020 PROPERTY TYPE: Commercial -preferred HOMESTEAD: Non -homestead MARKET VALUE: $3,427,000 This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 A. a lk - t Y W14,w 1 inch = 400 feet PARCEL ID: 3611823430001 1 Comments: OWNER NAME: Wayzata Country Club PARCEL ADDRESS: 200 Wayzata Bl\td W, Orono MN 55391 PARCEL AREA: 39.66 acres, 1,727,617 sq ft A -T -B: Torrens SALE PRICE: SALE DATA: SALE CODE: ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 PROPERTY TYPE: Commercial -Preferred HOMESTEAD: Non -Homestead MARKET VALUE: $3,427,000 TAX TOTAL: $111,187.48 ASSESSED 2019, PAYABLE 2020 PROPERTY TYPE: Commercial -preferred HOMESTEAD: Non -homestead MARKET VALUE: $3,427,000 This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 Hennepin County Property Map Date: 5/8/2019 No qri "_ 6A MP PARCEL ID: 3611823430001 1 Comments: OWNER NAME: Wayzata Country Club PARCEL ADDRESS: 200 Wayzata Bl\td W, Orono MN 55391 PARCEL AREA: 39.66 acres, 1,727,617 sq ft A -T -B: Torrens SALE PRICE: SALE DATA: SALE CODE: ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 PROPERTY TYPE: Commercial -Preferred HOMESTEAD: Non -Homestead MARKET VALUE: $3,427,000 TAX TOTAL: $111,187.48 ASSESSED 2019, PAYABLE 2020 PROPERTY TYPE: Commercial -preferred HOMESTEAD: Non -homestead MARKET VALUE: $3,427,000 This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 A. a lk - t Y W14,w 1 inch = 400 feet PARCEL ID: 3611823430001 1 Comments: OWNER NAME: Wayzata Country Club PARCEL ADDRESS: 200 Wayzata Bl\td W, Orono MN 55391 PARCEL AREA: 39.66 acres, 1,727,617 sq ft A -T -B: Torrens SALE PRICE: SALE DATA: SALE CODE: ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 PROPERTY TYPE: Commercial -Preferred HOMESTEAD: Non -Homestead MARKET VALUE: $3,427,000 TAX TOTAL: $111,187.48 ASSESSED 2019, PAYABLE 2020 PROPERTY TYPE: Commercial -preferred HOMESTEAD: Non -homestead MARKET VALUE: $3,427,000 This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 Hennepin County Property Map Date: 5/8/2019 PARCEL ID: 3611823430001 OWNER NAME: Wayzata Country Club PARCEL ADDRESS: 200 Wayzata Bl\td W, Orono MN 55391 PARCEL AREA: 39.66 acres, 1,727,617 sq ft A -T -B: Torrens SALE PRICE: SALE DATA: SALE CODE: ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 PROPERTY TYPE: Commercial -Preferred HOMESTEAD: Non -Homestead MARKET VALUE: $3,427,000 TAX TOTAL: $111,187.48 ASSESSED 2019, PAYABLE 2020 PROPERTY TYPE: Commercial -preferred HOMESTEAD: Non -homestead MARKET VALUE: $3,427,000 Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 PID Address Market Value City Taxes City Taxes Other 36-118-23-43-0001 200 Wayzata BLVD $ 3,427,000.00 Orono $ 111,187.48 $ 7,309.52 $ 103,877.96 01-117-23-12-0001 200 Wayzata BLVD $ 693,000.00 Wayzata $ 23,397.40 $ 1,977.13 $ 21,420.27 02-117-23-12-0001 200 Woodhill RD $ 1,500,000.00 Orono $ 49,056.24 $ 3,234.76 $ 45,821.48