04-14-2009 Council Work Session Packet

Home Browse Search

The second question asked was whether the 4 adjacent landowners on Crystal Bay Road would have the ability to establish a prescriptive easement over the City parcels by virtue of their continued use of the parcels. It was concluded that in general, land owned by the City cannot be acquired by an occupant merely by reason of occupation per Minnesota Statutes, Sec. 541.01. The only exception might be if the City has taken an affirmative action to abandon its interests in the property. However, we are unaware of any such affirmative action, and the fact that the City prior to 2002 has not attempted to have the seasonal docks removed would not constitute an abandonment action. In a 1996 followup letter from the City Attorney's office, it was noted substantial title review of the 4 City parcels as well as all the potentially benefitted lots would be needed in order to determine to what extent easement .rights are in effect. Even if title work concluded that rights have been terminated, it would likely require a quiet title or registration action to adjudicate same. This could prove to be an expensive process. It should be noted that 3415 Crystal Bay Road, one of the 4 lots across from the dock lots, was sold in 1999 with the "bathing and boating"right appearing on the deed. Recent Status of City Parcels As of July 1, 2002 each of the 4 City parcels had a private seasonal dock, presumably erected by the owners of the properties directly across the road. Two of the four docks had one or more boats that were known to be not titled to property owners in the general area, and were considered as illegal slip rental situations. The property at 3445, purchased in 2001 or 2002 by Larry Palm, was the subject of a spring 2002 variance request for construction of a new residence to replace the existing cabin. Upon receipt of that application, staff determined that the survey was incorrect because it did not show the dedicated County Road or the City parcel as separate from the homestead parcel. After receiving two neighborhood complaints about rental use of the dock at 3445, staff inet with Mr. Palm and advised him to remove the boats and the docks, which he did later that summer Palm also was adamant that if his parcel is subject to this action, that the 3 adjoining owners also be made to remove their docks, and that the property owner at 2264 Shadywood be required to remove his trailer from the City right of way adjacent to the 4 lots. As of summer 2003, the dock at 3445 had been removed, but docks were again installed for the 2003 boating season by the homeowners opposite the other three parcels. Tax Valuation History A question thax arises from the use of the City's dock lots by the property owners across the street is that since those owners appear to be receiving a special benefit not available to other owners of non-lakeshore lots, is whether they somehow are paying for that benefit. The answer is ��es, in terms of property valuation for tax purposes. The January 2, 2001 land valuaxion for tax purposes for taxes payable 2002 for the four adjacent residential lots (3407,3415, 3535 and 3445) is equivalent to that for similarly sized lots on Crystal Bay Road which have legitimate lakeshore rights (See Attachments C & D). In order to determine whether this has been the case for some time, staff compared the t� valuation history back to 1980 for the land portion of these 4 lots vs. 4 similar sized lots on Crystal Bay Road (3369, 3375, 3385 and 3393). It becomes clear that since 1980 or earlier, the 4 residential lots have been valued as lakeshore lots. There is no significant difference between the valuations of these 4 residential lots and other 9-1�-08 Page 3 of 6