08-11-1997 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

s>LLP.LINDQUIST & VENNUM p.llp.Mr. Kevin W. DeVore August 8,1997 Page 2 over in Minnesota for over 150 years. The first essential point is that the public has the right to use land for road purposes, but that the underlying fee owner still owns the fee. Second, as you know, Minnesota Statute §160.05 has been interpreted to permit the public to obtain for use the traveled portion of the road and its necessary shoulders only. The controiiiiig Case involved County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive) and the City of Orono! The principal that the underlying fee owner retains all other rights in the land is the most significant factor in this factual situation. In the Floyd case the only thing the underlying fee owner wishes to do is to connect his dock up against the shoreline so that he can reach his dock from dry land. The dock does not interfere with road use. This exact fact situation exists at many places around Lake Minnetonka. I enclose some half-section sheets showing multiple examples of residential properties where the house and the main portion of the lot is across the street from the lakeshore portion and the dock thereon. Many of these are in Orono and Minnetonka Beach, both of which I am closely familiar since I am the Minnetonka Beach city attorney. Furthermore, the example of the Scheiblers just to the west of this location is also on point. The Scheiblers situation is particularly pertinent because the matter of their dock went through Orono city procedures and the Scheiblers were permitted to have it join to the shore at a place where West Ferndale Road is dedicated to the city for a road in the plat of North Shore Cottage Acres. All of the issues which would be present for the Floyds also present in the Scheibler case; the Orono determination was that the Scheiblerswere EB01;920054_l