HomeMy WebLinkAboutre dock rights ���
,��
/7' O�\`.
O p`�� CITY of ORONO
�. \ ,II MunicipalOffices
, ,� • ;� _. i
� �� l��`y � Street Address: Mailing Address:
"�'',� ,b�,����'������ '�� ,ti 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66
,��,�+ �r��,,� r�,t��G Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, NfN 55323-0066
kEsHo4
October 25, 2011
Yousry and Karen Elshazly
3415 Crystal Bay Road
Orono, MN 55391
Re: Request for Establishment of Dock Rights
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Elshazly:
This letter is in response to your requests of October 2008, March 2010 and August 2010 for the
establishment of dock rights over the City-owned lakeshore property across Crystal Bay Road
from your residence. I apologize that this matter took so long to reach a conclusion, but the
complexity of the issues and the need to provide the City Council a complete background of the ,
situation delayed review of the matter. ��
Information regarding this issue was provided to the City Council prior to their September 12,
2011 Work Session. The more tenured members of the Council had been involved in discussions
about these lots in the past. After a presentation of the issues, the Council reviewed the possible
options for resolving the situation. The City Attorney advised that granting of an easement over
public property is not an option. The Council was not interested in a leasing situation or in
licensing, and was not in favor of selling the parcels. Ultimately, the Council concluded they
would take no action. The City will retain ownership of the four lakeshore lots.
Enclosed are minutes from the Work Session as well as a summary of the background
information provided the Council. Please feel free to contact me at 952-249-4622 if you have
further questions.
Sincerely,
�,����
�
Michael P. Ga ron
Asst. City Administrator
encl.
Telephone (952) 249-4600 • Fax (952) 249-4616
www.ci.orono.mn.us
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.
Doin 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.
Requirin� 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
even 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:
l. Prepare initial subdivision/vacation sketch
2. Formulate necessary easements/covenants to retain
3. Discuss concept with opposite owners
4. Establish value and price (appraisal)
�. 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 aiso 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. Councii 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
�
►
-
.` •
�►,� �� �� �" � 1 • � �,,
� `�
� `
�� �� �
��. �
� �.:. .�:. �'�'�'r ., • 1
� +���'; ,��.�
�����y s,� ,w�-yr�,:� � ,..-
± `. � � y�i ` ,'`�
I�� :S � �i'' �
'�. y'
:; }' �� ;�` * �. �
4 t�' �' ��
` iY� � �1 �
• +
.' �':r ��1I�y.� ' .., ' 1�
�� � � '� �r
::, `,+ �, .,�,.,_.,�� �,' �
t� '=
Y� :,� * h � �� � �M ,
"?; � �
,'r� �' `, � ` , , �r' ;.
k -i'
• � �
����� " ��� � • ��
.ri ,'}s ^ .. ... �. �1"��
1,i I � �� �.. }^��- .� ' �1,
. r- ..� ',
:� �� ���� .�� �, '► r
::� �� � '
. , ,.
�:. 'Ii ��
y s. �
:�.�y� �. L� � ,4 ��
� �A i _�
t i._ � i � .�,4 ..
� � �
t ' �, �. � ,r� _ ../. .F'' � ��
�` G �,, �:f ► Il��
t� �����. �',r• �`I`, �'
.�'��. � ..s.,, �,, �Ii�r s' � �
�i�y 1 •^ ...h.. :�:�1'-� �,�I � ��`� �
.� , 'v rv , '•Y '
�,' ,�
<t,M, �.:,: t� �� ,1 I
`,� "��
,
��'`�:-:,_ � •
�.,�' � '� '��;�
\ �� a'
a,' ,� '` '.'I�'I`► '� �•
� �-.,_ ..-. ��� . �
...,�r1• .� � ;
� ,� �� �� ��� � � i
' �%
• �•ae' " a` . �`' � .
� . �. + � ,� ��/�r���„►,� � /��� ,a
f►���♦.'��' �'�, ��,�;'� ••
`�� ,� �� `�/ 'i �``, �
� � � :.
,,,��'��, � � ♦ r 1 �.
* �-���.•. •
,�., • .
� '� •�
� ♦ �
a' f u •
��: � �
* .... ' �'�i�r
��,
�
�� '
? � m ; �
�DESCRIPTION: - - -- ��� �a �
That part of lots 1,2,3,and 4,Block 1,Wiley's Park Lake Minnetonka,a plat that is on file eu Benchmark �
and of record in the office of the County Recorder,Hennepin County,Minnesota,lying 0 20 40 °�
northerly of a roadway as labeled on said plat as"Old Road". o Set Iron with cap No. 12282 �'�= �
Scale in feet N ���� g
Containing 3,612 sq.ft.or 0.0829 acres of land. • Denotes Iron Pipe found �$ k3 �
r� PP Power Pole �i�by�� 8
�533. R
Bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System ���� �f c
����E d a
A
Y
\ ` Water Elevation = 930.00 os Locoted 04/OS/2006 C R YS T,�L B A Y - " 's
N� � 669 �- - (LAKE MINNETONKA) �__ � �
Benchmark: 82����E ��� � - /-Edge of Woter os of 04/05/2006. a 3 a�� �
Double spike in power 3�� � i79.32 � a" �
pole, North side Crystal �3p _�0.�q �\ N8=20"w g2 S8 � _ —� - �
Bay Road,400 feet North � I � � ` - -
� 3 612 sq. ft. N88'29'48"W 98.98 _ > t 4.45 ,��
of Shadywood Road(Co. � � , �- ��
,� ,p ,, I 0 0829 acres -�q
RDNO. 19), r�.ta , r �s�� . ,rTg,.�, '�' 4 ),,r-�� � e�+ pp / �60 �-?JO120'06 W 317 ��=o
��, �� ,�-?.5 ! ` y Survey Line—' �`�-' — , `�c
Elevation:932.76feet �' �;��� �� ;, ,?1 � -�, � t�21 ..,-�� - 8�ad�
�
� ,� * � �+ � +�' r, ••a.�-� �,� �� , �� ��'F w.;F- - o�F ° t'` �: 1 r�E
(NGVD 1929) �'.�rn�tr,.' ��''g i� w�s �� srj .. � ��" � �..s c c� �� 4 _ sxG o,_�i � �� -= L �._r {�4�yo�th R�9�tY-� .J + 4'' �`� -
�/ :k+`�J SCiI'��, ,� '..y �i A; �� �^ � �.�.OV ♦.ti i.� �J5 Y � �N�J�(J�J �f�.t'T�... ��`�C � � •2 7.J V'la�'a$ P�QI�eU � f.. f r��F � `$ 1�/��
� .'r�Pc ��.:-�_ -- - � [ : r j ` ��_ ��� ��� i C{�� �'a�,���BAY� F2�'AD:�� t Y r.� R5 , ;� _
/� d y.� / 7� `:FS��'+�� r'�'t Y;',.��x 1 � r .. v`K., i� o ���i 3 ,, j � _._
��''�,Q � � �' / I ." �/ 1 I — �s"_,t� Y 1v �a ���L�Y R�f��� i �f^ — a--- — ' � _ _
� �� � '- � �- F
� � ��' � - i i � �. t� -�'-- �i � �i
f�� �� � r ���: �i i ,; � i i, i T�:1
�i ,r.:�� / /'f'v,..;, � East LineJ- �f.. .m
/ `c'�/��i'�l � �,,,,K,w;:/ i �; a ''�1 �I " �':I � � Q
�'; �r"�`�k � � w��E yf� ���k", o ,�, ,l I ,? 3 .� of Lot 1 1 k �� .:,�� O
/f�,- � fV '°;i � �� �,��i � � ,3 �l �; ; ��I �-� L�a i ,v�
�� ,����:-t� � / � „j co p ;a; ,1 � `ai=:� � i� ,� ZQ �
/! �•�� 1.%� J 'IT4 :.% I IiQ1 ��� I � : 5 .� it L,:,I �� �
/ ��� ! �o f�—..:I I � �+.:�.�,� 4`�L `l L '�" '? a �
� C� � � � o � � / -� � �I � r t � �� ��Q �� � South Right of � � .�i,;.j 2 m z
f ���Z' .7I .� � h---) f��a 1 F' J
va�� „ / ,Q. i �: RK � Way as Platted � <� �a o
�-�; f �-* / I I `q4.,] f � I ___-- -- � , ,� o� m
,��;, r'°`j� 3" 4 � !; j � �, �',` i, _— � �--.i_ � �Y�A��,�CE'S ,l�
` s t"'j � I;fY�) � '-'�f� ,j � �Q O
r.,si i / f-� .' __— ` 1"i �t: w':� � �A �
._7-- r
;�� , ,°.; r �; ..-� ��;�� 2 i :, �;�.� 1 � '��1 �
t, ,,''�'� � �r �'� 3 i '� 53 I � ,, � I �-` �:i
s l � �;-,� �� `9 � < � �`� � � `
' ' � BLOCK 1 � � '
�' � ,'1 ' 1
-,�� �� � <���1 � �e� �y � p :1
:,�; f ���i rfi � �-3 ��i
�.;� � . �i ►,�e�;�l � i, :�j I i . t�
1 OF 1
����
August Z3,2010 ,� ���
U�� �
. �/�.y �6,'�n
O,� �•.:�
Mike Gaffron ��O
City of Orono �0
Dear Mike:
We just have a few thoughts in follow up to our phone conversation we had fast week regarding the
various options the city is exploring regarding resolution of the fakeshare issue.
We understand the compfexity 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 perrrtanent limbo. At(we are seeking is the formalization of what has been in practice
for a long time and what makes sense for the homeawners,the city,and the defined neighborhoad.
As I mentioned,when we purchased our home in 1999,the disclosure statement stated the la#ceshore
was"technically deeded." You replied that the other houses in the defined neighborhoad coufd state
the same. However,we do fee!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 questionJ being physicalfy on the 1ake. We realize the actual shore is owned
by the city—but the three homes in question are physically/visually on the fake which is what has
at{owed the city to aiVow 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 instaf4 a dock—due to security and liabilfty 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 resotve. 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 takeshore and this is not the case for the other properties in the defined
neighborhood that are not physically/�isually on the shore.
We are sincereiy hoping this distincYion can be further applied tio allow for some permanent and lega{
deeded access—not just aecess to the lake like the hames above—but permanent and legal access to
have and utifize 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 afso very few hames in the defined neighborhoad.
With that thought in mind,we would Ilke to comment on the options you mentioned. The sale of the
lakeshore ta the three homeowners that can feasibly have a dock is the least desirak�le as the
homeowners have already paid for that�alue(in varying degrees increasing by time), based on the long
history of docks and the assurrtption that docks would conYinue ta be alfowed. If the city no fonger
wants to own the shore—that is fine—but the sale of It at any substantial price would seem redundant
and excessive. The cfty paid nothing for this shore—if a sale is deemed the best option for the cfty we
woufd 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 doek...�rut that was made clear and
legaliy binding before the rnost recent sale of that property and that sale price reflected that distinction
from prior safe prices for that property.
You also mentioned the option af issuing the homeowners in question a license to have the dock—but if
that is not permanent—it really doesn't change the current difemma, And how wou(d that differ from
the taxes we currently pay for use of the shore which we do not own7
We would hope that a resolution can be found that woufd 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 actian"for a permanent easement for
the three properties? If anyone does protest,it can then be explained that thls 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 praceica[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 formafization of how things have been for some time--and in
today's marketJeconomy,these houses could return to a"[akeshore slum"—the values woufd decrease
as well as the tax revenues. Th3s formalization is logical and beneficial to all concerned—the city,the
three homeQwners,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 resofve this issue.
Kind regards,
y°-�� �,�-
Yousry and Karen Elshazly
3415 Crystal Bay Road
Orona, MN 55391
952-471-80I2
952-288-6239(Karen Ce11)
I
:..... p...-'_, vi� . -....i_ '�.;:.i w .':-.c�:..t-yy',L•„' _ _ . _�_•_.—...a.Y
� .... .•.m.w ..
�... � . ..��...:-..,:::_:__._...�'_'.��
- y.: ' . . a.�p?�.%i'^ ._.
�; - . �;� " , .
�' � � .,,-� � ��� J21�
� l� sr C �/�
C?�-�' tic �,� � ��3 � /
234. Ellen DeHavenPeterson, a single WARRANTY DEED
person Dated September 16, 1998
Filed Ma�'ch 11, 1999
to Docuuient No. 7074998
That part of Lot 2,Block 1,Wiley's Park,
Michael J.McEnany and Deborah A. Lake Mumetonka lyin�South of Country
Williamson,as joint tenants Road,including perpetual right to use for
private bathing and private boating purposes
only,all tltat part of Lots 1,2,3 and 4 in said
Block 1,lying between the Northerly line of
County Raad and Crystal Bay. Subject to
building and zoning laws,ordinances,state
and federal re�ulatious;Restrictions relating
to use or improvement of the property withaut
effective forfeiture provision;Reservation of
any mineral rights by the State of Mimiesota;
utility and drainage easements which do not
interfere with e�cisting improvements.
235, Michael J.McEnany,Deborah A. MORTGAG�,
Williamson,husband&wife Dated September 16, 1998
Filed March l 1, 1999
to Dooument No. 7074999
Amouut$327,000.00
Chase Mauhattan Moirtgage Due October l,2028
Corporation,which is organized That part of Lot 2,Block 1,Wiley's Park,
and existing under the laws of the Lake Minnetonka lyiug South of Counry
State of New 3ersey Road,including perpetual right to use for
private Uoating purposes only,a11 that patt of
Iots 1,2,3 and 4 in said Block I,lying
between the Northerly line of County Road
and Crystal Bay,
236. Tl�ere may Ue local or county ordinances filed with the office o£the County Recorder,
Hennepin County,Minnesota. Unless captioned premises is specifically mentioned in said
documeut,no ordinances are set forth in this absu�act and are excluded from the certification of
tlus aUslract.
March 31,2010 �c�°�����
�;i�,� 0 5 zo�o -
City Council of Orono c��'�OFp�01Vp
City of�rono
2750 f<elley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
RE: 3415 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD/DOCK RIGHTS
Dear Members of the Council:
f am wrifiing to follow up on our letter of�ctober 27,2008. At that time we were trying to sell our
house as I had fost my job of ZS years-and I still remain unemployed, We had several bvyers who were
gaing 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
rnaintaining its core value given the lack of resolution of the dock rights. Our house at that time was
valued 2t$784,000. We have watched the vafue drop today to$547,00O...and we know we cannot evert
attempt to sell this property until the dock rights issue is solidified.
l sPake again with the City Administrator last year about this issue and he suggested that I check locaf
libraries,etc.to see if there were any issues of neighborhood newslettersf newspapers from 1934—
which is the year when the City af Orono received the iakeshore for aur home (and three others)on a
"quit deed". I did check and found no records. Perha_ps 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 faur cab'sns he built were no longer in the family and the easiest action was taken. We'!I
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�as 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 important{y,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 rnore for our
house than the list price of either of those two homes and they both have deeded access..,and they
were comparabie 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 sofd over the years with
dodc access and prices reflecting such (with the recent exception of 3445 Crystal Bay Road—as
explained to me by the Ciry Administrator). We have also invested in our home based on the assessed
�alue. The seller's disclosure statement at the time we purchased our home stated that access was
"technicalfy deeded." That has been the understanding since there is no other feasible use for this land.
We�vould 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 nathing for it,we are taxed on it,we uti(ize 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 reaiize you have many important iss�es on your agenda—but this is very important to us and we are
respectfully requesting that this issue be resofved. Is it possible to get this added to a Ciry Counci(
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,
c��C?wS � d� �,(,�--- �%�.d�t�-�
..� � % ;-
Yousry and Karen Elshazly
34i5 Crystal Say Road
Orono, MN 55391
95Z-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 lim
Murphy; City Administrator 8ill 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 Appeai 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 taxabie market for City because of removal of
t�mited market value.
''-�*� last year. There are not a lot of foreclosures or short sale5 in Orono.
'-'`��nar. Ha ndouts will be available including
"`��*" from the Department of
28 was the ori����o, .,._. ' ---��
• Staff is working with Wayzata to finalize a 5C„��, _.
asked for help in working with Wayzata Country Club to dispose ot grea�� r._,
has been submitted to Wayzata to add utilities to the Kuruvilla and Comforts of Home
properties. There may be a need to extend 1Z" water pipe from Wayzata Public Works to
the Comforts of Home property. The Fire Ch ief will review for flow rates.
5. Crystal Bay Road City Lots— Response to Jon Eiss Req uest for pock
• 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 ot the
potential multiple hotders 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.
- ,
6. 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.
� -� ' =kP has had the Addendum but hasn't been signed.
' `, '�� �Pfined to include the address ofthe Navarre station.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, March 9,2009
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(PUBLIC CO ENTS, Continued)
Murphy sug�ested th ouncil review the records in this particular instance and also r 'ew the City's
account receivables for t t period of time. Murphy stated he does recall discussi b this situation in a
work session, with the outco e being that the Council was agreeable to redu ' g it to the original fee of
$1200.
McMillan requested Mrs. Feyo put do in writin�her version the facts and the reasons she is
requesting the waiver. McMillan indicat she would like see the invoices.
Mrs. Feyo stated she has never seen an invoice.
McMillan requested Staff provide a cop the invoice Mrs. Feyo so she can review them. McMillan
asked Mrs. Feyo to put down in writ' �her thoujhts and ra ale regardina the situation and the request
for the waiver.
Mrs. Feyo stated she ha ked how many other applications were char extra fees at that time but that
they did not receive y information from the City.
White com ted he does remember a couple of larger projects in that time perio at were charged
extra fee .
hy pointed out that en�ineering fees on top of the application fees are applied when the
ircumstances warrant the additional cost.
John Eiss, 344� Crystal Bay Road,stated he is here before the Counci]tonight to request a dock for his
�`� property. Eiss stated he is paying taxes based on a lakeshore ]ot but is not allowed a dock. Eiss noted his
1 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 ]ocated in front of this lot and that this lot is not immediately adjacent to the lake.
Eiss stated those four smaller lots are cit��-owned.
White stated the City clarified a couple of years ago that residents who do not have a principal residence
adjoinin�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 regardin�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 dclock p.m.
(PUBLIC COMMENTS, Conti�iued)
Gaffron indicated the other three properties do have docks on the city-owned ]ots in front of their lots that
are taken down in the fall and are put back in in the sprin�. The City distin�uishes 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]ot running all the way down to the lake and the City
required a new survey. The resolution approved for that variance application contains an annotation
stating that the City does not consider this ]ot 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 startin�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 unl:nown 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
nonconformin�barn was constructed considerably prior to the residence and that it was grandfathered in.
Murphy stated as long 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 principa] 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 sugaested 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 wantinQ to utilize the docl:s. Orono has attempted to avoid that issue by not
creatinj the out]ots.
Murphy stated there is a situation on County Road l9 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 ]ots could not
have lake access. Gaffron indicated the City has owned these lots for a number of years.
White stated he is willinQ to have the City look into this situation further and that perhaps Mr. Eiss would
be entit]ed to a reduction in his taxes, which he should address with the assessor. White noted
unfortunately this month a number of the counci] 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 continua]
c eration with Long Lake on many issues ran;ing from such things as the fire department an the
poli department.
Murphy s'Eated he did bring the issue of the Old Hi�hway 12 corridor up with Long Lake reviously, and
that he is aware that there are continuing issues relatin�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 impres ' n that Mn/DOT was not in a h to resolve the issue.
Murphy stated in his view the City sh ld draft a letter addr 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 Hiahway ]2 is heduled t be turned over to the county in approximately six
months but that some attention should be dire d o he situation given the unsafe nature of the potholes.
McMillan concurred that a punch list/letter sho d b created and that photographs depicting the potholes
be submitted alon�with the letter.
Murphy moved,McMillan seconded.in conjunction with he City of Long Lake, compile a list of
issues to be set forth in a joint lette�between the two cities ' ected to the Commissioner of
Mn/DOT,pending formal appr�1 of the letter by the Long L e City Council.
Gilbert noted Lon�Lake has meetinQ next week and they could addre it at that time.
VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0
Gilbert commented,that Mn/DOT has taken away approximately 10 percent of Longl�,ake's tax base with
the new U.S. HiQ way 12 corridor and that they have been left with a substandard road ing throu�h
their town.
McMillan oncurred the road should be repaired in the near future.
PAGE 5 of 8
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 ine 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
f�1..�J L.-...����j,.
City Council of Orono `�'�- ' �� � Z008
City of Orono -. --� _
`�� ' � i;;- �;?;^iA.�r�
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
RE: 3415 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD /DOCK RIGHTS
Dear Members of the Council:
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,
— — ��i��ve-had-fo�r-atfferent and-��:���teres*���*,�3��rs-v��o-�iaue-stated-that�ue_would hear
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 histary of this situation was told to us by neighbors whose family had owned 3407
Crystai Bay Road dating back to the time of the events that lead us to where we are
today. As explained to us: dne 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 daujhters. 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 bo�ting 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 parkin� 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 neighbarhood, 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 chan�e 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 trigDer 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,
' d-�C�
�
Yousry and Karen Elshazly
3415 Crystal Bay Road
Orono, MN 55391
952-471-8012
karenelshaziv��mail.com