HomeMy WebLinkAboutEncroachment Agreement- June 2007 � , 67-�Z��S
� IIII ,40� Cr�a�a�,
, � .
Doc No 9000880 06/28/2007 12:50 PM
Certified filed and or recorded on above date:
Office of the Counry Recorder
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Michael H. Cunniff, County Recorder
TranslD 324091 Deputy 65 .
Fees
$35.50 DOC
$10.50 SUR
$46.00 Total
. . , , ( (.
T�s.g;����R ENTERED
t�prt�,�,�:;��:�Y�►Y�18�tVIQ�
�UN �e �DO�
BY� PI Cb� N�,�,
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT made this 23rd day of April , 2007, by and between
the CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and CATHERINE L.
SWEET,a single person("Landowner").
RECITALS
A. Landowner is the fee owner of certain real property located in the City of Orono,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, having a street address of 3405 Crystal Bay Road, Wayzata,
Minnesota and legally described on the attached E�chibit"A"("subject property").
B. The subject property is adjacent to a 20 foot wide unimproved street right-of-way
owned by the City and legally described on the attached E�ibit"B"(right-of-way area).
C. There is an existing paved private driveway on the subject property which
encroaches into the City's right-of-way area.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS
THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City hereby approves the encroachment of the existing paved private driveway
into its right-of-way area subject to the following:
131061v02 1 (Abstract Property)
SRN:r04/23/2007
, . � � (.
• 'The existing private driveway in the right-of-way area must be altered per the
survey attached hereto as Exhibit"C".
2. Nothing in this Agreement sha11 be deemed a waiver or abandonment of the City's
rights to the right-of-way area.
3. The Landowner sha11 be responsible for a11 costs relating to maintenance and repair,
including snow removal,with respect to the existing private driveway. This maintenance agreement
is a personal obligation of the Landowner and shall be binding upon the heirs, executors,
administrators, successors,and assigns of the Landowner.
4. The Landowner, her heirs, assigns, and successors in interest, does hereby agree to
defend, indemnify, and hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, claims and liability,
including attorney's fees, relating to or arising out of the grant to the Landowner of permission to
encroach in the City's right-of-way area for the maintenance, use, operation, and the like of the
existing private driveway. The Landowner further agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless
from any damage caused to the subject property, including the existing private driveway, caused in
whole or part by the encroachment into the City's right-of-way area.
5. The City may, at its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement at any time by giving
the then current owner of the subject property a minimum of thirty(30)days advance written notice.
The property owner sha11 remove the existing private driveway by the effective date of the
termination of this Agreement. If the owner fails to do so the City may remove the existing private
driveway and assess the cost against the subject property.
6. This Agreement sha11 automatically terminate in the event any of the following
occur:
• Voluntary removal of the house.
• Involuntary removal of the house and no permit for reconstruction issued within
six(6)months.
131061v02 2 (Abstract Property)
SRN:r04/23/2007
, . � ( {.
• Relocation of the existing private driveway out of the right-of-way area.
• Reconstruction of the existing private driveway.
• Removal of the raised planting bed noted on the attached Exhibit"C".
7. This Agreement shall run with the land and sha11 be recorded against the title to the
subject property.
CITY OF ORONO
�
�-
BY: //I�2 `U�
(SEAL) J' White,Mayor
AND �- v�_
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk
PROP TY OWNER:
' .
RINE L. ET
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
�`
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this � day of
��.(�� ,2007,by Jim White,the Mayor of the City of Orono,a Minnesota municipal
corporation,on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council.
���� �� Y��C
,�,- NOTARY PUBLIC
;i �•° RACHEL DODGE
;a�.,, � NOTARY PUBUC-MINNESOTA
:,�::' My Commission Expires Jan.31,2010
131061v02 3 (Abstract Property)
SRN:r04/23/2007
, . � (� �.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
( ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this � �day of
2007, by Linda S. Vee, the City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota
municipal corp •ation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City
Council.
P
�� C� � �, `�U GC
� RACHEL DODGE NOTARY UBLIC
' NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA
My Commisslon Expires Jan.31,2010
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY OF enr� ir� )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �� day of
1�c� , 2007,by CATHERINE L. SWEET,a single person.
`�'� RACHEL DODGE ��� ����
r ^ � NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA NOTARY PUBLIC
�;,,�: My Commission Expires Jan.31,2010
THIS 1NSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY:
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
1380 Corporate Center Curve, Suite#317
Eagan,Minnesota 55121
Telephone: (612)452-5000
SRN:ms
131061v02 4 (Abstract Property)
SRN:r04/23/2007
, . � � �,
EXHIBIT "A"
TO
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
Subiect Propertv Owned bv Catherine L. Sweet
All of Lot 19 save and excepting West 20 feet of said Lot 19, and running from the North to South
line of said Lot 19 heretofore taken for street purposes. Also a strip of land 20 feet wide formerly
lying between Lots 18 and 19 and used for street purposes which said street has been vacated and
said strip of land has by Decree of District Court, Hennepin County, declared to be part of said Lot
19. Also a part of Lot 18 beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 18, thence easterly 10 feet,
thence South to rear line of said Lot 18, thence West 10 feet to Southwest corner of said Lot 18,
thence North to point of beginning. All in Wallace's Addition To the Village of Minnetonka Beach,
according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds within and
for said Hennepin County,Minnesota.
131061v02 5 (AbstractProperty)
SRN:r04/23/2007
. . . �� �,
EXHIBIT "B"
TO
ENCROAC�IMENT AGREEMENT
Unimaroved Street Right-of-Wav Area Owned bv the Citv
The West 20 feet of Lot 19, WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA
BEACH, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
131061v02 ( (Abstract Property)
SRN:r04/23/2007
. , � f"
(.
EXHIBIT "C"
TO
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
Survey of Subiect Pronertv Owned bv Catherine L. Sweet
LAKE MINNETONKA
929.�GONTdA� m
� 1 74.66 � ;
I + N 83°16'37" E � �. '.
I , � ' `�••.eocc a
' � �'...•�BLACKTOP
� CRYSTAL BAY �ROAD 1 0$ 9��:.
� �ovo o�^`, � ��
e �
..�• a �
0
vo
N
I `n° � '
�
� rs 1 �' �
� < i � �
I I> r °STONE 1 y ,
I� p STEPPING ` y �
I -1 op eoe STOf�S ! -+
voo ' m `
—� ', o e ����� � 1
a`� � �— 1�
NOTE: EXISTMG BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY TO TF� I � 1� N
WEST OF TFff HOUSE M PUBUC STREET I m1 � � _.• ' ,y Q
= 1385+- SO.FT. A` .. � J
PROPOSED BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY N PUBLIC m 1 •;y�z . •''sfac ���� �4 N
STREET AFTER REDUCMG TO 6' 'NI�TH I � Q',_,,..••-'� 0. � E � �'
ml �` ovo°°Fo°�so ,� O
� 876+- SO.FT. I o Z ¢�`;�•., � o
� 'IO ' .P�� �� I �„
�o i �.. 1 � � .
� IN: ! 40.5 � m
� �31.t 1 ' P
i � N BLA� � � '
� I �
� � �WµlS � ! ? P/C PIa �
� ��� � o: � N � � ' �
� �a� \ *�"� EXISTING� N , o •
� �� �� ��"o HOUSE � w�, I
I $ 5� '
I ' 11. � 1 �
1 ZA<n
! 1 2.p� .�19.5����� .
I �� �q" �\ 1
I � � � � �a, � ��i���
� ( A �. zo� � � �� �4 ••
/ I i ri/� • .4,QpO5ED�� PR o.•' I / '�° '
n'n Nr y
-- ' i/ � $ b GARA� � � / I;/ . 11
.�a � /i '�'�. 1 :
20 / I :�, ....SPIKE
� I / — ��-¢,��` i 1
� � '' � 9B p2 �y�
� , ,�- . ��� .g ��
�� � � // '•, o$ go�,�2�� �� O
D ^
I � : � R= 60 'Q rl
� . ........ .� 1.�
i ,'� . .��� A�
�F,�
131061v02
SRN:r04/23/2007 7 (Abstract Property)
�oc� �fibB¢�80
(nes�n�edfor recordrng/r�o�mraBarJ
ENCROAC�IlVIENT AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT made this day of , 2008, by and between the
CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and Catherine L�Sweet, a single
person("Landowner").
� RECITALS
A. Landowner is the fee owner of certai.n real properkies loca#ed in the City of Orono,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, having sfxeet addresses of 3405 and 3407 Crystal Bay Road, Orono,
Minnesata and legally described on the attached Exhibit"A"{"Subject Properties").
B. The Subject Properties abut a street right-of-way easement owned by the City("Right-
of-Way Area")legally described as:
The west 20 feet of Lot 1.9,R'allace's Addition to the Village af Minnetonka Beach,
Hennepin County,Minnesota.
C. 'The Subject Properties are in the vicinity of additional property owned by the City
("Lakeshore Parcel'�legally described as:
That part of Lot 1,Block 1,"Wiley's Park" Lake Minnetonka,Flennepin County,
Minnesota,lying northerly of a roadway as Iabeled on said plat as"Old Road".
I38587 1 Of 6
D. Landowner desires to install riprap along the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, located
within the Right-of-Way Area and within the Lakeshore Parcel.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTLTAL COVENANTS
THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The City hereby approves the encroachment af riprap into the Right-of-Way Area and
the Lakeshore Parcel subject to the following:
• The riprap must be installed in the Right-of-Way Area and within the Lakeshore
Parcel per the survey compilation attached hereto as Exhibit"B."
2. Nothi.ng in this Agieement shall be deemed a waiver or abandanment of the City's
rights to the Right-of-Way Area and the Lakeshore Parcel.
3. The Landowner shall be responsible for alI costs relating ta insta.11ation, maintenance
and repair of the riprap. This znaintenance agreement is a personal obligation of the Landowner and
shall be bindi.ng upon the heirs,execu�ors,administrators,successors,and assigns of the Landowner.
4. The I,andowner, her heirs, assigns, and successors in interest, does hereby agree to
defend, indemnify, and hold the City harrriless from all costs and expenses, claims and liability,
including attorney's fees, relating to or arising out of the grant to the Landowner of permission to
encroach iri the Right of-Way Area and the Lakeshore Pat�cel for the maintena.nce, use, opera.tion, and
the like of the riprap. T'he Landowner fiarther agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any
dama.ge caused to the subject property caused in whole or part by the encroachment into the Right-of-
Way Area and the Lakeshore Parcel.
5. The City may,at its sole discretion,ternunate ttus Agreemerrt at any time by giving the
then current owner(s) of the subject properties a minimum of thirty (30} days advance wi�itten notice.
The pmperty owner shall remove the riprap by the effective date of the termination of this Agreement
2
without payment. If the owner fails to do so, the City may remove the riprap and assess the cost
against the subject properiy.
6. This Agreement shall automatically ter��.inate in the event any of the following occur:
• Voluntary removal of the riprap.
� Involuntaiy removal of the riprap.
7. This Agreement shall run with the land and sha11 be recorded against the title to the
subject properties.
CITY OF ORONO
BY:
(SEAL) James White,Mayor
AND
Linda S.Vee,City Clerk
PROPERTY OWNER:
Catherine L. Sweet
STATE OF NIINNESOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing uistrument was acl�owledged before ine this day of
,2008,by James Wliite,the Mayor of the City of Orono,a Mir�nesota municipal
corporation,on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
3
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY QF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instiument was acknowledged before me this day of
, 2008, by Linda S. Vee, the City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota
municipal cQrporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City
Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing insh�ment was acknowledged before me this day of
,2008,by Catheri.ne L. Swee�,a single person.
NOTARY PUBLIC
THiS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY:
CAMPBELL KNUTSON
Professional Association
1380 Corporate Ce�ter C�nve,Suite#317
Eagan,Minnesota 55121
Telephone:{612)452-5000
CRK
4
E��IT"A"
TO
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
Subiect Prouerties Owned bv Catheriwe L.S�veet
Le�al description for 3405 Cr�stal Bay Road(PINS#17-117-23 44 0022):
All of Lot 19 and excepti.ng the West 20 feet of said Lot 1.9, and running from the North to the
South line of said Lot 19 heretofare taken for street purposes. Also a stt-ip of land 20 feet wide
formerly lying between Lots 18 and 19 and used for street purposes which said street has been
vacated and said strip of land has by Decree of District Court,Hennepin County, declared to be part
of said Lot 19. Also a part of Lot 1 S beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 18, thence
easterly 10 �eet, thence South to the rear line of said Lot 1 S, thence West 10 feet to Southwest
corner of said Lot 18, thence North to point of beginning. All in WALLACES ADDITION TO
TI�VII..LAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in
the office of the Register of deeds within and for said County,
Le�descr�tion for 3407 Crvstal Bav Road(PINS#17-117-23 43 0116):
That part of Lot 1,Block 1,"Wiley's Park"La.ke Minnetonka, a piat that is on file and of record in
the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly of a z�oadway as
labeled on said plat as"Old Road".
5
EXHIBIT"B" _ � ,
TO
ENCR4ACHMENT AGREEMENT
Survev ComnilRtian Denictin�Areas of Encraachment
Area of allowed
Lakeshore Parcel �'ip-rap encroachinan#
� 778.3? . s»..caaw'u� �.
� � .i
1B'37" £ �` � �• ' '
-- ? — .i � f3� . • •
3,80 - -1- . ' :�••.}nuo
� PP�r���� �/ . . � ��rN�:awne . � .
�RY5TAL BAY I�OAD. _
� .�,.fl,a� '
.,.
� • .
: f �
Eoal Line-� A
al lot 1 ` • �� �i
� I ` < 18
�je�e n
� Y �' _ �
PqRK �_5�,�,,a, ��� _ _�_
woy a Plott.a
r— f" / �• � � O
� �
1 R+ "'r ' � ` o
� ` ` � o
2 � d�;_._y ,�o �
;: • � ..o°' �
� `� �T.O' � j �
:� ..-Cn-oPase c?orage � � Rt
9TT'P,c� t� ' O �: ... �»
ytr f--'
3fl3 £xisi9nq . � ��' z 3' � Gt340� �,w �
�dge�_ ) �- Exi inl, ,L^� J „ �
a j,rl� - ,�
0
f thA � � � r ho se� i 7r � �, n.�y E�JX/'�l {NG � o
; � .L__ PI f�l ■� / �D. 1 [IVU E �
��� M � stV
kp Q �km,.r '3407�� $ .� '�
, ....
ti £ o.S' '...xi.9'... S 2:
e Q ` ...19--� .
.,� �
� � f �
�6�' M � � � �j%
v M yi 18.1' � �„ � /..'
a / �
� � � i
_ , � � �e
� ; ,�� _ � -
� � N aGARI' � � ��
► 1 . � � g,�
' 4✓lre fQnCP ( � .dA. �� -. � O
� � �..a� /�, . �.����
� ! j df 1.sq6A'.'i l� �
;l � , , �.:,=�z;z�� .go
� ' �° P�
% � �( � g
.iGf� �1rS.2' ' � ���' _.._...__ O��Y
c.s'. �
in. � , �,�j�
1d� � R �
��,o'4�Los \ 1
' 1 ,�o`.� .f'+•6`� yfi �A�
1 ,
j �.�� ��
•. 6 '
�.��
6
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.
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:
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
i'sa� ;
DESCRIPTION: -___.. __ -----_ _..___ _----- - - "
�� ��
That part of lots 1,2,3,and 4,Block 1,Wiley's Park Lake Minnetonka,a plat that is on file � Benchmaric �
and of record in the office of the County Recorder,Hennepin County,Minnesota,lying o 2o ao " •�
northerly of a roadway as labeled on said piat as"Old Road". o Set Iron with cap No.12282 �
Scale in feet �I ���
Containing 3,612 sq.ft.or 0.0829 acres of land. • Denotes Iron Pipe found � � �;�* y
�II�'
:' PP Power Pole ���a, �
Bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System �t9�� ���
\ \ Woter Elevaticn = 930.00 os Locoted 04/OS/2006 �J��Y�_� I �I �n`7 ,�a `�
��� �7
Benchmark: N1 g 2��J'e p�69 c� _ /—Edge of Woter as of 04/05�2006. l �K'^ ������ � L��'�l\�� n`c o� �
Dou b le spi ke in power 3� a
�- 179.32 ` �
pole,North side Crystal �3p � `�o.�4 � N8p•44'20 _ ��
Bay Road,400 feet North � �� � �w��58 _ _ ----- �
c— � N88'29'48"W 98.98 � >f 4.45
� �
of Shadywood Road(Co. .,___ __ -s,si 2 sq. tt. �_ �
RD N0. 19), �—'"� SS)� — � 0.0829 ocres-,\ oMi / �60 -A107'20'06'W 3.17 $ i �i
Elevation:932.76feet ��� 22�F` ����r�3.2i '---- _ _ Survey �ine-� � _ _ - - -- f--,-, - s.as_ _--__ ����.�
(NGVD 1929) � ��l / s� �' --- - -
lp,eQ�� ,_ __ �� � _ 1.86�' N85'08�43"E 149.75 �--North R;ght o 1 r t
WaY as piotted I 1�r
�� �- -� _ i CRYSTAL BAY ROAD _
' � -'�7-- � _ _ - --
�' O '� ' ; � - --- - --- - (OLD ROA � -- -- -------_ r--:--
,, o� � ,, , , �- - _ __ _ _,___, �; ,
�/ �.�� �� / �/�/I l r �� r � T � Eost Line -� � 3 � Q
� � � � r�/ L��� r � � � I� o , o� �.oc , l � ., � o
/ Q- �v i � � � i ;� Q �� 3 ' � � � �� � a �i w
� ��� � � / � � � 9 �i > � o � i y i za�
/� v � � � / o °` ' � o` ,'� � � � � j c I ���
� ��(v ti � � .-,.. : � !I � � L° I � Q � 'a�
�� ��� �� J� / / /� ea � II If Q �' " A' \(� � ¢ � /� '`A'oyt as Piatted { 1 �m o'
��� � \ �.. / 1 l < � � � � _ — -- �v�i m
1 � � ( I ( `' � f � f f �
�' 4 � � % � i ; _- — I i �WA��C_ACE'S ,��.,
i / � _,� — � i � ���ADG; o
i ' ! � ' 1 �
� ,��� � i 2 i �i �i �
, � , 3 , ; I 1 �.
� BLOCK 1 % � f ; � '
, , , � , , �
� >> l l , � i, 1 I � � I � �
� � 1.OF 1
� �
\ �
� �
. � ` �
/
�►'�" �— ,. � 1 � � `
' ��
1n ,�� �
� * .. ����"11► � \ �
; �1'r"'!�"�..- • �r�:� . ,, � .
. i�A��.�.r . .......������ �
-- , , ��
� ���' �`�'� �� .
i �f �� '� � �
�, �, �.
�
' � �� �� � �� �,�.
, � i ' )^ �� ��
* ' ,�
r� �
` � ; ;�
� � � . i
�►.�.,,, � � �'�� ,
� - � . -_`---. � , � i►
� �-••_-
�� ' � '� , 'i r
1 ' r ���'�, , , ''} ''. ��
� � � � •� . � � �
,, ' ` 4 ti � - ' ' ', '� r,�
/ ''�••� ._ ... 1 a
� ! 1
' � . ' � •
�,1 J •, � �1
�` ' � � '*��, � ;� „ rr�' ,�
r �� j
` ��� �� rr
� �� •
� '` '.'�����
� � ,I� � � Y �
, �,,- ..�. �
� , J
, * �� �� � II
� .x � � � � �
� •a . � •��� ���
� ' �," '`�3��,, ��� ',J �
�..��"��-�== ��/ �I�� ..
L.��,� .► � , .�7
�,•r���, � j �� ♦ +�
* . +��.,.. .
. � . .
.� %;
� ..
.
:, �, „ .
«.,,y,,� .
* .... * /��
�;,
� , , � . ��
•� �ui
��;��i�' S.\\ NOTE:WILEY'S NAVARRE ADDN FOR VACATION NOTE f t REARRANGEMENT OF LOTS
°' � OF PART OF O�.IVE AVE & THE CREATION OF 42.43,57.58.59.69. 70 & 71
�� So� LOT 24 SEE BK 137 MISC PG 234 AND WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE
�� Sp. COUNTY SURVEYOR PLAT FILE, VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BE
.
18 `
,��0) O s� So� , l� ',�J�"�I
�� ,z � � ��
� 9� tia Q . ��
^ ~ \ �� � �- , ,��� �
� (8)ti°�`'� 15 S�\ `, �i ; ���;;,. ' �j �
� �7)oi� 14 , •`,
`'� `�' q `� SO� � �.,. `�� t!� �
�' _`� •
� �,�U' Ap ti°'°(6) ` '�' so' ; � "''��`�'" • (19;
� '�� 0 �(5)2 � � S° � ` �`�- u� D �(�j p $,0(34)'
u s, ; '"� � `'�� e �(21)y
,
. 1 S' O� � (4�P!3)� 9 O S�� � � L (VAC BK 116 50 � � 9 10 y �22). 4,� 62• ,
��� s, � b ti�ti c2>�, 3s: � � .,5 33_ (� � 23>
2r .7. . s �, ."'� � ; . DW � u o
- --- - --- -- -- --'- -�' �q' �I) 7 n�, P g �- � 75.1 �, 45 � �2�
• ' ---- ------ -- . 5
,. ---- ------ - . ��w ,��( 5) 24
-' 2 '�, o�I 6) 6 - ------� ' S0 - ---- -r - =' r------ -r-=-- --- - ----- - -
h
-- - -- --------------------- -------
. --. � � �.�'' �Q ti a� (12�5)\,LA ���(119)�(117)�(H5) � `" .- '1 ��� � � is 15 ,(17)- (16)
�� ` ' ! N \ IH)s Z
' �� O A6 . Ss ST � � 7��� \�0 4 � i 19 i�' 18 �s 17� ��9)� �, �a+
. .•i'��' P S6 � S� ,;.29 q' K22) ': ' (21) �< < � 0 �� �
1 .• � � 3 v°�i 2 N � N N : � � �9 • O
°' 5; h"' • ti �� ,..29 � N tV N _ � . � 50
l\�3l: l ti��' 0��1� S�o��, �o .s; .��� I) tli8) (il6) ,� • 13399 �\ 44 � `��-.
� ��32(143) �°' 2 3 'ry '��so ;".2 �yy (120) -�(23) , a 609)� ��,
�: �,; h' 'h ' s � yi yo � . , �� ,
� 'h ) 0p 'a' (s9 S �'` q � �\� pl ;� 2�i6` '4 �
. �� 9 ^� 2 `��` y 4 �\v � �- s i . .9 �, 90
� �� � (129 h-�j �. �0' � ( 2) �- � � No 5�� Se,c S '� �°' 46 S, �
�' S � ���9 �.Sp .2q,��1�����27 �d \ � `� '74 �Jh�2 ��92 � � �' �� ���Q) a
• 96.*'- \ 1 `p``� 1� \. ° 'h0 y�� �/32 (82),S', A`, so`,`s'' \Qo4 48� �
� P 4 � , 1 41` _ �
ti � �
�•-•, � K T A \�p90 , B A.�v�E 1z4� ,� �s� �� �`�'��0 �� ° �os �
��'e. �� 2�.�5':•'• 20 �o QS' � �(83) `�� s s° �
` S 9�.25 ' ,n' �`, (25)` 2� so .. o (42)9 �� • s 4�
.c < _7, . �q � O
_ 50 35 0.1 54.2 50.3 50.3 0.3 . .r.��.,9�,� 9 � {� � N Q 12 25r -- >� 0 2 1 „ .'?� �
ep 0 CD M � Q �(1 CO t[1 f" GO 01 , J�, �I� I� �(69) ''c26� ' �q y o �( Q� 37a ` s
3 M 2 � vi N 10 r'� M M 7 M 6 M r"_i i° Q °� �i' s '=- ------- 1 �y ,� .,�0 24 �. a 36 -
� O �0 ^h'
7)�2�'i) _ �n r,, rn 9 8 - - -5 4- 3 - 2 � ��E q 72 48.7 i �. II 0 25 sr � � 0,0 �,��
140, � . ., ..-tl2) I) 0) ) ) �y � .•': '� .o.°.'�o �� . h F�y So \�,�. 35�h
.. ;, ��• 4 3y 3'+� y6 3k � s °° 768) So 26� ��.�3 A S �`° 34
50 50 50 50 �50 5 50 50 5 � p;'� c'`ss29 "��� (6,, ` �13• SS 9 �28� 2�h 6S � �
� 3S o y 347 3y60 (18) 1e 1 "^ M e ? '�� T9 �( 0 � o� rrs S (29) 28 ��)S s S� -
N � M N N N N N� � 7� �`I� O � _�f 6 ��%�A��� / ' Cl v� , � � �J O� � S `
� 2 Z Z3 9d I� I M 11 M �7 M �e M IA� �C N I6M I 7 �v M - . 2 1� �•'� 7 2 9
� .=i i >e i _. � _ O i���:� i
Issue Permanent Easement Sale
1.Establish Value A permanent easement granting docking rights Establishing a price on the sale of the parcels may be somewhat more
The premise here is that the has a dollar value which an appraiser would have complex than establishing the value of an easement. This to some
opposite owners should not to quantify. The value of such an easement is extent will depend on the easement rights retained by the City, if any.
just be granted easement likely to be less than if the same land is being sold Also, if this is a sale, it will involve more land due to the vacation&
rights or be able to acquire outright. dedication to clean up the right-of-way issues(see City R-O-W Width
lakeshore property at no Since each opposite parcel would be gaining the Requirements discussion below).There is some minor variability in the
cost. They may argue that same benefit,the right to have a dock,there is square footage of land that each of the 4 opposite owners would gain
they purchased their probably not much variability in the value of the via the vacation,new dedication and purchase,ranging from 2100 s.f.
properties not knowing they easement among the four lots. to 2700 s.f.
didn't own the shore-we Value vs.Price Regardless whether the dock rights are acquired via easement or lakeshore property purchase, it can be
believe that is incorrect. �.�ed that there is a difference between the `before' and `after' value of the homestead properties. The City Assessor has
indicated that the four homestead parcels have been valued for ta�c purposes as if they have lake rights,and as long as they
are allowed to continue putting in docks on the City lots,the assessed value would stay the same. If the City were to force
removal of the docks,the assessed values would drop significantly.
We know from one of the owners that the ability to sell a homestead parcel is diminished without having dock rights firmly
in place. It seems reasonable to conclude that a homestead parcel with lake views but not dock rights has a lower value than
one with dock rights. The dock rights add value; it is unknown whether the City's not forcing the removal of the docks in
the past would have an impact on how they are valued by the owners or prospective buyers.
Finally, if an appraisal concluded that the dock rights are worth, say, $200,000 per parcel,the question to be answered is
whether the price for the City's lakeshore strips should reflect the difference in value between the home with and without
dock rights. If so,will any of the four opposite owners be able or willing to pay that price? Will the City be forcing them to
sell in order to cover that cost? Will the City consider an alternative sales method, such as 10-15 year assessment?
2.City R-O-W Width In an easement situation,the easement would be Sale of the lake parcels should be predicated on a vacation and
Requirements drafted such that no easement rights are granted rededication of road right-of-way, so that the actual traveled road and
Although the dedicated that would interfere with the public road needs of 10' either side of the paved surface is within a dedicated roadway. The
road right-of-way between the City. For instance, storage of dock sections on traveled paved road is 18'-20' wide at this location. The standard right-
the lakeshore parcels and the portions of the lakeshore parcels that are of-way per City code for this public road would be a 32' paved width
the opposite home parcels Within ten feet of the paved road edge might be within a 50' dedicated corridor. Given that 80%of the 2500' length of
is 66' in width, a portion of prohibited(recommended). Crystal Bay Road exists only as a prescriptive easement with no
the paved traveled road is dedicated right-of-way,reduction of the 66' dedication to just 40' is
within three of the four City probably reasonable. This 40' should,however,be centered on the
lake parcels. existing road,which would reduce the depth of the lakeshore parcels by
as little as 5' on the east end to as much as 23' near the west end. This
leaves a sliver of land between the road and the lake no more than 5-10'
deep that could be sold to the opposite owners. The total area of land to
be vacated would be about 8,000 s.f.;the area to be newly dedicated
would be about 2,000 s.f.
Issue Permanent Easement Sale
3.E�sting Lake Access A permanent easement for docking purposes would be If the most westerly lakeshore parcel is sold to its opposite
The existing winter lake �'itten so as to allow the existing lake access point to owner,the City should consider the options of either
access point used by the continue to be used in the future. relocating the access point or retain a portion of the right-of-
public appears to be partly An alternative would be to relocate that access point further �'ay(or at least an easement)to allow its continued use.
located in the westerly of west as an extension of the north-south leg of Crystal Bay
the 4 City lakeshore lots. Road that extends to the lake(66' wide). This may require
This needs to be confirmed. some tree removals and regading of the lakeshore.
4.Utility Needs Granting of a permanent easement for dock purposes would Pending confirmation in the field, it appears that all existing
be written in such a way so as to not allow interference utility lines would be within the resultant right-of-way after
with existing utility lines above or below ground. City vacation&dedication.
water and MCES sewer lines are underneath the paved
portion of the existing road according to City as-built plans,
so no additional City utility corridors are needed.
5.Rights and The City retains ownership of the parcels.A permanent The City would no longer own the parcels. Our assumption is
Responsibilities of easement or `deeded lake access' would allow the opposite that the County would not allow a combination of taac parcels
Opposite Owners owners to erect a dock subject to the terms of the easement; across a dedicated right-of-way. As part of a sale to the
the City could place restrictions on that easement at the opposite owners,the City would require execution of a Special
time it is granted if it chose to do so. Those restrictions Lot Combination Agreement that would disallow the sale of
might include,for instance,how much of the land(above the lake parcel separately from the non-lakeshore homestead
the 929.4 OHW)could be covered by dock,walkways, etc. parcel across from it.
However,the number of slips extending from that dock The opposite owners would then�iave the same rights and
would still be regulated by the LMCD. The easement responsibilities as others who own the lakeshore in front of
could be written to require some defined level of their homes, subject to City road right-of-way limitations, and
maintenance to be performed by the opposite owner,such subject to LMCD dock rules. City may want to retain
as erosion control,as the paved road is at some locations easements to the water's edge to allow City maintenance of
less than 15' from the water's edge. the shoreline if not done by the owners,to preserve the road.
6.Rights of Others City would retain ownership. The easement would grant City transfer of property would be via quit-claim deed,
docking rights to the 4 opposite owners without affecting because that is how the City acquired it. This means that all
the potential rights of off-lake"bathing and boating rights" the potential off-lake"bathing and boating rights"easement
easement holders,who would claim those rights against the holders still might claim their rights,but would be claiming
City. With an easement the grantee(opposite owner)is them against the 4 owners,not against the City. City would
less likely to have to deal with claims by the unknown off- still maintain that no off-lake owners have the right to erect a
lake"bathing&boating rights"easement holders. City dock based on `no accessory use/structure without principal
would still maintain that no off-lake owners have the right use/structure' coupled with the definition of accessory use as
to erect a dock based on `no accessory use/structure being `subordinate to the principal use'.
without principal use/structure' coupled with the definition
of accessory use as being `subordinate to the principal use'.
� o�
0 o CITY of OR�NU
Municipal Offices
a1 Ar Street Address: Mailing Address: '
�'�'� G,�,�' 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O.Box 66
,� Orono,MN 55356 Crystal Bay,MN 55323-0066
���Es�IOg'
October 25,2011 �
Yousry and Karea Elshazly
3415 Crysta.l Bay Road �
Orono, MN 55391
Re: Request for Esta.blisbment 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 ovex the City-owned lakeshore property across Crystal Bay Road
from your residence. I apologize that this matter took so iong to reach a conclusion,but the
complexity of the issues and the need to provide the City Council a com.plete background of the
situation delayed review of the matter.
Informarion 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 prasentation of the issues,the Council xeviewed the possible �
options for resolving the situa.tion.Tite City Attorney advised that granting of an easement over
public property is not an option. The Council was mot i.nterested in a leasing situation or in
licensing,and was not in favor of selling the parcels. Ultimately,the Council concluded they
would ta.ke no action. The City will reta.in 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,
�i�6�
�
Michael P. Ga on
Asst. City Admuustrator
encl.
Telephone(952)249-4600•Fax(952)249-4b16
www.ci.orono.mn.us
Summary of Background Information Provided to City Council:
Crystal Bay Raad City Lots
The City of Orono owns four iakeshore parcels across from residential properties at 3407, 3415,
3435 and 3445 Crystal Bay Road. These parcels were quit-claim deed.ed to the City in the mid-
1930s. They are subject to deeded"batlaing and boatiung" rights dating back ta t911 for as many
as 150 residential lots in the Navarre area(including �ke four opposite lots), only a few of which
bave exercised that right. Staff regularly receives questions from realtors, sellers or potential
buyers asking what this means and whether their off-iake properties have the right to have a
dock. The City's position is that they do not, for a variery of reasons -primarily tha.t a dock is an
accessary structure not allowed without a principal structure.
It is unknown.how many of these 150 can actually claim"bathing and baating 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 ti�le work needed to detezmine what properties had formal.ized and retained their
Iegal interest in the parcels. In 2008 it was learned that the County would not do �ha.t title work
and that it would cost the City$25-30,000 to have it completed. Council chose not to proceed.
An additional factar is tha.t the four privately owned residence lats directly across Crystal Bay
Road have in the past ha.d docks extending from the City pazcels. The City has never formally
advised the owners of three of the four to remove their docks from the City property;the fourth,
3445 Crystal Bay Road, was the subject of a pnixa.cipal structure tear-down/rebuild variance a few
years ago. T'hat variance approval resolution states that the residence property does not include
the lakeshore and does not enjoy riparian rights. T'he other three continue to have docks.
In October 20Q$ (and again in March 201Q and again in August 2010) Kaxen Elshazly of 3415
Czystal Bay Road asked for a resolution to this issue because she is having difficuliy selling her
property without established dock rights. In March 2009, Jon Eiss of 3445 Ctystal 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 lats. 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, izicluding doing nothuig; 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 inrlicated theix preference would be to ha�re 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 lalceshore 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 2Q11 Work Session, the
City Attorney indicated that granting an easement over City property was not a viable option,
Page 1 of 2
and the va.rious scenarios for leasing suggested that the lessees would expect to enjoy some
exclusivity of use which the City could not guarantee, or wouJ.d l�ikely result in ongoing
nnanagement issues for the City. The three remaining options (sell, do nothing, or require dock
removal}each had plusses and minuses:
Sa1e of the City lots to the opposite owners would give them ovvz�ership of the lakeshore, but the
initial iransa.ction is necessarily quite involved due to the need for a subdivision/re-plat to
guaxantee the public's use of the traveled roadway (see the swrvey attached, which indicates the
traveled roadway is partly witivn dedicated right-of-way and partly witliin the 4 lakeshore
pazcels). An appraisal to establish land value would be needed. Also, the City would have ta
transfer the lots via c{uit-clai.m.deed, as that is how the City acquired them, and therefore alI the
potential off-site"ba�g and baating rights"becorne the problem of the new owners.
Doin ng�otk�',_� does not resolve the issue for property owners who are having diffictalty selling
their properties without a definite conclusion to this issue,but requires no further City action.
Requ.irin�dock removal patentially reduces the value of these four homes without providing a
clear benefit to the public, given the nature and relative difffculiy of public use of these pazcels
even if docks were removed(Iack of parking,proximity to traveled road, etc.)
Staff recommended that if the saJ.e 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/vaca�ion sketch
2. Formuiate necessary easements/covenants to retain
3. Discuss cancept wi�th opposite owners
4. Establish value and price(appraisal}
5. If buy-in from opposite owners,hold a public heari.ng
6. Proceed.witli subdi�vision/vacataon/dedication via stancEard City approval processes
The above is a summary of the information provided to the Council £or 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 COUNClL W�RK SESSION
Monday,September 12, 2011
b:30 p.m. ;
Present: Mayor Lili McMillan,Councll Members Doug Franchot and Aaron Printup. Representing Staff
were City Adrninistrator Jessica Loftus,Assistant City Administrator for Long Term Strategy
Mike Gaffron, Planning&Zoning Coordinator Melanie Curtis, Building OfFicial Lyle Oman,City
Clerk tin Vee and City Attorney Soren Mattick
Oman presented informatfon on properties that are in disrepair, Ca4ncif directed staff to continue to
pursue hazardous building action when compla(nts are received. Councfl 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 pa rks. .
Mayar McMll{an presented an updated version of the city logo and wilf continue to work wifih Aavid
Maass on the design.
�affron reviewed the status of Lurton Park. Councfl discussed potential improvements,including#he
parking fot,picnic tables and benches,trails,vegetation and signage. A dedication ceremony will be
pianned far late October.
Gaffron provided a brief history af the Crystal Bay Road c}ty-owned lakeshore lo�ts. 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. Councif directed staff to
obtain sample ordinances from area cities for further discussion at a future work sess4on.
The dock rentaE ordinance discussion will be continued at a later date.
There were no comments regarding Information Update Items.
The meeting ciosed at 6:52 p.m, '
Al?EST:
Linda S..Vee, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Page 1 of 1
�
. �, • �` ►
� r• * ,�r r �'A
�'= -- �. �' ',� r ,� �
�
� ��
�� i� �`
� * .���"M , ��
>.; ,,,.�.:-
�''�� �t�w�N�M `��� ` �''`:�
�ci, e�w :.i k �r.r + .Y
� f:1 Lr ��� \ ��� ;.
��'a .,3�� �
� . � ' �
= T� '� .�
g C. * • �.
J ' � � �
I
1 � �
�S� ��� ♦ 1 � ��'
.
�i� .� {i �,, ��4 �
i I„. 1 �
I'1 ', �_ �
� ��
� � �� y*
�;c �a. * k�;, • f y ��1^
�� � ��r � �� � �� �.
i�'`i ,I�i - f, .�s� �, �t��'
'�` ��' it. �...L.Cy;;�►:rc",�,�- ,�i. ,; ��('�
�i � �i� � 7 � � ,-:�t _5' �
._�I . ��`', ��.
,� • ' �+/ ''• �� �`
;ty� � �;`� � � 1 ; `'1� ��
.i� �' +��.�R. y} .��'. �' .� �ji� '1 .�.�
� �� � �
r � C � r - ,�i � ' 1 �
�� � ��.,.
'� � ��T ..�..��r,• 'I'�� ��
� �:� � s; 1
� �►�::r •
,;�' �� ...' �.' ..�.' � =.h �
• .,� , �. 1
� � - � �'��•� ;�,;,��� +,+���,�" ;�
�� ,�� _ a
,� �� `��,'�'' •
t� �� �Ii.
''� ` �
� _..� ,�� e S � � t�' •
1 �.,r�r �� �
4 ,� � ��� � "'� � � �f
x, � �� �`', r �
� . �: w � ` !'�"'�,�ji'.���� �•a ���
,�y ..�,��r �/.t ,`I
�r�� ��'+�'"" �I'� ':�'�o'r �
�1� �� 1 � ; � 'r ••...
���� �` �� �� � a �
# �'��'�'�;. �' � � �� .
� ����
,;,, •
'� s/ ..
., � ' ` ,�
4� � It •
� . � •
* .... * •'�1,u„�
�M
� �
£j �' $
. �
�DESCRIPT[ON:
����� �
That paR of lots 1,2,3,and 4,Block 9,Wiley's Park Lake Minnetonka,a plat that is on file � Benchmark �
and of record in the office of the County Recorder,Hennepin County,Minnesota,lying p Za 40 �� -
northerly of a roadway as labeled on said plat as"Old Road". o Set Iron with cap No.12282 ���� �
Scale in feet N r���
Containing 3,6i2 sq.ft.or 0.0829 acres of land. � Denotes Iron Pipe found }��� y
€�s;
�l PP Power Pole ��a:
s<
�g3�� Qe
Bearings are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System g��$� ��
a
��$� e
� Water Elevation = 930.Q0 os Located 04�Q5�2006 CRYSrP,L BAY �„f•
� �
_}�eo!
N,8• � s�ss�_ � (LAKE MINNETONKA) �x`�"�
Benchmark: ��L 1p � �Edge of Woter as oT 04�05�20a6. a�g�� �
27' £
�`� - � N���� �
Double spike in power � �\ 17g,J2 �
pole,North side Crystal �.3p \ _�-7 0.�4 � N8-��2p^yy 8z S8 �� - �
Bay Road,400 feet North �� � i ��--3.6i 2 sa. rt�~ � . � -- r�RA•'Q•dR""' """" -_ ,�4�
of 5hadywood Re?�+!�^. —
m
Yg
0.0829 acres�\ By� PP /� 3.60 V -P1012006"W 377 ��m��
RD No. 19). t
Elevation:932_76feet .' Surve '�ne-' � 5 45 . _ ��� oo���
y ` � a�.r;�-� ma<� �
(NGVD 1929) - - - -� t . �w - � `'�� '�s � �I ���3�
,� ,
r,: �, ' i,�1'�i��� ��' x
� � i � � ��,
l , ��� �k- .�
/ �A/f r � j East Line-� a
`�`��L/�'` .�� I 3,' H
C �� p a of Lot 1 � i r. d
, f
, r���;� o j� � �,�4 a z
' �
� � -i
� �aR� �� �� Q���� - ��:� ���
o / l�ati.'sf i �'`�t>�;� ,1 �a�
� �;'����'j i � � F,,+°�;:1 ��µ�,�s;* }'^
� � � r p
AR 4 ��.Q � �aa
�. .
� _ - �v � � ti q��� � � � �Soufh Right of � �.�.r 1 Z m
� y,rny as Plotted ���a ;j �p�o
� � ` i'i�y�' O�m
� �°' 4' \ � '�-- ° ������`'t i���,�� �v
�- O
' �-����
� � � �_ �
� 3 2 � � - �
_ � BLOCK 1 � � � � , � ,
,�,o�rw
1 OF 1
, _ _ _ _
R��
August Z3,2010 ,f���,i' �����
G��j�p� ��,��+j
Mike Gaftron Q�Q�
�ity of Orono Q �
Dear Mike:
We just have a feinr thoughts in follow up to our phone conversation we had last wee�regarding th�
varEaus optians the clty Es explaring regarding resolutlan of the lakeshore issue. �
We ur�rferstand the comptexlty and we very much appreciate the efforts being mede to take thts
lakeehare out of limbo—which woutd also r�suit in tafcing the investments we have rriade!n our
property aut of perrr�anerlt itmbo. Atk we are seeking is tha formalEzation of what has been in practice
for a fong tirne and what r�akes sense for the homeawners,tFte cfty,and th��leftned ne9ghborhood
As 1 ment�oned,when we purcha5ed a�r home in 1999,the dlsclosure statemerit stated the lakeshare �
was"#echnically deeded." You r�plied that the other houses in the d�ffned neighborhoad coutd st�te
the same. Mowever,u+e da feef Chere has been and is a dlstinctipn as this home has had a dack far many
yaars�85 or mare?)and the reasoh that has been aflowed is due ta the dfstinctien af thfs property(end
the two other praperties in question}6e{ng physlcally ort�e lake. We reatiae the actua!shore!s owned
by the city—but the three homes in questton are physically/visually on the fake which is what has
attowed the dty to allow us to have dodcs. �
The c�ty has stated to us on more fihan one occasfon that no ane It�ing physicaliy/visually aff the lake
woulc!ever be alfowed�instal4 a ciock—due to securtty and tiabiEfty lssues—rwt being abfe to manibor
its use or p�ntect i#. Sa there is and has been a physfcal and pracEical dlstinetlon--it ls the legai
distinctton that w�are rec�uesting to resolve. Thls distinction fs furthered by the fact#hat the
city/county has been abte t4 tax th{s property,{and the two other properties tn questlon)based upon the
practfcal use of the►akeshore and thfs!s ncrt the case for the otMer praperties in tF�e deff ned
netghbarhood that ere not physicaily/vfsuatly on the shore.
We are sincereiy f�oping this distinction can he further applied to alfrnnr for some permanant and iega{ •
de�c#ed access—not just aecess to the lake Itke the hames abnve--but perrnanent and fegal access to
have and utfl�xe a cfodc. "Fhe intent.af ehe kind gent�emart who owned thls property and wha tnducfed
the deflned nelghborhood in his wEshes was envlslaned befare the t}me of boats requiring a dock to
access the lake far boatirtg anct there were aisa very few homes En the cfefined n�ighborhood.
With that thought in mind,we would lEke to comment on the options you mentfaned. Ths sale af the
Ialceshor�ta the th�ee homeowners that can feasibly havs a cfock is the leas�destrable as the
hameowners have already paid for that vafue(In varying degrees lncreasing by time),based on the long
hisiory of docks snd the assumptlan rhet dodcs would cor�tlnue to be ailowe�. if the clCy no longer
wants to own the shQre—that is flne--but the sate of it at any substanttal prica would seem redundant
and excesslve. The city paid nothing for thEs shore—[f a sale ls deemed tiie best option for the city we
woutd respectfully propnse that It be done fo�a nocnfnal fee, 'T'he fourth homeowner(3445)Is in s
different situatian es you expfafned—stnce th�re is nnt room for a doek.,,birt th�t was mada c(�ar and
. i
fega�ly bindtng before the most recent sate of Yhat property and that saEa prlce reffected that dfsttnction
fram prior saie prices for that praperty. �
Yau also mentfo�ed the optlon af fssuing the humeowners in yuestlon a license ta have tF�e dock—6ut If �
that Is not permar�ettt—!t reatly doesn't change the eurreni dtfemma, And haw wa�ld that d[ffer from ;
the taxes we currently pay for use of the shore which we da not awnP
We would hope thafi a resolutinn can be found that would rasolve the issue for us but would not
necessarlty have to change tt�e status af the defln�d neighborhaod and ifiey would,there�re,not need
to sign aff on the re9olution, ks it posstbte ta take a"quiet title actlon"for a perrnanent easement far
the three praperttesP lf anyone cioes protest,it can then ba exptalned that this actfon is simply
fornral(zing wha�has been practioed far many,many years snd tnat it does not change their status.And
we have t�note here,once agatn,that the other hames off the lake in the defined netghborhood cb nat .
utEitze the type oF aa:ess that 4s possibie for them(pfcnickEng on the shore,launching a kayak or row
baat.etc.j b�use sach activltfes are more practic�[and en}oyable at fake loca#ions#hat have pubiic
facllfttes-f�ut if they chaase to do so—there fs nathing preroanting them and the docks do nnt In any
way hinder this type of access.
I think we aii recogniae that without sorr►e formalization of how things hav�h�en for some time—and in
today's rnarketJeconomy,these houses could return to a"fa[ceshore sSum"—the values wuufd decrease
as wetl as the tax revenues, Thfs formallzation is to�ic�E and benefldal to al{concerned—the city,the
three homeawners,and wlth no negative�4mpact on tha defined ne3ghborhood.
AgafnE uve woutd like to sineerely thank you and the Cfty af Chrono for it�efforts to resotve thfs tssue.
I�nd r�ards,
��`�i ��"'-
Yousry and Karen Elshazly
34�5 Crystal Bay RoatE
arono,MN 55391
952-4�71-80i2
952-288-6Z39{Karen Ce11)
• :,a,.,..._w Y�,,...
r w.._, ?.,e.�,..W�. . • . . • . .. . � .
^` 'q.��''}�,.zn'�t?F'F_,�v .ia,__i- ' ,
• at��:�:.v;lh''<3'.tr• . ��� . .
' /f-- C/L ��`�1 C. . Q' ' �' 12�
. .� Y ��3 `� /
O� Na ��► �
234. Elle�a DeHaven Peterson,a eiaglc WA�RRANi'Y DEED
Dated SePtembat 16, 1998
person Filed March 11, 1999
to Dvctunent Na.7074998
. That part of Lot 2,Block i,Wiley's Park,
Iaiichael 7.McEnany and Debaarah A. Lake M'�m►etanks lyutig 3outh of Coun.try �
Rr�n,as jomt tensnts Road,mcluditig perpatual right to use fo�
privetc battd�g and pziv�te boating purpoaes
opi�,all tb.at part vf Lota 1,2,3 avd 4 iu eaid
Bloak 1,Iy.ing belween tiu NarthertY line of
County Rae.d and.4'�Y�t Ba3'• Subja�to
bcdiding aud zon�ng 3�aws,d����
� end fedetal regu�stiona;Resttiati�ns reletiuog
to use ar ir�C'ovem�of the prap�Y witiiout
effective forfeitare provis�ioa;Resen'ation af
asty mineral xights by�e Smbe af Minnesota;
ntility and drainage ease�neats which do not
interfere wlth e�isting improvem�.
� 235. Michael3.McBnany,Deborah A. MORTCAGE
Williainsrn4 kusband&wife Dated September 16, 1998
Filed March�1,1999
� � Docume�rt No.7a'7d999
pmouut�"327,000.00 .
���q��a���Q Due October 1,2028
Co�poration,w.hich is arganired That part of Lot Z,Bloak 1,Wiley's Park,
and exesting uncier the laws of the Lake Minnetonku lYinB Sonth of County
State of New Jersey Rosd.includinag PcrPet�gl right to use far
privete boatiung ptupoacs only,elt thet patt af
�dts 1,2,3 aud 4 in said B3.oek I,lying
6etween the Northerly line o:f Coan4y Road
and.Crystal HsY.
236. There may be locel or county ordinsnces filed w��th the offece af tihe Gounty Rccoi'der,
He�epiu County,Mianesota. Unfess aaptioned gsemises is specificsity mantianed in�aid
tioouateut,no ar'danances are set fortla in this absixact and are escluded from�e certificatiou of
this abstract,
March 31,2010 ���rV��
A�R�5 ZotQ _
City Caunci!of Orono �����OROlyp
Clty of Omno '
2750 KeRey Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
RE: 3415 GRYSTAL BAY ROAD/DOGK RIGHTS
Dear Members af the Councli:
f am wrifi�ng to follow up on our letter af October 2'l,2008. At thati time we were Cryfng to sell our
house as I had Eost my job of 28 years-and t stiil remain un�mplayed. We had several btryer�who were
gaing to come in with offers—but they aA decided It was too risbry after they further exp[ored the dock
rights issue wfth tfie city. Given the market,then and now,buyers were toa fearful of tha�house
maintaining its core value$iven the lackc of resnlutlon ofthe dock rkghts. Our hause at that time was
vaiued at$784,000. We have watched the�afue drop today to$647,00O.,.and we know we cannat even
attemptfio seif tE�is property untll the dock ri_ghts issue is solidified.
!spake again virith the City A�minfstrator kast year abaut this issue and he sugg�sted that 1 check loraf
Ifbraries,etc.to see ifthere were arry issues of neighbarhoad newsletters/newspapers from 1934—
whfch Es tlze year when the Cityr of Qrono recelved the Iakeshore for our horrre(and three athers)on a
"quit deed". 1 did check enc!found no records� Perha,ps that is the year in whfch the farmer who lived
up above and who bulltthese properties passed or�;perhaps there were kssues wfth the estate or -
perhaps the four cabins he buflt were no konger in the�family and the easiest actfon was taken. We'll
IPkeiy never know the answerto this quesfinn. '
Ho�nrever,the important polnt is that it is now 2Q10 and there is no other vfable use af this lakes#�ore in
fro�of our home other than how it has been ut(lizad for many years—for the h�omeowner. We have
maintained It,we have had a clock(as have prlor ov�mers),and we are taxed on it Mora importantly,we
have paid for it�ia the purchase of our izome, There were two other houses on this street#or sale when �
we purc�ased this home in Octaber of�,9�9(3Z35 and 3�93 Crystal Say Road)and w�paid more for our
house thar�the list prtce of elther of those two homes and they bath have deeded access..,and they
were camparable homes to ours. Simiiarty,the hoUse next to us(3407)soid a couple of years ago wEth
an assessed value antf saEe price th►at reflected Eake rights. '1'hese houses have sald over the years with
dodc access ancf priees reflecfing sucF►(with the recent exceptlon of 3445 CrystaE$ay Etoad—as
explained to me i�y the Gity Administrator). We have also fnvested ir�our home based on the assessed
value. The se[1e�s disclosnre statement at ehe ttme we purchased our home stated that access was
"technicatly deeded." TF�at has been the understanding since there is no ather feaslble use for this Eand.
We wauld like to once agaln respectfully request that the smalf piece of fakeshore in front oP our home
be deecfed to us. The City of Orono paid nothing for it,we are taxecf on 9t,we utifize ft a�d malntain!t
and we feef we have paid for it. But we cannat even consfder selEing our hame unless dodc rights can b�
determined.
We reafize you have rnany important issu�s on your egenda—but this is very fmpartant fia us and we are
respectfulfy requzstEng that this issue be resofved, Is it possibie to get tl�ls added to a City Councll
Meeting agenda in tl�e nearf�tvre? Please let us knaw if�there fs anyth�ng eise we can do to promote
this issue towards resolutlnn.
5incerely,
E���� � I'�--
Yousry and Karen EEshazly
3415 Crystal Say Raad
Orona, MN 55391
952-471-8012
Orano City Cauncil
Committee of the Whofe
April 14,20Q9,fi:iS p.m.
Orono City Cou�ci} Chambers
Present: Mayor Jim White, Council Members Cynthia Bremer,Doug Franchot, Lili McMillan, and 1Im
Murphy; City Administrator Bill We(Is, �inance Director Ron Olson, Assistant City
Administratar for Long-Term Strategy Mike Gaffron, 8uilding Official Lyie Oman; Public Works
� Supervisors Don DeBaere and Scott Oberaigner and City Cierk Lin Vee
1. Assessor's Review far Local Board of Appeal and Equafization—Nate Stulc,Hennepin County
Assessor
• Residentia!#akeshore growth of-1.89'0; residential aff lake growth of-6.39�0;overall gross value
. growth for the city of -2.7%, down about 1% in taxabie market for City because of removal ofi
iimited market va{ue.
� ''�-*� fast year, There are not a iot of foreclosures or short sales in Orono,
'-����aar. Handouts wilf be available including
"'•,�+"from the Department of
28 was the on����n� ,,,_ ' -���
• Staff is working wifih Wayzata to finalize a sC���, ,,.
asked for help in working with Wayzata Country Ciub to dispose ot greo�� r._, ,
has been submitted to Wayzata to add utifities to the Kuruvilla and Comforts of Home
properties, There may be a need to extend 12" water pipe from Wayzata Publit Warks to
the Comforts of Home property. The Fire Chief wil! review for flow rates.
5, Crystai Bay Road City Lots—Response to Jon Eiss Request for pock
• The cEty owns 4 Iots on Crystal Bay Road through a quit-�laim deed in the early 19dQ's.
• Council discussed optians for action re{ated to the lots and preferred to "sell each parcel to its
opposite off-iake fandowner(the city acquired them by Quit-Claim Deed, so would have to sell
them that way, i.e. no warranties)and !et each owner deal with the consequences of#he
potential multipke holders of"hathing and boating rights". �
• The city has an easement to the lake which is oft�n used by the pubiic for winter access to the
lake.
• 5taff will discuss the propased action with the City Attorney.
6, tL/Orono Fire Contract and Addendum
- When the Navarre station was built,there was d iscussion that this building would be part of the
20 year agreement,
' --� �akP has had the Addendum but hasn't been signed,
' `� �� refined to include the address of the Navarre station.
� � NIINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING •
Monday,March 9,2004
. 7:00 0'clock p.m.
(PUBLXC CO ENTS, Continued}
Murphy suggested th ouncil review the records in tl�cis particu3ar instance and also r ew tk�e City's
account receivables for t period of time. Murphy stated he does recall discuss' this situation in a
work session,with the outco e being that the Councii was agreeable to redu ' g it to the original fee of
$120Q.
McMilian requested Mrs. Feyo put do in writing her vers'so the facts and the reasons slle is
requesting the waiver. McMillan indica she would like see the invoices.
Mzs, Feyo stated she has never seen an invoice.
McMillan requested Staff provide a cop the invoice Mzs.Feyo so slte can xeview them. McMi4lan
asked Mrs.Feyo to put down in wrif her thoughts and r ale regarding the situation and the request
for the wa�ver.
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 frorn the City.
White com ted he does rememher a coup3e of larger projects in that time perio at were charged
extra fee .
hy pointed out that engineering fees on top of the application fees are applied when the
trcumstances warrant the additionai cost. �
John Eiss,3445 Crystal Bay Road,stated he is hexe 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
other naighbors with lots similar to his have docks and that he is the only one that does not have a dock.
White notad Lot 38 is located in front of tl�is lot and that tlus 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 wouid not be entitled to a dock but would be ahle 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 sepa.rate issue from the
dock issue.
Eiss noted his 1ot 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 cortectly. White asked if Mr.Eiss has
contacted the City previously regarding his request.
Eiss indicated he has not. Eiss stated he doas not want to jeopardize his neighbors' docks to the east with
hi.s request,
White asked whethar there are other dooks located on the city-owned lots.
PAG�3 of S
,. MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CTTY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,March 9,2009
7:00 o'ciock p.m.
(PUBLIC COMMENTS, Continued)
Gaffron indicated the other three pmperties do have docks on the city-owned lots in front of their lots that
are tak.en 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 incort'ect because it showad the iot running all the way down to the lalce and the City
required a new survey. The resolution approved for that vatiance application contains an annotation
stating that the City does not consider this iot to be riparian.
Gaf&on stated the City has not taken any formal action to notify the other praperties 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 ma.rketing 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. Gaf&on stated the issue is whether the City should notify the other pmperties thai a ciock is not
allowed or attempt to arrive at a soleztion where the four properties could have a dock.
Murphy stated when he purchased his property approximately 20 years ago,it turned aut that the
nonconforming barn was constructed considerab3y 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
reta.in the barn. Murphy askcd if the docks would be a similar situation.
Gaffron stated docks are considered accessory structures and that this is an area of the lalce where,if the
dock is left in year-round,it would need to be constructed considerably diffezent. Gaffron stated a lega]
nonconforrzaity would not a{�ply in this situation since the docks are taken down in the fai1.
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 Cify i�as talcen a position in f.he past that
docks are not to be placed on the city-owned properties. �
Eiss stated the Iots with the docks are worth znore but yet he is being assessed for a lakeshore lot.
Mattick stated riparian lots ara 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 NIr.Eiss were to press the issue,the City wouSd then need to i.nform 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 ci�ies hava createti outlots and allows its residents to have a dock on the outlot,but
that the LMCD has found over the yeazs that there were a number of problems created in the
neighborhoods by people wanting to utilize the docks. Orono has atternpted to avoid that issue by not
creating the outlots. �
Murphy stated there is a situa#ion on CounTy Roa.d 19 where there are four or five docks with very
minimal land and no houses.
. PAGE 4 of 8
. . i
, NIINUTES OF THE �
ORONO CTfY COUNCII.MEETING
Monday,March 9,2009
7:Q0 o'cfock p.m.
(PUBLIC COMMEIVTS, Continued)
Gaffron stated thsi situation is located primarily in Minnetonka Beach,and at the time the City of Orono
approved the five lots that are loca#ed in Orono,it was spacifically spelled out that thQse lots could not
have lake access. Gaffron indicated the City has owned tS�ese lots for a number of years.
White srated he is willing to have the City look into this situation further and that perhaps Mr.Eiss would
he entitled to a reduction in his ta�ces,which he sh�uld address witl�the assessor. White noted
unfortunatety this month a number of the council members will be absent and that he would recommend
this situatian be discussed in approximately a month.
. ,
dy Gitbert,Long Lake Mayor,stated he is here to thank the City of Orono for its continua.l
c eration with Long Lake on many issues ranging from such things as the fire department an e
poli department.
Murphy d he did bring#he issue of the Old Highcvay 12 corridor up with Long Lake reviously,and
that he is a e that there are continuing issues relating to the unsafe condition of the d Highway �2
corridor as it c ceras 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 d that there might be a
resolution by the end the year. Murphy stated he indicated to Mn/DOT the sign issues as well es
other issues has resulted the city officials�being vilified by the business wners and that faster act'son .
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 d draft a letter add sed directly to the commiissioner of
Mn/DOT which lays out exactly the situ 'on atad request at the situation be addressed in a prompt
fashion. Murphy noted Old Highway I2 is heduled e turned over to the county in approxima#ely six
months but that some attention should be dire d o e situation given the unsafe nature of the pothoies.
McMillan concurred that a punch list/letter sho d b created and that photographs depicting the pothoies
be submitted along with the letter. �
Murphy moved,MeMillan seconded n conjnncEion wit3i e City of Long Lake,compile a list of
issues ta be aet focth im a joint lett between the two cities ' ected to the Commissioner of ,
Mn/DOT,pending formal appr al of the leLter by the Long e City Council.
Gifbert noted Long Lake has meeting next weelc and they could addre it at that time.
VOTE: Ayes 3,Nays 0
Gilbert commented t Mn/DOT has taken away approximately 1Q percent of Long e's tax base with
the new U.S.Hi ay 12 corridor andthat they have been left�uvith a substandard road ing through
their town.
McMillan ncurred the road should be repaired in the near future.
PAGE 5 of 8
I
March 5,2009
, Dear Mayor and Orona City Council,
I am writing today to get.y�ur permission for a dock in frant of our house at 3445 Crystal Bay Rd.
I understand that this has long been an issus for the city. I would like to be a good neighbor to
the 3 families in the houses to the East of ine ihat currentiy have docks that don't own the
property in front of thsir house, The last thing I want is to apen up a can of worms fihat wou(d
jeopardize their docks. i also want to be a good neighbor to those neighbars off the laice that use
that area, I recagnize that I don`t awn that property and others can use it. Nowever, 1 do pay
lakeshore taxes, as it is listed as, "residential lakeshore"on my tax statement. ,
f am haping to be allowed to have a dock that is srnall and out of the way from the kanding. I have
a 23 foot ski baat.
� Thank you for your etforts.
Sincerely,
The Eiss`s (Jon, Kelly, Drew, & Fisher)
Jon Eiss
H:952-471-0576
W:6'{2-303-591'!
C:612-840-2221
� e-mail:jonathan.d.eiss@ubs.com
October 27, 2008
��C�lV'��a
City Council af Orono ��j � '� 2�d8
City of Orono ��T,f UF. �RC?►�C3
� 2750 Kelley Parkway
Oronfl, MN 55356
RE: 3415 CRYSTAL BA�ROAD/DOCK RIGHTS
Dear Members of the Council: �
We reside at 3415 Crysta.l Bay Road in Orono and have Iived in this home for nine years.
We are selling our home due to the unexpected koss of one income and the need to buy at
a Iower price point. We have been very open in the documentation far the hause relevant
to the lakeshore issue and ti�e fact tliat it is owned by the city but the dock is allowed. ,
We�ha.ve had aur home on the marke�t since mid-June with futl realiaation of tha�slower
Fnarket and we have priced our house to sell - $8I,000 below assessed value. However,
..L...... L..,� �w. «.�:�rsw4 nwa �nre� in4u�vo4o .
back fram them within days with an offer. These potential buyers have atl called the city
for clarification on the lalceshore issue and they are told: "Yes, you could Iose your dvck
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 neighhors 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: �ne of the lazger houses behind us(on the other side of the
Dakota Trail)owned this Iand(and more} and around the year af 1910 he built these four
cabins for his four daughters. He did not want th:e creation of these cabins to inhibit the
neighbors, at the time, to feel they could not stiil come down to enjoy the lakeshore. We
think that was a beautiful thought then and stiU is today. People are welcome to use it but
they dan't. •�
Our abstract states that this lot is"assigned perpetual srvimming and boating rzghts'' and
that"si»ular rights are extended ta the houaes in the neighborhoo�{defined as Witey's
Park, Navarre, and in Biock 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 appraximately 150 houses. I have discussed with the offices of
the City of Orono wha.t could possibly happen and what possible uses exist that wauld be
viable for this defined neighborhood. It seems that it is quite a conundrum. There ia no
parking or raom to creato parking. There are no }sublic 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 swimmzng far reasons sta.ted above. It is not the dacks tha.t deter
� any such activity—there is planty of room to swim or launch a canoe or kayak—but with
no room for parlring or public fa.cilities, it is simply not functionat.
These four houses were basica.Ily a lakeshare slum for many yea.rs because o£the
unaertainty af property values relevant to dock rights. That ha.s changed, and we have
invested heavily in our property hased upon the assessed value, as have others in recent
years.
We understand that there is an estimate of approximstely $30,000,for researc�ing alI
titles of the houses in question in the defined neighbarhoad, but that the City Council is
reluctant to invest tlus amourzt of tax dollazs For sucl�a small issue. We would certainly
agree, especially when there is no viable solution or pian that would be undertaken and
that would be able to accommoda.te tlais defined neighbarhoad.
We feel this is naw infringing on aur rights to be able to sell and realize the value of our
home and our investment in it, based vn its value. We are assessed and taxed as if we
have deeded access. When we purchased nme years ago the documents indicated that
access was"technicatly deeded" but that the actual shore was owned by the city and we
spake with the city and were tald there were no ptans to change this status.
We would like to reapecr£uliy request that the City Council conaider�.uidertaki�ng a"quiet
title ac�ian" which would grant pem�snent dock rights to ow progeriy and which shoutd
not trigger aay need to address anything that already exists as far as geopte being
we[come to come dawn and enjoy the shoreline...again, even though they do not
currently do so. We also feel that the Iegal coacept of"adverse possession"—relevant to
the fact tfra.t this house has had perpetua!boating/dock privileges for almost 100 years-
would support such an action.
S3I1C6£P.�ye
I �l�
� r
Yousry and Karen Elshazly
34I5 Crystsl Bay Road
Orono,MN 55391 . �
952-471-8012
karenelshazlX(7a,�frmail,com �