Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A - Private Use of Public Properties: Springbrook Park, Inguadona & Grainwood Park ~ox PR~ :: '-.... 4646 Dakota Street S.E. U ;;:: PriorLake,MN55372-1714 h'j ~ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AGENDA ITEM: MARCH 2, 2009 SA FRANK BOYLES, CITY MANAGER SUESAN LEA PACE, CITY ATTORNEY MARK GIROUARD, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC LOTS MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: DISCUSSION: Introduction The purpose of this agenda item is to provide the City Council with historical background, as well as information gathered during public information sessions and the results of research conducted by the City Attorney, so that the City Council can conduct a public hearing regarding the private use of three public lots in the City. Those lots are Lot A, Springbrook Park; Lot 3, Inguadona Beach; and Lot 1, Grainwood Park. History Lot A, Springbrook Park Spring Brook Park 2nd Addition was platted in 1949 by William Simpkins. Between 1949 and 1956, Mr. Simpkins granted to the owners of a number of lots in Spring brook Park permanent easements, which allow them to cross the Lot A to access the Prior Lake and park their boats. In or before 1993, Lot A was forfeited to Scott County for failure to pay taxes. The City then acquired the property from the County in accordance with Minn. Stat. S 282.01, which authorizes cities to purchase tax forfeited properties from counties for an authorized public purpose. The County conveyed Lot A to the City for drainage-and-flood-control purposes. The City has received complaints that owners of lots in Springbrook Park have attempted to exclude members of the public from the Lot A, including by posting "no trespassing" signs. Lot 3, Inguadona Beach Inguadona Beach was platted in 1925 by Christine Hannen. The plat dedicated the "driveways" in the plat for the "joint use of the respective owners" of lots in the plat. Lot 3, Inguadona Beach, is bordered by such a driveway, which provides access to Prior Lake. In 1948, Ms. Hannen granted a warranty deed for Lot 3 to "the public" of Scott County and the State of Minnesota. In 1967, as the result of litigation between, on the one hand, an association of owners of lots in Inguadona Beach and owners of properties on Twin Isles, and, on the other hand, ~AAicUMk~a9M County District Court ordered Ms. Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245 Hannen to convey a strip of lakeshore fronting Inguadona Beach to the owners of lots in Inguadona Beach. The court also ordered that this grant be subject to an easement perpetually allowing the owners of all lots in Inguadona Beach the use and enjoyment of the lakeshore strip, further granting the property owners of Twin Isles the right of peaceful passage over and across the lakeshore strip, and providing that only the owners of those lots abutting the lakeshore had the right to maintain a dock on the lakeshore, so long as their docks did not obstruct or interfere with the back-lot owners' use and enjoyment of the lakeshore strip. In the summer of 2007, the City learned that a homeowners' association had been using Lot 3 to place a shared dock on Prior Lake. In early 2008, the City received a complaint stating that the association did not represent the interests of all owners of lots in Inguadona Beach and that the association has been excluding back-lot owners from using Lot 3. Lot 1, Grainwood Park Grainwood Park was platted in 1944 by Christine Hannen. The plat dedicated the driveways, walkways and waterfront for the "joint use of the respective owners" of lots in the plat. Lot 1, Grainwood Park, is bordered by such a driveway, which provides access to Prior Lake. In 1948, Ms. Hannen granted a warranty deed for Lot 1 to "the public" of Scott County and the State of Minnesota. In 1987, the City received complaints that Jeffrey Kennedy, the owner of Lot 2, had constructed a deck, retaining wall, and landscaping that encroached onto Lot 1. Although there were negotiations with Mr. Kennedy at the time to address his alleged encroachment, no resolution was reached. In 2002, owners of lots in Grainwood Park formed a neighborhood association and approached the City regarding purchasing Lot 1. The City concluded that Lot 1 could not be vacated or sold as surplus property, and shortly thereafter negotiations with the association came to a halt. In late 2007, the City received reports that real estate agents had been listing back-lot properties in Grainwood Park as having "deeded access" to a dock on the lake. Around that same time, the City received reports that some property owners had been maintaining a dock on Lot 1. Current Circumstances In the spring and summer of 2008, the City Manager and City Attorney held three public informational meetings with the residents of each of the neighborhoods. At those meetings, residents recounted the history described above. With respect to Lot 3, Inguadona Beach, and Lot 1, Grainwood Park, several residents stated that they had been maintaining the lots for years, that the City had done nothing to maintain the lots, and that they believed that the grants of those lots to "the public" had been intended to grant the lots solely to the owners of lots in their respective plats. In addition, with respect to all three lots, several residents stated that they had purchased their homes with the understanding (gained either from prior owners or representations by real estate agents) that they had deeded access to Prior Lake. Lecallssues Lot A, Springbrook Park It is the City Attorney's opinion that under applicable court decisions, the tax forfeiture sale of the property did not extinguish the easements for lake access across the property. In addition, if the City were to attempt to sell the lot, the sale would be considered void and the lot would revert to the state by operation of Minn. Stat. S 282.01 and Minnesota State Attorney General Opinions applying that statute. Lot 3, Inguadona Beach and Lot 1, Grainwood Park It is the City Attorney's opinion that Christine Hannen's grant of these lots to "the public" of Scott County and the State of Minnesota created a charitable trust, under which the City must hold the lot for the public's benefit. Thus, if the City attempts to sell the lot, and thereby dissolves the trust, it would revert to Ms. Hannen's heirs and assigns. This opinion is consistent with Owners and Encumbrances Reports for the lots, which show the fee owners to be "Christine E. Hannen and the Public." Potential Resolutions Lot A, Springbrook Park Given that the tax forfeiture sale did not extinguish the owners' easements, and that any attempt to sell the lot would result in it reverting to the State, Staff believes that City Council has two options. The first would be for the City to create a drainage-and-flood-control easement on the lot and then allow the lot to revert to the State. Should the State (through the County) then sell the property, any purchaser(s) would take the property subject to the City's drainage-and- flood-control easement the owners' access easements. Another option would be for the City to essentially maintain the status quo, that is, to continue to utilize the property for drainage-and-flood-control purposes while continuing to recognize the right of residents holding easements to access Prior Lake across the lot and to place a dock on the lake. However, were the Council to adopt this option, Staff would recommend that in order to ensure a shared understanding regarding the status of the lot going forward, the City should post signage indicating the lot's public purpose for drainage and flood control. At the same time, while the residents holding easements would be permitted to post signs explaining that their dock is private property, they will not be permitted to post "no trespassing" signs elsewhere on the lot or otherwise attempt to exclude the public from the lot. Lot 3, Inguadona Beach and Lot 1, Grainwood Park Staff believe that the City Council has several options. First, it could attempt to prohibit the residents from using the lots for lake access, which would likely require the City to bring an eviction action or other court action, or to defend against a lawsuit by the neighbors. Second, it could attempt to sell the lots. Doing so presents certain difficulties, however, as Christine Hannen is still listed as one of the owners of the lots and, thus, the City may have difficulty transferring title to the lots without first ensuring that she has no heirs or assigns to whom the property would otherwise revert. As a result, the City would likely have to bring a quiet-title action in court. In addition, attempting to sell the lots could be deemed a breach of the charitable trust, and the Minnesota State Attorney General would be then authorized to rectify that breach by suing the City. Third, the City could allow the residents to continue using the lots, but in a way that is not inconsistent with the grant of the lots to the public. Should the Council adopt this option, it could be achieved by leasing the right of access across the lots to the residents or by granting them easements for such access. However, in light of the concerns that the uncertain status of the lots has created in the past (especially as it affects the purchase and sale of other lots in the neighborhoods and representations as to whether they do or do not have deeded access to the lake), if the City Council were to adopt this approach, Staff would recommend that it be carried out in a manner that ensures a common understanding going forward. For example, if the City Council decided to grant the property owners easements across the lots, those easements would be recorded against the lot and on the owners' properties. In the exchange for leases or easements, the City could secure an acknowledgement from the residents of the City's ownership of the lots and the public's attendant right of access, an agreement by the residents to maintain the lots, monetary payments, or other consideration. Conclusion Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a public hearing to solicit information and input from affected residents and other members of the public. Based on the information received at the public hearing, the Council could direct the City Attorney and Staff to prepare a resolution for consideration at a later Council meeting consistent with one of the options outlined in this Agenda Report, or consistent with another option brought to light by the information presented at the public hearing. In addition, the Council could direct the City Attorney and Staff to collect and provide additional information to the Council. ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives are as follows: 1. Take no action, but direct the City Attorney and Staff to prepare a resolution for the Council's consideration at a later meeting; 2. Take no action, but Direct the City Attorney and Staff to collect additional information to be provided to the Council at a later meeting; 3. Take no further action on this matter. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Depending n the information received by the Council at the public hearing, Staff recommen Alternative No. 1 or NO.2. / I I ! " Reviewed ~ J r ./ / f\ Frank Boyles, City ty'