The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/17/93 '\ MINUTES OF THE LAKE ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 17, 1993 The Lake Advisory Committee meeting was called to order on Wednesday, November 17, 1993 at 6:35 p.m. Members present were: Bill Packer, Jody Stroh, Dave Vmlove, Thm Watkins, and John Wingard. City staff members present were: Water Resources Coordinator Joel Rutherford. Members absent were: Dave Moran and Peter Patchin. The first item on the Agenda was to approve the Minutes of the meeting of October 20, W~. ~ MOTION BY WATKINS, SECONDED BY PAcKeR.TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER 20, 1993 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED UNANJ!HOllSJ..Y. ...... ......"... ..,. ......,..... ... ..... ...... ... .... ............ ". .. ............ .... .. ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The next item was to discuss members term$.in was sugge$t~d the terms be extended, until the water use ordinance issue is resoli.~9t Af);m- discussiqn, the members agreed it would be appropriate. '. " ........... ......... ,.........-.,. .......,.., .......... ....... "," .................... ................... ........-,....-,...........,......... ................... MOTION BY WATKINS, SECONDEP BYS~QH TO RECOMMEND THE CITY COUNCIL EXTEND THE TERMS EXIURING'TBIS YEAR, UNTIL THE WATER USE ORDINANCE ISSUE IS SETIIl~ll~l\1QTH)NQ~RIED UNANIMOUSLY. Respectfully submitted, i&., / iiE'-:7 - oel A. Ruth ord Recording Secretary .. ..... .... ............ . ....... ......".......... ......... ................. .....,... ................. ........ .................. ...............-.. .................................,. ........ .................. The next item was a discussionq( wheth~rth~jj~~~fuber meeting should be changed to early January, so that membel"~fQ~qmeet~ft~r the Public Forum, but before the Public Hearing. .)>>>>' .:\:>>:: -::::>>>:-._. MOTION BY PACKER,IIG.()d~tiB;STROH TO CHANGE THE NEXT \ MEETING DATE FROM,D~Q~M;BERtS, 1993 TO JANUARY 5, 1994. MOTION ,,) vi CARRIED UNANIM9~~:PI.:.>..<.. ~J:'t~ ~~~h':f;rti':diw~e1(':~~~!fI~~~h~!~S~ ~m~e~inthC~::':t~:~~~~ / ~~~ " County, that p'er state statq~~~!he~f~encIes responsIble for water P8:trol In the state are the V%~" ~o~nty Shenffs' offices. Bot'h:::JAffi:Ylaua~s ~poken to from HennepIn and J.U1msey County l,,'0 \ \ Q '\ IndIcated they were not aware of~Y deViatIOns from the statute, anywhere In the state. ~' /\f;l.". . ~~~." :-t\ , I" \ '..\' {r ~) The meeting of the LAC was adjourned at 7:55 PM. The next Lake Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 5, 1994 at 6:30 p.m. 4629 Dakota St. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447.4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLDYER AUG-12-1994 15:35 FROM LOMMEN-NELSON, MPLS. TO 94474245 P.05 -- M E M 0 ~ AND U M TO: Glenn R. Kessel FR.OM: Josh Kasdan DATE: RE: November 19, 1993 City of Prior Lake - Sportsman's Club Access Matter Our File No. 16772G Glenn, - I have looked into the issue of establishing an easement over the strip of land in question. I believe the City of Prior Lake has three options if it wishes to assert control over the land. Additionally, the Sportsman's Club may have an option to claim an easement over the land in question. Determining which option is most appropriate for the City of Prior Lake and the Sportsman's Club depends on specific facts currently beyond my knowledge. In the absence of the specific facts, I am offering only the general analyses. - The first option for the City of Prior Lake is taking a dedication of the road pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 160.05(1). This statute provides that "when any road or portion of a road has been used and kept in repair and worked for at least six years continuously as a public highway by road authority, it shall be deemed dedicated to the public. "Satisfying this statute would involve three basic elements; (1) that the land sought for a prescriptive easement was used as a road; (2) that the City or other road authority performed some maintenance or repair functions on the road; and (3) the use and work or repair on the road is continuous for six years preceding the application for a prescriptive easement. Any type of road, no matter how crude, will satisfy the "public highway~ requirement in this case. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that it is "the right of travel by all the world, and not the exercise of the right, which constitutes a road a public highway." Anderson v. Birkeland, 38 N.W.2d 215, 219 (Minn. 1949). A more difficult issue is whether the City or other road authority had done any work on the road ~ith any regularity over the past six years. In satisfying this requirement, however, it is not necessary that every part of the road have been worked on at government expense or that any particular part of the road receive attention every year of this six year period. Lee~er v. Ham~tQn Hills. Inc., 187 N.W.2d 765 (Minn. 1971). Finally, the six year requirement is merely a matter of fact. The second option for the city is to claim a conventional prescriptive easement on behalf of the public. The requirements 8UG-12-1994 15:35 FROM LOMMEN-NELSON, MPLS. TO 94474245 P.06 .- for establishing a prescriptive easement are that it be hostile or adverse, under claim of right, open, and continuous. Minn. Stat. Ann. S 541.02. Under S 541.02 adverseness will be presumed if the other elements giving rise to prescriptive easement are shown. In such a case the burden falls upon the owner of the servient estate to establish that the use was permissive. Moore v. Henricksen, 165 N.W.2d 209 (Minn. 1968). Therefore, the City must show an open, visible, continuous and unmolested use of the property by the public for the statutory fifteen year period inconsistent with the rights of the servient estate. While these are questions of fact, the consistent travel across an access route over another's property with an automobile has been held to constitute an open and visible use that is hostile to the owner of the servient estate. Lindauist v. Weber, 404 N.W.2d 884 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). As to the element of continuousness, the courts have held that where the adverse use was continuous on a seasonal basis then a prescriptive easement was possible for the limited seasonal use. Swan v. Munc~, 67 N. W. 1022 (Minn. 1896). The final option for the City of Prior Lake would be to avoid obtaining a prescriptive easement by using their easement claim to induce the titled holders of the land to execute a quit claim deed in favor of the City. Short of that, the owners may be' willing to grant a written easement to the public. Once appraised of the __ situation it is not unlikely that the titled holders of the land would be willing to grant a written easement. The analysis of obtaining a prescriptive easement for the Sportsman's Club is identical to that of obtaining a public easement. Requirements are that use by the Sportsman's Club was open, visible, continuous and unmolested for a statutory fifteen year period with actions inconsistent with the rights of the owners of the servient estate. If members of the Sportsman's Club were the only individuals using the access, then this method would be an appropriate method of obtaining a prescriptive easement. However, if there was no eXClUSivity in use of the access by members of the Sportsman's Club, then a public easement may be more appropriate. This is because it is a more difficult argument to show that the Sportsman's Club obtains an easement through the actions of individual members which mayor may not be its agents; or that the individual members have obtained an easement for themselves through tacking on actions of prior members. The potential defenses against A Sportsmen's Club action would likely include lack of privity and lack of actual use_ These defenses are not present in an action for a public prescriptive easement. Finally, the procedure for the ultimate removal of the fence should begin with the notification of the infringing party that they do not have title to the land and that the City claims a public easement across the land. The next step is the filing for an injunction prohibiting the obstruction of the easement. Through the injunction, the court would analyze the validity of a public - 2 ..--. RUG-12-1994 15:36 FROM LDMMEN-NELSON, MPLS. TO 94474245 P.07 prescriptive easeme~~. (Even with a written easement an ~njunction is the proper remedy to prec 1 ude obstruction of an easement.) Without such a judicial blessing of the public right to an easement, the City lacks authority to forc~ removal of the gate. If you have access to additional facts and would like me to do a fact-specific analysis, ple~se let me know. Josh JDK/blr -- ,- JDK\GRIU1M2 3 Jj- 0 U') ~ i .:::. &r.' ....::. L/"":I_ N ~E Lf") - LJ":l .=.. -::> t:>- t:>- eo L.... cr- 0"- 0'- 0"- 0 r:c l:t:) CD ,-. .:::- 00 '::&:) . o - r ~l -::> --=-.::r: =c.; z:::; ==; ~-....-c';."'':: ~ =-:-~. ~~;.....;;: -=;-..;-.= -:> ~-1 -l -~ -~ -41-,1 -+ -+.-~~' -4 -I -+-I-~ I .=. ~ -4 -4.~ -~ ~I-+-I-t -t -41-1 -1-1 -+-(1 c"'. -H-t-l-'-I--H-~-I-4-I-#-I-I-I-I-I1 ~1-4-I-4--1--H-I-+ -t-+ -4I-I-I-~I-1 ~+--I -1--1, -I. ~~ -I -I -l -I -1+ -I, -1-4 -I --41 -41-4 -4 =E ~.-t -+-l -I-H -1-4-. -4-11 O....-+-.f.- -1~1-1-+-4-1-f.l-l-I-I-~1 .-41-4-4 -"'-1-I-t-4-l1-4-+-l--l-~1 \D-+l-I-+-"'--I---41-4-4--4-~I-l-4- 1 1 II ='=Jo==~ ==~=l =~':S".l =J =:=-1 sj=-l :Id=!: -H 1 -~-i-=t~=!=t=t=!.::Ii=1::t~::t::l1 -4 -4-l~ -t -4 -H -+--~ -4 -+-ll -+ ~1-4 -+ -,--1- -+1-+ --I- -I -+_11 -+-U-+-I-+-+ ~l-l--I-+ -4-11 -,I--l+-I- -I-l -I -H -I -I - ~ _,~-I -I-4I-4-+-~I-+I-+-I-4-+-l1 1-+1-1--1--+ --I- ~+ -+ --I- -1-4-...... I II 1-1-+-1--+1-1-+-4--1--11 .::;. ,-~"':l~~-*,::OO::_I_t-t_,~-:~ ee --+-41-1 I I I-+I-~-'I-f.-+-II 0"- <4- ~.-4-l-+--4-+1-1-I--+-f.-II_ o ~+ -.f.--4+-+-+--+-l--H-~--I--+-+81 .. -4 " I 1-4-4~I-I-I--I-+ I ..J ~-I-+ - -1---41-+--+-1--1 ~+-I--.f.-f.- I ~ ~ -+ ..... -I--tt-J -1-1 -+-;: =t -f. -,I --1--11 +-+ ::t: -+'-1--1-41- -+ 1 I ~I ..J+~- II .f.-+--+--I -I--l -+-II -+ 1 1 11-+--+ -I-4-I~-+ -+--+-4--11 .=. fo- =:= =t=~=h..t===l:c~,I==:=:t-=*~:= r-- < -41-4-+-+-I-+l=t::t.-lQ~l:::l-I-I-4--I1 0"- 2; Jjj1=t!!-t::t~~t]-~:::t=t~1 - ::t -+ -+ -41-1- -1--4 ..J1-H::t-l -1-~-II--4 - -.f. --I- -H--+ --I--+<I-++- -.f. -4 -+ --41 oF\ ~ -+ -+ --1--++ -4-+--1 fo-I--H -I- -f. -4 -4--II~ '# -+1-+-+-4-+ -4I-I-I-4C/')..-4H-~--I--+-+--41 - 1-1-4-1-1-41 I-~Z' ~ -+-4-+-11 .~ ~~~=\.=ri-4 ..::~-=-- ll/)::"=~-.J<==-_t-::~~I""'\ -+-~-I--I--+l-+-+-+MtO'lrl-+ -+ -~-+""'I ~<:r~ =i::t=t::t~ I t::tc.~.-4;j=t=+~=~::j1 - -0::0 1-+ -I -1-+ ~ -1--.f.--.lI:+ _+ -+ -+--+ ~. ~~::t:::t=t = ::t=~;:, ~ ~::t =t=+~l U -I~-4-+-+-+l-+-l-lc.. -'~-4-I-~--41 ~ -f.l-+ -+ -I-~ ~-I-4 -I -l _-1--1--+-+1 -l-~ -J.+-i -4 - ,-j. -I--~ -+--ll C' p::: - ~=*,==l:-=:~ =1. ==t=i :0-$=: =:t = ~=.t ==l: :=::= If""J i) -~-+ -+--Il-4-1--+--+.-f.l-I-+ I I II 0"- '.. --+~-~-+-+-+--4+--+-~--I--t~-.f.-~~--41 _ ~r. II , 1 -+-I-~-I--+-I-+I-+--l---.f.-+--ll ......... -ll-+--+--+ --l---+I-t -+ -+-+ -11-+ -I -+ -~ ~l ~ '!: () ~l-+ -l --1--+ -41-~-+ -t -+ ~~-"'-+-l ~-t -+ -+-I--H-4 -I-+--+-l+--.f.-4 -+_+~I ~ ., - -+--+ -+~I-+ -+-4 -+~l-+ --I- -f. -~--41~ .,;rv -+-+1-1--1--1 -I-+I-4-+-+=E1 o-~ .-:l -+-ll-+-+-+-4~l-+-+-+_ .=:. -4: -c.....t~~:_.-=~.-l-i c~~"~=4 ~ ~ -14 ~~~-t~~~fr-i=t::t::11 ~ ~ -H-~ --I--H-+--+-I~ ~+ I---l---.f.~l r' ~ .-l1-+-+-l"~-4I -+--+-11 -+-II-l-+- ' '-+-+-~~-41-+ ~-+-ll ~l-~-+ -I,-+-~~....I 1--+-+-l1 -+4-1 ~~"~-f '-1\01-1--,1-11 --+--++-1 '"I--I-~=l- 1-4-+ 1&.11 ....-+-+--11 -+ -+.............-4-+ -+-+I~ 'C') I- -+--+ --41 =! ==~- d=t:t:1=t~~i~t=-t=t=ir= ~ I -4 -41-1 -I- -t -+ ........U. .. -+ -4-11 -I --4+-4-1-1--1 -41laJ I 1~-4-+-11 -f.~-.f.-+ ~QI--++-~~-+-+ -f.lg:;. .-l -+-11 -+ -f.l--l- -l Z +1zJ I -u-.+ -+ -l- -4 -f.l . ex>" -+--J. --41 ~-++ -+-lW~~. -*-+-1-+ -+-+1....1_ ~-+-II --+-++-t-':I:"~~+-+-+ 1 r "(fil'"'f-+ -,t::J! -t ~=:t =~+t>t ~;j~l::t;jilaJt~~.:;t ;;~-.!!= ~ ~ -t -t 1-41-+1-+ -l-+-+--l~~ 1 -+ -+ ~I 0"- ~ -f.l-,~ -+ tI) 1 Q I--M--+-I--.f. -t -Ho ~ -I --+ --I- --41 _ ::.t= ::U,) :t:::t:::t=t::t ::t~14 i-=-t"11 -I-H-+-+-l--I-u--f.-+-l-l_II-1- -4,--1-4=11 -1--41-4 -I > I ~I -+4--+---1-+-1 ~I-l-~-~~-ll -1-H-4 -l w~ .c:1-w-+-t-l-1-f.l-.f. -+ -1---1---41 =t ::it:t =t.~~: :t ::t=1-::t=t.::U:::t:::t:::t :i::H =,l =: 1It t =t =:t=*=~=i_J.=-t =~::oo::::-\ =J. -.:l 0Ei =:::-::: -1-~-.-.-4 -1-101-+-4--+-.-+1_1 -+-1-+-11 0"- -+ ~l-l -4-+. -4 -41-+-1 -l-l -41-4 -+ -+--+-ll _ -I-Iol-+-I- -I-'~+-+ -4 -1-1 -11-1 --+ --+-4 ~I -I ~l-l-l-I.-I ~f-~-+-I-.f.~l-+--I--+-+-~l -t -++-1-+ -+-,. """*-4 -+--+ -,~ -f.l-+ -+ -+ -4--11 -+--41-1 -+--+-4 -+1-+ -+ -1-4 -41-+ I I I ~I ,-+-II-+-+- I 1 " I I I ~-4 -f. I I II --+--4: -t -l -4--4 --4~ -+-1--+ -+ ~~ -+-4- I I !! ~!=t -+-~--4 ~;;;t-+-t-f:11::1-t--+::gJ., g 0'- - Q :z ,,..J en -J LL.- OLLJ C'><<:;_ 0- ;;.,c:::r; 0''' ~ = --) $LL.- '!:~ ot \D ZZ ..J .... 0 tr.lO- fo- ~ ...lI:~~ .... .-4 .... t:JI:o. 0 0'1 0'1 0'1 >5tr.l 1 I , tal ......0 \D I/) ~ ..JV~ " CD CD CD =- 0\ 0'1 '" .-4 .-4 .... ~ .... I ' .zi. , r 1 'wi . , == &.1 ~ r: .a. f ., .... . ~ . ~.~. :; : .-;.:, == ~ f, I '.Ii " ~I ~. . . :I!I: ;:ia ~. ~l " . iJl ~I ~ ~ , : , ;-";, ... .. ';!'" . :. , . I ~ - II! F .&.J' ; r. ~ '^' i ": . , "rr :I, ~I Y,I Ji ...' '", -, , II! 1-:1 ~l ~ r., ;;"1 ~ ;: \/l .:> a- CD 0\ O. 0'10\ o rzJO'\ 8e-- I-ollz,t ~..J ~E- :J zo o C)~ .c::a::: ~< ..J rzJ J:O t-z .... ffire QtI1 z ~ .:=-" .t- .9 )f~ cr .0 C. - 0"- l.L.. l..IJ u.J - Lt.) .... 0.=.. 0'- Cr-, 0"- .:::- .=. IrJ ee lD _J w.J ::> LLJ _J .::- 0"- ee tn I.l.J .=x: c::: cr. 0 :> u.J Lf") 0"- CJ:l ::r:: l..IJ oQ: '2: .:::- CD CD If, HUG-12-1994 15:33 FROM LOMMEN-NELSON, MPLS. 94474245 P.02 TO ,- M E ~ 0 RAN DUM TO: Glenn lit. Kessel FROM: DATE: Josh Kasdan November 9, 1993 RE: City of Prior Lake - Prior Lake Sportsman's Club Access Matter Our File No. 16772G Glenn, I have traced the ownership of this small strip of land in question and have determined that title to the land is held by ~n~ P Newstrom, Eugene Hertaus, and W. H. Warmington. Each of these three men took title to the land jointly amongst themselves and with their wives on March 30, 1963 on a warranty deed from Miles and Maxine Lord. -- My analysis in determining ownership of the land is based on two principles of law. The first is that where a lot is transferred by number according to the government survey, '..,i thout words of restriction, all lands that become a part of the lot by recession of the water accrue to the title past. Sherwin v. Bitzer, 97 Minn. 252 (1906); also Tucker v. Mortenson, 126 Minn. 214 (1914). The second concept is that a definite description by metes and bounds forming a boundary for property will prevail over otherwise accruing rights to land from receding waters. Stanvanau v, Gray, 143 Minn. 1 (1919). These Minnesota cases are controlling in this situation. ~ Bllrton v, Isaacson, 122 Minn. 483 (1913)(holding federal law inapplicable to controversy relating to riparian rights of ownership of fractional lots in fractional township abutting on lake in Minnesota). ,.-. The facts of this case are most interesting. Government Lots 8 and 9 were both islands at the time of the original government survey and patent to Eli Ballard in 1885. The two islands remained apart at least through the 1944 government Survey. Aerial photographs on file at the surveyor's office indicated that waters had receded and the two islands were connected by 1951. At the time the islands were connected, neither had been subdivided and both had corne into the possession of Martin Martinson. Upon Martinson's death in 19591 he deeded title to all of Lot 8 and relevant portions of Lot 9 to his three children in undivided shares. Following this transfer, the chil&ren of Martinson passed their interest to Miles Lord who in turn passed title to all of Government Lot 8 and relevant portions of Government Lot 9 to NewstrOM, Hertaus and Warmington. It was at this time in 1963 that the property was AUG-12-1994 15:34 FROM LOMMEN-NELSON, MPLS. TO 94474245 P.03 ,,-.. subdivided and sold to individuals and developers. The lots adjoining the strip of land in controversy were passed in separate deeds to Hildon, Inc. Both deeds from Newstrom, at al to Mildon, Inc. include metes and bounds descriptions which do not include any portion of the strip of land in question. These metes and bounds descriptions that limit any claim to the questioned property have remained identical in all subsequent transfers of the properties. Miles Lord specifically included the entire Government Lot and any accretions thereto in his property description for his title. Lord in turn passed Lot, 8 in its entirety and relevant portions of Lot 9 which included the strip of land which has accrued between the properties. Consciously or not, Newstrom, et a1 have subdivided their property and sold off all parcels excepting the small strip of land connecting Government Lots 8 and 9. This leaves those joint tenants in possession of title to the small strip of land. It is unclear whether or not Newstrom, et al are even aware of their ownership rights in this small strip of land. Certainly, the county tax assessor is unavare of anyone's ownership rights in the property as no taxes have ever been assessed against the strip of land. ,-. Depending on the longevity and continuity of the Sportsmans Club's use of the property, they may have acquired a prescriptive easement. If this' is the case, they lnay assert their "ownership" rights against other parties. This would entitle them to remove the fence blocking their way. For the city or state to be invol ved, however, I believe that they would probably have to either obtain a quit claim deed from Nevstrom, et al for the small strip or challenge the validity of Newstrom's title to the land. While Newstrom, through the deed from Lord, clearly asserts ownership rights in the accrued property, I did come across some monument/metes and bounds descriptions for the government lots earlier in time. This could call into question the validity of Newstrom's title to the strip of land in question. If you would like me to further research that issue, or any others, please let me know. Josh JDK/blr Attachment ,,-.. -- .-- )/ ,-. HUG-12-1994 15:34 FROM LOMMEN-NELSON, MPLS. TO SJ4474245 P.04 CHAINS OF ~ITLE v DATE FROM TO EXH # DE~ PRE X M. Martinson x by lot 1959 5/59 M_ Martinson Martinson 1 by lot Children 11/62 Martinson Children M. Lord 2 by lot 3/63 M_ Lord Newstrom, et al 3 by lot 4/63 Newstrom, at a1 Mildron, Inc. 4 m/b 5/63 Mildron, Inc. R & L Duffy 5 m/b - .,- ,,- 7/88 R & L Duffy L. Duffy 6 m/b (current) --- 4/63 Newstrom, et a1 Mi1dron, Inc. 7 m/b -- -.-".-- '------ 4/63 Mildron, Inc. M. Timmer 8 m/b -. ._- 7/69 M. Timmer c. Engle 9 m/b --.-.-----..- 10/73 c. Engle T. Leland 10 m/b -----.._- 2/91 T_ Leland D & M Hunt 1 1 rn/b (current) - - - __n Gov't Lot 9 including disputed strip - only PL2 265 AD after 3/63 Gov't Lot 8 includin9 disputed strip - only PL2 265AE after 3/63 JOk\GRK.MM