Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> Monday,November 19,2012 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> Gaffron indicated it would increase the lot area. Gaffron illustrated on the overhead the approximate area <br /> that is proposed to be vacated. Gaffron recommended the Planning Commission consider vacating as <br /> much of that area as possible and that the county will need to agree on the exact same area. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if it would be helpful if the Planning Commission used the criteria outlined in Staff's <br /> report to illustrate the differences between this platted roadway and a public fire lane. <br /> Gaffron stated any similar situation that does not limit someone's access to the lake would be able to be <br /> vacated. None of the City's fire lanes that go to the shore from an inland road or property would be able <br /> to be vacated. <br /> Lemke asked why the DNR would be opposed to the vacation. <br /> Gaffron noted no one from the DNR is in attendance at tonight's meeting. Gaffron stated from a policy <br /> standpoint,the DNR is probably taking into consideration a 1944 court case that dealt with a similar <br /> situation and that one of their responsibilities is to preserve the lakeshore. If the area is flat and allows <br /> access to the lake,the DNR would likely oppose the vacation. <br /> Gaffron noted the City of Mound has a number of these similar platted roads that have not been vacated, <br /> which allows people to have a dock on what could potentially not be their property. The City of Orono <br /> has not wanted to get into that type of situation. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if this will increase the value of the property. <br /> Gaffron indicated it could potentially increase the value of the property at the time of sale. <br /> Schoenzeit asked if there is anything that would impair the applicant from using their dock. <br /> Gaffron indicated there is not. <br /> Landgraver noted on the Forest Lake map it appears there is one property that has not been vacated. <br /> Landgraver asked why that property has not been vacated. <br /> Gaffron indicated the vacations happened at two different times, once in 1988 and once in the 1990s. <br /> The property owners were given the option to vacate at that time but there were a few property owners <br /> who chose not to vacate. Gaffron indicated he is not sure why those property owners decided not to <br /> vacate. <br /> Gaffron noted there was a situation off of Elmwood where the City vacated the street to the back and it <br /> left a property in the middle without access. Gaffron stated in his opinion the road was vacated in error. <br /> McGrann asked if Staff is aware of any other vacated property that has become an issue. <br /> Gaffron indicated he is not aware of any other situation where a vacation has had negative consequences. <br /> Marilyn Crawford,Applicant, stated the neighbors to the west at 4753 North Shore Drive have already <br /> vacated that roadway. Crawford indicated they were advised that vacating that road would be beneficial <br /> and that the property would then be considered lakeshore. <br /> Page 3 <br />