Laserfiche WebLink
FILE #LA19-000017 <br />20 May 2019 <br />Page 4 of 4 <br />DNR Comments <br />The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the vacation request and <br />provided comments (Exhibit E). They opposed the vacation. Their analysis indicated that the <br />proposed vacation does not provide a public benefit nor does it protect future public use of the <br />land to access the lake. <br />Public Comments <br />Staff received written comments from the other abutting neighbor at 1453 Park Drive. See <br />Exhibit H for the submitted comments. <br />Issues for Consideration <br />1. Does this request follow the Comprehensive Plan? <br />2. Does this request meet the statutory requirements for approval? <br />3. Would approving this action set precedent for future lake access vacations? <br />4. Are there any issues or concerns with this application? <br />Planning Staff Recommendation <br />Staff recommends denial of the request to vacate the rights-of-way because the vacation does <br />not meet the criteria for approving a vacation as outlined in the state statute. <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A. Application <br />Exhibit B. <br />Narrative <br />Exhibit C. <br />Existing & Proposed Survey <br />Exhibit D. <br />Comp Plan Table 4A-9 <br />Exhibit E. <br />DNR Comments <br />Exhibit F. <br />Utility Company Comments <br />Exhibit G. <br />City Engineer Comments <br />Exhibit H. <br />Public Comments <br />Exhibit 1. <br />Property Owners List <br />Exhibit J. <br />Plat Map <br />Exhibit K. <br />Aerial Photos <br />