11-18-2019 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

FILE#LA19-000087 18 Nov 19 Page 4 of 5 corridors and fire lanes as requested,taking into consideration the unique characteristics of each location, such as topography,water depth and quality, lake bottom conditions,the type of vegetation, and any potential for related lake access, drainage, or water quality improvement." (Part 4A, Page 23) These policies are a departure from past practice,when the Council would not consider a vacation. The nearest lake access is approximately 670 feet to the east, between 4075 and 4051 Highwood. That lake access appears to be less overgrown and has a more gradual grade to the lake.That access also includes utility improvements,with a storm sewer. The Council, in approving recent lake access vacations (Case No. LA19-000017 Paidosh) has accepted an easement to protect existing infrastructure. In that application,the City Council considered the proximity and the number of lakes accesses within that same bay. Lake accesses are shown on the 4E-2, attached as Exhibit F. Staff has noted confusion on the part of commenters regarding the "drainage-way" notation on the Lake Access Points map in the Parks section, attached as Exhibit F. The notation is intended by the drafters to identify the main use of the access. This notation is not intended as a limitation on other uses. The transportation section does not identify the designated use in the same manner as the parks section. The neighbor comments indicate a history of using this alley to access the lake in summer and winter for recreation. DNR Comments The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has this request under review. A representative from the DNR, Nancy Spooner-Mueller, contacted staff with questions about the location of the vacation and indicated that comments would be forthcoming. She offered that the DNR recommendation was likely to be consistent with feedback in the past, and they would likely oppose the vacation.Their analysis indicated that the proposed vacation does not provide a public benefit nor does it protect future public use of the land to access the lake. Formal DNR comments have not been received;they are anticipated prior to the City Council's review on December 9th Public Comments Staff received written comments from neighbors which are attached as Exhibit L. Issues for Consideration — Does this request follow the Comprehensive Plan? — Does this request meet the statutory requirements for approval? — Would approving this action set precedent for future lake access vacations? — Are there any issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the request to vacate the right-of-way for the following reasons: 1. State Statute. The improvements within the right of way establish public purpose; state statute does not support vacation. 2. Finality. Vacation is final, and to reestablish access will in most cases be cost prohibitive. 3. Options. Vacation reduces options the Council can consider in the future.