03-08-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 2. LA20-000075 BRIAN HUISMAN, 1121 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VACATION (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Brian Huisman, Applicant, was not present due to a conflict. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Barnhart stated the property owner at 1121 North Arm Drive is requesting a vacation of an unimproved alley that is adjacent to their property. The alley is shown on a survey on screen. A portion of the alley to be vacated is hashed in; approximately 75% of the alley is underneath the surface of the water and only about 430 feet is above the surface of the water. The Applicant proposes to vacate the entire area and the reason for this process is that this lot is the owner’s property and they technically do not have lakeshore frontage. The City owns about an acre parcel as part of an original plat from 1880 and that forms the lakeshore in the area he indicated on screen. He said the alley associated with a separate plat forms the other portion of the lakeshore. The property owner is taxed on lakeshore and uses the property as lakeshore, but technically does not have lakeshore access and the owner is looking to clean up his title in that regard. Barnhart noted the process to vacate unimproved alleys is described in the City code. The Planning Commission and City Council have to determine there is no public access or public benefit to the property to be vacated. This alley, while it is lengthy around the boundary of that plat, does not connect to any other public land access to the lake. As the alley continues further north, it is owned privately by previous action so there is no City access being lost by this proposal. As part of the process and State statute, they are required to submit a public hearing notice to the DNR for their comment and have not received any comment for this application – the DNR’s 60- day review period expired the previous day. Barnhart said it is not uncommon not to get comments from the DNR; generally, their comments are against vacation, but the City did not receive any such comment for this application. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation of this alley only, the portion that is hashed in to facilitate lakeshore access for this parcel. Barnhart noted the Applicant is not present at the meeting due to a conflict and if the Planning Commission would rather speak with him before making a decision it would be appropriate to table action until Mr. Huisman can make it at the meeting. Staff does recommend approval even with Mr. Huisman’s absence. McCutcheon said is not clear if the alley really touches the land or if it is all underwater. In the Hennepin County picture, it does not look like it, although he is splitting hairs. Barnhart replied that is a question Staff had also. In looking at Hennepin County it looks like this alley is well into the lake and it really would not impact anything at all and why go through this charade. However, the survey is much more accurate. The County aerial photo has a disclaimer that it is not 100% accurate and is not used for surveys. City Staff does rely on the survey in this case and according to the survey, he pointed out the boundary of the water when the survey was done last year. There is a portion of the alley that is landward of the ordinary high-water line. McCutcheon asked about the land parcel the City owns to the south, as it seems like a weird piece of land. Barnhart stated it is a unique portion of the community in terms of platting of Forest Lake and there is a neighborhood platted in that area of lots and right-of-way and just old remnants from when the area was platted in 1880. Kirchner asked if the lot the City owns is between the alley and Applicant’s property. Council Exhibit D