04-22-2002 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#02-2749 Thomas Egan 350,360 and 370 Big Island Pai|te 2 of 2 ____________________________________________________________________ Vacation of any public right of way shall not cause any lot to lose interior road access. Although most lots do abut the shoreline, use of the interior roadway system is primarily by owners of interior lots and by owners of lakeshore lots with shoreline slopes that prohibit lakeshorc access. The proposed vacation would not cause any lot to lose access to a public right of way. There are no public docks on the island. Not having a public docking area restricts use of the island to property owners and guests during the boating season. The Veteran’s Park and the boat club do attract non- homeowners to the island, however they are privately owned properties and are not generally open to the public. Vehicular access does occur during the winter months and is necessary for properties on occasion. The City has observed that overuse of the undeveloped roadw ays has created some erosion problems. The City does not w ant to encourage overuse of the island areas because of the maintenance issues and concern over trespass on private property. Trespassing docs occur as the ro.idways are not marked. According to information available to the City, property survey s and City topo maps, it does not appear any part of Massasoit Avenue or Metacomet Avenue have direct public access to the lakeshore. Flannine Commission Rccommcndation/Discussiop The PlanningCommission reviewed the proposal and noted there may be a public value to Massasoit Avenue as a potential trail. The cabins located w ithin the right of way restricts public pedestrian use of the corridor. The entire corridor is almost entirely w ithin 75' of the lakeshore. No buildings could replace the cabins u hen the time comes for the lots to redevelop. The cabins would have to be moved back on the property to meet all current setback requirements. To keep the interests of the public in mind, the PlanningCommission noted the right of way may serv e a future public use as island as a future trail corridor. Also noted was the potential for one or two public access points to the lakeshore. The survey indicates the existing right of way does not reach the Ordinary High Water Level (929.4') of Lake Minnetonka. Therefore there is no public lake access at the south end of the peninsula. I'he Planning Commission discussed the option of an e.xchange of land for the vacation to acquire enough property to provide public access to the lakeshore. Based on the potential use of the corridor as a public recreational trail, the Planning Commission felt they would like the Park Commission to review the proposal. The applicant stated he did not wish to have the Park Commission review and would prefer to discuss the proposal with the City Council. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend denial of the application. Planning Commission felt the public future use of the right of •..ay as a trail should be reviewed by the Park Commission before they make a recommendation. The Planning Commission did request the City Council consider forwarding this application, and all future applications for vacating public property , to the Park Commission for their review and recommendation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED To discuss the application for vacation and to consider the PlanningCommission recommendation regarding the Park Commission’s role relating to public land vacation requests.