Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />November 20, 2023 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 3 of 6 <br /> <br />The original owner of the Anderson property, Ms. Anderson’s mother, said she has spent a lot of time and <br />money making sure that watershed works like it should environmentally and she knows her daughter will <br />continue for the next 50 years. <br /> <br />Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:23 p.m. <br /> <br />Ressler noted the subject of vacations has been polarizing in the City. He said he has been supportive of <br />vacations when there is no chance the easement will have public use and he realizes there is better public <br />access nearby. <br /> <br />Schultze asked what would change on that piece of property if the vacation went through. <br /> <br />Ms. Anderson said it would be a benefit to the neighborhood to have the Easleys be able to pave or <br />cement their gravel driveway. She said it would also be a safer access for the Easleys. <br /> <br />Schultze said it sounds like the neighbors have literally taken ownership of that property and put a lot of <br />time, effort and money into it. <br /> <br />Ms. Anderson said they had done so mostly for the water flow issues which benefits the entire area and <br />keeps dirty run-off from the street from going into Lake Minnetonka. She said she would not expect to <br />change anything about the property or build anything there. She would just plan to keep taking care of it <br />as they are. <br /> <br />Easley said they would also like to be able to control the drainage by putting in a retaining wall so the <br />drainage would not become a giant river and would match the Andersons on the other side. He said he <br />thought there would still be room to get a vehicle through there down to the lake if necessary. <br /> <br />Erickson said the situation provides a model case as to why the lake access section of the City’s <br />comprehensive plan was revised. He complimented the applicants for supplying the City’s letter from <br />1979 that described that easement and said it was not useful for anything else but foot traffic to the lake <br />and that is should not be used for a boat launch or any other public purpose, which he said supports that <br />there is no public use for this strip of land. He said these policies force land into a situation in which it sits <br />there in limbo. The neighbors can’t improve a driveway because they don’t own the land. He said over <br />half of the old easements in the City are not used by the public but then the City needs to look at them <br />case by case. Usually there are good reasons why they are not used, and the City policy language <br />stipulates that one consideration will be whether there is no other lake access nearby. That is not the case <br />here with two other close accesses, he said, adding this is a real model of one that should be approved. He <br />said the planned improvements would improve their property values and the values for the whole <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br />Libby said to state the obvious this isn’t a public access in any way, shape, or form. Historically, these <br />lanes were intended for fire access since there are no hydrants, but pumper trucks no longer pull water <br />from the lake to fight fires. The sticking point here is that if there is a vacation it should serve a larger <br />public good. He said it does serve the good of the two property owners but he doesn’t see that it serves the <br />larger good of the neighborhood or the City so he is not persuaded that the easement should be vacated. <br />He said there was definite benefit to the City in the care the neighbors have taken of the property. He <br />suggested an approval for vacation in conjunction with an easement for drainage. <br /> <br />5