Resolution 6187 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. , � O� O � O CITY of ORONO aaz�� �1 � F RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL �� :� :: G� No. 6 1 8 7 ��kESH�g'� pedestrian use is minimally possible at best. The Council finds that vacating the right-of-way as requested will have no impact on present or future public accessibility to the lake. 2. Two other nearby segments of Lake Street have been vacated by the City, including that portion adjacent to 4705 North Shore Drive in 1996 (directly east of the proposed vacation) and that portion adjacent to 4753 North Shore Drive in 2002 (directly west of the proposed vacation). This right-of-way discontinuity is an additional factor that supports the currently requested vacation. 3. Applicants' property abuts a 30-foot wide dedicated roadway platted within Bergquist's and Wicklund's Park as "Adams Street". Adams Street is perpendicular to the shoreline and extends from County Road 19 to Lake Street, potentially providing access to the shore of Lake Minnetonka. The City of Orono has maintained a strong stand against vacating those alleys or fire lanes that are perpendicular to the shoreline which would potentially provide public access to the lake from other right-of-ways further back from the lake. On that basis, the portion of Lake Street in Bergquist's and Wicklund's Park lying between the southwesterly extensions of the southeasterly line of Lot 1, Block 6, and the northwesterly line of Lot 6, Block 5, is specifically not included within the area being vacated. 4. The City of Orono has no municipal sewer, water, or storm sewer facilities within the portion of right-of-way to be vacated. A municipal storm sewer line does exist within the right-of-way of Adams Street but will not be affected by the proposed vacation. 5. Electric, gas, telephone and cable utilities have been notified of the proposed vacation and none have objected to the vacation nor indicated they have existing facilities within the easement area. 6. In a letter to the City dated November 13, 2012 the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) has expressed opposition to the proposed vacation, citing a 1944 Minnesota Supreme Court decision that also appears in the Orono Comprehensive Plan. MnDNR suggests that there are potential unknown future public uses of the right-of-way, and also cites Minnesota Statute 412.851 which requires MnDNR to review the proposal to evaluate (1) the proposed vacation and the public benefits to do so; (2) the present and potential use of the land for access Page2of4