Laserfiche WebLink
CITY OF 0-1110610 <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO_ <br />54"'} <br />6. In a letter to the City dated September 9, 2015 the Minnesota Department <br />of Natural Resources (MnDNR) has expressed opposition to the proposed <br />vacation, citing a 1944 Minnesota Supreme Court decision that also <br />appears in the Orono Comprehensive Plan. MnDNR suggests that there <br />are potential unknown future public uses of the right-of-way, and also cites <br />Minnesota Statute 412.851 which requires MnDNR to review the proposal <br />to evaluate (1) the proposed vacation and the public benefits to do so; (2) <br />the present and potential use of the land for access to public waters; and <br />(3) how the vacation would impact conservation of natural resources. <br />MnDNR opposition does not preclude the City from approving the vacation <br />but is advisory. <br />7. The City Council finds that this particular right-of-way has no apparent <br />present or future benefit to the public because of the topography of the site. <br />The City, the County and the State are not likely to spend tax dollars <br />maintaining this shoreline. <br />8. The City Council finds that: <br />a) The vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining <br />property. The property owner's legal access to the property will not <br />be affected by the vacation of Lake Street and no adjacent or nearby <br />properties will have their access limited by it. <br />b) The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve, or use the <br />dedicated right-of-way as a road or for utilities or access purposes. <br />c) The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it exists serves no public <br />purpose. Due to topographical constraints, this area of shoreline is <br />not conducive to pedestrian or vehicular movement, therefore <br />existing and future public access to the lake will not be reduced or <br />impacted by this vacation. <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />