09-21-2015 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

#15-3761 15 September 2015 Page 3 of 4 partially or completely lakeward ofthe OHWL and sometimes under water,and continuity is often lacking. In past actions the City has vacated many of these shoreline rights-of-way, while maintaining 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 rights-of-way further back from the lake. For example, the applicants' property abuts a 30-foot dedicated roadway platted as Adams Street, which staff would not support vacating. Lake Street was originally platted at a 20'width;the current survey indicates a width ranging from 24' to 29' as measured from the south property line to the 929.4' contour line. Topographic information shown on the survey indicates the property has a very steep slope to the shore with no terrace level at the base, hence vehicular travel within the right-of-way is not feasible and pedestrian use is minimally possible at best. It is staff's conclusion that vacating the right-of-way as requested will have no impact on present or future public accessibility to the lake. Other nearby segments of Lake Street have been vacated by the City: that portion adjacent to 4705 North Shore Drive in 1996; that portion adjacent to 4753 North Shore Drive in 2002; and that portion adjacent to 4745 North Shore Drive in 2012. A map has also been included depicting various similar such vacations in the past on the southeast shore of Forest Lake, most of which occurred in 1988 and 1993 (Exhibit J). MnDNR Opposes Vacation In the attached letter dated September 9, 2015,the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) expresses their opposition to the proposed vacation, citing the same 1944 Minnesota Supreme Court decision that appears in the Orono Comprehensive Plan. The DNR suggests that there are potential unknown future public uses of the right-of-way, and also cites Minnesota Statute 412.851 which requires the DNR 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 to public waters; and 3. How the vacation would impact conservation of natural resources. The DNR's opposition does not preclude the City from approving the vacation but is advisory. Staff would argue that this particular right-of-way has no apparent present or future benefit to the public because of the topography of the site. It can be argued that the public will benefit by the private ownership of this area because the adjacent property owners, not the public, have a strong interest in protecting and maintaining the immediate shoreline to prevent erosion and slope failure at this site.The City, the County and the State realistically are not going to spend tax dollars maintaining this shoreline. Additionally, the existence of the platted road calls into question the property owner's right to a keep dock at the site, which has been the primary basis for the many similar vacations occurring in the past. City Criteria for Vacation Zoning Code Section 78-9 governs the vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds. In past vacation requests,the City has determined that vacation may be appropriate when: 1. The vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. 2. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve, or use the dedicated right-of- way as road except for utilities and access purposes. 3. The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it exists serves no public purpose.