10-19-2015 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, September 21, 2015 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated the applicants are requesting vacation of the portion of Lake Street that abuts the southerly boundary of the property and is parallel and adjacent to the shoreline. Lake Street was dedicated within the plat of Bergquist's and Wicklund's Park, Hennepin County, in 1889. Over the years 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. Other nearby segments of Lake Street have been vacated by the City. Lake Street was originally platted at a 20-foot width and current widths range from 24 to 29 feet. Topographic infonnation shown on the survey indicates the property has a very steep slope to the shore with no terrace level at the base. As a result, vehicular travel within the right-of-way is not feasible and pedestrian use is minimally possible at best. It is Staffls conclusion that vacating the right-of-way as requested will have no impact on present ar future public accessibility to the lake. Curtis displayed a map depicting various similar vacations on the southeast shore of Forest Lake. Curtis noted the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has submitted a letter in 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. The DNR also cites MN Statute 412.851, which requires the DNR to review and evaluate the proposal as follows: 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. 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 is believed 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 Count, and the State realistically are not going to spend tax dollars maintaining this shareline. In addition,the existence of the platted road calls into question the pcoperty owner's right to keep a dock at the site, which l�as been the primary basis far the other similar vacations occurring in the past. 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 the following criteria is met: 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. It is Staff's opinion that the request meets the above-mentioned criteria. A review of the City's utility maps indicates there are no City utilities within the portion of right-of-way to be vacated. The public Page 12 of 46