Laserfiche WebLink
O O CITY of ORONO <br /> RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> NO. 61 $ 7 <br /> SH0 <br /> pedestrian use is minimally possible at best. The Council finds that vacating the <br /> right-of-way as requested will have no impact on present or future public <br /> accessibility to the lake. <br /> 2. Two other nearby segments of Lake Street have been vacated by the City, <br /> including that portion adjacent to 4705 North Shore Drive in 1996 (directly east <br /> of the proposed vacation) and that portion adjacent to 4753 North Shore Drive in <br /> 2002 (directly west of the proposed vacation). This right-of-way discontinuity is <br /> an additional factor that supports the currently requested vacation. <br /> 3. Applicants' property abuts a 30-foot wide dedicated roadway platted within <br /> Bergquist's and Wicklund's Park as "Adams Street". Adams Street is <br /> perpendicular to the shoreline and extends from County Road 19 to Lake Street, <br /> potentially providing access to the shore of Lake Minnetonka. The City of Orono <br /> has maintained a strong stand against vacating those alleys or fire lanes that are <br /> perpendicular to the shoreline which would potentially provide public access to <br /> the lake from other right-of-ways further back from the lake. On that basis, the <br /> portion of Lake Street in Bergquist's and Wicklund's Park lying between the <br /> southwesterly extensions of the southeasterly line of Lot 1, Block 6, and the <br /> northwesterly line of Lot 6, Block 5, is specifically not included within the area <br /> being vacated. <br /> 4. The City of Orono has no municipal sewer, water, or storm sewer facilities within <br /> the portion of right-of-way to be vacated. A municipal storm sewer line does <br /> exist within the right-of-way of Adams Street but will not be affected by the <br /> proposed vacation. <br /> 5. Electric, gas, telephone and cable utilities have been notified of the proposed <br /> vacation and none have objected to the vacation nor indicated they have existing <br /> facilities within the easement area. <br /> 6. In a letter to the City dated November 13, 2012 the Minnesota Department of <br /> Natural Resources (MnDNR) has expressed opposition to the proposed vacation, <br /> citing a 1944 Minnesota Supreme Court decision that also appears in the Orono <br /> Comprehensive Plan. MnDNR suggests that there are potential unknown future <br /> public uses of the right-of-way, and also cites Minnesota Statute 412.851 which <br /> requires MnDNR to review the proposal to evaluate (1) the proposed vacation and <br /> the public benefits to do so; (2) the present and potential use of the land for access <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br />