Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Project Packet
s ~(pl~ w~ P+K& I IIIIIII IIII IIII Ill II I II Ill 111111111111111 ll -~q g 3 Doc No A10529852 Certified , filed and/or recorded on Feb 20 , 2018 8:01 AM Office of the County Recorder Hennepin County, Minnesota Martin McCormick, County Recorder Mark Chapin, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 122 Pkg ID 1658398E Document Recording Fee $46.00 Document Total $46 .00 This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. / CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6828 --------- A RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST TO VACATE A DE,DICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE PLAT OF WINSHIPS SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1 SPRING PARK 2ND DIVISION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FILE NO. 17-3983 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Eric and Liz Vogstrom, married, (hereinafter the "Applicant") owned the property located at 2618 Casco Point Road, within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: The North 80.00 Feet of Block 3, Winships Subdivision of Lot 1, Spring Park Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the Property"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for vacation of a dedicated unimproved public right-o'f-way abutting the above mentioned properties; and WHEREAS, the portion of the right-of-way to be vacated is seen as Spring Street on the Original Plat of Winships Subdivision of Lot 1, Spring Park Second Addition, and attached as Exhibit A WHEREAS, on October 13, 2018 in accordance with MN Statute 412.851 a written notice of the petition was served by certified mail upon the commissioner of natural resources; and WHEREAS, on January 16 , 2018, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing and recommended recommended denial of the vacation; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2018 , after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the City Council continued the publ ic hearing , at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on February 12 , 2018, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and Page 1 of 3 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6 8 2 8 ---------- WHEREAS, the Orono Council finds the vacation as proposed does not meet the standards for a right of way vacation with consideration of the following findings: 1. The property is unimproved right of way to the shore with the purpose for pedestrian use . The Council finds that vacating the right-of-way as requested will impact the present or future public accessibility to the lake. 2 . The City of Orono asserts that there is a public benefit to retaining the right of way that potentially provide public access to the lake from other right-of ways further back from the lake. 3. The City of Orono has storm sewer facilities within the portion of right-of way to be vacated . 4. 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. 5. The City Council finds that this right-of-way identified as a pedestrian access to the lake in the Orono Comprehensive Plan. 6 . The City Council finds that: a) The vacation would affect access for use of the lake for the public. The property owner's legal access to their property will not be affected by the City maintaining the unimproved right of way. b) The City has identified the right of way in the Comprehensive Plan as a pedestrian access to Lake Minnetonka and has used parts of the right of way for storm water utilities. c) The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it exists serves a public purpose . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the vacation of unimproved right-of-way as described above, and as shown Exhibit A, is hereby denied by the City Page 2 of 3 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 6828 NO. ________ _ Council of the City of Orono on this 121h day of February 2018. ATTEST: ~U- Anna Carlson, City Clerk , Dennis Walsh, Mayor Page 3 of 3 ------ H Hennepin County Property Map '•, .. PARCEL ID: 20117232A0038 OWNER NAME : E J Vogstrom & EA Vogstrom PARCEL ADDRESS: 2618 Casco Point Rd , Orono MN 55391 PARCEL AREA: o;64 ecres, 27,983 sq ft A-T•B : Abstract SALE PRICE: $1,300,000 SALE DATA: 12/2013 SALE CODE: Excluded From Ratio Studies ASSESSED 2016, PAYABLE 2017 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential Lake Shore HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead MARKET VALUE: $1,154,000 TAX TOTAL: $15,516.94 ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 PROPERTY TYPE : Residential Lake Shore HOMESTEAD: Non-homestead MARKET VALUE: $1,361,000 25 Da1e: 10/13/2017 (34) t ' I ; ., ' , , ' ' , ' ., , I I I ' ' , I I I ' ·' I I I r , , ' 1 inch = 100 feet Comments: lhlt dote (I) It. llrnllhod 'AS IS' ..ti> no ,-pruentltlon a to Qlmpl1tln HI or ac:cura~i (DJ lafurri&hedwtlh no I ; MJ'ranly ofonyklnd;ond~l)II notailtable for i.g.1, onglnoerlng 0t eurveylng purpo-. Hlnnopln County ohlll not bl lohle !orony domogo, Injury orlou roa,ijng !rvm Olio dolL COPYRIGHT C HENNEPIN COUNTY 2017 6 8 2 8 Resolut ion. ______ _ Exhibit A 0\ ~~~~ .. 1w~~-~~ 7 ~ ,I ...... 1---"---o1 i,. • \c ..,, • ·1. i:.--~---4. 1,s_.~ .,..,. , ~9 t ' .... \ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The undersigned, being duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Orono, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing resolution adopted at the meeting of the Orono City Council on February 12 , 2018 with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this 14th day of February 2018. ~U- Anna Carlson, City Clerk (seal) MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 :30 o'clock p.m. 1 ity Council is not able to hold the public hearing, the matter would be noticed for the Planning Commission ting in February. Landgraver stated in his view the vast maJ · of interested people have likely seen t question is what is the best thing to do for the peop · e audience. Landgi: would be better to make recommendations and leave the pu · It was the consensus of the Planning Commis ·. Barnhart noted the Planning Co ssion will receive any public comment tonight from people who are · g will be continued to February 12. -3983 ERIC AND LIZ VOGSTROM, 2618 CASCO POINT ROAD, RIGHT-OF-WAY CATION, 6:35 P.M. -6:48 P.M. Eric Vogstrom, Applicant, was present. Oakden stated the applicants are requesting vacation of an unimproved right-of-way that is directly abutting their property. The right-of-way was originally a product of the Winship's Subdivision. The unimproved right-of-way is a dedicated lake access for pedestrians. The applicant uses the right-of-way to access their dock. Oakden stated in the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, it notes that less than I percent of Orono's lake shoreline has been dedicated as public access corridors. Nearly all the rest is privately owned and not available to the public for lake access purposes. In addition, the Council recently approved a resolution in support of preserving parks, open space and trails within the City of Orono . This unimproved platted right-of-way is identified as open space for pedestrian lake access. Approving this request would conflict with the recent support for parks and open space. In addition, based upon a review of the Comprehensive Plan, vacation of the right-of-way seems to go against the policies that are set in place for the preservation of lake access and open space. The City Engineer has reviewed this request and made the following comments: I. The City's policy is not to approve vacation of City fire lanes/lake access points per the Comprehensive Plan. 2. This is lake access point #39 with the listed purpose of providing walking access to the lake. These lake access points are classified under the Parks, Open Space and Trail Plan in the Comprehensive Management Plan. In addition, the City Council just adopted a Resolution in Support of the City of Orono Keeping its Open Spaces, Playgrounds, Parks and Trails in Perpetuity. 3. If the vacation is approved, the west end of the right-of-way has a city storm pond in it that would need protection. The options are that that right-of-way not be included in the vacation or the City could obtain an easement over the pond, associated pipes, and access way from the road to the pond. Page 2 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Staff received two written comments in opposition to this request. Planning Staff recommends denial of this application because it does not meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the decision would be final. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Eric Vogstrom , Applicant, stated he purchased the property in 2004 and constructed a house on the lot. Vogstrom indicated he spoke with Mayor Walsh about this last fall and the Mayor had suggested that he look into vacating the right-of-way because he felt it made sense in this situation since the area is pretty heavily wooded. Vogstrom indicated the property is at an angle and that he has been experiencing problems with snowmobilers cutting across his property to get to the lake. Vogstrom stated he has three small children and a dog and that the snowmobilers could pose a danger to them. Thiesse asked if he would continue to use as it he currently is. Vogstrom indicated he would continue to use it to access his dock. Schwingler asked if the applicant has erected any signs in an attempt to keep the snowmobilers out of his property. Vogstrom indicated it is the neighbors who use it and that the sign does say no motorized vehicles. V ogstrom noted the people who submitted the letters live further down the road and that currently nobody uses it outside of the snowmobilers. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to February 12. Leskinen stated historically and in the City 's Comprehensive Plan it is pretty clear the City does not vacate lake access points. Leskinen stated the use will not change, and if the snowmobilers are going now, they will likely continue to do so. Leskinen stated the argument could be made that if the snowmobilers are using it, it is a public access. Thiesse stated if motorized vehicles are not allowed in that area, the City should be monitoring that. Landgraver stated he does not see any compelling reason for vacating the right-of-way since these lake access points are a scarce commodity and are owned by the residents of Orono. Thiesse commented the vacation would preclude other people from using the access point. Lemke stated he does not see a hardship. Thiesse stated it also does not follow the Comprehensive Plan. Thiesse stated while it may or may not set a precedent, he is not interested in giving away City land. Page 3 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend denial of Application No. 17-3983, Eric and Liz Vogstrom, 2618 Casco Point Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays #18-3992 REVOLUTION DESIGN BUILD ON BEHALF OF KEVIN AND PATTY TSCH, 3155 CASCO POINT ROAD, VARIANCE, 6:48 P.M. -6:55 P.M. Oakden stated ~ applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance for a new eek to encroach 11 '6" i " o the setback. The applicant is currently constructing a new home on e property and are proposing a ne ._eek for the home. The new deck will be shorter than the previo deck and slightly taller. The overall foo rint of the new deck is less compared to the original deck. e existing deck encroached into the aver e lakeshore setback by roughly 1 7 feet. The taller hei t of the deck is what triggers the new encroachm t. Because the new deck is not being built in the xact same location and is higher than the existing deck , e non-conforming protections do not apply. While the new deck will be slight! aller than the previous deck, it will ave a smaller encroachment into the average lakeshore setback. The ap licant has worked to mitigate e encroachment by proposing a deck that does not encroach as much co ared to the previous dee . The deck will not interfere with the sightlines of the neighbors. Staff finds that there are demonstrable practical variance request. Planning Staff recommends approval of the var· ce. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at :52 p.m . There were no public comments relati to this application. earing to February 12 . pporting the average lakeshore setback Thiesse noted the two neighb s have submitted letters in support of the deck. Landgraver stated it is b · g moved further away from the lakeshore and that they are r ucing hardcover in that area, he would in favor of it. Leskinen agreed t applicant is reducing the encroachment going out and that the deck does n appear to be obstructin ny views of the neighbors, which is the objective of the average lakeshore setb Leskinen state since it is not obstructing any views, she would be in favor of it. Lemke sta d the glass railing is also less obtrusive than the current wood railing. ver asked why this was not caught at the time the application was submitted for the retaining Page 4 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday,_February 12, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. h asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on this proposal. Richie Anderson , 3 Crystal Bay Road , stated he was speaking with his so out possibly sponsoring this dog and that they are e of how Mayor Walsh is encouraging p :c,private partnerships. Anderson stated that concept has fallen on deaf ears and that nd North Shore Marina would like to sponsor the dog for $2 ,500 a year for o ears and that th7 «· could perhaps take a look at the program after that time. Anderson stated if this dog sa even _ e life , it would be well worth it. Seals moved, Printup seconded, to estab · a partners · with Can Do Canines in implementing and establishing a Community Se · e (K-9) program and t cept the donation of Xerxes, a 3-year-old black lab, as Oron ' community service dog. VOTE: es 5, Nays 0. Seals moved, Cros seconded, to accept the donation from Richie Anderso nd North Shore per year for four years to sponsor the community service dog. TE: Ayes 5, PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS-REPRESENTATIVE JOHN TIDESSE 12. #17-3983 ERIC AND LIZ VOGSTROM, 2618 CASCO POINT ROAD , V ACATIO_N - RESOLUTION NO., 7 :15 P.M. -7:37 P.M. Mayor Walsh opened the public hearing at 7 :15 p.m . Paul Kastor, 2600 Casco Point Road, noted he did submit some pictures depicting the property years ago and that he owns the piece of land to the north of the fire lane. Kastor stated when they built the road , they asked him if they could drain the catch basins onto his property, which he agreed to so the water could be filtered before it reached the lake. Kastor stated at that time, when someone walked down the fire lane, they could only walk half the way down because the previous owner had dumped concrete into the wetland. In addition , there used to be a channel all the way down the driveway along with a boathouse . When the fire lane was built, that caught off that path. Kastor indicated you used to have to wear boots to walk down there because there was standing water approximately a foot deep . Kastor stated today there is a wooden bridge in this area and the water underneath it is all green . Kastor stated that water is full of nitrogen, which then goes into the lake . Kastor noted the residents around the bay contribute money towards spraying the bay each year but the residents have started complaining the last couple of years because the weeds keep coming back. Kastor noted approximately half of both lots are in the swamp and that it runs all the way up to the north end of his lot. Kastor stated the residents on Carmans Bay will be concerned when they find out what is happening near this bridge. Kastor noted Mr. Vogstrom came with a semi and fertilized and seeded his whole piece of land a couple years ago and that days later the green algae started forming . Kastor stated if the wind blows from the west, he has to close his windows because of the smell. In addition , Mr. Vogstrom took a piece of city land and installed electric and water lines in there as well as lighting and an invisible fence for a dog. Kastor stated the invisible fence is about a foot from the road. Kastor stated someone cannot fill the wetlands, fertilize the wetlands , mow the wetlands, and then expect the wetlands to stay. Page 3 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 12, 2018 7:00 o'clock p.m. Kastor stated the City has to straighten this mess out. Kastor stated with the two catch basins, it was fine and the water was clean, but now it is full of algae. Kastor stated he is concerned that it will flow out into the bay toward Narrow's Bay and that he would like the City to restore it to what is used to be. Mayor Walsh closed the public hearing at 7:28 p .m. Rief stated the City does maintain the stormwater basin up towards the road and that what is happening with the bridge is further down by the shore . Walsh stated the City is very cognizant of water quality issues . Walsh noted the majority of the City's fire lanes originally were used by the firefighters to take water from the lake to fight fires and that now some of them provide access to the lake. Walsh stated it is necessary to look at each of these fire lanes on a case-by-case basis, but that if the fire lane is vacated in this case, it would be split down the middle between the two adjoining properties. Oakden noted there is a rain garden and a storm sewer in the area. Walsh stated even if it was vacated, the City would still require an easement to maintain those items. Seals stated based upon her reading of the materials, it does not appear that the vacation would be in the best interests of the City or public and that at some point in the future the City can discuss what should be done to improve the fire lane. Walsh stated currently it is a non-motorized right-of-way and that it is somewhat muddy but that it still serves a public purpose. Walsh stated he can see both sides of the situation but that this fire lane is many decades old and has served as a public right-of-way that originally served a different purpose than what it is being used for today. Printup stated he also does not see a reason to vacate the right-of-way and that the neighbors are still able to use it to some extent. Crosby asked if the area acts as a natural filter. Walsh stated there are some catch basins that are supposed to act as a filter and that perhaps the City should look at whether the catch basins are working the way they were designed. Printup moved, Seals seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. , a Resolution Denying the Request to Vacate the Dedicated Right-of-Way Within the Plat ofWinships Subdivision of Lot 1, Spring Park 2°d Division, File No. 17-3983, Eric and Liz Vogstrom, 2618 Casco Point Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. #18-3992 -REVOLU -~,,~ -~5CASCOC Page 4 of 21 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: llo Reviewed By: Approved By: Due to an error in the public hearing notice for the January Planning Commission meeting, and to ensure that all impacted property owners have the ability to comment, the public hearing was opened at the Planning Commission meeting, and continued to the City Council meeting. The City Council must open the public hearing, invite comment, and close the public hearing for this item prior to discussion and vote. 1. Purpose. This application is requesting to vacate the abutting unimproved platted right of way with lake access. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The 60-day rule does not apply to the application timeline. 3. Background. Applicants Eric and Liz Vogstrom of 2618 Casco Point Road are requesting to vacate the unimproved right of way that is directly abutting their property to the north. The right of way was originally a product of the Winship’s Subdivision. The unimproved right-of-way is a dedicated lake access for pedestrians according to the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant uses the right of way to access their dock. The boundary line of the right of way was the subject of a dispute as recently as spring of 2017. The City had the property line located, iron spikes replaces, and 4 x 4 posts installed to delineate the boundary. The City has a rain garden and storm sewer within the right of way near the intersection with Casco Point Road. To vacate a right of way, the City must find the vacation is “in the interest of the public” MN Statue 412.851 The council on November 13, 2017 approved a resolution (#6810) in support for preserving parks, open space and trails within the City of Orono. This unimproved platted right of way is identified as open space for pedestrian lake access from Casco Point Road to Carmen Bay on Lake Minnetonka. Approving this request would appear to conflict with this resolution. From reviewing the Comprehensive plan vacating this right of way seems to go against the policies that are set in place today for the preservation of lake access and open space. The challenge with vacating rights of way is that vacation is final. Should the public or the city desire access to the lake, or have utility needs in the future, the cost to acquire Lake Frontage will be premium. Vacation reduces options for the city in the future, and the importance of access to the lake is outlined in the comprehensive plan. 4. Planning Commission Comment. On January 16, 2018, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing and reviewed the application. The Commission voted unanimously Item No.: Date: February 12, 2018 Item Description: #17-3983, Eric and Liz Vogstrom, 2618 Casco Point Road, Vacation – Resolution Presenter: Laura Oakden Planner Agenda Section: Public Hearing AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: llo Reviewed By: Approved By: on a motion to deny the request to vacate the right of way. 5. Public Comment. Staff received two written comments that were reviewed at the planning commission. Both comments requested denial of the request to maintain the public access to the lake. Staff received a comment from the adjoining neighbor to the right of way. The letter and submitted pictures are attached for your consideration. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends denial of the request to vacate the right of way. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Open the public hearing, receive comments, and make a motion to adopt or amend the denial resolution. Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Site Plan Exhibits Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit D. PC Staff Report Exhibit E. Public Comments Exhibit F. League of Minnesota Cities Memo Vacation of City Streets References 1) PC Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Area Map/ Site Plan Exhibit C. Annotated Plan Exhibit D. Original Plat Exhibit E. Project Narrative Exhibit F. Comprehensive Plan Table 4A-8 Exhibit G. Comments received from the public Exhibit H. Property Owners List Page 1 of 2 A RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST TO VACATE A DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE PLAT OF WINSHIPS SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1 SPRING PARK 2ND DIVISION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FILE NO. 17-3983 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Eric and Liz Vogstrom, married, (hereinafter the “Applicant”) owned the property located at 2618 Casco Point Road, within the City of Orono (hereinafter "City") and legally described as: The North 80.00 Feet of Block 3, Winships Subdivision of Lot 1, Spring Park Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter "the Property"); and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied for vacation of a dedicated unimproved public right- of-way abutting the above mentioned properties; and WHEREAS, the portion of the right-of-way to be vacated is seen as Spring Street on the Original Plat of Winships Subdivision of Lot 1, Spring Park Second Addition, and attached as Exhibit A WHEREAS, on October 13, 2018 in accordance with MN Statute 412.851 a written notice of the petition was served by certified mail upon the commissioner of natural resources; and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2018, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing and recommended recommended denial of the vacation; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2018, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the City Council continued the public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on February 12, 2018, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and WHEREAS, the Orono Council finds the vacation as proposed does not meet the standards for a right of way vacation with consideration of the following findings: 1.The property is unimproved right of way to the shore with the purpose for pedestrian use. The Council finds that vacating the right-of-way as requested will impact the present or future public accessibility to the lake. 2.The City of Orono asserts that there is a public benefit to retaining the right of way that potentially provide public access to the lake from other right-of- Page 2 of 2 ways further back from the lake. 3. The City of Orono has storm sewer facilities within the portion of right-of- way to be vacated. 4. 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. 5. The City Council finds that this right-of-way identified as a pedestrian access to the lake in the Orono Comprehensive Plan. 6. The City Council finds that: a) The vacation would affect access for use of the lake for the public. The property owner’s legal access to their property will not be affected by the City maintaining the unimproved right of way. b) The City has identified the right of way in the Comprehensive Plan as a pedestrian access to Lake Minnetonka and has used parts of the right of way for storm water utilities. c) The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it exists serves a public purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the vacation of unimproved right-of-way as described above, and as shown Exhibit A, is hereby denied by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 12th day of February 2018. ATTEST: ________________________ __________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor He nn e pin Cou n ty P roperty Ma p Da te : 10 /13/2 017 Com men ts: 1 inc h = 1 00 fee t PAR C EL ID: 20 117 23 24 003 8 OWN ER N AME : E J Vo gs t rom & E A Vog st ro m PAR C EL AD DR E SS: 2 618 C asco Point Rd , O ro no MN 553 91 PAR C EL AR EA: 0.6 4 ac re s, 27 ,9 83 sq ft A-T-B: Ab stra ct SAL E PR ICE: $1,30 0,00 0 SAL E D ATA: 1 2/20 13 SAL E C OD E: Exclu de d Fro m Ra tio Stud ies ASSESS ED 2 016 , PAYABLE 201 7 PR OPERT Y TYPE: R es iden t ial Lake Sh ore H OM ESTEAD : N on -H ome ste ad M AR KET VA L UE: $1,1 54,00 0 TAX TO TAL: $1 5,51 6.94 ASSESS ED 2 017 , PAYABLE 201 8 PRO PER TY TYPE : R eside ntial La ke Sh or e HO MESTEAD: No n-h ome s te ad MARKE T VALU E: $1 ,3 61 ,0 00 This dat a (i) is fur nished 'A S IS' wi th no repres ent at ion as to com ple ten es s or acc ura cy; (ii) is furnis he d w ith no war rant y of an y k ind; an d (i ii) is not su itab le for lega l, engi neering or s urv ey ing purpo ses. Hen nepin C ounty s hall not be liable f or a ny dam age, in jury o r los s r esu lting f rom this dat a. CO PYRIG HT © HEN N EPIN CO UN TY 2 0 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o’clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Kevin Landgraver, Bruce Lemke, Denise Leskinen, and Jon Schwingler. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Thiesse called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. #17-3983 ERIC AND LIZ VOGSTROM, 2618 CASCO POINT ROAD, RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION, 6:35 P.M. – 6:48 P.M. Eric Vogstrom, Applicant, was present. Oakden stated the applicants are requesting vacation of an unimproved right-of-way that is directly abutting their property. The right-of-way was originally a product of the Winship’s Subdivision. The unimproved right-of-way is a dedicated lake access for pedestrians. The applicant uses the right-of-way to access their dock. Oakden stated in the Transportation Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, it notes that less than 1 percent of Orono’s lake shoreline has been dedicated as public access corridors. Nearly all the rest is privately owned and not available to the public for lake access purposes. In addition, the Council recently approved a resolution in support of preserving parks, open space and trails within the City of Orono. This unimproved platted right-of-way is identified as open space for pedestrian lake access. Approving this request would conflict with the recent support for parks and open space. In addition, based upon a review of the Comprehensive Plan, vacation of the right-of-way seems to go against the policies that are set in place for the preservation of lake access and open space. The City Engineer has reviewed this request and made the following comments: 1. The City’s policy is not to approve vacation of City fire lanes/lake access points per the Comprehensive Plan. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o’clock p.m. 2. This is lake access point #39 with the listed purpose of providing walking access to the lake. These lake access points are classified under the Parks, Open Space and Trail Plan in the Comprehensive Management Plan. In addition, the City Council just adopted a Resolution in Support of the City of Orono Keeping its Open Spaces, Playgrounds, Parks and Trails in Perpetuity. 3. If the vacation is approved, the west end of the right-of-way has a city storm pond in it that would need protection. The options are that that right-of-way not be included in the vacation or the City could obtain an easement over the pond, associated pipes, and access way from the road to the pond. Staff received two written comments in opposition to this request. Planning Staff recommends denial of this application because it does not meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the decision would be final. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Eric Vogstrom, Applicant, stated he purchased the property in 2004 and constructed a house on the lot. Vogstrom indicated he spoke with Mayor Walsh about this last fall and the Mayor had suggested that he look into vacating the right-of-way because he felt it made sense in this situation since the area is pretty heavily wooded. Vogstrom indicated the property is at an angle and that he has been experiencing problems with snowmobilers cutting across his property to get to the lake. Vogstrom stated he has three small children and a dog and that the snowmobilers could pose a danger to them. Thiesse asked if he would continue to use as it he currently is. Vogstrom indicated he would continue to use it to access his dock. Schwingler asked if the applicant has erected any signs in an attempt to keep the snowmobilers out of his property. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 6:30 o’clock p.m. Vogstrom indicated it is the neighbors who use it and that the sign does say no motorized vehicles. Vogstrom noted the people who submitted the letters live further down the road and that currently nobody uses it outside of the snowmobilers. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to February 12. Leskinen stated historically and in the City’s Comprehensive Plan it is pretty clear the City does not vacate lake access points. Leskinen stated the use will not change, and if the snowmobilers are going now, they will likely continue to do so. Leskinen stated the argument could be made that if the snowmobilers are using it, it is a public access. Thiesse stated if motorized vehicles are not allowed in that area, the City should be monitoring that. Landgraver stated he does not see any compelling reason for vacating the right-of-way since these lake access points are a scarce commodity and are owned by the residents of Orono. Thiesse commented the vacation would preclude other people from using the access point. Lemke stated he does not see a hardship. Thiesse stated it also does not follow the Comprehensive Plan. Thiesse stated while it may or may not set a precedent, he is not interested in giving away City land. Leskinen moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend denial of Application No. 17-3983, Eric and Liz Vogstrom, 2618 Casco Point Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays Date Application Received: September 27, 2017 Date Application Considered as Complete: October 12, 2017 60-Day Review Period Expires: December 11, 2017 60-day Extension Period Expires: February 9, 2018 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner LLO Date: January 16, 2018 Subject: #17-3983, Eric and Liz Vogstrom, 2816 Casco Point Road, Right of Way Vacation, Public Hearing Background Applicants Eric and Liz Vogstrom of 2618 Casco Point Road are requesting to vacate the unimproved right of way that is directly abutting their property to the north. The right of way was originally a product of the Winship’s Subdivision. The unimproved right-of-way is a dedicated lake access for pedestrians according to the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant uses the right of way to access their dock. The applicant has included a narrative with the application attached as Exhibit E. Applicable Regulations: MN State Statute 412.851 VACATION OF STREETS. The council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof, on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting on the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated. When there has been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four-fifths of all members of the council. No vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice. The council shall cause written notice of the hearing to be mailed to each property owner affected by the proposed vacation at least ten days before the hearing. The notice must contain, at minimum, a copy of the petition or proposed resolution as well as the time, place, and date of the hearing. In addition, if the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof terminates at, abuts upon, or is adjacent to any public water, written notice of the petition or proposed resolution must be served by certified mail upon the commissioner of natural resources at least 60 days before the hearing on the matter. The notice to the commissioner of natural resources does not create a right of intervention by the commissioner. At least 15 days prior to convening the hearing required under this section, the council or its designee must consult with the commissioner of natural resources to review the proposed vacation. The commissioner must 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 Application Summary: The applicant is requesting the City of Orono to vacate an unimproved platted right of way with lake access. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial. #17-3983 January 16, 2018 Page 2 of 4 (3) how the vacation would impact conservation of natural resources. The commissioner must advise the city council or its designee accordingly upon the evaluation. After a resolution of vacation is adopted, the clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the proceedings which shall contain the name of the city, an identification of the vacation, a statement of the time of completion thereof, and a description of the real estate and lands affected thereby. The notice shall be presented to the county auditor who shall enter the same in the transfer records and note upon the instrument, over official signature, the words "entered in the transfer record." The notice shall then be recorded with the county recorder. Any failure to file the notice shall not invalidate any vacation proceedings. MN State Statue 462.358 Subd. 7. Vacation. The governing body of a municipality may vacate any publicly owned utility easement or boulevard reserve or any portion thereof, which are not being used for sewer, drainage, electric, telegraph, telephone, gas and steam purposes or for boulevard reserve purposes, in the same manner as vacation proceedings are conducted for streets, alleys and other public ways under a home rule charter or other provisions of law. A boulevard reserve means an easement established adjacent to a dedicated street for the purpose of establishing open space adjacent to the street and which area is designated on the recorded plat as "boulevard reserve". Orono City Code. Sec. 78-9. - Vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds. Vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds shall follow the procedures set forth in this chapter; except that such vacation shall require a petition by a majority of the landowners abutting the property to be vacated, and a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice, all as required by Minn. Stat. § 412.851. The council may vacate any publicly owned utility easement or boulevard reserve which is not being used for sewer, drainage, electric, telegraph, and telephone, gas and steam purposes or for boulevard reserve purposes, in the same manner as vacation proceedings are conducted for streets, alleys and other public ways. A boulevard reserve means an easement established adjacent to a dedicated street for the purpose of establishing open space adjacent to the street and which area is designated on the recorded plat as boulevard reserve. Comprehensive Plan Transportation Chapter (4A-32) Less than 1% of Orono’s lake shoreline has been dedicated as public access corridors. Nearly all the rest is privately owned, and not available to the public for lake access purposes, save for the DNR Maxwell Bay Access, Hennepin County’s North Arm Access and the City’s Summit Park on Long Lake. Hennepin County’s Noerenberg Gardens Memorial Park, while abutting Lake Minnetonka, has deed restrictions that disallow use for docking or launching boats. With shoreland abutting a dozen separate bays in Lake Minnetonka, Orono has a commitment to maintaining access via the dedicated access corridors. Orono’s lake accesses are enumerated in Table 4A-8. (See Exhibit F) Lake Access Policies #17-3983 January 16, 2018 Page 3 of 4 It is the City’s intent to permanently retain for public use all existing lake access corridors and fire lanes, regardless of the current level of use or maintenance. To this end, the City will follow these policies: 1. Requests for vacation of dedicated lake access right-of-ways will be denied in all cases except where equal or better lake access will be granted nearby in return. 2. The City will identify and take necessary action to preserve the public’s right to use of any such accesses which exist but which may not have been formally dedicated. 3. The City will endeavor to work with property owners adjacent to lake access corridors to ensure that both the rights of the public and the rights of the private landowner are upheld. Part 4E Parks, Open Space and Trails (4E): The Comprehensive Plan, in the Parks, Open Space, and Trails Chapter has the platted road is listed as a lake access point. Engineer/ Public Works Director/ Park Commission staff Comments 1. The city’s policy is not to approve vacation of city fire lanes/ lake access points per the Comprehensive Plan. 2. This is lake access point #39 with the listed purpose of providing walking access to the lake. These lake access are classified under the Parks, Open Space and Trail Plan (4E) in the CMP. The council just passed “A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF ORONO KEEPING ITS OPEN SPACES, PLAYGROUNDS, PARKS, AND TRAILS IN PERPETUITY” Seems like vacating this lake access point would fall afoul of this resolution. 3. If we do go ahead with a vacation, the west end of the ROW has a city Storm Pond in it that would need protection either; a. Do not include the western end of the ROW in the vacation, or b. Obtain an easement over the pond, associated pipes and access way from the road to the pond. Staff Analysis The council recently approved a resolution in support for preserving parks, open space and trails within the City of Orono. This unimproved platted right of way is identified as open space for pedestrian lake access. Approving this request would conflict with the recent support for parks and open space. From reviewing the Comprehensive plan vacating this right of way seems to go against the policies that are set in place today for the preservation of lake access and open space. The challenge with vacating rights of way is that vacation is final. Should the public or the city desire access to the lake, or have utility needs in the future, the cost to acquire Lake Frontage will be premium. Vacation reduces options for the city in the future, and the importance of access to the lake is outlined in the comprehensive plan. Public Comments Staff received two written comments to deny this request. See Exhibit G for the submitted comments. Issues for Consideration 1. Does this request follow the Comprehensive Plan? #17-3983 January 16, 2018 Page 4 of 4 2. Does this request meet the requirements for approval? 3. Would approving this action set precedent for future lake access vacations? 4. Are there any issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommend denial of this application because it does not meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. If the Commission/ Council finds evidence for approval the west end of the area has a storm pond and city pipe located within the area will need to be addressed to stay protected; staff suggests some sort or utility/ access easement recorded. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Area Map/ Site Plan Exhibit C. Annotated Plan Exhibit D. Original Plat Exhibit E. Project Narrative Exhibit F. Comprehensive Plan Table 4A-8 Exhibit G. Comments received from the public Exhibit H. Property Owners List To the Orono City Council: I am writing to ask the city to decline the request of Eric and Liz Vogstrom to vacate the fire lane located between our properties. My family has lived at 2600 Casco Point Road for almost forty years. We purchased the land and built our home in the area because of the location. I grew up in Orono (class of 1956) and have always loved living here. A major incentive for my wife and me to purchase the land was the fact that it abutted a fire lane. We knew that the fire lane added significant value to the land. We also knew that the fire lane was and is public property and that the city of Orono prohibited any motor vehicles and that the fire lane had restricted hours of use. Vacating the fire lane (i.e. donating a valuable lakeshore property to Mr. Vogstrom) would be an affront to common sense and contrary to the City of Orono’s written philosophy. The city has spent millions of dollars to provide the residents with open space and park land. To donate a large lakeshore lot to benefit only Mr.Vogstrom is simply wrong. In Mr. Vogstrom’s request to the city to vacate/donate the public property to him, he wrote that he has “fertilized it” and “mowed it” and “maintained it”. Mr. Vogstrom has done all of that. He has also taken the liberty to dig trenches in it in order to run high voltage power lines, low voltage power lines, invisible fencing, irrigation pipes and lighting. I invite any council member(s) or citizens of Orono to visit the fire lane and see for themselves. The “nature path” that Mr. Vogstrom wrote about in his letter to the city existed before he built his house. The fire lane used to be a nature path. The fire lane as it was and how my wife and children used it is long gone. The natural vegetation on the path has been bulldozed and replaced by Kentucky blue grass. The large amount of fertilizer Mr. Vogstrom uses has caused large algae blooms. Many yards of black dirt have been hauled in to raise the grade so Mr. Vogstrom can run his motorized vehicles on it. The city placed boulders on the fire lane to prevent this but Mr. Vogstrom simply moved them. I know that the city has been responsive to resident concerns in the past, and I hope that it will support this request NOT to give the fire lane to Mr. Vogstrom. I would also ask the city to repair the fire lane and certify the costs to Mr. Vogstroms property taxes. There is no other way. I should also mention that the house is for sale. Thank you for reading this. Respectfully, Paul and Mary Ellen Kaster 145 University Ave. West www.lmc.org 4/27/2017 Saint Paul, MN 55103-2044 (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 © 2017 All Rights Reserved INFORMATION M EMO Vacation of City Streets Learn how to divest the city of dedicated public streets, alleys, and other public ways and grounds, such as dedicated parks and docks that are no longer needed. Understand steps in the formal vacation process provided by law for this purpose. Contains a checklist for action and sample resolutions for city council action. RELEVANT LINKS: I. Vacation by resolution of council in Minn. Stat. § 412.851. A.G. Op. 377-A-15, (Feb. 6, 1962.). In re Schmeidel's Estate, 137 N.W. 1110 (Minn. 1912). A.G. Op. 396-G -16, (Sept. 18, 1958). A.G. Op. 396-G-16, (May 4, 1954). Vacation is a legislative act, and the city has wide discretion to abandon or maintain a street or other public grounds. State statute governs the procedure for vacating a street, alley, public grounds or public way in statutory cit ies. A city may also choose to vacate a portion of a street, alley, public way or public grounds. As streets are the most commonly vacated property, this memo refers only to streets in discussing proper vacation procedures. Unless otherwise noted, the information in this memo is equally applicable to all vacations of alleys, public ways, and other dedicated public grounds. Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd 7. In addition, a separate state statute allows cities to use the street vacation process to vacate any publicly-owned utility easement or boulevard reserve not being used for sewer, drainage, electric, telegraph, telephone, gas and steam purposes, or for boulevard reserve purposes. A boulevard reserve is defined as an easement established adjacent to a dedicated street for the purpose of establishing open space adjacent to the street where the area is designated on the recorded plat as “boulevard reserve.” A. Procedure for vacation by resolution See Appendix A, Checklist for Street Vacation. Leeper v. Hampton Hills, Inc., 187 N.W.2d 765 (Minn 1971). State v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 131 N.W. 330 (Minn. 1911). Rein v. Town of Spring Lake, 145 N.W. 2d 537 (Minn. 1966). There are several procedural steps a city must follow to vacate a street. Failure to follow the procedures set out in the statute may invalidate the vacation. Use of a dedicated public street may not be discontinued through any procedure other than a formal, lawful vacation. It is normally not possible for a city to simply abandon a street. While potentially cumbersome, the formality of the process protects a city from allegations it has abandoned a street through minimal use or non-user. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 2 1. Starting a street vacation Setting a Public Hearing on a Street Vacation, LMC Model Resolution. There are two methods for commencing a vacation. Council on its own motion may start the vacation process. However, a resolution for a vacation commenced by the city council on its own motion must be passed by a four-fifths vote of all members of the council. Vacating a Street, LMC Model Petition. A majority of the owners of land abutting the street to be vacated may also initiate a vacation by petition. However, since the language of the statute is permissive, the city council is not required to vacate a street simply because a valid petition is received. The decision to act on a petition is a discretionary act of the council. Declaring Sufficiency of Petition and Setting a Public Hearing, LMC Model Resolution. Once the city receives a petition for a vacation, the city must confirm that the petition sufficiently complies with the requirements of the law. Specifically, the city must confirm that the petition has been signed by the correct number of abutting property owners. a. When is a property considered to abut a proposed vacation? A.G. Op. 396-G -16, (Oct. 22, 1958). A property owner is considered to “abut,” if their land is touching, reaching, joining, bordering on, or contiguous with the street to be vacated. b. What constitutes a majority of abutting landowners? A.G. Op. 377-A-15, (Feb. 5, 1962). A.G. Op. 396-G -16, (Oct. 22, 1958). A.G. Op. 396-G-1, (March 9, 1955). A.G. Op. 396-G-16, (July 22, 1953). A.G. Op. 396-C- 18, (Sept. 28, 1953). The requirement that a “majority of owners of land” sign the petition means that a majority of individuals having property interests in the land abutting the street to be vacated must sign the petition. This requirement does not mean owners representing a majority of the abutting property. For example, if there are four property owners abutting a street to be vacated, three must sign the petition. In this scenario, it would not matter if one of the four owners owned 90 percent of the land abutting the street. Despite the substantial property interest of one of the abutting owners (representing a majority of abutting property on the street), three property owners must still sign the petition. Married persons often own property as “joint tenants” or as “tenants in common.” Normally, a joint tenancy creates two property interests. A tenancy in common may create two or more property interests. These interests are counted separately as owners for the purposes of determining the number of abutting landowners. For example, on a street with four abutting properties, each held by two persons as joint tenants, the number of ownership interests is eight (even though there are only four properties). The signatures needed to constitute a majority of abutting owners on this street would be five. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 3 c. What constitutes an ownership interest in abutting land? A.G. Op. 396-G -16, (Oct. 22, 1958). A.G. Op. 396-G - 16 (July 22, 1953). An ownership interest in land does not include mere easement interests and implicates actual fee ownership. While easement holders may not sign a petition for vacation as abutting property owners, the city should carefully consider the concerns of easement holders—particularly easement holders with water, sewer, and electrical lines—prior to granting a vacation. d. Is a city with property abutting a vacation considered an “owner of land” for the purposes of signing the petition? A.G. Op. 396-C-18, (August 5, 1948). A.G. Op. 346-G -1, (Mar. 4, 1963). A city that has a fee ownership interest in land abutting a street to be vacated may choose to join in signing a petition for vacation. 2. Public hearing and notice requirements Whether initiated by the council or by petition from the abutting owners, the city must conduct a public hearing to solicit public input on a proposed vacation prior to granting a vacation. a. Notice requirements Public Hearing on Vacation of a Street, LMC Model Notice Minn. Stat. § 645.11. Notice of the hearing must be published in the city’s legal newspaper and posted at least two weeks prior to the hearing. Newspaper publication must be once a week for two weeks. In addition, written notice of the hearing must be mailed to each property owner affected by the proposed vacation at least 10 days before the hearing. The notice must contain, at minimum, a copy of the petition or proposed resolution as well as the time, place, and date of the hearing. Certified mail is not required by the statute. Unfortunately, the statute does not define who is considered to be an “affected” property owner entitled to notice. The implications of the term “affected” are broader than the term “abutting” used elsewhere in the statute. As a result, the group of “affected” owners comprises a group larger than the abutting owners, but smaller than the general citizenry of the city who will receive published notice of the vacation. Etzler v. Mondale, 123 N.W.2d 603 (Minn. 1963). concerning vacation of plats pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 505.14. Batinich v. Harvey, 277 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. 1979). The Court has established that when platted streets are vacated, due process requires, at minimum, that notice be sent to all owners or occupants of land within the platted area. Owners and purchasers of platted land are presumed to rely upon access to the areas dedicated to public use in a plat and are deemed to be “affected” owners. Cities may adopt a more generous standard as appropriate to their fact situation. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 4 In unplatted areas, there is no similar guidance from the Court. However, the vacation statute and due process still require the city to send notice to all property owners “affected” by the vacation. Since the term is undefined in statute, the city must develop a reasonable policy regarding notice. The location of the individual street and the character of the surrounding property should be taken into account in determining sufficient notice. A.G. Op. (June 20, 1988) (informal opinion). An informal Minnesota Attorney General letter stated that, for due process reasons, it may be prudent to extend the notice requirements beyond fee title owners of property to mortgagees and contract for deed vendors who may be significantly affected by a vacation. b. Notice to the commissioner of Natural Resources Public Hearing Vacating a Street Near Water, LMC Model Notice. If the street or any part of the street terminates at, abuts upon, or is adjacent to any public water, written notice must also be served by certified mail upon the commissioner of Natural Resources at least 60 days before the public hearing. After notice is served on the commissioner, at least 15 days prior to convening the public hearing, the city council or its designee must consult with the commissioner to review the proposed vacation. This consultation should be documented by the city. The notice of the hearing and the consultation do not create a right of intervention by the commissioner. The commissioner must provide the city with its evaluation of the following: • The public benefits of the proposed vacation. • The present and potential use of the land for access to public waters. • How the vacation would impact conservation of natural resources. After receiving the commissioner’s evaluation, the city should respond to the commissioner’s concerns in its formal findings of fact granting or denying the vacation. c. Conducting the public hearing See also LMC information memo, Zoning Guide for Cities, Section V-C-2-b on conducting a public hearing. The fundamental purpose for holding a public hearing is to provide due process—a chance to speak and be heard—to all persons affected by the proposed vacation. Public hearings should include complete disclosure of what is being considered, and a fair and open assessment of the issues raised by the vacation. A public hearing must also include an opportunity for affected landowners and the interested public to see and hear all available information and to ask questions, provide additional information, express support or opposition, or to suggest modifications to the proposal. The primary focus of a public hearing should be to solicit public comment, not to persuade the public towards a particular viewpoint. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 5 If the council does not agree with sentiments expressed at the public hearing, the council can incorporate its position on the issues raised into its findings of fact in the formal resolution approving or denying the vacation. B. Standards for granting a vacation Schaller v. Town of Florence, 259 N.W. 529 (Minn. 1935). Application of Baldwin, 15 N.W.2d 184 (Minn. 1944). In re Hull, 204 N.W. 534 (Minn. 1925). A.G. Op. 396-G-16, (Sept. 18, 1958). Minnesota statutes establish that the city council may vacate a street only upon a finding that the vacation is “in the interest of the public.” This means the public must benefit, in some manner, from the vacation. The public includes persons other than those in the immediate vicinity of the vacation. A private benefit derived from the vacation does not bar the vacation, so long as a concurrent benefit to the public can be substantiated. Application of Baldwin, 15 N.W.2d 184 (Minn. 1944). Petition of Krebs, 6 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. 1942). Mere long-term, non-use of a street ground does not necessarily equate with a finding that the vacation is in the interest of the public. In reviewing vacations, Minnesota courts have emphasized that the future benefit to maintaining the dedicated property should be given consideration. For example, the Minnesota Supreme Court once overturned a vacation because the potential future use of the public grounds as public lake access was not properly taken into account. In another example, the Court upheld a denial of a petition for a vacation, because preservation of the underutilized property would help lessen the effects of future population growth in the area. Kangas v. Blueberry Tp., 264 N.W.2d 389 (Minn. 1978). Rader v. East Side Twsp., C3-87-744 (unpublished opinion). The decision to grant or deny a vacation is legislative in character. As a result, a reviewing court will only set aside a vacation if it appears that the evidence is practically conclusive against the city, or that the council proceeded on an erroneous theory of law, or that it acted arbitrarily and capriciously against the best interests of the public. 1. Adoption of a resolution granting or denying a Vacating a S treet on Council Initiative., LMC Model Resolution. Vacating a Street Upon Petition, LMC Model Resolution. Vacations must be approved by city council resolution. A vacation commenced solely on the initiative of the city council requires a four-fifths majority vote in favor of the resolution. A vacation commenced by petition of a majority of abutting land owners requires a simple majority of the quorum present at the meeting to pass a favorable resolution. As previously discussed, the resolution should include the city’s reasons for granting the vacation and detailed, written findings of fact. When a city denies a petition for a vacation, the city should also adopt a resolution setting forth the city’s reasons for the denial and written findings of fact. As previously discussed, detailed findings build a record necessary to support the city’s decision and refute allegations that the decision was arbitrary or capricious. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 6 After a resolution granting a vacation is adopted, the city clerk must prepare a notice of completion of the proceedings containing the following: • The name of the city. • Identification of the street vacated. • A statement of the time of completion of the vacation. • A description of the real estate and lands affected thereby. The notice must be presented to the county auditor, who will enter the notice in the transfer records and note upon the instrument, over official signature, the words “entered in the transfer record.” The notice must then be recorded with the county recorder. The county auditor in your county may have a preferred form for the notice of completion in your jurisdiction. It is advisable to check with your county auditor regarding the preferred format at the beginning of a vacation proceeding. Provided that all the other elements of a valid vacation proceeding exist, mere failure to file the notice will not invalidate the vacation. II. Home rule charter cities Minn. Stat. § 410.33. Many home rule cities have charter provisions that establish a process for the vacation of city streets. If a charter is silent on the issue, the general statutory provisions previously discussed may be used. See Handbook, The Home Rule Charter City. Home rule charters may supplement, but not contradict state statute. The general rule is that when a charter provision is in conflict with state law, the statutory provision prevails and the charter provision is ineffective to the extent that it conflicts with state policy. Minn. Stat. § 440.13. Minn. Stat. § 440.135. Unique statutory provisions favoring petitioners and property owners in home rule charter cities of the fourth- and third-class must also be considered. As discussed below, these provisions only apply in certain limited circumstances. Third- and fourth-class charter cities should consult their attorney regarding the applicability of these provisions to their fact situation. In addition, the League of Minnesota Cities recommends that special attention be given to due process and notice issues, despite the statutes’ silence on these issues. A. Fourth-class charter cities Minn. Stat. § 440.13. A home rule charter city of the fourth class, (i.e., cities with a population of 10,000 or less), notwithstanding any contrary charter provision, must follow a separate statute in vacating any street or highway “wherein one end of the street or highway, or part thereof proposed to be vacated does not connect with any other street or highway” (i.e., a “dead-end” street). RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 7 The statute provides stringent protections to property owners in home rule charter cities of the fourth class who live on such “dead-end” roads. These roads may only be vacated when all the owners of lands abutting both sides of the street or highway have signed a petition requesting the vacation. A.G. Op. 396-C-1 (May 22, 1961). A.G. Op. 396-C-18, (May 16, 1958). The Minnesota Attorney General has limited the application of this statute to “streets and highways.” As a result, the Minnesota Attorney General does not believe the protections of the statute apply to property owners on dead-end alleys. Presumably, such protections do not apply to property owners on other types of dead-end public grounds or public ways. See discussion and sample forms to modify in Section I-A-2 above. This unique statute for fourth class charter cities does not require a public hearing or published notice of the vacation in the manner otherwise required under the general vacation statute. However, the League recommends the city provide notice to the affected public of the proposed vacation for due-process reasons. Etzler v. Mondale, 123 N.W.2d 603 (Minn. 1963). In addition, the League recommends the city hold a public hearing providing affected parties an opportunity to comment on the vacation. While the statute does not explicitly require notice and a hearing, Minnesota courts have imposed such due process considerations in the past under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The statute also does not require a finding of public benefit as discussed above. However, the permissive language of the statute does not require the city to vacate the street or highway upon receipt of a lawful petition. The city’s refusal to grant a vacation in such circumstances will be upheld by the courts unless it appears that the evidence is practically conclusive against the city, or that the city proceeded on an erroneous theory of law, or that it acted arbitrarily and capriciously against the best interests of the public. Public Hearing Vacating a Street Near Water. LMC Model Notice. Finally, if the dead end road terminates at or abuts upon any public water, the petitioners who are requesting the vacation must serve notice of the petition by certified mail upon the Commissioner of Natural Resources at least 30 days before the council hearing on the matter. The notice is for notification purposes only and does not create a right of intervention by the Commissioner. B. Third-class charter cities Minn. Stat. § 440.135. A home rule charter city of the third class (i.e., a city with more than 10,000 in population, but less than 20,000) possesses an additional unique power of vacation. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 8 Upon the petition of any one owner, natural or corporate, of any real estate abutting a street, a city council may vacate a street, segment or portion of a street so long as the street to be vacated is no longer than the distance intervening between any two adjacent intersecting streets. If the street to be vacated terminates at or abuts upon any public water, the petitioners requesting the vacation must serve notice of the petition by certified mail upon the commissioner of Natural Resources at least 30 days before the city council hearing on the matter. The notice is for notification purposes only and does not create a right of intervention by the commissioner. The vacation of any street or segment under these provisions cannot destroy or interfere with the right of any person, corporation or municipality owning or having control of any electric light or telephone pole or lines existing upon such street at the time of the vacation, or with any sewer or water pipes, mains or hydrants thereon or thereunder to enter upon such street or portion thereof vacated for the purpose of repairing the same or otherwise attending thereto. City council action on the petition for vacation under this unique statute may be taken at any regular or special meeting duly called for considering the vacation. The statute does not require a public hearing or published notice of the vacation. However, the League recommends the city provide notice to the affected public of the proposed vacation for due process reasons. Etzler v. Mondale, 123 N.W.2d 603 (Minn. 1963). In addition, the League recommends the city hold a public hearing on the vacation, providing affected parties an opportunity to comment on the vacation. While the statute does not require notice and a hearing, Minnesota courts have imposed such due process considerations in the past under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Approval of the vacation under these provisions must be by resolution. A copy of the resolution, duly certified by the city clerk, must be recorded in the office of the county recorder in the county where such city is located before the action is effective. A.G. Op. 396-C-1 (Nov. 23, 1953). The Minnesota Attorney General has limited the application of the statute to “streets” quoting the narrow language of the statute. As a result, the attorney general does not believe the procedure for vacation of streets under Minn. Stat. § 440.135 can be used to vacate alleys. Presumably, it also does not apply to other types of public grounds or public ways. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 9 III. Vacation of platted lands upon court order A. Introduction Minn. Stat. § 505.14. Minnesota Statutes provide an additional method for vacation of platted streets, alleys or public grounds through the court system rather than through petition to the city council. It is difficult to imagine any circumstances under which a city would itself utilize this procedure to vacate a street under its exclusive jurisdiction. However, cities may need to familiarize themselves with this procedure in the instance where a member of the public chooses to pursue a court-ordered vacation (as opposed to a petition to the city council). It is important to note that these provisions may be inapplicable in certain charter cities. The statute explicitly states that the district court cannot vacate or alter a platted street dedicated to the public use in any city organized under a charter or special law that provides a method of procedure for vacation by the municipal authorities of the city. B. Procedure for obtaining a court-ordered Minn. Stat. § 505.14. Petition of Krebs, 6 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. 1942). A person seeking vacation of a platted street may use either the provisions discussed previously for a petition to the city for a vacation or may choose to apply directly to the district court for a vacation. Petitioners are not required to petition the city for the vacation first, before approaching the courts. Batinich v. Harvey, 277 N.W.2d 355 (Minn., 1979). A petitioner seeking a vacation from the district court must provide personal notice of the petition to the mayor of the city where the street to be vacated is situated. The petitioner must also provide additional personal and published notice to land owners within the platted area and to the commissioner of Natural Resources, if the land terminates at, abuts upon, or is adjacent to any public water. Upon proper petition and notice, the district court has broad power to “vacate or alter all or any part, of the plat, and adjudge the title to all streets, alleys, and public grounds to be in the persons ent itled thereto.” In addition, the district court may determine damages and award compensation to all persons owning or occupying land affected by the proposed vacation. Application of Avant-Garde, Inc., 481 N.W.2d 379 (Minn.Ct.App.1992). When the lands to be vacated are “streets or alleys connecting separate plats or lying between blocks or lots or providing access for the public to any public water,” the court cannot grant the vacation unless the facts indicate that the land to be vacated is “useless for the purpose for which it was laid out.” RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 10 This standard has been extended to include parks and other public grounds by the courts. Church of Sts. Peter and Paul of Lake George v. Lake George Tp., 89 N.W.2d 708 (Minn. 1958). In re Verbick, 607 N.W.2d 148 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). The standard of uselessness is a more stringent standard than the public benefit standard for a vacation by resolution of a city council. A petitioner must prove that the land to be vacated has no present or future use consistent with the land’s original purpose as a public way or ground. IV. Property interests after a vacation A. Reversion and ownership McCuen v. McCarvel, 263 N.W.2d 64, (Minn. 1978). When a street is lawfully vacated, the easement granting the public the right to travel the street ceases to exist, and the title to the land under the street reverts to the underlying fee owners of the property for their exclusive use and enjoyment. The reversion occurs by operation of law, and the city is not able to direct or convey ownership of the fee title upon vacation. The law presumes property owners along the vacated street each hold a grant of soil to the center of the street where their property abuts the street. As a result, upon vacation, title to half of the street usually reverts to each abutting property owner. In re Robbins, 24 N.W. 356 (Minn. 1885). Edgewater Cottage Ass'n, Inc. v. Watson, 387 NW 2d 216 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). The one-half ownership rule is based on the presumption that adjoining landowners equally furnished land for the roadway use. However, this rule does not apply where evidence shows the street was laid out wholly on one of the abutting owner’s land. In this instance, where one owner furnished all of the land for the street, that landowner (or the landowner’s successor in interest) will receive all of the land back upon vacation. In a few rare instances, the city may actually own the underlying fee title to the vacated public way or grounds. In these instances, upon vacation the city becomes the fee owner and may keep or dispose of the property as it deems in the best interests of the city. B. Compensation to the city for loss of the street A.G. Op. 396-G -16 (Sept. 9, 1965). A.G. Op. 396-G -16 (Apr. 10, 1947). As a general rule, a municipality has no proprietary interest in a public street. Rather the city holds an easement in favor of the public granting a right to travel the street. As a result, the city does not hold a fee interest in the street and cannot ask a petitioner to pay compensation for the loss of the street to the city as a condition to granting a vacation. RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 11 C. Re-establishing a vacated street A.G. Op. 396-G -16 (Apr. 10, 1947). Once a city street is vacated, the vacation means a permanent loss of the city’s interest in the street. In order to reopen or re-establish a vacated street, the city would need to follow the legal procedures set out in statute for opening city streets at a cost to the city. In order to reopen a street, the city would need to either negotiate an easement with the abutting property owners or use eminent domain proceedings. Both proceedings would likely require the city to pay fair market value for the easement. If the city anticipates a future need for the street, the city should not grant a petition to vacate the street. V. The 60-day rule Minn. Stat. § 15.99. The 60-day rule is a state law that provides that a city must approve or deny a written request relating to zoning, watershed district review or soil conservation district review within 60 days or it is deemed approved. The underlying purpose of the rule is to keep governmental agencies from taking too long in deciding land-use issues. Advantage Capital Management v. City of Northfield, 664 N.W.2d 421 (Minn. Ct. App.2003). 500, LLC v. City of Minneapolis, 837 N.W.2d 287 (Minn. 2013). The 60-day rule is written broadly to include all requests related to zoning. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has determined that a request is related to zoning when the request must be reviewed under the city’s specific regulatory structure for zoning (i.e., the city’s zoning code). Following this logic, the Court determined that the issuance of building permits is not subject to the 60-day rule, because the issuance of building permits fell under a different regulatory structure than the city’s zoning code. Similar to building permit applications, it seems unlikely that petitions for vacation would be subject to the statute. VI. Peculiar damages resulting from a vacation In re Hull, 204 N.W. 534 (Minn. 1925). Underwood v. Town Bd. of Empire, 14 N.W.2d 459 (Minn. 1944). In re Hull, 204 N.W. 534 (Minn. 1925). Oliver v. State, 760 NW 2d. 912 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009). An abutting landowner who suffers peculiar damages from the vacation of a public street is entitled to compensation. Normally, peculiar damages must amount to a loss of access or some other unique injury. In order to obtain compensation for the injury, an abutting landowner does not need to prove the vacation completely obstructs all access to their property. However, the abutting landowner must establish damages that are unique from those suffered by the general public. A non-abutting property owner who suffers inconvenience or re-routing as a result of a vacation is not entitled to damages. Steernerson v. Fontaine, 119 NW 400 (Minn. 1908). The issue of damages does not prevent a city from vacating the public way or street. An abutting property owner must bring suit in district court to recover compensation for their damages. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 12 Appendix A: Checklist for Street Vacation by Resolution of City Council The following is a suggested checklist that may be useful to the clerk or other city officers to ensure every step in the vacation process is done as required. No checklist of this kind is legally required, but the form may be helpful. This list can be duplicated on two sides of one piece of paper so that one copy can be placed in the file for the vacation or in some other convenient place. Some of the steps will be omitted in some vacations, others in different vacations, but these can be crossed off when not applicable in the individual case. Additional steps may also be added to the list; for example, in cities where a home rule charter imposes additional procedures. Steps to Follow Completed by Whom Date Petition requesting vacation received Resolution verifying sufficiency of petition and ordering hearing date and preparation of notice OR (if no petition) Proposed resolution for vacation and preparation of notice Affidavit of mailing written notice by certified mail upon the commissioner of Natural Resources (at least 60 days before the hearing) Affidavit of consultation with the commissioner of Natural Resources on the vacation (must occur at least 15 days before the hearing) and materials received Affidavit of publication of notice of hearing (must occur for two consecutive weeks prior to hearing) Affidavit of mailing notice to affected property owners (must occur at least 10 days prior to hearing) Minutes of public hearing showing testimony and findings League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/27/2017 Vacation of City Streets Page 13 Steps to Follow Completed by Whom Date Resolution granting vacation with supporting findings of fact Resolution denying vacation with supporting findings of fact Notice of completion of proceedings to county auditor Marked “entered in the transfer records” notice of completion received back from county auditor(s) Date Application Received: September 27, 2017 Date Application Considered as Complete: October 12, 2017 60‐Day Review Period Expires: December 11, 2017 60‐day Extension Period Expires: February 9, 2018 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner LLO Date: January 16, 2018 Subject: #17‐3983, Eric and Liz Vogstrom, 2816 Casco Point Road, Right of Way Vacation, Public Hearing Background Applicants Eric and Liz Vogstrom of 2618 Casco Point Road are requesting to vacate the unimproved right of way that is directly abutting their property to the north. The right of way was originally a product of the Winship’s Subdivision. The unimproved right‐of‐way is a dedicated lake access for pedestrians according to the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant uses the right of way to access their dock. The applicant has included a narrative with the application attached as Exhibit E. Applicable Regulations: MN State Statute 412.851 VACATION OF STREETS. The council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof, on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting on the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated. When there has been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four‐fifths of all members of the council. No vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice. The council shall cause written notice of the hearing to be mailed to each property owner affected by the proposed vacation at least ten days before the hearing. The notice must contain, at minimum, a copy of the petition or proposed resolution as well as the time, place, and date of the hearing. In addition, if the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof terminates at, abuts upon, or is adjacent to any public water, written notice of the petition or proposed resolution must be served by certified mail upon the commissioner of natural resources at least 60 days before the hearing on the matter. The notice to the commissioner of natural resources does not create a right of intervention by the commissioner. At least 15 days prior to convening the hearing required under this section, the council or its designee must consult with the commissioner of natural resources to review the proposed vacation. The commissioner must 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 Application Summary: The applicant is requesting the City of Orono to vacate an unimproved platted right of way with lake access. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial. #17-3983 January 16, 2018 Page 2 of 4 (3) how the vacation would impact conservation of natural resources. The commissioner must advise the city council or its designee accordingly upon the evaluation. After a resolution of vacation is adopted, the clerk shall prepare a notice of completion of the proceedings which shall contain the name of the city, an identification of the vacation, a statement of the time of completion thereof, and a description of the real estate and lands affected thereby. The notice shall be presented to the county auditor who shall enter the same in the transfer records and note upon the instrument, over official signature, the words "entered in the transfer record." The notice shall then be recorded with the county recorder. Any failure to file the notice shall not invalidate any vacation proceedings. MN State Statue 462.358 Subd. 7. Vacation. The governing body of a municipality may vacate any publicly owned utility easement or boulevard reserve or any portion thereof, which are not being used for sewer, drainage, electric, telegraph, telephone, gas and steam purposes or for boulevard reserve purposes, in the same manner as vacation proceedings are conducted for streets, alleys and other public ways under a home rule charter or other provisions of law. A boulevard reserve means an easement established adjacent to a dedicated street for the purpose of establishing open space adjacent to the street and which area is designated on the recorded plat as "boulevard reserve". Orono City Code. Sec. 78‐9. ‐ Vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds. Vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds shall follow the procedures set forth in this chapter; except that such vacation shall require a petition by a majority of the landowners abutting the property to be vacated, and a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice, all as required by Minn. Stat. § 412.851. The council may vacate any publicly owned utility easement or boulevard reserve which is not being used for sewer, drainage, electric, telegraph, and telephone, gas and steam purposes or for boulevard reserve purposes, in the same manner as vacation proceedings are conducted for streets, alleys and other public ways. A boulevard reserve means an easement established adjacent to a dedicated street for the purpose of establishing open space adjacent to the street and which area is designated on the recorded plat as boulevard reserve. Comprehensive Plan Transportation Chapter (4A‐32) Less than 1% of Orono’s lake shoreline has been dedicated as public access corridors. Nearly all the rest is privately owned, and not available to the public for lake access purposes, save for the DNR Maxwell Bay Access, Hennepin County’s North Arm Access and the City’s Summit Park on Long Lake. Hennepin County’s Noerenberg Gardens Memorial Park, while abutting Lake Minnetonka, has deed restrictions that disallow use for docking or launching boats. With shoreland abutting a dozen separate bays in Lake Minnetonka, Orono has a commitment to maintaining access via the dedicated access corridors. Orono’s lake accesses are enumerated in Table 4A‐8. (See Exhibit F) Lake Access Policies #17-3983 January 16, 2018 Page 3 of 4 It is the City’s intent to permanently retain for public use all existing lake access corridors and fire lanes, regardless of the current level of use or maintenance. To this end, the City will follow these policies: 1. Requests for vacation of dedicated lake access right‐of‐ways will be denied in all cases except where equal or better lake access will be granted nearby in return. 2. The City will identify and take necessary action to preserve the public’s right to use of any such accesses which exist but which may not have been formally dedicated. 3. The City will endeavor to work with property owners adjacent to lake access corridors to ensure that both the rights of the public and the rights of the private landowner are upheld. Part 4E Parks, Open Space and Trails (4E): The Comprehensive Plan, in the Parks, Open Space, and Trails Chapter has the platted road is listed as a lake access point. Engineer/ Public Works Director/ Park Commission staff Comments 1. The city’s policy is not to approve vacation of city fire lanes/ lake access points per the Comprehensive Plan. 2. This is lake access point #39 with the listed purpose of providing walking access to the lake. These lake access are classified under the Parks, Open Space and Trail Plan (4E) in the CMP. The council just passed “A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CITY OF ORONO KEEPING ITS OPEN SPACES, PLAYGROUNDS, PARKS, AND TRAILS IN PERPETUITY” Seems like vacating this lake access point would fall afoul of this resolution. 3. If we do go ahead with a vacation, the west end of the ROW has a city Storm Pond in it that would need protection either; a. Do not include the western end of the ROW in the vacation, or b. Obtain an easement over the pond, associated pipes and access way from the road to the pond. Staff Analysis The council recently approved a resolution in support for preserving parks, open space and trails within the City of Orono. This unimproved platted right of way is identified as open space for pedestrian lake access. Approving this request would conflict with the recent support for parks and open space. From reviewing the Comprehensive plan vacating this right of way seems to go against the policies that are set in place today for the preservation of lake access and open space. The challenge with vacating rights of way is that vacation is final. Should the public or the city desire access to the lake, or have utility needs in the future, the cost to acquire Lake Frontage will be premium. Vacation reduces options for the city in the future, and the importance of access to the lake is outlined in the comprehensive plan. Public Comments Staff received two written comments to deny this request. See Exhibit G for the submitted comments. Issues for Consideration 1. Does this request follow the Comprehensive Plan? #17-3983 January 16, 2018 Page 4 of 4 2. Does this request meet the requirements for approval? 3. Would approving this action set precedent for future lake access vacations? 4. Are there any issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommend denial of this application because it does not meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. If the Commission/ Council finds evidence for approval the west end of the area has a storm pond and city pipe located within the area will need to be addressed to stay protected; staff suggests some sort or utility/ access easement recorded. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Area Map/ Site Plan Exhibit C. Annotated Plan Exhibit D. Original Plat Exhibit E. Project Narrative Exhibit F. Comprehensive Plan Table 4A‐8 Exhibit G. Comments received from the public Exhibit H. Property Owners List He nn e pin Cou n ty P roperty Ma p Da te : 10 /13/2 017 Com men ts: 1 inc h = 1 00 fee t PAR C EL ID: 20 117 23 24 003 8 OWN ER N AME : E J Vo gs t rom & E A Vog st ro m PAR C EL AD DR E SS: 2 618 C asco Point Rd , O ro no MN 553 91 PAR C EL AR EA: 0.6 4 ac re s, 27 ,9 83 sq ft A-T-B: Ab stra ct SAL E PR ICE: $1,30 0,00 0 SAL E D ATA: 1 2/20 13 SAL E C OD E: Exclu de d Fro m Ra tio Stud ies ASSESS ED 2 016 , PAYABLE 201 7 PR OPERT Y TYPE: R es iden t ial Lake Sh ore H OM ESTEAD : N on -H ome ste ad M AR KET VA L UE: $1,1 54,00 0 TAX TO TAL: $1 5,51 6.94 ASSESS ED 2 017 , PAYABLE 201 8 PRO PER TY TYPE : R eside ntial La ke Sh or e HO MESTEAD: No n-h ome s te ad MARKE T VALU E: $1 ,3 61 ,0 00 This dat a (i) is fur nished 'A S IS' wi th no repres ent at ion as to com ple ten es s or acc ura cy; (ii) is furnis he d w ith no war rant y of an y k ind; an d (i ii) is not su itab le for lega l, engi neering or s urv ey ing purpo ses. Hen nepin C ounty s hall not be liable f or a ny dam age, in jury o r los s r esu lting f rom this dat a. CO PYRIG HT © HEN N EPIN CO UN TY 2 0 17 1 Laura Oakden From:Eric Vogstrom <eric@vogstrom.com> Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 2:42 PM To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:Vogstrom I bought my property in 2004. Since we have owned the property, I have mowed, fertilized, watered, and maintained the unimproved road in question to the North of my lot. The city has not used this unimproved road since I have been there. This unimproved road actually runs next to my property allowing my house access to the lake. The only access to my dock is over the city's unimproved road. My intention is to keep a small path to access my dock and then naturalize the rest of the road area. I spoke with Dennis Walsh a few times about this and he encouraged me to apply at the city to have the road vacated. Eric and Liz Vogstrom 2618 Casco Point Road Orono Mn 55391 Table 4A-8: City of Orono Lake Minnetonka Access Points - Designated Use and Current Status ID # Access Name or Street Name Plat Section Between Address #s Designated Use UPDATED 4/2/01 (#5,7) UPDATED 5/21/08 Notes Brown’s Bay (Lower Lake) 1 End of Orono Lane 2-S 1355/1385 Not open for public use; plat map indicates questionable abutment of shoreline -- Shoreline Drive - “Molly’s Corner” (Outlot A, Dragonfly Hill) 2-S Across from 1410 Shoreline Shore Fishing Hennepin County provides an informal parking area and trashcans at this wide spot along Shoreline Drive; popular fishing spot; winter vehicular access feasible Smith Bay (Lower Lake) 2 Shoreline Drive at Spates 10-S Adj to 1955 Winter Only Gated in summer; seasonal Long Lake Fire Dept. boat dockage established here in 2008; winter vehicular access allowed. 3 North Shore Drive at Shoreline Drive 10-S Tracts S&U, RLS 192; these tracts are on the steep slope adjacent to Shoreline Drive; due to slope and safety issues this access point is not open for public use Crystal Bay -- North Shore Drive (“Town Road”) 9-S 2605/2655 No longer a public access 4 North Shore Drive at Baldur Park Road 8-S 3498/3510 Winter Only 30' wide platted road right-of-way -- North Shore Drive east of Shadywood Road 17-N 3685/3705 33' wide eastward extension of North Shore Drive (Hennepin County jurisdiction) 5 Shadywood Road at Sunset Dr 17-N 1998/2000 15.2' wide platted alley - closely abutting homes on either side 6 Crystal Bay Road (West end) 17-S Adj to 2264 Shadywood 66' wide platted road extending to lakeshore; City also owns 4 adjacent tiny lakeshore parcels to the east for an additional 200' of shoreline, over which a number of inland private parcels claim deeded access rights for “boating and bathing”… status currently under discussion 7 Crystal Bay Road (Relocated extension of Bayview Place in plat of “Wallace’s Addition...”) 17-S 3405/3415 20' relocated alley from Railroad property to shoreline; potential lake access from railway corridor. The only known documentation is Doc. #507616 deed filed Nov. 10, 1908 from Wallace et al to Priebe which states that the 20' strip is “heretofore taken for street purposes” and notes that the platted alley between Lots 18 and 19 was vacated by the District Court. 8 Crystal Bay Road (Platted extension of Hillside Place) 17-S 3339/3345 25' wide platted roadway; contains municipal sewer lines, potential access from neighborhood and Railroad/Trail corridor to lakeshore Maxwell Bay 9 Gibbs Landing - Fox St. 4-S Adj to 3125 Pedestrian year-round, vehicles winter only Tax records show access as Outlot A, owned by owner of 3125, City has easement over Outlot, City maintains access Stubbs Bay 10 Eastlake Street 5-N 3424/3465 Winter Only 30' platted road gated March 1 - Dec. 1 11 Bayside Rd. at Stubbs Bay Rd. 5-N 3580/3640 Fishing Dock 33' platted road (“Oak Street” in plat of “Bay View Park”) Also used for winter access by snowmobiles off Luce Line 12 Bayside Rd 5-N Across from 3640, 3700, 3750 Bayside NA Two 60' platted roads and one 65' platted road to the Lake (Park, Spring, and Maple Streets in plat of Bay View Park; and Theresa St. in plat of Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka). These potential access points are not opened for public use. 13 Bayside Rd. 5-N West side of 3775 Bayside NA 30' realigned platted road (Realigned “Lake Street” in the plat of Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka) (See street file 3775 Bayside). Not opened for public use. 14 Westlake Street 5-N 372/389 30' platted road right-of-way extending to lakeshore; walking access only. North Arm Bay 15 Park Lane 6-S 607/649 Fishing Dock 60' wide platted road, paved to shoreline - usable for boat launch but there is no parking available 16 Oak Street 6-S Adj to 4119 30' wide platted road, not developed, steep slopes and ravine limit use 17 Baldur Park Road 8-S Across from 1384/1392 NW end of platted developed road as it extends to shoreline 18 Oak Place (Platted road in plat of “Crystal Bay View”) 8-S 3768/3818 North Shore Dr 40' wide platted undeveloped road extending from North Shore Drive across platted Cherry Ave to shoreline; mostly wetland or under water 19 Sandy Beach (Extension of Maple Place) 8-S 3898/3908 Cherry Ave Swimming Beach 60' wide platted roadway used for City beach 20 Grant Street 8-S 1310 Spruce/ 1330 Cherry Pl 50' wide platted road, undeveloped 21 Spruce Place 8-S 1250/1260 40' wide (remaining after partial vacation) platted roadway, undeveloped 22 Loma Linda Avenue 8-N 1098/1130 Fishing Dock 40' wide platted road; also useful for vehicular access Forest Lake 23 Forest Lake Landing 7-N 4415/4440 60' wide platted road right-of-way , access not developed, walking use only 24 Elmwood Avenue 7-N South of 1199 20' wide platted road/alley undeveloped right-of-way leading to shoreline 25 “Summit Avenue” (Extension of Elmwood Avenue) 7-S 1067/1101 50' wide platted road undeveloped right-of-way to shoreline 26 “Buff Street” 7-S West side of 1453 Park Dr 50' wide platted road right-of-way to shoreline, not developed West Arm Bay 27 North Shore Drive west end (adjacent to Orono/M’trista border) 7-S “4795" Shoreline 33' platted right-of-way corridor extension of Co. Rd. 19 plus tax-forfeited Lot 10, Block 6, “Bergquist and Wicklund’s Park...”; undeveloped corridor primarily for drainage purposes due to very steep slopes 28 North Shore Drive at “Adams Street” Extension 7-S 4731/4745 40' platted road right-of-way extension in plat of “Bergquist and Wicklund’s Park...” undeveloped, very steep, used for drainage 29 Rest Point Lane 7-S 1340/1345 33' platted right-of-way corridor, pavement does not extend to lake 30 Rest Point Road 7-S 1405/1410 16' platted road right-of-way widens to about 40' at shoreline, paved but no boat launching available 31 Orchard Beach Place 7-S West of 1530 50' platted road right-of-way extends to shoreline; tree growth and topography limits vehicular access 32 Highwood Lane Extension 7-S 4156/4167 Highwood Rd 20' platted alley right-of-way to shoreline; steep slope to shoreline, undeveloped 33 Highwood Road Alley 7-S 4051/4075 20' platted alley right-of-way to shoreline, not developed 34 Corral Road Extension 17-N 1785/1825 Concordia 20' platted alley mainly for drainage but also walking access 35 Fagerness Point Accretions 18-N Across from 1965/1985 Fagerness Pt Rd Accretions to the 40' originally platted road in the plat of “Fagerness”; title registrations by most abutting owners have resulted in dedicated right-of-way no longer abutting shoreline; it appears that there is no public access remaining Spring Park Bay 36 Casco Point Beach 20-S 2871/2879 Casco Pt Rd Swimming Beach 60' wide platted road (“Carman St”) used as a City swimming beach 37 Casco Circle 20-S 3195/3205 60' wide platted road right-of-way to shoreline at the south side of Casco Circle - undeveloped Carmans Bay 38 “Ivy Lane” (Ivy Place) 20-S 3486/3508 60' wide platted road right-of-way extending to shoreline east of Ivy Place - steep, used for drainage 39 “Spring Street” 20-S 2600/2618 Casco Pt Rd 40' wide platted road right-of-way from Casco Point Road to shoreline along south side of plat of “Kaster Cove” - undeveloped, walking access only 40 Carman Street 20-S 2490 Carman/ 3555 Frederick 30' wide platted road right-of-way extending to shoreline, fishing dock 41 Lydiard Beach 20-S End of Lydiard Rd Swimming Beach 66' wide platted road right-of-way extending to shoreline, used as a City swimming beach Big Island A N. End of “Lawn Avenue” 23-N 110 33' wide platted roadway adjacent to Lot 46, Morse Island Park B E. end of “Tooisit Avenue” 23-N 110/120 33' wide platted roadway adjacent to Lot 45, Morse Island Park - slope makes use difficult C Unnamed Street 23-N 120/140 90' wide platted roadway between Lots 38 and 39, Morse Island Park - City has established drivable gravel road for emergency & service vehicle access D “Bay Place” 23-N 210/260 50' +/- wide platted roadway between Lots 21 and 54, Morse Island Park E “Meadow Lane East Extended” 23-S 280/290 20' wide platted roadway between Lots 59 and 60, Morse Island Park - steep slope makes use difficult F “Meta-Comet Avenue South” 23-S 340 33' wide platted roadway between Lot F Morse Island Park and Lot 3, Morse Island Park 2nd Addition G “Massasolt Avenue West End” 23-S 440/450 33' wide platted roadway between Lot 1, Morse Island Park and Lot 1, Scrivers subdivision of Lot E, Morse Island Park - steep slope H “Meadow Lane Alley” 23-S 450/460 16' platted alley between Lots 5 and 6, Morse Island Park - drivable for emergency and service vehicles I “Pleasant View Street” 22-S 570/600 30' platted roadway between Lot 9, Pleasant View Lake Minnetonka and Lot 3, Island Pointe 1 Laura Oakden From:Melanie Curtis Sent:Friday, December 29, 2017 7:33 PM To:Laura Oakden; Jeremy Barnhart Subject:Fwd: Changes coming to Orono density FYI - re: 2618 Casco Point Rd Sent from my iPhone. Begin forwarded message: From: Mary Tucker <maryltucker@gmail.com> Date: December 29, 2017 at 17:50:44 CST To: Penny Saiki <pennysaiki@gmail.com> Cc: Melanie Curtis <mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: Re: Changes coming to Orono density Hi Melanie, I voice Penny's sentiments as well. We have lived on Casco Point 22 years and lived under strict zoning codes we abided by. The fire lanes have been around along time. Does not seem right that all these people coming in building huge houses on their lots and then to ask for the fire lane. Very interesting these builders think they don't have to live by the rules, their rule is to build then ask. Why wouldn't they have to live with the zoning rules we all abide by. Thank you! Mary Tucker 612.578.6415 On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Penny Saiki <pennysaiki@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Melanie- I wanted to jump in my 2 cents for tonight’s Planning Commission meeting. 1. It doesn’t seem fair to vacate the fire lane by the Vogstrum property, so they can use it as theirs. I’d vote NO. (Also the people at the end of the Circle have installed an electric fence in the fire lane next to their property- so we can all drop our dogs there? ) 2. The builder could have moved the house forward street side or used a different layout to accommodate the deck within the setback, but they are going for the variance after the the house foundation and framing is in 2 place. We have all lived by the rules, so it doesn’t seem right to allow a builder the “I forgot” approach to zoning laws. In fact, it weakens all the zoning ordinances to allow that approach. I’d vote NO. 3. The subdivision of the Jundt’s land is too bad, but if it falls in zoning parameters, I would think it OK if the developers pay the changes to the street and any utilitiy relocations or improvements. I don’t know if it has been a policy of the past, but it also does not seem fair for the rest of us in Orono to subsidize redevelopment of a private property. I’d vote YES with those requirements stated upfront to the developers. Thank you. Best to you, Penny Saiki 2874 Casco Point Road Orono 1 Laura Oakden From:Melanie Curtis Sent:Wednesday, December 27, 2017 2:36 PM To:Laura Oakden; Jeremy Barnhart Subject:FW: Changes coming to Orono density FYI Melanie Curtis 952.249.4627 mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Penny Saiki [mailto:pennysaiki@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2017 2:34 PM To: Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: Fwd: Changes coming to Orono density Hi, Melanie‐ I wanted to jump in my 2 cents for tonight’s Planning Commission meeting. 1. It doesn’t seem fair to vacate the fire lane by the Vogstrum property, so they can use it as theirs. I’d vote NO. (Also the people at the end of the Circle have installed an electric fence in the fire lane next to their property‐ so we can all drop our dogs there? ) 2. The builder could have moved the house forward street side or used a different layout to accommodate the deck within the setback, but they are going for the variance after the the house foundation and framing is in place. We have all lived by the rules, so it doesn’t seem right to allow a builder the “I forgot” approach to zoning laws. In fact, it weakens all the zoning ordinances to allow that approach. I’d vote NO. 3. The subdivision of the Jundt’s land is too bad, but if it falls in zoning parameters, I would think it OK if the developers pay the changes to the street and any utilitiy relocations or improvements. I don’t know if it has been a policy of the past, but it also does not seem fair for the rest of us in Orono to subsidize redevelopment of a private property. I’d vote YES with those requirements stated upfront to the developers. Thank you. Best to you, Penny Saiki 2874 Casco Point Road Orono 1 Melanie Curtis From:Melanie Curtis Sent:Friday, December 29, 2017 7:33 PM To:Laura Oakden; Jeremy Barnhart Subject:Fwd: Changes coming to Orono density FYI - re: 2618 Casco Point Rd Sent from my iPhone. Begin forwarded message: From: Mary Tucker <maryltucker@gmail.com> Date: December 29, 2017 at 17:50:44 CST To: Penny Saiki <pennysaiki@gmail.com> Cc: Melanie Curtis <mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: Re: Changes coming to Orono density Hi Melanie, I voice Penny's sentiments as well. We have lived on Casco Point 22 years and lived under strict zoning codes we abided by. The fire lanes have been around along time. Does not seem right that all these people coming in building huge houses on their lots and then to ask for the fire lane. Very interesting these builders think they don't have to live by the rules, their rule is to build then ask. Why wouldn't they have to live with the zoning rules we all abide by. Thank you! Mary Tucker 612.578.6415 On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Penny Saiki <pennysaiki@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Melanie- I wanted to jump in my 2 cents for tonight’s Planning Commission meeting. 1. It doesn’t seem fair to vacate the fire lane by the Vogstrum property, so they can use it as theirs. I’d vote NO. (Also the people at the end of the Circle have installed an electric fence in the fire lane next to their property- so we can all drop our dogs there? ) 2. The builder could have moved the house forward street side or used a different layout to accommodate the deck within the setback, but they are going for the variance after the the house foundation and framing is in 2 place. We have all lived by the rules, so it doesn’t seem right to allow a builder the “I forgot” approach to zoning laws. In fact, it weakens all the zoning ordinances to allow that approach. I’d vote NO. 3. The subdivision of the Jundt’s land is too bad, but if it falls in zoning parameters, I would think it OK if the developers pay the changes to the street and any utilitiy relocations or improvements. I don’t know if it has been a policy of the past, but it also does not seem fair for the rest of us in Orono to subsidize redevelopment of a private property. I’d vote YES with those requirements stated upfront to the developers. Thank you. Best to you, Penny Saiki 2874 Casco Point Road Orono To the Orono City Council: I am writing to ask the city to decline the request of Eric and Liz Vogstrom to vacate the fire lane located between our properties. My family has lived at 2600 Casco Point Road for almost forty years. We purchased the land and built our home in the area because of the location. I grew up in Orono (class of 1956) and have always loved living here. A major incentive for my wife and me to purchase the land was the fact that it abutted a fire lane. We knew that the fire lane added significant value to the land. We also knew that the fire lane was and is public property and that the city of Orono prohibited any motor vehicles and that the fire lane had restricted hours of use. Vacating the fire lane (i.e. donating a valuable lakeshore property to Mr. Vogstrom) would be an affront to common sense and contrary to the City of Orono’s written philosophy. The city has spent millions of dollars to provide the residents with open space and park land. To donate a large lakeshore lot to benefit only Mr.Vogstrom is simply wrong. In Mr. Vogstrom’s request to the city to vacate/donate the public property to him, he wrote that he has “fertilized it” and “mowed it” and “maintained it”. Mr. Vogstrom has done all of that. He has also taken the liberty to dig trenches in it in order to run high voltage power lines, low voltage power lines, invisible fencing, irrigation pipes and lighting. I invite any council member(s) or citizens of Orono to visit the fire lane and see for themselves. The “nature path” that Mr. Vogstrom wrote about in his letter to the city existed before he built his house. The fire lane used to be a nature path. The fire lane as it was and how my wife and children used it is long gone. The natural vegetation on the path has been bulldozed and replaced by Kentucky blue grass. The large amount of fertilizer Mr. Vogstrom uses has caused large algae blooms. Many yards of black dirt have been hauled in to raise the grade so Mr. Vogstrom can run his motorized vehicles on it. The city placed boulders on the fire lane to prevent this but Mr. Vogstrom simply moved them. I know that the city has been responsive to resident concerns in the past, and I hope that it will support this request NOT to give the fire lane to Mr. Vogstrom. I would also ask the city to repair the fire lane and certify the costs to Mr. Vogstroms property taxes. There is no other way. I should also mention that the house is for sale. Thank you for reading this. Respectfully, Paul and Mary Ellen Kaster AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER Darlene MacPherson being duly sworn on an oath, states or affirms that he/she is the Publisher's Designated Agent of the newspa per(s) known as: The Laker, The Pioneer with the known office of issue being located in the county of: CARVER with additional circulation in the counties of: HENNEPIN and has full knowledge of the facts stated below : (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualifica tion as a qualified newspaper as provided by Minn. Stat. §331A.02 . (B) This Public Notice was printed and pub lished in said newspaper(s) once each week, for 2 successive week(s); the first insertion being on O 1/27 /20 I 8 and the last insertion being on 01/27/2018. MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE NOTICES Pursuant to Minnesota Stat. §580.033 relating to the publication of mortgage foreclosure notices: The newspaper complies with the conditions described in §580.033, subd. I, clause (I) or (2). If the newspaper's known office of issue is located in a county adjoining the county where the mortgaged premises or some part of the mortgaged premises described in the notice are located, a substantial portion of the newspaper's circulation is in the latter county. ByQ. M °"' p~ Designated Agent Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed before me on 01/27/2018 by Darlene MacPherson. Rate Information: (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $15.00 per column inch Ad ID 776093 CITY OF ORONO NOTICE The Orono Planning Commis sion will hold a public hearing in the Orono Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on February 12, 2018, beginning at 6:30 p.m. on the matter of reviewing the following land use applications : 17-3983-Eric & Liz Vogstrom, 2618 Casco Point Road, request vacation of an unimproved right-of way between 2618 and 2600 Cas co Point Road. 18-3992-Revolution Design Build on behalf of Kevin & Patty Kretsch, 3155 Casco Circle, re quests an average lakeshore set back variance to construct a deck on a new home within the setback. 18-3993-Michael Hayes on be half of Weldon & Marsia Gilbertson, 684 Tonkawa Road, requests an average lakeshore setback vari ance in order to enlarge two of their existing decks within the setback. 18-3994-David Knaeble, 3635 Togo Road, requests preliminary plat subdivision approval to create 3 building sites where one current ly exists. The application also in cludes requested flexibility regard ing contiguous land area, ROW dedication, and setbacks . 18-3997 -Rehkamp Larson on behalf of George Halvorson , 1300 Bracketts Point Road, requests an average lakeshore setback vari ance in order to make improve ments and additions to the exist ing home partially lakeward of the setback. 18-4000-Jeff Martineau, 1335 Arbor Street, requests variances for lot width, lot area, front yard set back, side yard setback, side street setback, and structural coverage to construct a new single family home. All persons wishing to be heard are encouraged to attend these meetings. This is not a final agen da and is subject to change prior to the hearings. Written comments are accepted and should be submitted to the City of Orono by February 6, 2018 if possible. Interested per sons may review the applications and proposed ordinance language at City offices or by visiting the City's Website at www.ci .orono . mn .us. For an appointment, please call (952) 249-4620. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Jeremy Barnhart, Community De velopment Director Posted at: Orono City Offices Crystal Bay Post Office Long Lake Post Office Published in The Laker, The Pioneer January 27, 2018 776093 CERTIFICATE OF MAILING STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss . ) CITY OF ORONO ) I, Monica Fadness, of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing concerning the matter of #17-3983 was mailed to the attached list of property owners . In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 17th day of January, 2018 . ~J,ua .~ . MoniaA. Fadness CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone (952) 249-4600 Fax (952) 249-4616 NOTICE The Orono Planning Commission will hold a public hearing in the Orono Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on February 12, 2018, beginning at 6 :30 p .m . on the matter of reviewing the following land use applications : 17-3983 18-3992 18-3993 18-3994 18-3997 18-4000 Eric & Liz Vogstrom, 2618 Casco Point Road, request vacation of an unimproved right of-way between 2618 and 2600 Casco Point Road . Revolution Design Build on behalf of Kevin & Patty Kretsch , 3155 Casco Circle, requests an average lakeshore setback variance to construct a deck on a new home within the setback . Michael Hayes on behalf of Weldon & Marsia Gilbertson , 684 Tonkawa Road, requests an average lakeshore setback variance in order to enlarge two of their existing decks within the setback. David Knaeble, 3635 Togo Road, requests preliminary plat subdivision approval to create 3 building sites where one currently exists . The application also includes requested flexibility regarding contiguous land area , ROW dedication , and setbacks . Rehkamp Larson on behalf of George Halvorson, 1300 Bracketts Point Road, requests an average lakeshore setback variance in order to make improvements and additions to the existing home partially lakeward of the setback . Jeff Martineau, 1335 Arbor Street, requests variances for lot width, lot area , front yard setback , side yard setback, side street setback , and structural coverage to construct a new single family home. All persons wishing to be heard are encouraged to attend these meetings . This is not a final agenda and is subject to change prior to the hearings. Written comments are accepted and should be submitted to the City of Orono by February 6 , 2018 if possible . Interested persons may review the applications and proposed ordinance language at City offices or by visiting the City 's Website at www.c i.orono.mn .us. For an appointment, please call (952) 249-4620. City of Orono By : Planning Commission To be published in The Laker & The Pioneer Newspapers on January 27 , 2018. Posted at: Orono City Offices Crystal Bay Post Office Long Lake Post Office 38 20-117-23 21 0032 WENDY W DANKEY 2599 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-23 21 0035 PA TRICK FITZGERALD 9509 PHEASANT CROSSING ST BONIFACIUS MN 55375 38 20-1 17-23 23 0020 ZHIHUA LIU & YING LIU 2677 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0021 DAVID D GU1ERMUTII LYNN J GU1ERMlITH 2665 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0022 KARL S FREIENMUTH 2659 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0002 TODD M KIMMES 2660 CASCO PT RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0003 DAVID L RUNKLE 2684 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0029 DUSTIN J KINDL CASIE L KINDL 2649 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0030 NORMA GREENE & ALAN GREENE 2645 CASCO POINT ROAD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0031 MELISSA T ALBACHfEN 1016PARKPLACE BURNSVILLE MN 55337 38 20-117-23 24 0032 TIIOMAS & PATRICIA KUBALAK 2623 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0035 GARY L & JOAN M MARQUARDT 2617 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0036 BRUCE J HEDBLOM AND CAROL J CLINE-HEDBLOM 2601 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0039 JEFFREY & BARBARA ESSEN 2648 CASCO PT RD WAYZATAMN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0042 PAUL J KASTER 2600 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATAMN 55391 ;)Gl0 p1.)l 10 r VD G~~-~ ------------#3983 RECEIVED OCT O 9 2017 CITY OF ORONO AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER Darlene MacPherson being duly sworn on an oath, states or affirms that he/she is the Publisher's Designated Agent of the newspa per(s) known as: The Laker, The Pioneer with the known office of issue being located in the county of: CARVER with additional circulation in the count ies of: HENNEPIN and has full knowled ge of the facts stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualifica tion as a qualified newspaper as provided by Minn. Stat. §33JA.02. (B) This Public Notice was printed and pub lished in said newspape r(s) once each week, for 2 s uccess ive week(s); the first insertion being on 12/30/20 17 and the last insertion being on 12/30/2017 . MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE NOTICES Pursuant to Minnesota Stat. §580.033 relating -to the publica tion of mortgage foreclosure notices: The new spaper complies with the conditions described in §580.033, subd. J, clause (I) or (2). If the newspaper's known office of issue is located in a county adjoining the county where the mortgaged premises or some part of the mortgaged premises described in the not ice are located, a substantial portion of the newspaper's circulation is in the latter county. By:1). Designated Agent Subscribed and sworn to or a ffirmed before me on 12/30/2017 by Darlene MacPherson . Rate Information: (I) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial use rs for comparable space: $15.00 per column inch Ad ID 769644 . . CITY OF ORONO PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE The Orono Planning Commis sion will hold a public hearing in the Orono Council Chambers at 2780 Kelley Parkway on TUESDAY, Jan uary 16, 2018 , beginning at 6:30 p.m. on the matter of reviewing the following land use applications: 17 -3983 Eric & Liz Vogstrom, 2618 Casco Po int Road , request vacation of an unimproved right-of way between 2618 and 2600 Cas co Point Road . 18-3992 Revolution Design Build on behalf of Kevin & Patty Kretsch, 3155 Casco Circle, re quests an average lakeshore set back variance to construct a deck on a new home within the setback. 18-3993 Michael Hayes on be half of Weldon & Marsia Gilbertson , 684 Tonkawa Road, requests an average lakeshore setback vari ance in order to enlarge two of their existing decks within the setback. 18-3994 David Knaeble, 3635 Togo Road, requests preliminary plat subdivision approval to create 3 building sites where one current ly exists. The application also in cludes requested flexibility regard ing contiguous land area, ROW dedication, and setbacks. 18-3996 George Stickney on behalf of Judson Dayton, 825 Old Crystal Bay Road South, requests preliminary plat subdivision ap ;:~oval to create 2 building sites where one currently exists. 18-3997 Rehkamp Larson on behalf of George Halvorson, 1300 Bracketts Point Road, requests an average lakeshore setback vari ance in order to make improve ments and additions to the exist ing home partially lakeward of the setback. 18-3998 James & Mary Jundt, 1400 Bracketts Point Road, re quest preliminary plat and street vacation to subdivide 1400 Brack etts Point Road into five single fam ily housing sites and a realignment of Bracketts Point Road . 18-3999 Brian Bensen on behalf of James & Mary Jundt, request a street vacation to facilitate the re alignment of Bracketts Point Road adjacent to 1500 Bracketts Point Road. 18-4000 Jeff Martineau, 1335 Arbor Street, requests variances for lot width, lot area, front yard set ba, -•-. aide yard setback, side street setback, and structural coverage to construct a new single family home. All persons wishing to be heard are encouraged to attend these meetings. This is not a final agen da and is subject to change prior to the hearings . Written comments are accepted and should be submitted to the City of Orono by January 9, 2018 if possible. Interested per sons may review the applications and proposed ordinance language at City offices or by visiting the City's Website at www.ci.orono. mn.us. For an appointment , please call (952) 249-4620. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Posted at: Orono City Offices Crystal Bay Post Office Long Lake Post Office Published in The Laker, The Pioneer December 30, 2017 769644 ADDRESS PIN LEGALDESC CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY ORONO, MN 55356- (952) 249-4600 FAX: (952) 249-4616 : 2618 CASCO POINT RD : 20-117-23-24-0038 : WINSHIPS SUBD LOT 1 SPRING PK : LOT 000 BLOCK 003 PERMIT TYPE : ESCROW FEE -APPLICANT PROPERTY TYPE : RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION TYPE : ESCROW FEE -APPLICANT II I Ill Il l Ill I II IIII IIII I II II I Ill I II IIII II Ill 1111 11111111 111 *2017-01202* DATE ISSUED: 09/27/2017 NOTE : THIS $700 ESCROW IS TIED TO ZONING PERMIT APPLICAITON 17-3983 PAID BY ERIC VOGSTROM WITH CHECK #1259 APPLICANT VOGSTROM, ERIC 2618 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA, MN 55391- OWNER VOGSTROM, ERIC 2618 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA, MN 55391- AGREEMENT AND SWORN STATEMENT The work for which this permit is issued shall be performed according to the approved plans and specifications, applicable City approvals, and the State Building Code . This permit is for only the work described and does not grant permission for additional or related work which requires separate permits . All provisions of laws and ordinances governing this type of work shall be compied with whether or not specified herein . This permit will expire and become null and void if construction authorized is not commenced within 180 days of the date of issuance, or if construction is suspended for a period of 180 days at any time after work has commenced. The applicant is responsible for assuring all required inspections are requested in conformance with the State Building Code. This permit may be revoked at any time for due cause. Applicant Permitee Signature Date ESCROW FEE -APPLICANT Payment(s) CHECK Issued By Signature 1259 TOTAL Date 700.00 700.00 700.00 I I ESCROW AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this tT) 2 day pf ~ , 2017, b~~~d _b~etween the CITY OF ORONO , a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City ") and a, C C'f 'b Voo IYV-W' ("Owner(s)"). RECITALS A. The undersigned is/ are the Owner(s) of the Subject Property and hereby agrees to and consent to the terms and conditions of this Escrow Agreement. B. Owner has : (check one) o Filed a zoning application # J 7 ' 3 9 ~ 3 o Filed an application for a Building/Zoning Permit# ___ _ o Agreed to comply with Orono City Code Section 78-1432 regarding accessory structures. o Filed an Individual Sewer Treatment System (ISTS) permit application . o Requested to do work within public Right-of-Way o Filed a request for a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy o Other _____________________ _,...,r-___ _,,,.. __ ("Application") on land situated in the City and located at Gt (.p I X ~ Po1...ll\.:f-fd (the "Subject Property"); and C. The City is willing to review or monitor the Application only if the Owner agrees to reimburse the City for the actual costs expended by the City on behalf of, or on account of, the Owner . NOW THEREFORE, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. DEPOSIT REQUIRED. Jt,ontemporaneously with the execution of this Escrow Agreement, the Owner shall deposit $ ? M . ("Escrow") with the City necessary to secure coverage of the total costs associated with review , approval , and monitoring of the Application. Any Escrow shall be held in a special escrow account and shall be credited to the Owner . 2. PURPOSE OF ESCROW. • Zoning . The purpose of the Escrow is to guarantee reimbursement to the City for expenditures including but not be limited to staff time, at the rates established by the City Council , in excess of that covered by the standard application fees, engineering consultant and legal consultant expenses incurred by the City in reviewing and approving the Application and all other city staff administrative and consultant services performed in the processing of said review and approval. • Building/Zoning. The purpose of the escrow is to guarantee completion of the site plan as approved and the provision of the as-built survey as requ ired by the Bu ilding official. • Accessory Structure. The purpose of the Escrow is to guarantee reimbursement to the City for expenditures including but not limited to staff time, at the rates established by the City Administrator, engineering and legal consultant expenses incurred by the City in removing an accessory building if the Owner fails to perform the obligations in Orono City Code Section 78-1432 and all other City staff adm inistrative and consultant services performed in removing the accessory building, including land stabilization . • ISTS. The purpose of the Escrow is to guarantee reimbursement to the City for expenditures including but not be limited to staff time , at the rates established by the City Council , in excess of that covered by the standard application fees , engineering consultant and legal consultant expenses incurred by the City if Owner for any reason is unable or unwilling to honor the requirements of Chapter 58 of the Orono City Code , and all other city staff administrative and consultant services performed in relating to the Application . The City may also reimburse itself for all engineering and legal expenses associated with the construction , removal , alteration , or repair of the ISTS if the Owner fails to do so . . • Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. The purpose of the Escrow is to guarantee completion of exterior improvements (driveway , grass , etc.) that cannot be accomplished due to weather conditions. Variance Applic ation -Ja nuary 2017 Page 9 3. MONTHLY BILLING. The City will monthly forward to the Owner a statement and bill for the expenditures incurred by the City for staff and consultant services . Such statements shall be due and payable within 15 days for receipt by the Owner . No statement will be sent if there are no expenses incurred in the period since the most recent statement. The City shall itemize all time, services , and materials billed to any Owner and said time, services , and mater ials shall be in accordance with the rules, regulations, and fees as promulgated and adopted by the City Council. 4. DISBURSEMENT FROM ESCROW ACCOUNT. In the event the Owner does not make payment the City as required under paragraph 3, the City may draw from the Escrow without further approval of the Owner to reimburse the City for eligible expenses the City has incurred. The City shall periodically notify the Owner of the draws the City has made and the nature of the expense for which the reimbursement is being made. 5. REIMBURSEMENT OF ESCROW . The Owner shall reimburse the Escrow fund for any deficits caused if the amount actually expended by, or billed to , the City exceeds the escrow fund balance . 6. RIGHT OF ENTRY . • Zoning . This section is not applicable . • Building . This section is not applicable. • Accessory Structure. The Owner hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors the righ t to enter the property to remove the accessory building(s) should the Owner not complete the removal obligations in Orono City Code Section 78-1432. • ISTS. The Owner hereby grants the City, its agents, employees, officers and contractors the right to enter the property to perform all work and inspections deemed appropriate by the City in conjunction with replacement of the septic system , including but not limited to constructing or completing any and a ll of the agreed upon improvements should the Owner not complete those improvements by the date agreed upon . • Temporary Certificate of Occupancy . This section is not applicable. 7 . NO INTEREST PAID . All accrued interest, if any, shall be paid to the City to reimburse the City for its cost in administering the Escrow account. 8. CLOSING ESCROW. When the review has been completed or the project has been completed , the balance of the Escrow, if any, shall be returned to (check one): ~:er o Appliic f!/t!iltrovv, S~reet Address/ PO Box:~ P_!-re City/ State/ ZIP: --~-_ _ S!::>3 9_ 9. CERTIFIED UNPAID CHARGES. If the Application is abandoned by Owner, or if the eligible expenses incurred by the City exceed the amount in Escrow, the City shall have the right to certify the unpaid balance to the Subject Property pursuant to Minn . Stat. §§ 415 .01 and 366 .012. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as of the day and yea r first above written. CITY OF ORONO: OWNER(s): u BYQ,:'-~ ~~ BY ' ~~ ~01 Jx v-J ZJ~a1,.,c.)'1'(' __ 4 __ _ Variance Application -January 2 01 7 Pag e _10