8.2. SR 01-19-2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

notes that when the public way terminates at a public water the commissioner of natural resources must be notified of the request and evaluate 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 The city received comments from the DNR on December 14, 2015, with the following comments:  Access to the lake from the south or southeast does not appear to exist.  The site does not lend itself well for vehicular parking by users (as it functions now).  Consideration could be given to providing a narrow access to the lake, thereby retaining access to the lake for recreational or aesthetic uses.  There is a recreational resource value in keeping the road or retaining access to lake in public ownership to accommodate public access for canoe/kayak carry-in, winter access (for snowmobiles or other means), shore fishing opportunities, or just allowing the public a chance to view and enjoy the lake.  Based on the information provided and risking the loss of public access to Lake Orono on the south side of lake, the DNR opposes the York Street Vacation being considered. One council member stated they have a hard time ignoring how strongly the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) spoke against vacating the property. Parks and Recreation Master Plan The 2015 Parks and Recreation Master Plan conducted a survey and connections to the rivers/water were identified as an important community interest for the future of the Elk River Parks and Recreation system. River/Water Access There are relatively few public access points to the rivers, although the city is at the confluence of the Elk and Mississippi Rivers. Access to the river includes visual connection, or views, as well as places where residents can be near, or ‘touch’, the river. Creating or maintaining connections to the rivers is an important task for the city. License Agreement During the meeting, Council questioned if there is a way to vacate the street but have an agreement in place for access if necessary. In the correspondence dated January 6, 2016, from James Neilson to Peter Beck, Mr. Neilson states, “the adjoining property owners would be willing to provide to the city an easement to be used for city emergency purposes”. An agreement of some form will be required regardless of the decision. If the public street is vacated, an agreement could be drafted in favor of the city. If the petition is denied, an agreement in favor of the private property owner could be entered into. If the Council cannot identify a public benefit to vacating the street, the decision should be to not vacate it as the city has few rights after the street has been vacated. The least difficult or complicated solution is to keep the street and require the private property owner to remove the fire pit and dock from the right-of-way.