Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Minutes Page 4 <br />January 19, 2016 <br />----------------------------- <br /> <br />that this property had not been used for 40 years. He indicated that 99.9% of Elk <br />River residents probably did not know this was public property. He felt $150 does <br />not meet the intent of the public purpose law. He stated he would not support <br />granting the street vacation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Burandt stated she was in favor of the street vacation and felt this <br />property, by vacating it, would result in a public good, as it would go back on the tax <br />rolls. She didn’t feel there was a specific amount of money that this definition needed <br />to meet. She felt it important to remember that the road in question is an easement, <br />which is different from city property. She felt a public good has been identified and <br />would support vacating the property. <br /> <br />Councilmember Westgaard stated Councilmember Burandt made a good point in <br />remembering this property is an easement and not public property. He agrees as well <br />that no matter the amount, placing this land back on the public tax rolls shows it’s a <br />benefit to the city. He asked if the law requires the property be split equally in half <br />between the two adjoining properties, and if so, ones driveway isn’t a five-foot <br />setback and could that matter be resolved between the two property owners. <br /> <br />Counsellor Beck stated the property would need to be split equally in half and that <br />could be resolved between the two property owners by a transfer of all or a portion <br />of the vacated right-of-way or by an application for a variance. <br /> <br /> Councilmember Westgaard also commented that he did not expect anything less <br />from the DNR regarding their response to this request but the DNR’s letter also <br />states to notify them with the decision the council makes. He stated he supported <br />this request and in support of the resolution granting the vacation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Olsen stated he considered this property to be a city asset and to <br />protect that, and because of that, he is not in favor of granting the street vacation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Wagner stated she spent a considerable amount of time reviewing <br />both sides of this request and feels she understands both sides. She stated each <br />situation brought before the Council is taken on a case-by-case basis, and that each <br />case has its own set values and this would not set precedence. She stated she <br />appreciates the what-if scenarios that staff proposes, as much of what a Council <br />decides affects future councils and residents. She is in favor of vacating the property, <br />as she does not see the immediate or near-future benefit for the city to hold onto the <br />property, and little as the added tax dollars are, she felt it still adds to the bottom <br />line. <br /> <br />Moved by Councilmember Westgaard and seconded by Councilmember <br />Wagner to adopt Resolution 16-07 granting a petition to vacate a public street <br />as outlined in the staff report and based upon the following Findings of Fact: <br />A. Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.851, allows for the vacation of a <br /> public street if it appears in the interest of the public to do so.