Loading...
7.b 1 Staff Report - Goose Lake Pedestrian Easement Vacation PetitionPage 1 of 2 City of Scandia 14727 209th St. N. PO Box 128, Scandia, Minnesota 55073 Phone (651) 433-2274 Fax (651) 433-5112 http://www.ci.scandia.mn.us DATE: November 12, 2021 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Ken Cammilleri, City Administrator RE: Consideration for the vacation of a pedestrian easement to the northern shore of Goose Lake. The City Council is requested to call a previously notice public hearing regarding a vacation petition for a part of a pedestrian easement that runs on a north to south property line from the northern shore of Goose Lake to approximately 20 feet south property owned by the Swenson’s Goose Lake Estates Homeowners Association. (A legal description and maps have been included in your packets as exhibits to this request.) Those who are familiar with this request can recall that there was an original scheduled public hearing back on October 19, 2021 to hear a similar request to vacate the same trail in question except in its entirety to Oren Avenue North. However, at that time, over 50 percent of the original petitioners had withdrawn their signatures. This resulted in an unactionable petition. A newly revised petition, which was received back on August 11, 2021, now excludes a portion of the easement that went through Swenson’s Goose Lake Estates and an approximate additional 20 feet of the trail south of the development. This petition, which is the matter at hand for this evening’s consideration, was further delayed to comply with required Minnesota Statutory procedures to consult with the Office of the Commissioner of the State Department of Natural Resources. Now that all statutory steps have been taken, the City Council is now able to hear this request. Please note that all comments obtained related to both the original and amended requests have been included for the City Council’s consideration. The DNR’s comment letter dated June 15, 2021 and the email received by my office on October 19, 2021 collectively constitute the Agency’s official comments regarding this matter. Following receipt and review of public comments, the City Council can proceed considering denial or approval of the vacation with findings of fact through a resolution that detail the rationale for their decision based on criteria identified under State Statute and relevant case law. Criteria for Consideration Although the process of vacation of easements and rights-of-way are a legislative process in practice, there are several required steps to this process that require certain considerations be made in the process. State Statutes (Sec. 412.851) requires that the City Council, upon Page 2 of 2 City of Scandia 14727 209th St. N. PO Box 128, Scandia, Minnesota 55073 Phone (651) 433-2274 Fax (651) 433-5112 http://www.ci.scandia.mn.us holding a public hearing in accordance with noticing requirements, create findings for approval or denial based on a standard of being “[with]in the interest of the public.” This implies that the City Council must identify that there is a public benefit to its decision and that they have considered both the desire of neighbors and the larger public, in general. Case law also suggests that although it is acceptable to have a private benefit from a vacation action, there must still be a concurrent benefit to the public that can also be substantiated. Furthermore, Minnesota courts have also emphasized that the process of consideration should include the review of potential current and future benefits to maintaining the dedicated easement. Given this petition request involves access to public waterways, the Statutes further identify 3 additional criteria, that if not met, could be subject to a “right of intervention” by the DNR Commissioner. As a result of maintaining legal defensibility of its decision, the City Council should, along with the consideration of a broader public benefit, also consider the present and potential use of the land for access to public waters, and how the request may impact conservation of natural resources. It should be noted that the DNR has taken the position that the petitioners have NOT successfully presented arguments adequately addressing access to public waters, conservation of natural resources, or the broader public benefits of doing so. Since this request was first presented, I have now chosen not to recommend either approval or denial. However, I will point out that the City Council will need to craft a very careful list of findings in support of an approval in this matter. The petition, and more recent comments of support, present a public purpose argument that appears to fall short of fully addressing broader benefit of the general public (beyond the City’s boundaries). The argument is further deficient in addressing adverse impacts on access to public waters. I should note that the City Council should not ignore the DNR’s objections if they choose to approve this request. These criteria, if not fully addressed to satisfactory levels, can and would allow the agency the opportunity to intervene and potentially reverse the City’s action. The Resolutions Attorney Nelson has reported to me that he will complete drafting both a resolution for approval and denial, which will be made available Monday morning. These documents will be included in the meeting packet upon receipt. Please let me know if you have additional questions.