Loading...
07.a Memo - Goose Lake Pedestrian Easement ConsiderationsPage 1 of 3 City of Scandia 14727 209th St. N., Scandia, Minnesota 55073 Phone (651) 433-2274 | Fax (651) 433-5112 | www.cityofscandia.com DATE: Friday, June 17, 2022 FROM: Ken Cammilleri, City Administrator TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members RE: Goose Lake Pedestrian Way Easement Vacation Request What is a vacation process? The vacation process is a statutory process in which a city gives up rights it has over an existing easement for use by the public. The City Council is afforded wide discretion to abandon or maintain this pedestrian way and may vacate the area petitioned or just a portion of it. However, if the Council considers only to vacate a portion, it should consider the practicalities of maintenance or access. A vacation in this case means a permanent loss of the city’s interest in the pedestrian way. In order to reopen or re-establish it as a trail easement, which this interest is NOT, the City would need to follow the legal procedures set out in statute which offers two options: 1. Negotiate an easement with the abutting property owners, or 2. Use eminent domain proceedings. Both proceedings would likely require the city to pay fair market value to acquire it. Is this a trail or a pedestrian easement or way? It is important that the City takes appropriate steps not to misrepresent the ownership interest that is currently held by the City. Although, some may feel this is just semantics, it can place the City in legal jeopardy to imply that it has property interests that it does not have right to. The right-of-way in question is a pedestrian way not a trail way. This implies that its use is strictly for people on foot and people with ADA assisted devices. Motorized vehicles, and potentially even non-motorized bicycles, could run afoul of usage rights. So, if this easement is preserved, its future use can only be as used as pedestrian-only path or walkway. The City will need to take care that use of the easement is strictly limited to this use to avoid legal issues. Is there public benefit to keeping this easement? Yes, any public access to natural resources, including this easement, offers a potential for public benefit to the community. This easement could potentially provide opportunities for walking and observation of nature such as Goose Lake. Page 2 of 3 City of Scandia 14727 209th St. N., Scandia, Minnesota 55073 Phone (651) 433-2274 | Fax (651) 433-5112 | www.cityofscandia.com Is there precedence for the City considering a request like this in the past? Yes, the City sold park land on the shore of Goose Lake that had had access to the lake in the Hawkinson Highlands Subdivision on Olinda Lane in February of 2019. The property had steep bluffs along the shoreline. At the time the City had considered the Oldfield Avenue Boat Launch as the means to preserve public access to the lake in that area. Are there any issues with this easement and its current condition? Potentially. Simply denying this petition may not be enough to properly preserve this easement, should this be the intent of the Council. The current potential public benefit is limited as a path is not publicly accessible and there are outstanding liability issues pertaining to unauthorized alterations that will require the City to have remedied. Given that the site currently hosts an illegally cleared and constructed route that lacks direct public access and encroaches on lands outside of the easement, it would be important for the City to install a proper walking path with remedies to prevent misuse and trespass and to restore any damage to natural resources. This would likely include the construction of board walks through existing delineated wetlands. This unauthorized route is only accessible through the private property of the Swenson’s Goose Lake Estates Homeowners’ Association, so the path should be cleared and constructed from the City Park at Oren Road North to an appropriate point at the shore that is within the easement boundaries. Improvement to the trail and park may also develop on-street parking demands in this area, so considerations should be made to this issue when planning improvements. Also, cooperation with the landowner will be important for both implementing improvements and carrying out maintenance activities. What does the 2040 Comprehensive Plan have to say as it relates to improvement of this easement? The 2040 Comprehensive Plan directly references the City’s 2006 Parks, Trails, Recreation, and Open Space (Park and Rec.) Plan. Although this easement is expressly mentioned in either of these plans, the easement and its potentials as a pedestrian path “are complementary to protecting community character and natural systems” (Sect. VII. Parks and Trails). So, it is reasonable to suggest that preservation of the easement may be seen as consistent with the Plan. The Comprehensive Plan also has several other relevant objectives for Parks and Trails (sub. A) that may be applicable: · “Design and locate parks, recreational facilities, trails, and routes, in a manner that best meets their purpose and the needs of City Residents.” · “Evaluate property located in the park and/or recreational facility search areas for purchase, lease, or easement to augment the existing Park System, if and when it becomes available.” Page 3 of 3 City of Scandia 14727 209th St. N., Scandia, Minnesota 55073 Phone (651) 433-2274 | Fax (651) 433-5112 | www.cityofscandia.com The 2006 Parks and Rec Plan offers other pertinent observations: · Activities such as walking and nature observation provide valued recreational benefits (pg. 4-1). · This trail system plan recommends a general framework for trails, but the Township should work closely with landowners, developers, and residents when designing and constructing specific trails. (pg. 4-2). Both plans also stress the need for interconnected trails and other routes suggesting possible planning for future route connectivity. Conversely, given this easement does miss the following objectives: · Lacks interconnectedness with other recreational routes. · Could be located in an area with less environmentally sensitive areas of impacts. · Has limited usage rights preventing the variety of other potential recreational activities. · The easement is not planned, potentially leaving it un-integrated into the landscape. · The route is not part of a designated trail/route corridor identified within 2006 Park and Rec. Plan. As a result, these points, it could be suggested that the preservation of the easement could be seen uncomplimentary to the general intent of each plan as this easement falls short of preferred criteria. Both interpretations are presented here to clarify established planning documents offer the City Council with the discretion of proceeding in either direction. What steps have been taken leading up to this hearing? In the case of this evening’s consideration, the city received a vacation petition on March 30, 2022, that the City Council confirmed on April 6, 2022 had sufficiently complied with the statutory requirements. Specifically, the city confirmed that the petition had been signed by the correct number of abutting property owners. A property owner is considered to “abut,” a street if the property owner’s land is touching, reaching, joining, bordering on, or contiguous with the right-of-way to be vacated. Please note that this vacation request only includes a segment of trail on the petitioner's properties. It does not include the remaining easement within Swenson’s Goose Lake Estates north to Oren Road N. A notice of the hearing was published two weeks prior to this public hearing. Written notice of the hearing was also mailed to each property owner affected by the proposed vacation at least 10 days before the hearing. Staff also served notice on the Department of Natural Resources Commissioner more than 15 days prior to convening this public hearing. On Friday, June 3, 2022 City Administrator Ken Cammilleri and DNR representative Nancy Spooner-Mueller, Acquisition and Development Specialist for the Central DNR Service Region, completed the statutorily required consult required to consider this request. Ms. Spooner-Mueller has provided the agency’s comments in the DNR Correspondence from June 16, 2022, for your consideration. The agency supports the easement’s preservation. Tonight’s meeting includes a public hearing, which should also be weighed in the City Council’s considerations. Following this public hearing, the City Council may consider a resolution of denial or approval.