Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A - Kneafsey's Cove MEETING DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT APRIL 3, 2000 7A JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOI,UTION OO-XX DENYING THE VACATION OF THE LAKE ACCESS AND RIGHT OF WAY FOR KNEAFSEY'S STREET ADJACENT TO LOTS 4 THROUGH 15, KNEAFSEY'S COVE History: Kneafsey's Cove was platted in September 1946. The plat dedicated the roadways and waterfront to the public including a 30- foot wide roadway located between Lots 5 and 6. In September, 1999, the City received a petition from the property owners of Lots 5 and 6, William and Margaret Righeimer and James and Nancy Samec, requesting the vacation of a 30-foot wide lake access and roadway located along the waterfront between Lots 5 and 6. The reason for this petition was to allow the adjacent owners to assume ownership for maintenance purposes and to reduce a hazardous vehicle situation with respect to parking and vehicles entering the lake. On December 13, 1999, the applicants requested this item be deferred to allow the petitioners to amend the original petition to include the entire waterfront. On February 9,2000, we received an amended application signed by Steven and Linda Erickson (Lots 12 and 13), Raymond and Kathryn Cornforth (Lots 14 and 15) and C. Richard and Patricia Kuykendal (Lots 9 and 10), in addition to the original petitioners, William and Margaret Righeimer and James and Nancy Samec. These petitioners constitute more than 50% of the property owners, so the petition includes the entire waterfront adjacent to Lots 4 through 15, Kneafsey's Cove. Current Circumstances: The Planning Commission reviewed this vacation request on March 13,2000. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed vacation, noting the vacation of the property is not in the public interest at this time. There may be some future need for this access. A copy of the draft minutes for the 1628O>~1~f~9~~CJk9iR3~~s~~~~fj?i~SE.~~~~ Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Faxl~2J 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDED MOTION: March 13,2000, Planning Commission meeting is attached to this report. The Issues: Minnesota Statutes 412.851 allows the Council to vacate easements or right-of-way by resolution. The statute states that "no such vacation shall be made unless it appears to be in the public interest to do so." The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically discuss lake access. The vacation of the roadways and waterfront is not inconsistent with any specific goal or objective ofthe Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages regulation of the privatization of natural and historic features to preserve public interest. On October 17, 1994, the City Council accepted the Lake Access Study as prepared by the Engineering Department and the Lake Advisory Committee. The study recommends the vacation of the dedicated waterfront in the plat ofKneafsey's Cove. On October 2, 1995, the City Council approved the recommendation to vacate the entire waterfront within the plat. As detennined by the City Council in 1994 and 1995, there is no public need (with respect to lake access) for the dedicated waterfront within the entire plat. Conclusion: The Planning Commission recommended denial of the vacation (on a 3-2 vote), concluding it is not in the public interest to vacate this easement at this time. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Attorney General's office concur with the Planning Commission's position as set forth in the attached letters. The staff, however, recommends approval of this vacation. This vacation is consistent with the Lake Access Study recommendations adopted by the City Council in 1994 and 1995. Furthermore, the streets in this area are narrow and there is little room for on-street parking. The City Council has three alternatives: 1. Adopt Resolution OO-XX denying the vacation. 2. Direct staffto prepare a resolution approving the vacation as requested. 3. Defer this item and provide staffwith specific direction. The Planning Commission recommends Alternative #1. If the Council concurs with this recommendation, a motion and second to adopt Resolution #OO-XX denying the vacation of the easement as requested is required. I; \99files\99vac\99-09 S\revised\9909Scc.doc Page 2 REVIEWED BY: The staff recommends Alternative #2. If the Council concurs with the staff recommendation, a motion and second directing staff to prepare a resolution approving this vacation is necessary. Frank 1; \99fi1es\99vac\99-09S\revised\9909Scc.doc - L anager Page 3 RESOLUTION OO-XX RESOLUTION DENYING THE VACATION OF THE LAKE ACCESS AND RIGHT-OF- WAY FOR KNEAFSEY'S STREET ADJACENT TO LOTS 4 THROUGH 15, KNEAFSEY'S COVE BY: SECOND BY: WHEREAS, a petition for the vacation of the lake access and right-of-way for Kneafsey's Street adjacent to Lots 4 through 15, Kneafsey's Cove, has been duly presented to the City of Prior Lake, signed by the owners of the property abutting the following described access and street right-of-way situated in the City of Prior Lake, Scott County, Minnesota to wit: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part designated as waterfront in the plat of KNEAFSEY'S COVE, Scott County, Minnesota not previously vacated, and that part of the 30.00 foot roadway named Cove Avenue dedicated in said plat, and described as follows: Beginning at the southeast comer of Lot 5, of said plat; thence southerly along the southerly extension of the east line of said Lot 5, to the shoreline of Prior Lake; thence easterly along said shoreline to its intersection with the southerly extension of the west line of Lot 6, of said plat; thence north along said southerly extension to the southwest comer of Lot 6; thence westerly to the point of beginning. WHEREAS, notice of the hearing on said petition has been duly published and posted in accordance with the applicable Minnesota Statutes, and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on said petition on Monday, April 3, 2000, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the Prior Lake Fire Station #1; and WHEREAS, the City Council then proceeded to hear all persons interested in said petition and persons interested afforded the opportunity to present their views and objections to the granting of said petition; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission considered the vacation on March 13, 2000, and recommended the City Council deny the request as it is not in the public interest to vacate the right-of-way and lake access; and WHEREAS, the City Council of Prior Lake has determined that the vacation of said road right-of-way would not be in the public interest. 16200 El'\99f}.1P.s\C19v,ac\99..095\revised\rsOOxxcc.doc Ej~ 1 ~gIe CreeR /-we. ~.c., Ynor CaKe, [Vllnnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (61~ '4-47-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER I NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, that pursuant to Minnesota Statues 412.851, the above described lake access and right-of- way in the City of Prior Lake, Scott County, Minnesota to be vacated is hereby denied. Passed and adopted this 3rd day of April, 2000. YES NO Mader Mader Ericson Ericson Gundlach Gundlach Petersen Petersen Schenck Schenck Frank Boyles, City Manager City of Prior Lake {Seal} 1: \99files\99vac\99-09 5\revised\rsOOxxcc.doc Page 2 0' ~R.ncN OF To Be "A~AreJL~ ,~ , .... ) I I , I , , . I :\.- . : ~.~- ____ I ')' .-- ~ - -- ~ . 13/175 or- en It) ,., "',5 .-- 600 -- -' ...- .. \.. . /~ .. ., . --- 8S8.3C- -". ,- - ,. ~- - - --- 1461. 40 .- EXHIBIT A REASONS FOR REQUEST TO VACATE ACCESS AND WATERFRONT The access, at the end of Cove Avenue, was included in a 1946 plat of Kneafsey's Cove. Cove Avenue is a 30' wide street, and the proposal is to vacate an area approximately 25' from the lake. It is simply not located in a place that is desirable for a lake access, and is too small to be suitable for lake access. The site has never been maintained by the City as a lake access, and for practical reasons, the City is not able to properly manage and control the site as an access. Maintenance of the area, and removal of debris, has been performed by the adjacent homeowners. Parking is not available on or near the site. There are no nearby public streets available for parking. There are three narrow lots to the west of Cove Avenue. Each lot has a driveway to and from Cove Avenue that prevents members of the public from parking on the west side of the avenue. On the east there is one lot, the entry to which is at an angle from Cove Avenue. On occasion, persons have parked on Cove Avenue and blocked residents' driveways, and so as a result, the City posted it as "No Parking." It is hazardous to simply allow the avenue to end at the lake without a gate or warning signs. On at least two occasions drivers had driven down Cove Avenue and right into the lake. The access has not been available for use during many winter months. City crews frequently push snow down Cove Avenue and pile it on the site. The Council has previously vacated the water front adjacent to lots 2 and 3. There is simply no reason not to vacate the remaining portions designated as water front in the plat. The Prior Lake Advisory Committee recommended that the access site and water front be vacated, and the Council approved that recommendation following a public hearing on October 2, 1995. Minnesota De artment of Natural East Metro Area Trails and Waterways ~ 200 Warner Road ul Minnesota 55106 Phone 651.772.7937 Facsimile 651.772.7977 February 23, 2000 Jane Kansier, ORC Coordinator City of Prior Lake 162.00 Eagle Creek Avenue Southeast Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 Subject: Petition to Vacate Kneafsy's Cove Lake Access and Right of Way Dear Ms. Kansier: We have reviewed the information concerning the amended application for the above vacation. The amended application includes additional waterfront on either side of the original proposal. Our ,/ department continues to oppOse the vacation of the portion of Cove Avenue that abuts the lake (west of and adjacent to Lot 6). We have no comment on the remaining waterfront proposed to be vacated. Vacating the Kneafsy's Cove Avenue Easement would be a very significant loss: + The shoreline is highly desirable with a gradual slope, sand beach, and southern exposure. It provides lake access for the second, third and fourth tier homes in the neighborhood. + The proposed vacation is located in an area with increasing population. T!1is opportunity for current and future local and Minnesota residents to access Prior Lake should be preserved. + Prior Lake is currently under-served in terms of public access. This site offers an additional long-term opportunity for the public to access a public lake. Generally, the Department of Natural Resources opposes all such vacations of public right of way to public waters for a number of reasons: · It is impossible to project what potential public uses and value these rights of way could have in the long-term. Once vacated, they are lost to the public forever. The state owns the lake bed. Therefore, public access to public water should be retained whenever and wherever possible. · The street is currently owned by the public; the public has the right to use it. That right should not be given away to private interests. · The public can use accesses like the Kneafsy's Cove easement for a variety of purposes including shore fishing, canoe access, winter access, swimming, picnic areas, sightseeing and others. These opportunities should not be given aNay. Considering the limited public opportunities around Prior Lake, the unique characteristics and opportunities the Kneafsy's Cove Avenue site offers, neighborhood interests, and long-term interest of the public, the road vacation proposal should be denied. I ..--...--r------------ ^-- Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have further questions. - please contact me. Sincerely V J ./ ~ --r""" d ~/-J Scott J. Kelling / . Area Trails and WaterN ays Supervis r c: Bill Johnson, DNR Region 6 Trails and Waterways Superviosr Pat Lynch, DNRArea Hydrologist Joan 8chhorst, Office of the Minnesota Attorney General H:lprioIVBCal..kn....,sy2. w pd STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MIKE HATCH ATIORNEY GENERAL SUITE 900 .ws MINNESOTA STREET ST. PAUL. MN 55101.2127 TELEPHONE: (651) 297.1075 December 22, 1999 ~ r=: ~ r2 0"/7/ r2 ~~ \ ;':.\:.' =. '0 LS \!...,! L5 \:: V' ~; IlEC 211!8l 'l Jane Kansier, DRC Coordinator City of Prior Lake 16000 Eagle Creek Avenue Southeast PriorLake, MN 55372 Re: Proposed Vacation of Kneafsy's Cove Lake Access & Right-Of-Way Dear Ms. Kansier : The purpose of this letter is to support the objection of the Department of Natural Resources to the proposed vacation of Kneafsy's Cove Lake Access & Right-Of-"Way by providing the legal backdrop regarding the issue. Minnesota law prohibits the vacation of property dedicated for public use unless the persons requesting the vacation prove that the property is useless both now and in the future for the purpose for which it was laid out. It is an extremely high standard which is rarely satisfied. The standard is justifiably high because if the property is vacated the public will lose forever another public water access site. It is important to preserve lake access for the public because development occun1ng on lakes impairs, and often eliminates, access and enjoyment of lakes by those members of the public who cannot afford or do not own lakeshore property. The standard for vacating property dedicated to public use is extremely high. Land that is dedicated to the public should not be vacated unless it appears that the property "is useless for the purpose for which it was laid out." Minn. Stat. S 505.14 (1998). Property dedicated to the public for its use is rarely vacated because it must be shown that the property is both currently useless for the purpose for which it was laid out and also that it lacks any potential future uses as well. It does not matter that the property is not currently used or that it may be difficult to develop for its dedicated purpose. It is also not a balancing test as to what is in the public's best interest. Rather, the focus is on the public's right to use the property and whether the property is useless for its dedicated purpose. Three key Minnesota Supreme Court cases set forth the rule. In Schaller v. Town of Florence, 193 Minn. 604, 259 N.W. 529 (1935), the plaintiff sought to vacate property located on Lake Pepin. The Court warned that careful consideration needs to be accorded such vacations and that it is the public interests and not pri vate interests which govern those actions: Facsimile: (651) 297-4139 . TrY: (651) 296-1410' Toll Free Lines: (800) 657-3787 (Voice), (800) 366--1812 (TrY) . www.ag.state.mn.us An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity 0 Prinled on 50% recycled paper (15% post consumer content) e I Jane Kansier December 22, 1999 Page 2 Whether this very desirably located area, solemnly dedicated to public use, should be restored to private ownership and thus, perhaps for all time to come, lost to the public and made an appendage to private enterprise for individual profit or enjoyment, or both, is a matter that should receive our most careful consideration. The present trend of public opinion. is directed toward restoring to the public access to our lakes, our parks, and our forests for recreational and other proper uses. 193 Minn. at 614, 259 N.W. at 534-35 (emphasis added, citation omitted). Likewise, in the case of In Re Petition of Krebs, 213 Minn. 344, 6 N.W.2d 803 (1942), the petitioner sought to vacate a street leading to Lake Bemidji. The petitioner claimed that the street proposed to be vacated was not used by the public and was not kept in repair. The Court rejected those assertions stating that mere non-use is not sufficient grounds for vacation and future potential use must be considered: Before it can be vacated, it must appear that the street is useless for that purpose. The evidence shows only that the street is not now used. This is not sufficient. It does not show that the street may not be used in the future . .. Moreover, we must not forget that the public includes persons other than those in the immediate vicinity. The general public has a true concern in the recreational facilities offered by the lakes which nature has so freely given us in this state. Their generous sharing by all will make for a healthier and happier people. The many not fortunate enough to be able to acquire the advantages of ownership of lake shore properties should not be deprived of these benefits. 213 Minn. at 347, 6 N.W.2d at 804-5 (emphasis added). In Krebs the petitioner also contended that the street should be vacated because the public could get to the lake more conveniently by other routes. The Court firmly rejected that contention refusing to give any weight to the existence of other means of access: "[T]he question for consideration here is whether [the] street is useless, not whether some other street is more useful. The burden of making such a showing has not been met by petitioners." 213 Minn. at 348,6 N.W.2d at 805 (emphasis added). Finally, in the case of In Re Application of Baldwin, 218 Minn. 11, 15 N.W.2d 184 (1944), the petitioners attempted to vacate an unconstructed dedicated street providing access to Lake Minnetonka relying on the alleged non-use of the street and the fact that there were other means of access. The Court disagreed emphasizing the rights of the public and directing that the statutory tenn "useless" should not be given any restricted meaning: Jane Kansier December 22, 1999 Page 3 Apparently lost in the shuffle were the rights of the public in the lake itself, for neither party seems to have given much consideration to the value of the Lake Street, located as it is on the shores of St. Albans Bay, in providing lake frontage and shore line for the use of the public for recreational purposes. .. The contest here is not a mere bout benveen private individuals with members of the public acting in the role of spectators. The public has a real and substantial interest in the outcome. .. Keeping in mind the value to the public of free access to and use of the lake shore, we at a loss to know how any part of Lake Street has become useless with in the meaning of that term as commonly defined. The word 'useless' which appears in . .. * 505.14 . . . should not be given any restricted meaning. Couns should ascribe to it the well-accepted connotation: 'not serving or not capable of serving any valuable purpose; being of no use; having or being of no use; unserviceable; producing no good end; answering no desired purpose. ' 218 Minn. at 15-18, 15 N.W.2d at 186-87 (emphasis added, citations omitted). As the Court warned: "[A]ny decree of vacation must be supported by clear proof that the street has in fact become 'useless' to the public in the full and unrestricted meaning of that term." 218 Minn. at 19, 15 N.W.2d at 188. In this case, DNR asserts that the facts demonstrate that the property can be used, both now and in the future, by the public in numerous ways throughout the year. V acating Kneafsy~s Cove Lake Access & Right-Of-Way would be a significant loss because of its unique features. The shoreline is highly desirable with a gradual slope. sand beach, and southern exposure. It provides lake access for the second, third, and fourth tier homes in the neighborhood. The proposed vacation is in an area with increasing population and access should be preserved for current and future residents. Also. Prior Lake is currently under-served in terms of access, and this site offers long-term opportunity for the public to access to the lake. As a matter of law, it does not matter that the property may have been used little, if at all, by the public. This is especially true in those cases where the public is not even aware that it had the right to use the property. It also does not matter that the property may be undeveloped. Finally, it does not matter if there are other public access sites on the lake or that if vacated the property may return to the tax rolls. The essential and only issue is whether the property is useless both currently and in the future using the unrestricted definition of "useless" ascribed to it by the Court in Baldwin: not serving or not capable of serving any valuable purpose; being of no use; having or being of no use; unserviceable; producing no good end; answering no desired purpose. If the facts show that the property is useable in its current state for its dedicated purpose or that it has potential future uses, it cannot be deemed useless and cannot be vacated. To do I J Jane Kansier December 22,1999 Page 4 otherwise would clearly be unwarranted, contrary to well-established law and detrimental to the public's recreational needs by taking away another public water access site forever. Sincerely, ,r. /'/' ~'--'-- ('I \ 'z:.-l~~~ JOAL~ M. EICHHORST Assistant Attorney General (651) 296-0697 AG:336696, v. I Planning Commission Minutes March 13. 2000 Kansier said they will work up the language and come back to the Commissioners. 6. New Business: A. Case #99-095 Review request to vacate lake access and right-of-way for Kneafsey's Street adjacent to Lots 4 through 15, Kneafsey's Cove. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report date on file in the office of the Planning Department. Kneafsey's Cove was platted in September 1946 dedicating the to the public including a 30-foot wide roadway located be September, 1999, the City received a petition from the p William and Margaret Righeimer and James and Nan ofa 30-foot wide lake access and roadway located v and 6. The reason for this petition was to allow the adj for maintenance purposes and to reduce a hazardous vehic parking and vehicles entering the lake. be deti ed to allow the ~terfront. On February 9, ed by tV ven and Linda Erickson (Lots f4 and 15) and C. Richard and original petitioners, William and hese petitioners constitute more than es the entire waterfront adjacent to Lots tion of the roadway and waterfront as it is III the Lake Access Study adopted by the City The De the propos Lake. Resources and Assistant Attorney General's office objected to ng existing and future limited access opportunities on Prior Criego: . Questioned ifthe property was steep. Kansier said it was not. Actually it was relatively flat. . Questioned ifthe property started at the 904. Kansier said at the time this area was platted the 904 had not been established as the ordinary high water mark. There is no indication ofthe 904. · Questioned what the distance would be at the narrowest point. Kansier said it was probably 25 to 30 feet. But it may not necessary reflect the 904. 1:\OOfiles\OOplcomrn\OOpcmin\nm031300.doc 6 I I Planning Commission Minutes March 13. 2000 Stamson: · Questioned if the road was used as a winter access. Kansier said it was not. Atwood: . Questioned the DNR's letter opposing the vacation as it provides access to the second and third tier homes. · Has the DNR ever come forward opposing this. Kansier said the C" of opposition. The plats have been developed for so long that pe aware of the access. Residents have landscaped the area and a public access. If this was a new development, the City wo recommendation. · Questioned the DNR's mention of future public acce Lake being under accessed. Kansier said there w aware of. Rye said the DNR had some general If there is so many acres there should be so much ac some of the other areas around the lake where there is accesses. The DNR is very definite 0 eir position for K Comments from the public: ers in,%!, petition said the question y been detennined. The City Council been brought forward in 1995 or operty did not become vacated e Advisory recommended vacation. t y rty owners. Two property owners have now the rest of the neighbors are asking to vacate the . 'tained the street and there is no parking available . ived a copy of the letter from the Attorney General's office. . t it was a form letter and the DNR sends that letter out in every one attempting to take public property. He did not think anyone from the D ver stood on Cove A venue and looked at it or asked anyone at the City what tlie history has been. Criego: Questioned Cade if he knew where the 904 elevation is. Cade said they did not do a survey and did not know the elevations. The access is not used for winter access. The maintenance crew piles the snow on the easement from Cove Avenue. 1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\mn031 300.doc 7 Planning Commission Minutes March J 3. 2000 Nancy Samec, 14777 Cove Avenue, said she owns the property right up to the easement and has had water up to her deck as her house is very close to the easement. Comments from the Commissioners: Criego: . It is obvious in 1994 and 1995 the City Council decided there was not . Had reservations regarding the road vacation to allow winter access . Agreed to vacate the lots. Cramer: . Agreed with Criego, the vacation in front of the homes' . Had reservations on the access. . Questioned the City Attorney's opinion on the St Kansier responded the City Attorney felt the D" . Supported the vacation area surrounding the homes. V onhor: . Sympathized with the residents but dt . Prior Lake has a number of these acces There are also a number of private accesses owne . The issue is this is public ot private there is a responsibilit . dents of . It is not good publi away pu . If there was any, erty, vehi statute is very . There is a process ofv . The lette e Atto . W 0 al Opt ly stat' innesota Law prohibits the vacation dedicated to persons requesting the vacation prove that the property is u the future for the purpose for which it was laid out. . The laid out for public use. There is nothing in the application that talks ao riginal intent was. One can only assume that it was laid out for the public intent to be used by the public. . Many neig i oods around the lake are set up with a private access for just the neighborhoods. . This is dangerous ground for this Board to be giving away public land. There is no compelling reason in the application to support that this should be done at this time. Atwood: . Compelling legal angle. . Would like to have something from the City Attorney. . Hesitate at this time to vote in favor ofthe vacation. 1:\OOfiles\00pIcomm\OOpcmin\nm031300.doc 8 I -r-------- Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 2000 Stamson: . Strongly agreed with Vonhofs comments. This is not in the public's interest. · The basic argument of "not being used now" is not what the statute intends. . No one has come forward with an argument that this is good for the City. The closest is ''we've had cars go into the lake." Did not see how changing the ownership effects that at all. The City should take some action with the road. . How does changing the property to private hands change the scen . Form letter or not from the Attorney General, the cases cited are identical to what we are looking at. In all four cases the Co there is no current use for them now was irrelevant and that t need to prove was that there is no potential use. There . The City's study said there is no current use and the does not address this issue. . It is the Attorney General's opinion that is the &" court documents to back them up. . The standards have not been met. . The statute has come forward that thi . How will it change being private? . The cases cited by the Attorney Genera there is no potential use. . Aware previous studies d . The standards have no . r said Lot 2 was vacated in 1984 and . y. son on his position. Stamson responded he was d. As far as the rest of the property, did not see e public's interest to vacate. g department conclude in 1995 that this access should be vacate said she was not on staff at the time nor anyone else on staff. The study go into any detail on this parcel. McDermott said it did not even identify ev ublic access as V onhof indicated. . What is the ootage and any future use? Certainly there is no past or current use. . The only use is a roadway to the lake. Where would they park? . Strongly believe to vacate the area surrounding the homes, not the roadway. Stamson: . Does not believe it is the Commission's position to make those decisions. If the Commissions can't think of anything at this moment, it is not right to vacate it. . What are the specifics? 1:\OOfiles\OOplcomm\OOpcmin\nm031300.doc 9 Planning Commission Minutes March 13. 2000 . It sounds like the engineering department didn't even look at this access. The report was an overall look at the lake. McDermott pointed out the lack of access in the winter. The streets are narrow and there is no on-street parking. Atwood: . It is not public friendly. . By vacating it closes any options for future thoughts. . Agreed with Stamson, the Commissioners can scratch their reason. . It puts the burden on the Commissioners and it is not 0 V onhof: . Right now the Commissioners are just thinking . Access is also on the lake side. The lake is a public . Don't forget there is a significant access point from the Stamson: . Nearby homes could use the access an MOTION BY CRIEGO, SEC COUNCIL APPROVE T ROADWAY. Vote taken indicat MOTION FAILS. , nays by Atwood, V onhof, Stamson. STAMSON, THIS PROPOSAL IS S OF THE CITY IN REGARDS TO VACATION S N T MEET THE STANDARD OF VACATION AND CIL DENY THE VACATION AS REQUESTED. and Stamson, nays by Cramer and Criego. MOTION This will go be ore the City Council on April 3, 2000 as a public hearing. B. Discuss concept plan for development for Foxtail Trail property. Planning Coordinator Jane Kansier presented the Planning Report dated March 13,2000, on file in the office of the Planning Department. 1:\OOfiles\00plcomm\00pcmin\mn031300.doc 10 - Prkrl.aleatyOud PUBLIC HEARING ~: TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OO-XX DENYING THE VACATION OF THE LAKE ACCESS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR KNEAFSEY'S STREET ADJACENT TO LOTS 4 THROUGH 15, KNEAFSEY'S COVE. *** April 3, 2000 v" v-J ~lL. 440 B 11 Co I L~ 44o-S-3S B ~12..~c('( - 6 ",.-- - - t