03-27-2013 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

RELEVANT LINKS: Schaller v. Town of Florence, 259 N.W. 529 (Minn. 1935). Application of Baldwin, 15 N.W.2d 184 (Minn. 1944). In re Hull, 204 N.W. 534 (Minn. 1925). A.G. Op. 396 - G- I6. (Sept. 18, 1958). Application of Baldwin, 15 N.W.2d 184 (Minn. 1944). Petition of Krebs, 6 N.W.2d 803 (Minn. 1942). Kangas v. Blueberry Tp., 264 N.W.2d 389 (Minn. 1978). Rader v. East Side Twsp.. C3- 87 -744 (unpublished opinion). See Appendix G, Resolution Vacating a Street on Council Initiative. Appendix H, Resolution Vacating a Street Upon Petition. A public hearing must also include an opportunity for affected landowners and the interested public to see and hear all available information and to ask questions, provide additional information, express support or opposition, or to suggest modifications to the proposal. The primary focus of a public hearing should be to solicit public comment, not to persuade the public towards a particular viewpoint. If the council does not agree with sentiments expressed at the public hearing, the council can incorporate its position on the issues raised into its findings of fact in the formal resolution approving or denying the vacation. B. Standards for granting a vacation Minnesota statutes establish that the city council may vacate a street only upon a finding that the vacation is "in the interest of the public." This means the public must benefit, in some manner, from the vacation. The public includes persons other than those in the immediate vicinity of the vacation. A private benefit derived from the vacation does not bar the vacation, so long as a concurrent benefit to the public can be substantiated. Mere long -term, non -use of a street ground does not necessarily equate with a finding that the vacation is in the interest of the public. In reviewing vacations, Minnesota courts have emphasized that the future benefit to maintaining the dedicated property should be given consideration. For example, the Minnesota Supreme Court once overturned a vacation because the potential future use of the public grounds as public lake access was not properly taken into account. In another example, the Court upheld a denial of a petition for a vacation, because preservation of the underutilized property would help lessen the effects of future population growth in the area. The decision to grant or deny a vacation is legislative in character. As a result, a reviewing court will only set aside a vacation if it appears that the evidence is practically conclusive against the city, or that the council proceeded on an erroneous theory of law, or that it acted arbitrarily and capriciously against the best interests of the public. 1. Adoption of a resolution granting or denying a vacation Vacations must be approved by city council resolution. A vacation commenced solely on the initiative of the city council requires a four -fifths majority vote in favor of the resolution. A vacation commenced by petition of a majority of abutting land owners requires a simple majority of the quorum present at the meeting to pass a favorable resolution. As previously discussed, the resolution should include the city's reasons for granting the vacation and detailed, written findings of fact. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 7/9/2010 Vacation of City Streets 2 2 Page 5