Laserfiche WebLink
RELEVANT LINKS: <br />sehaikrv. Town of Morena. <br />259 N. W. 529 (Minn. 1935). <br />AppJkmlonef tald+ln, 15 <br />N.W.2d 184 (Mite. 1944). <br />In re MW . 204 N.W. 534 <br />(Mem. 1923). A.R. Op. 396• <br />R.16. (Sept. 18, 19510. <br />ApplkanonofBoIMin, 15 <br />N.W.2d 184 (Minn. 1944). <br />Penton of /Orb:, 6 N.W.24 <br />803 (Minn. 1942). <br />Kansas v. Wwbrrry 7p., 264 <br />N.W.2d 389 (Minn. 1971). <br />Rader v. E,au8** 7Msp., C3- <br />87.744 (unpublished <br />opinion). <br />See Appendix 0. Resolution <br />Veatinga Street eaCwroiI <br />lalUstive. <br />Appendix 11, Resolution <br />Venting a Strew Upon <br />Petition. <br />A public hearing must also include an opportunity for affected landowners <br />and the interested public to see and hear all available information and to ask <br />questions, provide additional information, express support or opposition, or <br />to suggest modifications to the proposal. The primary focus of a public <br />hearing should be to solicit public comment, not to persuade the public <br />towards a particular viewpoint. If the council does not agree with sentiments <br />expressed at the public hearing, the council can incorporate its position on <br />the issues raised into its findings of fact in the formal resolution approving <br />or denying the vacation. <br />B. Standards for granting a vacation <br />Minnesota statutes establish that the city council may vacate a street only <br />upon a finding that the vacation is "in the interest of the public." This means <br />the public must benefit, in some manner, from the vacation. The public <br />includes persons other than those in the immediate vicinity of the vacation. <br />A private benefit derived front the vacation does not bar the vacation, so <br />long as a concurrent benefit to the public can be substantiated. <br />Mere Tong -term, non -use of a street ground does not necessarily equate with <br />a finding that the vacation is in the interest of the public. In reviewing <br />vacations, Minnesota courts have emphasized that the fbture benefit to <br />maintaining the dedicated property should be given consideration. For <br />example, the Minnesota Supreme Court once overturned a vacation because <br />the potential fixture use of the public grounds as public lake access was not <br />properly taken into account. In another example, the Court upheld a denial <br />of a petition for a vacation, because preservation of the underutilized <br />property would help lessen the effects of future population growth in the <br />area. <br />The decision to grant or deny a vacation is legislative in character. As a <br />result, a reviewing court will only set aside a vacation if it appears that the <br />evidence is practically conclusive against the city, or that the council <br />proceeded on an erroneous theory of law, or that it acted arbitrarily and <br />capriciously against the best interests of the public. <br />1. Adoption of a resolution granting or denying a <br />vacation <br />Vacations must be approved by city council resolution. A vacation <br />commenced solely on the initiative of the city council requires a four -fifths <br />majority vote in favor of the resolution. A vacation commenced by petition <br />of a majority of abutting land owners requires a simple majority of the <br />quorum present at the meeting to pass a favorable resolution. As previously <br />discussed, the resolution should include the city's reasons for granting the <br />vacation and detailed, written findings of fact. <br />Lnguo Maa Mints <br />Information Memo. <br />Vacation c4C.119 <br />22 <br />27 <br />7//72010 <br />Page 6 <br />