08-04-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Oakwood Vacation Request Lots 17 & 18, Edgewood Square August 4, 1999 • Page 2 Ordinarily, the Planning Commission would not review these types of requests, however because of the underlying land use element associated with this proposal and the work being done to update the City's Comprehensive Plan, staff felt a recommendation from the Commission would be in order. Analysis: According to Section 12.06 of the City Charter relating to Vacation of Streets, the Council may by ordinance vacate any street or alley or other public grounds or part thereof within the City. Minnesota Statutes and the City Charter require that vacations require a public hearing. Such vacations may be made only after published notice in the official City newspaper and for providing the affected property owners and public to be heard. This action shall be recorded with Ramsey County to take effect. The City Attorney has advised staff that the vacation of an easements may be appropriate in the event the easement area no longer serves a public benefit, however the City is under no obligation to do so in any event. The process for vacating a drainage easement is the same as for vacating a street. When originally platted, these two lots and a third were placed in a drainage easement as they were deemed to be unbuildable due to the presence of wetlands. The City since that point has adopted • its Local Water Management Plan which comprehensively deals with all aspects of drainage, stormwater runoff and wetlands within the City. Along with the Wetland Zoning Ordinance, which was adopted by the City in 1992 and revised in 1997, certain types of development under certain conditions are allowed within and alongside wetlands. Vacating a portion of the original easement over and across Lots 17 and 18 would not necessarily be inconsistent with either the Local Water Management Plan or the Wetland Zoning Ordinance. The applicant had the wetland on these lots delineated in 1997 and the delineation was forwarded to the Rice Creek Watershed District, who verified the delineation to be valid. The new delineation, which is shown on the site plan as a heavy dashed line, indicates that almost all of Lot 17 is outside of the wetland, save for a small encroachment toward the back of the lot. SEH, the City's engineer, reported that the grading and drainage proposal provided by the applicant was acceptable from an engineering standpoint, and recommended that if it was the City's intent to grant such a vacation to allow development on the two lots, that an additional ten-foot easement area around the wetland be dedicated to ensure a natural vegetation strip beyond the delineated boundary of the wetland. The central focus of this request then can be narrowed down to two issues. First, do these lots continue to serve any hydrological purpose within the City's local water management plan, and if not, would a partial easement vacation be in the best interest of the public? Secondly, should the City continue to protect the existing open space? If the City was to determine that the lots should be developed, and that the drainage easements •