CCP 07212025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Fifth Street Towers 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 337-9300 telephone (612) 337-9310 fax kennedy-graven.com Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer RACHEL G. TIERNEY Attorney at Law Direct Dial: (612) 337-9234 Email: rtierney@kennedy-graven.com To: Patrick Trudgeon, City Manager From: Rachel G. Tierney, Attorney at Law KENNEDY & GRAVEN, CHARTERED Date: July 15, 2025 Re: Future use of land dedicated as right-of-way. BACKGROUND AND QUESTION On April 21, 2025, the Council held a public hearing to consider the Aldine right-of-way (ROW) vacation. The ROW was dedicated as right-of-way as part of the Mid Oaks Plat. City staff initiated the proposed vacation. Therefore, approval of the vacation required a four-fifths vote of the City st Council. At the April 21public hearing, several residents testified both in favor of the vacation and against the vacation. Residents who opposed the vacation expressed support for formally converting the right-of-way to a pathway or a park. The Council requested further information from staff on the feasibility of using the ROW as a pathway. On June 16, 2025, the motion to approve the vacation failed for lack of a four-fifths vote. I have been asked whether the ROW could be converted into parkland so that it could be left natural with a woodland path similar to other paths found in parks. ANALYSIS The city obtained the ROW easement as part of the Mid Oaks Plat. In general, property dedicated on a plat must be put to the designated use. Minnesota courts have examined the conversion of property dedicated as a public square. In City of Zumbrota v. Stafford Western Emigration Co., the Court held that the sale of property dedicated as a public square could not be sold to a private developer for construction of a senior citizen’s residence. 290 N.W.2d 621, 623 (Minn. 1980). In Headley v. City of Northfield the Court enjoined the conversion of a public square into athletic fields and a playground for a school. 35 N.W.2d 606 (Minn. 1949). In the Hadleycase, the Court explained that the city, as trustee of the public square, “had a duty to devote to the public square the uses intended by its dedicator.” On the other hand, courts have permitted cities to alter future uses from the strict language of the dedication provided that they are consistent with the reason for conveyance. For example, a donor 1 RS160\\1\\1037578.v2 Qbhf!229!pg!429