Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lake Lots Sale topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mitchell planning commissioners discuss possible sale and future use of lakefront lots, take no action
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a council agenda item about selling several lake‑adjacent lots (including Lot 58A/58B/59), discussed platting, parkland status under a past citizen initiative, and potential encroachments (a private pool). Commissioners did not take action and noted any sale or fund designation would be decided by City Council.
Members of the Mitchell Planning Commission reviewed a City Council work session item about selling or planning lots along Mitchell Lake, discussing which parcels might be affected, the legal steps required to remove parkland designation and the possibility of encroachments on city property.
A commissioner flagged a set of lots the council would discuss that evening, including parcels identified in staff materials as Lot 58A, 58B and 59 and other locations around Indian Head Loop, South Harmon and between Sandy Beach and Camp Roya. Staff said some of the parcels have no improvements and that several adjacent shore areas have never been platted, which would complicate any effort to build or sell individual lots.
Staff explained that a citizen initiative passed about a decade ago designated all city property adjoining the lake as parkland; re‑designating that land for other uses would require a multi‑step identification and election process. Because many shore areas are unplatted, staff said the city would likely need to create plats and resolve right‑of‑way questions before lots could be sold or built on. A staff comment also noted that prior proceeds from earlier lot sales were deposited by Council into a dedicated lake fund for lake purposes, but how future proceeds would be used would be a Council decision.
The commission also discussed encroachment concerns. Commission members noted one property where a privately constructed pool appears to encroach on city land; staff said legal review would be required if the Council pursues a sale or transfer that would affect that parcel.
Commissioners debated whether the Planning Commission should send a formal opinion to the council through the city‑council liaison, John Dozier (City Council liaison to the commission). Members emphasized this was a high‑level, conceptual discussion and staff repeatedly clarified that the council meeting was for discussion only; no formal action was taken by the Planning Commission during this session.
Next steps: any decision to remove parkland designation, replat shore property or sell lots would be made by City Council following the identification and election steps staff described, and would return to the Planning Commission for the normal platting and review processes if Council directs it to proceed.
