re: vacation request - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t To: Ron Moorse, City Administrator Greg Gappa, Public Services Director Liz Van Zomeren, Planner From: Michael P. Gaffron, Asst. Planning&Zoning Administrator Date: April 11, 1997 Subject: Clint Gables Vacation Request We are in receipt of a letter of request from Clint Gables, 4798 North Shore Drive, for'vacation' of City property on North Shore Drive. I have a few comments: 1. Gables only owns land on the north side of the road (outlined in red). He is not, by any stretch, an "adjacent owner". His property is across the street from the parcels in question. He is also not an 'abutting' landowner, and therefore cannot by code (Section 10.12, attached)be a petitioner for the vacation. 3. The yellow shaded parcel is a 33' dedicated right-of-way leading from County Rd. 19 to the lake. The County may have some legal interest in this right-of-way... 4. The pink shaded parcel was obtained by the City via tax forfeiture in 1970 for'lake access lanes', deed#136852. This parcel cannot be vacated, and cannot be directly sold by the City, but would have to be released to the County for disposal. 5. These parcels would presumably have a high value to Gables since he would gain lake access if he was to obtain them. But he apparently wants us to just give them to him. 6. While Gables perceives these parcels have no apparent value to the City,they may serve many public functions now or in the future: - Public access to the lake(walking,etc. ...who's to say the City might not build a public stairway here someday when access to the lake is dearer than diamonds...) And,the DNR will oppose this vacation... - Utility corridor - Public open space - Stormwater drainage 7. The concerns he expresses regarding the upkeep of the property may be valid,but are not valid reasons to transfer it to private ownership. When Gables called me last week I told him most of the above,but he apparently was not persuaded to drop this idea. I suggest a response clearly indicating that there is no 'application'he is eligible to make that will result in the transfer of the ownership of this property to him.