1987-08-06 Letter, City Attorney Alley Vacation

Home Browse Search

T The Minnesota Supreme Court in the case of Flynn v. city of Worthington, 224 N.W. 254 (1929) makes a diSZ notion between allevs and streets: Alleys differ from streets. They are not intended to convenience the public in the way that streets do. They are more of a local convenience to the parts of the block which they abut. . . They ire not thought of as a street connecting with other streets and supplying the municipality with a system .)f connecting highways. An alley is not intended for such purpose. While the public travels it, its use is local to abutting property. A street is intended for general public use and the general public have in it an interest different from that which they have in an alley. Flynn at 254, 255. 3) Is the city obli ated to maintain the road as a ublic ad cause o t e use o t e est o ou is n t-ow�ay roOnce property s dedicated to the public and accepg ted by the public through the municipality, the City may choose its own time to occupy and open the right-of-way. State v. Marcks 36 N.W.2d 594 (1949). once the City has establia'Sea rlg�T-_way, it must maintain it is it would any other dedicated public right-of-way within the City. You have informed this office that the plat containing the dedicated alley, "Ottoville on Lake Minnetonka" was filed in the early 1900s. You stated that the City had not maintained the 33 feet of .alley. Also, you mentioned that a private garage may be encroaching a portion of the dedicated alley. Unless the City takes affirmative actions to assert abandonment of a dedicated right-of-way, non-use and obstructions over the right-of-way are insufficient to establish abandonment and public rights cannot be divested without public consent )r operation of law. Neill v. Hake, 93 14.W.2d 821 (1958). Although it may not be to the developers benefit, in order for the 33 feet of dedicated right-of-way to become private property, the City must vacate the alley per its procedures as outlined in Orono Municipal Code Section 10.12 and Minnesota Statutes Section 412.851. Upon vacation, the abutting property owners would obtain the vacated alley up to the center line of that former alley. Should the developer to the west own the property abutting the same .alley, the developer would obtain an additional 16-1/2 feet to add to his proposed 17 feet of private road. If not, the developer has the right to approach the property owners and offer to purchase the vacated alley for a negotiated price. 3379]