Laserfiche WebLink
;• r‘. •• ••• <br />Btrator <br />acation <br />ns of Maple <br />ight-of-way <br />The City has <br />k T • <br />arification <br />> Exhibit A) <br />ig concerns: <br />r and water <br />n drain that <br />to the Barr <br />right-of-way <br />width of 14' <br />haps a strip <br />logical. A <br />vacated as it <br />s, Barr could <br />the proposed <br />suit of tax <br />I Klint, have <br />n and 1980. <br />:■ -A. <br />i <br />I <br />f <br />#838 Bernier <br />Page 2 <br />Resolutions #762 and #843 note that Tract V and Lots 184 and part of 185 <br />are considered unbuildable as single entities but would like'.y 1^ <br />considered for a building site if combined. Tract V went tax forfeit <br />in 1980 or sor and the DNR held up its resale to the public because it is <br />more than 50* of lakeshore. However, correspondene in our files <br />indicates the DNR has no real use for the property. In 1983, a bill was <br />presented to the legislature to allow this lot to be sold. I do not <br />know the current status of this; perhaps the applicant can shed some <br />light on it. Regardless, vacation of parts of Maple Lane would <br />increase the dry buildable area of lot 184 and Tract V, possibly <br />allowing them to be combined into a single building site without <br />variances required. <br />A recommendation to approve this vacation should address the items <br />discussed above, and should include the following findings: <br />1. The vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining <br />property. <br />2. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve, or use the <br />property in any way except for utility or access purposes which are to <br />be described as part of a Council resolution. <br />3. The property as it exists serves no public purpose