Laserfiche WebLink
JAN 2 0 .'■'9 jj{i V ! <br />QK'.h <br />*S*r «r»? <br />ke Gaffron concerning <br />111 Road where It <br />rtrldge. at 625 <br />9u to begin the <br />F this letter. <br />i of the half <br />f of the property, <br />►outhwest 1/4 of the <br />Southeasterly of <br />if that part of the <br />I Southeasterly of <br />ntificatlon No. Is <br />Ing to the records <br />n of a highway <br />bject property beyond <br />illy encumbered by <br />inepln County for <br />incumbers "all that <br />lying within <br />F County Road No. 6 <br />iloners of Hennepin <br />I is unknown since <br />matter is that It <br />than appears necessary <br />erence to a 1925 <br />to the West of the <br />urvey), the <br />the subject property <br />Is;/ y i.a2S»a ''r-:■■■-2-as wou!J appear from the half section sheet hut fhoIs not great. Rather than focusing ^n th^diffe^nr^^Sr®"*^® IH encroachment surveys and centerlines ».____ aiTTerences between the detailedthe primary Issue of how muS S*th1s e^srrlaht^r?'*^^®^ currently address road purposes. ^ way actually needed for <br />^ throughout that time Spring Hill Sad has exlstS f®'',?’'®'* ^0'*ty-one years <br />Thero has never been any public use of the as It now exists, <br />contrary, the Partridges Sve us^d the way; to the <br />restrictions, all the wy up to the^dit?h^Shr^K theirs, without <br />of Spring Hill Road as used^ Noi 5 to delineate ^e limits <br />^d fc ' the additional right a County Highway the <br />^y Is not needed should, in all ®PParent. Whatever right bf <br />that they can legally make the samj ujrof at Partridges so <br />the case for most similar properties iJde^d ^ k ^ property as would be <br />Assessor that the subject ?roplSy has with the City <br />comparable to other 4-5 acre Mrraie*K..^ ^°r assessment purposes as <br />Wrceru^JJ?ble?^^Th[s'?^d«IJt1^"m^kM appJSJratefy^l'® t^‘^!r???es^orthe <br />??i!r P'^P®'*^y^c”«ted ’^®this additionaf*riJht^of ^^® ^™Pa®^selling their property and they reouested mv^ace?r+-***^* ^®^ ®r® considering <br />with^th^**^*fi,°^ background but equall^because processwith them on the property for severel^vears nephew and I lived <br />title to the property di^^lncoH ^ initial investigation of th^» <br />In an understanding of the Imoact further Investigation resulted <br />of way. Specifically S! ^^® additional forty feet of rlaht <br />unde/4.0 n wSid “* «"«'» P*>h:^1 “ sl[gS?rextra right of wav wova ?i®® ^““^“ntlally an excess of 4.0 acrac <br />going to%ubd1v1de the vested. The Partridges are^Jt <br />the reality of the ratteJ S thJJ Is never subdivided but <br />the subdivision potential when determ1nfna\*«7®’^ ^*^® consideration <br />buyer would obviously do the same^ ® ^*^^*^®* ^ simllarlly prudent^ <br />S?ir?dge™ Srope7?rir?h.'f “'*' '*1^ «»rather, we feel the reouest u ^^® expense of the Citv or oth^ <br />characteristics of thTe?Sertv and ®PP'^P'‘]ate In light of Se phy?l?af ® <br />right of way for highway purposes Th* PaS*T!i^ *^®d use the excessover forty-on. y«|p| ”J »" Pro4?S for <br />entire parcel was unencumberod Scceot for'^the®fM***'^^I?k ^^®* basis that theby road right of way. rTTcWltf^^ L^?® ^i»*ty-three feet normally affected <br />**est In light of the surrounding^v^onl»?t"?nd^/^^f r®^“®st might not be the^ <br />cf the property, but I do not belt^J^thTroc^?? lH ^®^'" Potential sale <br />thfs roooest tad taen »o. ««d “’i!o^*2:o''f"frS.*,o ‘^?ed'to <br />/V* ••t. :♦ ‘ *. <br />li <br />- v;0i ’ . <br />fA'0'y.r/r'.i