09-21-1987 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Minnesota Supreme Court in the case of Flynn v City of Worthington, 224 N.W. 254 (1929) makes a distinction between alleys 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 are not thought of as a street connecting with other streets and supplying the municipality with a system of 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 obligated to maintain the road as a public road because of the use of the 33 feet o£ public right-oi-way? Once property is dedicated to the public and accepted 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 established a right-of-way, it must maintain it as 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 *.o assert abandonment of a dedicated right-of-way, non-use anc' obstructions over the right-of-way are insufficient to establish abandonment and public rights cannot be divested without public consent or operation of law, Neill v. Hake, 93 N.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 Crono Municipal Code Section 10.12 c.nd Minnesota Statutes Section 412.851. Upon vacation, the abuttr.ng 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. 3379j