My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-08-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1991
>
07-08-1991 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/25/2024 10:32:41 AM
Creation date
6/25/2024 10:24:37 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
483
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
r <br />A RBSOLUTION VACATING <br />OMDSBD PORTIONS OF <br />A 14* ALLEY WITHIN THE PLAT OP <br />CRYSTAL BAY VIEW, <br />HEHIIBPIM COUNTY, <br />CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA <br />FILE 41653 <br />WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a m’jnicipal corporation <br />organized and existing under the laws cf the State of Minnesota; <br />and <br />WHEREAS, on May 24, 1991 Jeffrey J. Johnson filed a <br />petition with the City of Orono requesting the vacation of <br />certain portions of an unimproved alley originally dedicated in <br />tha plat of Crystal Bay view, legally described as follows: <br />That portion of a 14* platted alley that abuts the south <br />line of Lot 3 and the west half of Lot 2, Block 7, Crystal <br />Bay View, Hennepin County, Minnesota (south half of Section <br />08, To«mship 117, Range 23); and <br />WHEREAS, after due published and posted notice a public <br />hearing was held before the Orono Planning Commission on June 17, <br />1991 regarding said vacation and all persons interested were <br />given an opportunity to be heard; and <br />WHEREAS, after due standing and consideration, the <br />Planning Commission recommended approval of nhe requested <br />vacation and the Council of the City of Orono finds that said <br />vacation, as proposed, is in keeping with the public interest in <br />consideration of the following findings: <br />1.The existing 14’ width of right-of-way would not meet <br />required standards for development of a public road. <br />2.The location of a designated wetland within the right- <br />of-way of the alley would prohibit the total development of <br />the right-of-way for access purposes. <br />3.Based on the pattern of development and current <br />ownership there is no use of right-of-way for access <br />purposes. <br />4.Any public interest in this unimproved right-of-way can <br />be achieved with the granting of necessary easements* <br />Page 1 of 2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.