Laserfiche WebLink
rr---------:i-. ,'v ■' • r% <br />U^‘ <br />h r-r ■■ <br />>^. •,• ' <br />>jl: ' •--^ri- <br />*. • <br />.*^ <br />.*_» »A A •« <br />*U%t^;*.AV-v <br />! <br />‘ci <br />fc-TsvI.. <br />K •- <br />M"‘ ■'• <br />Syk'-*- - <br />K''-' <br />• -« Ntf ■ / <br />I <br />JU mV**- • iiM ■■. « i <br />r.City of OROrVO <br />( <br />c <br />-r^-. i’^^>- <br />V .UTVU.V <br />ORONO <br />12. <br />13. <br />14. <br />15. <br />16. <br />17. <br />18. <br />*• <br />-tN <br />T <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />NO. #1482_ _ _ _ _ <br />kept in repair and worked for at least six years continuously. <br />This statute has been interpreted by the Courts to provide for the <br />full 66 foot dedication only where it can be shown that this full <br />width has been used and is necessary for these public purposes. <br />Minnesota Statutes Section 160.14 provides for the marking and <br />platting of public roads as done by Hennepin County in their 1982 <br />highway plat for County Road 1S» and further provides for filing <br />of objections thereto by abutting property owners. When such an <br />objection is filed the statute provides for judicial <br />determination of the correct right-of-way or for negotiated <br />agreement between the road authority and the objecting owner. <br />Minnesota Statutes Section 163.11 provides for the <br />establishmentf alteration^ vacation or revocation of County <br />highways by order of the County Board# and further provides that <br />any such vacation or revocation by the County Board results in <br />reversion to the City as a City street. <br />There is nothing in the record of the City which indicates any <br />prior action by the Hennepin County Board regarding the <br />relocation of County Road Mo. IS nor action regarding vacation or <br />reversion of the unused portions of Brackett Avenue to the City. <br />Applicants Gregory# Duff and Hamm each claim interest in those <br />portions of originally platted Brackett Avenue which abut their <br />property and which thoy claim are no longet in active use for the <br />roadway purpose laid-out and originally dedicated. <br />Applicant Gregory has filed a formal objection to the County <br />highway plat with Hennepin County. Applicants Duff and Hamm are <br />to the City's knowledge considering filing such objections. <br />A major purpose of subject vacation application #726 is to <br />facilitate City review of the private ownership claims pursuant <br />to City interests and to Minnesota Statutes sections 160.14 and <br />163.11# and to facilitate settlement of the issues so as to permit <br />completion and recording of subdivision application 1701. <br />Public use and interest in the County Road is evidenced as <br />follows: <br />Approximately 13#100 vehicles travel this stretch of County <br />Road Mo. 15 every 24 hours. <br />5 of 20 <br />■5 <br />*1 *