My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Project Packet
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
B
>
Big Island
>
740 Big Island - 22-117-23-14-0001
>
Land Use
>
78-444, VAC
>
Project Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/10/2026 1:36:39 PM
Creation date
2/10/2026 1:34:56 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
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).
View images
View plain text
/r <br />November 16, 1978 <br />Hennepin County Park Reserve District . <br />Big Island - Street Vacations <br />Page 5 <br />If the recommendation is for vacation without relocation of the <br />right of way, the following findings should be made: <br />1. The Supreme Court ruling applies to accese TO the lake which <br />is not applicable in this factual case. The only members of <br />the public needing access are the three affected property <br />owners who each have independent access available. <br />2. Public right of way is not necessary to maintain access to <br />affected properties. <br />3. The public interest in a given amount of land area will be <br />maintained by means of the Park Reserve's acquisitions on <br />the east island. The Park Reserve's acquisition plan is in <br />keeping with Orono policy as established in Resolution 446. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - DECFM9ER 11, 1978 <br />Planning Commission recommended approval of the vacations of undeveloped <br />roads on Big Island, legally described as follows: All of Linden Street, <br />all of Elm Street, and all of Maple Place located within Kate B. Plummer's <br />Subdivision of Lot 2 of Kitchel's Subdivision of Government Lots 5 and 6. <br />Such vacation to be approved without relocation of the public right of way <br />based on the following findings: <br />1. The vacation does not affect access to or use of any <br />affected or adjoining property. <br />2. The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve <br />or use the property in any way. <br />3. The property as it exists serves no public purpose. <br />4. The vacation is in the public interest by: <br />a) furthering the plans of the Park Reserve District; <br />b) reducing city liability for maintei :e, and <br />c) increasing taxable valuation. <br />5. The Supreme Court ruling applies to a,-cess TO the lake which <br />is not applicable in this factual case. 'Ii►e only members of the <br />public needing access are the three affected property owners who <br />each have independent access available. <br />6. Public right of way is not necessary to maintain access to <br />affected properties. <br />7. The p,iblic interest in a given amoant of land area will be <br />maintained by means of the Park Reserve's acquisitions on the <br />east island. The Park Reserve's acquisition plan is in keeping <br />with Orono policy as established in Resolution 446. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.