06.04 - Req by CLA Prop to Vacate

Home Browse Search

From: Dawn Bittner [mailto:dbittner @pequotlakes - mn.gov] Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 3:16 PM To: Paul Sandelin Cc: Mike Loven; Tim Houle Subject: Street Vacation Request Paul: Justin Bolz- Andolshek has come forward with a request to vacate First Street and Second Street adjacent to the NFK property. The Public Works Supervisor, Mike Loven, the City Engineer, Tim Houle, Councilman Sjoblad and I met with Justin this morning. We have the following questions: 1. It would be in the City's best interest to vacate those portions of First Street and Second Street that are adjacent to Super America also. Would this request need to be made by Super America or could the City just include those portions? Either the City or SuperAmerica can make the request. The request to vacate can be made by a majority of the property owners abutting the street to be vacated or the City can initiate the request to vacate. If the City initiates the request it must be on a 4 /5th vote passing the motion to initiate the process which means to conduct a public hearing. In either case, property owner request or City motion, there must be a public hearing which consists of publishing and posting for 14 days in addition to written notice to each affected property owner by mail 10 days prior to the hearing. All property owners within the plat are considered affected property onwers that would receive the notice by mail. 2. Are there any underlying property owners? If you are referring to the actual street no just the adjoining properties and the property owners within the plat. I suspect MnDot may have an interest via right of way so I recommend that MnDot be served with the notice of public hearing. 3. Would the entire Second Street need to be vacated or just a portion, such as 20 feet on the east side? 4. Could the vacation be contingent on the project? There is nothing that would prohibit this. It is within the City's discretion to approve a request to vacate so if the request to vacate is premised upon a development the City could make this a condition. The City could pass a motion to adopt a resolution to vacate effective upon this type of condition. I have not seen that very often but it could be done. Ultimately the resolution would be recorded with the County Recorder. 5. Could the closing of First Street take place when the project begins rather than when it is approved? Yes, it is a discretionary item for the City. The City could temporarily close the street during construction and when all conditions have been met officially vacate later. 6. If the vacation has been approved, what happens if the project does not take place? If that is a concern then I would not recommend that the City vacate the street immediately. I think the City has to decide if the concept of the road vacation is independent of the proposed development project. If it is independent then the City could vacate notwithstanding the development project. If the two are tied together then that is how the motion should be made and the ultimate resolution to vacate will be held or not effective until all conditions have been met. Re- establishing a vacated street after the fact means the City has to negotiate an easement or condemn which costs money because the City is taking property. In other words the City ends up paying fair market value for what it just vacated. If the City anticipates a future need for the street then the City should not vacate the street. Once the street is vacated the underlying fee title (ownership) vests or reverts to the abutting property owner and the property owner acquires property that has value. In order to re- establish the street the City would have pay fair market value to the property owner which would not be in the best interest of the City. Thank you.