05.02 - Road Vacation Petition-Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

SANDELIN Page 2 October 1, 2009 with respect to Second Street is a valid Petition as it contains the necessary signatures required under the road vacation statute. With respect to First Street, at the time the Petition was presented to the City it was not known who the owner of the lots abutting the east side of First Street were (Lots 1 -4) therefore the Petition as it related to First Street, without further evidence of ownership of Lots 1 -4, could not be acted upon by the City. Subsequently NFK provided to the City title work that indicated in 1987 MnDot conveyed to the City unused or excess Highway 371 right -of -way through a Quit Claim Deed. The area conveyed or "turned back" to the City includes Lots 1 -4 (as well as Lots 5 and 6). A title search also reflects that there has not been any subsequent conveyances since the Quit Claim Deed was recorded therefore the City holds the title to those lots based upon the terms and conditions of the 1987 MnDot Quit Claim Deed. I am enclosing for your information a copy of the survey provided by NFK in connection with the Petition. As you can see on the survey, there are four lots adjacent to and east of First Street (Lots 1 -4). It is my understanding that there may be a request to include in the Petition, a request to vacate an additional section of Second Street and First Street to the southerly boundary of the Super America property. In order to do this, the Petition will either need to be amended to include the owners of the Super America property or a separate Petition would need to be brought by Super America, or the City would need to initiate that process. In either case the standard to vacate is the same and a public hearing and notice would be required. Subsequent to filing the Petition with the City, and as required by the road vacation statute, the Notice of Public Hearing was mailed by the City to affected property owners as well as published in the newspaper. Therefore all notice and public hearing requirements have been met. If the City determines to vacate part of First Street and/or part of Second Street, as requested in the Petition, the standard that must be met is that the "proposed vacation is in the best interest of the public, which means that the public must benefit in some manner from the vacation ". Once a street is vacated the underlying fee title reverts to the property owners abutting each side of the street. This means that each abutting property owner acquires fee title to the centerline of the vacated street. The City does not have the authority to direct or order that ownership of the vacated street be handled in a different manner. Applying the law to the Petition would result in the section of Second Street reverting to Northern Food King (as only part of the street is requested to be vacated) and the westerly eight feet of First Street reverting to Northern Food King (one -half) and the easterly eight feet (one -half] to the City. The City should keep in mind that once a street is vacated that is a permanent loss of the public easement /right of way and in order to reestablish the easement /right of way the City would need to compensate the affected property owners either through condemnation or a voluntary