HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments PLANNER 6/17/2009
/'
JONES Terry (Tara)
From:
Sent:
, To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
JONES Terry (Tara)
Friday, May 15, 2009 9:29 AM
ERNST Dennis; VOGENEY Ken; DONOVAN James.
MILLER Liz; KELLY Deyette; LITTLE De; JONES Terry (Tara)
RE:Vacation on S. 58th '
EiderCarediagram. pdf
Dear Dennis, thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I'm glad I checked with you before they made a vacation
application. Your information brings up even more questions that I hope you, Ken and Jim can give me direction on
because I need to advise the applicant how to proceed.
The situation is that Elder Health and Living own several buildings in the vicinity, including on.either side of the area
proposed for vacation (see attached diagram). They inquired about vacating this portion of the ROW about two years
ago. We recommended a Development Issues Meeting to discuss the feasibility of the vacation. They have now hired
Weber Elliott Engineers to proceed with a vacation application. This is why I checked with Dennis on how the vacated
area would be allocated. According to Dennis's research (see attached below), the ROW would not revert to the
abutting property owners because of how it was dedicated. I need to advise the applicants. Here are my questions and
concerns:
. Won't we have to go through the ROW vacation process to be able to then sell the property?
. If Roger Van and/or some of the other owners who dedicated are alive, won't they get the property rather than
the City?
. Who decides this?
. What is the best way to initiate decision and discussion on the disposition of this ROW?
. Is it fair to ask the abutting property owner to pay for a DIM ($521) if it is likely they won't be able to get the
property?
Your help and guidance is much appreciated.
r~
X1003
From: ERNST Dennis
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 8:41 AM
To: JONES Terry (Tara) . .
Subject: Vacation on S. 58th
Good Morning Tara!
I'm sure glad you ask me to check this one out. As it turns out, a vacation won't work for this right of way. This was
dedicated by deed and there were three separate owners with three deeds for the same land. Most I'm guessing may
not be living anymore. If vacated the land would revert to them and notthe adjoiner.
50 where to g6 fro'm h!!re.ltalk to Ken briefly about this yesterday and ask if the City has any real interest in it or might
consider selling it as "surplus right of way". He said he couldn't think of any reason we would need it but to make sure
1 Date i'{6ceived:~f-)/;It;lr79
. Planner: AL .
/
/
/
,-that we retain easements for any utilities that might be in there. The City could put It up for sale (and usually this is for
Oil RMV) and see if they get any offers. They would then select the best offer that came in. They can't directly negotiate a
- price with only one person but it may be very unlikely that anyone else would make an offer.
That might be a suggestion of one way to get there. I do know that there is a storm drain line in that right of way and I
_ couldn't catch up with Denny Wright and try to find out if it was abandoned with the road or it still is working and has a
'function. I also do not know if other utilities have facilities in there as well. I'm guessing that if we did sell it we would
retain easements over any utilities that are still in it at this time. Also note that the deed also-created a 10 foot PUE
along the sidelines.
I'll bring over the documents and information you gave me so you can have it for your file. Please come see me if you
have any questions about this;
Dennis
Date Received:_6~ ;I~'1-
Planner: AL I
\' /
2