Laserfiche WebLink
<br />..J" .........'. '-'L.'U' - "". '-' <br />"...... ." . 1 J..' J..>\-'V.' 1 1'....'1 lJl..,.i\.\.,I..'I..,. . _ <br />--,. -. '......'-~.......' ......~." ........,........;....... _.u u_ _ <br />I ' <br /> <br />I Brian Fritsinger <br />pebruary 13, 1995 <br />Paqe 2 <br />. <br /> <br />· legal description that was used in the Quit Claim Deed <br />from the County. Therefore, the park area was included <br />in the vacation just as it was included in the Quit Claim <br />I Deed. <br /> <br />4, On March 10, 1980, the City Council conducted a hearing <br />. to consider the vacation of a right-of-way easement over <br />the area which Was eventually platted as the Kenna <br />Addition. This would ipdicate to me that the previous <br />resolution was never recorded and for some reason was <br />I modified. This Particular action appears to indicate <br />that the City did not vacate the public right-of-way <br />easement which it had over the park area. <br /> <br />. The actual resolution whiCh accomplished the vacation was <br />not signed or approved until June 30, 1980. I have not <br />seen a signed copy of the Resolution and I do not know if <br />lit was recorded. <br /> <br />5. The City approved the final plat of the Kenna Addition on <br />July 14, 1980, and tlle plat was recorded on September 29, <br />I 1980. <br /> <br />Based upon this review, it appears to me that the City either <br />vacated the easement over the park area on September 24, 1979, in <br />.e which event the City has no interest in the property; or it vacated <br />the right-of-way eaeement over the property which became plat'ted as <br />the :Kenna Addition by resolution dated June 30, 1980, and continues <br />. to retain an interest in the parkland as a publicly dedicated <br />right-of-way. I have not seen anything which would indicate the <br />City is the fee owner of this particular area of land and could <br />convey it for development. If the City vacates its remaining <br />. interest in the p~operty, the underlying title owners, ~homever <br />they might be, would be allowed to make full use of the p~operty <br />according to the City's regulations. <br /> <br />. To pursue this matter further would, in all likelihOOd, <br />require the preparation of an Abstract of Title or a Registered <br />Property Certificate if the property is registered. This could <br />I cost between ~300 and $500. Please review and contact me. <br /> <br />Very truly yours, <br /> <br />I ' <br /> <br />. J1'F:bap <br /> <br /> <br />I <br />.- <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br />