Laserfiche WebLink
April 2, 1975 <br />PLANNlNG REPOR7 <br />CA5E NUMB�R: gg�..7� <br />APPLI CAN T: Robert G. Rieschl <br />2393 Rice Street <br />LOCATION: North of Grancfview Avenue, <br />One Lot West of Rice Si-reet <br />(See Sketch} <br />ACiION REQUESTED: Vacation of an Aliey <br />PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: <br />1. You will note in the larger scale drawing at the 6ottom of the s�Cetch at the <br />left that the alley in question is at the rear of lots fronting on Rice Street <br />and �ontiguous i'o property owned by the applicant immediate�y to the west <br />(Lots 8, 9 and 10 of 81ock 1). The alIey is 20 feet in width and wa5 platted <br />as part of i-h� original pfai� many years ago prior to the Township having <br />becorne a Village. <br />2. You wil! note thdfi the extension of the aEley to the norfh t'o County Road $2, <br />as well as the alley extending westerly from fihe alley in questionr has already <br />been vacai-ed back in 1958. As you all know, alleys are no longer used in <br />current subdivisions, and are in fact not a{lowed in the �Iatting of new <br />development under the Roseville Subdivision Regulations. <br />3. We would suggesfi that un�ess the alley serves some important public purpose <br />relating �o exisfiing use, there would appear to be no reason why t�e alley <br />shouid not be vacated. You wif! note thafi al[ of tF�e other alleys ir� this <br />original subd'svision in Biocks 1 and 2 have previously been vaca�ed. <br />4. We are aware that tl�e ap�iicanfi is the owner of the four lofs fronting on <br />Rice Street (east of the alley in auestion) and fhe thre� lots already mentioned <br />fo the west. The obvious bene�it to the applicant is to unifie these iots into <br />a single parcel, presumably for some deveiopmenf- purpose. tt woulc! appear <br />that no public purpose is served by rnaintain�ng the alley in Rvestion. <br />