Laserfiche WebLink
�une 4, 1975 <br />PLA�NING REPORT <br />CASE NUMB�R: $96 - 75 <br />ApPLICANT: <br />LO CAT I OiV : <br />Zirrsnerman Real i ty <br />1954 ilniversity Aver�ue <br />St. Paul , i�t� <br />Pascal at Commerce Street <br />(see sketch) <br />RCTION REQUESTED: Vacation of Street <br />pLAN�JING GOPdSIDERATI�NS: <br />1. The property in question is the east half (33 feet) of Pascal <br />Street as ori gi rtal3y dedi cated f rotn Commerce Street to the <br />south right-o-F-way of Trunk 36. 7h�s right-of-v��ay was originally <br />dedicated pr�or to the upgrading o� Trunk Fiig3�way 35 �o a Limit�d <br />Access Nighway before which i� Vras anticipated Pascal would be <br />coristructed ai l the way to and ti � i nto the o7 d j-Ii ghw�y 3b r7 ght- <br />af-ti�ray. The access rights �o Highway 3fi were of course, purchased. <br />at �he time of the opgrad�ng of �i�ghway 36 in th� early Fif�ies. <br />7he construction bf Pascal on this riyht-of-way in questivr� wou7d <br />appear to serve na purpose under the curren� conditions_ <br />2. You wi17 note on the sketch, the existence of 33 foot sewer <br />easement immedi a�te�y west of the ri ghi-of-Lray i n questi on. There <br />is �n fact a 6Q inch starm sey�er tha� ga�s down Pascal and under <br />Niahway 3b to Zimmermar� Pond to the nor�h. This 60 inch p�pe is <br />located 25 feet beiow grade, and the center line is 10 feet t�est <br />o�' the center 7�ne of Pascal Street. Due to this extreme depth <br />of �he s�orm seti�rer, the Pub�ic �larks Qirector advisas us that it <br />would be imporiant to re�ain a se�r�r easement over the 33 -�oot in <br />ques�ion. ihis would mean tha-t if the street right-of-v�ray in <br />question is vacated, the -�i�1e to �he land would revert to the <br />contiguous proper-Gy, but no buiiding could be constructed on the <br />33 �oot wide s-�r��. This strip cou�d however, be utiliz�d for <br />par�Cing and o�her purposes exciuding bu�idings subject tfl the <br />r��;mal set-baGk requirements of the B-T zone which app�ies tn this <br />property <br />3. Given the retention of the easement suggested, there would app�ar <br />to be na adverse affect to the Ci�y to the vacation o� the proper�y <br />in q�aestion_ <br />