Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />February 27, 1991 <br />Kath Bros. fuel tanks within the right-of-way. Scalze <br />pointed out that the Planning Commission has <br />recommended approval of the vacation. <br />The City Administrator explained that due to incorrect <br />survey information, the Kath Bros. fuel tanks were <br />placed within the right-of-way for Woodlynn Avenue. <br />When the error was discovered, Mr. Kath approach the <br />City with the suggestion of the vacation. The City <br />Engineer and City Planner have reviewed the proposed <br />vacation and have determined that there would be no <br />detrimental effects to the City and no reason to retain <br />that particular section of road right-of-way. <br />However, the Administrator suggested that any vacation <br />be subject to Kath Bros. deeding the City an easement <br />for watermain along Rice Street that is currently <br />lacking. <br />The Administrator further reported that the Attorney <br />for Kath Bros. has determined that the City may not <br />have good title for the road right-of-way deeded to the <br />City in 1981 for Woodlynn Avenue. If this is the case, <br />Kath Bros. may be taking action to obtain this property <br />and any action should be subject to requiring Kath to <br />deed the necessary 20 foot strip of road right-of-way <br />to the City. Kath Bros.'s attorney is currently <br />working on this issue and has agreed to share <br />information with the City. <br />Scalze asked if there were any reason to retain a <br />portion of the road right-of-way being considered for <br />vacation. <br />The Administrator reported that it appears there is no <br />City requirement for setbacks to an underground fuel <br />tank. In checking EPA requirements for underground <br />storage tanks, there is no reference to setbacks. <br />Scalze stated that it seemed to her that the <br />right-of-way for Woodlynn Avenue is only 40 feet and <br />that the City has previously discussed attempting to <br />acquire additional right-of-way because there are <br />properties to the east that could still be developed. <br />Scalze also questioned the potential title problems <br />with the existing right-of-way. <br />Page 2 <br />