Laserfiche WebLink
SJR-196343v1 <br />MU210-48 <br />2 <br />The Deputy Examiner of Titles has rejected the vacation on the premise that the City Council had <br />no ownership interest in the easement area and thus could not rightfully vacate the easement. <br />Technically speaking, the EDA—not the Council—should have vacated (or in this case, released) <br />the easement. <br /> <br />The attached Resolution 01-EDA-146 and Release document, if approved by the RDA, will satisfy <br />the examiner of titles and will allow for the completion of the associated title work. <br /> <br />Recommendation: <br /> <br />Approve Resolution 01-EDA-146, a resolution authorizing the approval of a Release of Easement <br />pertaining to a sign easement area no longer serving a public purpose. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />_____________________________________ <br />James Ericson <br />Community Development Director <br />763-171-4021 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />N:\DATA\GROUPS\COMDEV\Development Cases\Pd00-001 (Walgreens PUD)\Release Report - Apr 23, 2001.doc <br />