Laserfiche WebLink
Farrelle Case No. 2500 Page - <br />especially on the north side lb- To the west of the right -ofe-way are <br />two lots (Farrell 4nd Dustin) and then Ramsey County open space to <br />the west beyond these two lots. Because of these conditionsr there <br />is little opportunity for development of 'very much land to be <br />served by Richmond Streets <br />w <br />Howeverg three of the lots in question (all except Dustin) might <br />be able to develop flag lots to take advantage of the deep back <br />yards, and the Farrells have indicated that :.hey are interested in <br />ur suing this at a later date. The vacation of Richmond would <br />facilitate this. <br />In 1977 the City wanted to keep options open by vacating the <br />r i g ht -o f -way for Dustin, but reserving an easements Today l, there <br />appears to be no need to reserve a roadway easement either <br />n eer n ` <br />Con derati ns <br />There are no utilities in the Richmond r i4ht -o f -way now' : and -no <br />Head for additional utilities in the area, but Public' Forks <br />suggests that a 30f utility easement 15F on either side of the <br />centerline, be reserved in case there is a need for future works <br />This easement would not encumber the development of the rear <br />portion of these lots, - Driveways could be built over the <br />easement, but not buildingso <br />3. CO CL SIO & COMM DA ON <br />wetlands and topography would pose obstacles to the <br />Vegetation _ � <br />construction of Richmond Street in this location. It is not a <br />necessary link in the City il s roadway system, and all four affected <br />owners have indicated their approval of the street <br />property condition <br />vacations We recommend approval of the request with the c n <br />that a utility easement be reserved, 301 in width, 151 on either <br />side of the current center 1 ine w <br />