Laserfiche WebLink
4.0B <br />ACKGROUND <br />14 <br />4.1The 1925 Twin View plat of this area dedicated 40 feet of right-of-way for Mount Ridge <br />15 <br />Road. Then, in 1959, the owner of the property at that time conveyed (via quit claim <br />16 <br />deed) another 10 feet of land on either side of the Mount Ridge Road right-of-way “for <br />17 <br />public road and highway purposes.” The quit claim deed is recorded as Ramsey County <br />18 <br />Document No. 1511814. <br />19 <br />4.2Over time, the City determined that there was no public purpose in constructing a public <br />20 <br />road in that location or in retaining the unused right-of-way. On July 13, 2009 the City <br />21 <br />Council adopted Resolution 10733 vacating the Mount Ridge Road right-of-way; during <br />22 <br />that same time, Roseville also conveyed to Roseville Acquisitions, LLC (via quit claim <br />23 <br />deed) the two 10-foot strips of land flanking the right-of-way and purchased the land to <br />24 <br />be used for Twin Lakes Parkway in this area. <br />25 <br />4.3Because the City fee title ownership of the 10-foot strips, but did not acquire them as <br />26 <br />dedicated right-of-way, the 10-foot strips were not vacated with the right-of-way <br />27 <br />conveyed by the dedication on the Twin View plat. We’ve come to learn, however, that <br />28 <br />Ramsey County is insisting that the 10-foot strips must also be vacated because the <br />29 <br />original quit claim deed specified that the land was intended “for public road and <br />30 <br />highway purposes.” The application has been submitted for the vacation of most of these <br />31 <br />10-foot strips and, with a 6-0 vote, the Planning Commission supported the application <br />32 <br />pursuant to the duly-noticed public hearing held on July 11, 2012. The remainder of 10- <br />33 <br />nd <br />foot strips lie within a portion of the Twin Lakes 2 Addition plat which is owned by <br />34 <br />City of Roseville, so the application for of this remaining easement area was <br />VACATION <br />35 <br />held back until the conclusion of the plat process. <br />36 <br />nd <br />4.4On July 23, 2012 the City Council approved the final Twin Lakes 2 Addition plat and <br />37 <br />the associated development agreement. The plat included a 4,643-square-foot area <br />38 <br />(known as the “disposal area”) projecting south from the Mount Ridge Road/Twin Lakes <br />39 <br />Parkway roundabout which is currently owned by Roseville, and the development <br />40 <br />agreement included provisions for the sale of this disposal area. The disposal area <br />41 <br />comprises some of the 10-foot strip on the east side of the former Mount Ridge Road <br />42 <br />right-of-way, which is part of the easement created by Doc. No. 1511814, and some of <br />43 <br />the land acquired for the construction of Twin Lakes Parkway. Among the conditions of <br />44 <br />approval of the plat and development agreement was the stipulation that “the Petition for <br />45 <br />the vacation proceedings for that part of the public roadway and highway easement <br />46 <br />created by Document No. 1511814 lying adjacent to and 10 feet on the east and west side <br />47 <br />of vacated Mount Ridge Road within the Plat shall have been approved by the City.” <br />48 <br />4.5State statutes governing the vacation of easements and rights-of-way stipulate that a <br />49 <br />majority of fee owners of property adjacent to the land which is to be vacated must sign <br />50 <br />the application (or the “petition,” in the parlance of State statutes) initiating the <br />51 <br /> request. In the present case, Roseville Acquisitions, LLC owns some of the <br />VACATION <br />52 <br />land, and Roseville owns the rest of the land in the form of Twin Lakes Parkway; <br />53 <br />pursuant to City Council action on August 13, 2012, Roseville joined the application in <br />54 <br />order to achieve the required majority of fee owners of the adjacent property, thereby <br />55 <br />initiating this portion of the vacation process and, upon the successful conclusion of the <br />56 <br />process, allowing the related condition of plat approval to be satisfied. On September 5, <br />57 <br />2012, the Planning Commission held the duly-noticed public hearing for this application <br />58 <br />and voted (6-0) to recommend that the request be approved. <br />VACATION <br />59 <br />PF12-001_RCA_092412 <br />Page 2 of 4 <br /> <br />