2012_0924_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.6Although the deed for the land area acquired for use in conjunction with Twin Lakes 60 Parkway appears to give Roseville fee title ownership with no specification that the land 61 was intended for public roadway purposes, Roseville Acquisitions is requesting that the 62 City the entire disposal area at this time to be explicit about releasing any VACATE 63 roadway interests so as to avoid future complication caused by any impliedroadway 64 interests. 65 4.7The Comprehensive Plan shows the disposal area designated with the Right Of Way 66 (ROW) land use category, but neither the 10-foot strip nor the land acquired for Twin 67 Lakes Parkway were dedicated as right-of-way; the ROW label is, therefore, more 68 accurately understood as an indication of the public nature of the land area rather than a 69 technically correct Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation. For this reason, the entire 70 disposal area has always maintained the same Comprehensive Plan and zoning 71 designations as its parent parcel, Lot 2, Block C of the 1925 Twin View plat, and so the 72 subject property presently has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Community Mixed 73 Use (CMU) and a corresponding zoning classification of Community Mixed Use (CMU) 74 District. 75 4.8Although Planning Division staff generally attempts to adhere to a 60-day action timeline 76 for applications like this, such a timeline is a statutory requirement for zoning VACATION 77 requests, which this is not; this is noted merely to explain the “n/a” (i.e., not applicable) 78 notation in the Application Review Details section above. 79 5.0VA ACATIONNALYSIS 80 5.1Public Works Department staff has reviewed the proposed of the 10-foot strips VACATION 81 of easement created by Ramsey County Document No. 1511814 and the entirety of the 82 disposal area as illustrated in Attachment C. In light of the fact that the City intended to 83 divest itself of its interest in the 10-foot strips adjacent to the former Mount Ridge Road 84 right-of-way through the execution of the 2009 quit claim deed for the land and that there 85 is no need for a public road within the remainder of the disposal area, Public Works staff 86 has concluded that the vacation of all explicit or implied roadway interests in the 87 identified areas would not compromise the transportation interests of the public. 88 5.2Since the Planning Commission is responsible for holding the public hearings for 89 applications like the requested , Planning Division staff is preparing the report VACATION 90 and supporting materials for review. But planning staff doesn’t have an interest, per se, in 91 such proposals and merely conveys the comments and recommendation of the Public 92 Works Department in addition to coordinating the review of the proposal by the Planning 93 Commission and City Council. 94 6.0PC UBLICOMMENT 95 Draft minutes of the public hearings held by the Planning Commission on July 11 and 96 September 5, 2012, respectively pertaining to the of the bulk of the 10-foot VACATION 97 strips and the of the entirety of the disposal area are included with this report VACATION 98 as Attachment D. As of the time this report was prepared, Planning Division staff had 99 received one phone call with clarifying questions from a representative of the owners of 100 nearby property, but no comments have been offered. 101 7.0R ECOMMENDATION 102 Based on the comments and findings outlined in Sections 4 – 6 of this report, the 103 PF12-001_RCA_092412 Page 3 of 4