My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_02198
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF2000 - PF2999
>
2100
>
pf_02198
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 11:43:49 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 10:44:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
2198
Planning Files - Type
Vacation Easement
Address
2221 FERRIS LN
Applicant
MUELLER, ART
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />PLANNING REPORT <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />13 February 1991 <br /> <br />CASE NUMBER: <br /> <br />2198 <br /> <br />APPLICANT: <br /> <br />Arthur G. Mueller <br /> <br />LOCATION: <br /> <br />2221 and 2223 Ferris <br />Lane (see sketch) <br /> <br />ACTION REQUESTED: <br /> <br />Vacation <br />Easement <br /> <br />of <br /> <br />Drainage <br /> <br />PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: <br /> <br />1 . BACKGROUND <br /> <br />This is a request for the vacation of a portion of a <br />platted drainage easement within the Ferriswood <br />Condominium development. The corners of one of the <br />buildings are built on the easement, thus requiring the <br />vacation. The Engineering Department has reviewed this <br />request and finds that the vacation of this portion of the <br />easement will have no adverse effect on the overall <br />drainage easement serving this area. <br /> <br />The Commission may wish to know that the City Attorney has <br />concluded that this application does not require the <br />notification of property owners within 250 feet of the <br />subject property. Minnesota Statute requires that notice <br />of the hearing be sent to each property owner affected by <br />the proposed vacation at least ten (10) days before the <br />hearing. Generally, owners of property "affected" by a <br />proposed vacation are those immediately adjacent to the <br />area to be vacated. <br /> <br />In this case, since the individual condominium buildings <br />are not immediately adjacent to the vacation area, it is <br />not necessary to notify them. If the common area were <br />adjacent to the vacation area, then it would be <br />appropriate to notify all of the owners with a common <br />interest in this common area. However, since the area to <br />be vacated does not abut the common area, the City <br />Attorney has concluded that all of the owners do not need <br />to be notified. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.