pf_02832 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RIDER, DENNE'IT, EGAN & ARUNDEL, LLP Steve Sarkozy October 31, 1996 Page 2 with the 30 -foot easement requested by the City. However, after consultation with Roseville staff recently, Mr. Bell has informed me that I will need to communicate with you with respect to Roseville's request to obtain a 3D-foot easement along the southerly edge of the Weyandts' property. Let me begin by noting that approximately 2 feet 7 inches of the 3D-foot easement Roseville has requested already lies within the road and curb on Burke Avenue. You should further note that no record of any easement has been recorded as of the beginning of October, 1996 against the Weyandts' property covering this 2 feet 7 inches located within the road and curb. In other words, Burke Avenue presently runs over my clients' property and Roseville apparently has no easement with respect to this portion of my clients' property or at minimum has not recorded such easement. The Weyandts do not object to providing an easement covering the property currently located within the street or even a full fifteen feet, but not an easement of 30 feet for compensation of one dollar. After the division of platted lot was approved by the City Council, the request for an easement of 30 feet (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B) was delivered to the Weyandts. Prior to this time, Roseville staffhad never communicated with the Weyandts that any easement would be required as a condition of the division of platted lot. This is not surprising to me because after my review of the Roseville Planning Commission minutes of June 12, 1996, and the Roseville City Council minutes as of June 25, 1996, I note no such condition or request. Additionally, Michael Falks' letter of July 11, 1996 (a copy is attached as Exhibit C) also fails to mention any requirement that the Weyandts convey an easement to the City ofRoseville. I do not know whether this is standard procedure in Roseville or not. I find it incomprehensible based on this record that Roseville staff even suggests that by the mere fact that the survey mentions proposed road easements over the Weyandts' property that one should conclude that this is therefor a condition of the division of platted lot and an easement should be conveyed to Roseville for one dollar. It is clear that from a legal standpoint Roseville has not made an easement an express condition of this division of platted lot. Further the City's request to take 30 feet is beyond what is necessary given the fact this dead end road was just widened and improved in the last two years and an easement of 30 feet is not required as a necessity of the contemplated use of Burke Avenue. Finally, one dollar is not fair and equitable compensation which shall be paid in the case of a taking such as that proposed by this 30-foot easement. In conclusion, the Weyandts have expended monies in order to divide their property and desire to proceed expeditiously to sell the subdivided property. Because the deed conveying the lot on the southerly portion of the property to another party requires the approval ofRoseville before it can be conveyed, the City ofRoseville is unjustifiably denying the Weyandts ability to convey their lot as a result ofRoseville's request for this 3D-foot easement. Therefore, if an agreement cannot be