Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />City of Roseville <br />April 25, 1984 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />however, it would receive no benefit from the toad insofar as <br />Mr. Mcrtesdorf already has a road on his propecty l~rall~ling the <br />proposed Rose Place. Additionally, rather til:l.l\ ben/.fitting from <br />the road, to control traffic within the Roseville Mobile Home <br />Park, Mr. Mertesdorf would be forced to fence his property line. <br /> <br />Mr. Mertesdorf has contacted other property owners which front <br />upon the proposed Rose Place. He informs me that they also <br />object to the construction of Rose Place and fear the proposed <br />assessment. <br /> <br />It appears that the road would be installed for the benefit of <br />the proposed apartment project in order for the project to maxi- <br />mize its land use rather than to U3e part of its property f~r an <br />internal driveway system. Accordingly, since the project is the <br />sole beneficiary of the proposed Rose Place, it would be natural <br />to assume that the cost of the road and utilities (if any) would <br />be assessed solely to the project as part of the special use per- <br />mit. The present occupant of the property does have direct <br />access to Lexington Avenue. Except for the developerls desire to <br />maximize the use of its property for apartment purpooes, there <br />would be no need for the construction of Rose Place. <br /> <br /> <br />I would appreciate it if a copy of this correspondence (enclosed) <br />would be furnished to the Planning Commission for its con- <br />sideration on May 2, 1984. <br /> <br />Thank you for your kind consideration of this matter. If you <br />have any ~estions, please do not hesitate to contact me. <br /> <br />~ / <br /> <br />&. l- <br />