Correspondence 1989-1990 Jopke - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�� , I .i' ��r �.>.. � � � �� To: Craig Waldron, Community Development Dire,,c,tor From: Douglas Strong, Engin�ering Supervisor Re: AMERICAN STREET Date� January 12, ].ggp I have reviewed the documen�s sent to our office by Michael Daugherty regarding easemen�s ac�oss Lot 1, Block 2, Rosedale Center First Edition. The follow�.ng is a list of the findi,n s of those documents: g 1. Do�ument W-75-16 #� as indicated in gr�en on �he attached �ap, is a utility easem�nt in favor of the City of Roseville. This easement should be retain�d insofaM as the city presently has a 12" watermain line within this easement. �. Document 8�-7-1, as indica�ed in r�d on the attach�eci ma , is gor a 30' public road easem�nt in favor of the Ci�:y o� � Roseville. This easement could be released/vacat�d if desired. 3. Document 84-7-2, pathway easement as indicated in orange on the attached map in favor of th� City of Roseville. This pat�hway easemen� could be released/vaca�ed as desired. 4. Document 63a405, moc�ification to ea�ement as indicated in blue on the attached map in favor of First Federal Savin s and Loan Associati.on. This dacument do�s not aFfect theg City of Roseville and, therefore, needs no action. 5. Document 612508, roadway easement in favar of First Federal Savings and Loan as indicated in blue on the attached ma This easement does not affect the City of Rosevill� and,p� therefore, no action is needed. It would appear that Mr. Daugherty has inadvertently left off one or two easements affecting this property when comparing the �documents with the Ramsey County section map. Th� section map indicates an east/west road easement and a north/south utility easement which no documents were supplied for review. It is my opinion that the county would not inclicate roadway easements on the section map if documents had not been recorded to indicate such easements.