pf_01922 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

JAN 25 '90 13:59 T F.3 To: Craig Waldron, Community Development Direr -tor From: Douglas Strong, Engineering Supervisor Re: AMERICAN STREET Date: January 12, 1990 I have reviewed the documents sent to our office by Michael Daugherty regarding easements across Lot 11 Block 2, Rosedale Center First Edition. The following is a list of the findings of those documents: 1. Document W-75-16 #3, as indicated in green on the attached map, is a utility easement in favor of the City of Roseville. This easement should be retained insofar as the city presently has a 12" watermain line within this easement. 2. Document 84-7-1, as indicated in red on the attached map, is for a 30' public road easement in favor of the City of Roseville. This easement could be released/vacated if desired. 2. Document 84-7-21 pathway easement as indicated in oranges on the attached map in favor of the City of Roseville. This pathway easement could be released/vacated as desired. 4. Document 630405, modification to easement as indicated in blue on the attached reap in favor of First Federal Savings and Loan Association. This document dou : riot affect the City of Roseville arid, therefore, needs no action. 5. Document 612508, roadway easement in favor of First Federal Savings and Doan as indicated in blue on the atta�:hvd map. This easenent does not affect the City of: Roseville and, thvroforu, no action is needed. it would appear that Mr. Daugherty hd:; inadvertently left off orie or two oasementr; Afferctir:q this property when comparing the dcc,unant:; with tilts ttai-asay County section map. The scction .map indicates do east/woi;t rudd uar.oment and a north/south utility easement which no documents were supplied for review. it is my opinion that the county would not indicate roadway easu:ac,nts on the section r«ap if doc:umunt3 had not bevrr recorded to indicate ,such easements.