Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Roseville Planning Commission Minutes <br />March 5, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Planning File 1646 <br />Wilfred Spear request for preliminary plat at 2140, 2150 <br />Cleveland and 2030 County Road B. <br /> <br />Presentation <br />Dahlgren discussed the location of the proposed lot split. He <br />explained that this is currently a meets and bounds lot, and is <br />contiguous to the property already owned by Spear. He also <br />discussed the required right-of-way dedications, which are 43 <br />feet on County Road B, and 49-1/2 feet on Cleveland. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren discussed the drainage problem in the area, and how <br />it was previously addressed. However, in the event of blockage, <br />free flow of water to the existing culvert is still required. <br />Thus, the City is proposing a 90 foot east/west drainage easement <br />to ensure proper storm water management. In addition, a 6 foot <br />easement for the proposed pathway on the north side of the <br />property will be required. <br /> <br />Don Schmidt, who is working with Mr. Spear, discussed the lot <br />sizes, and also asked for clarification for the 90 foot easement. <br />Honchell replied that the 90 foot easement was a negotiable item. <br /> <br />Mr. Spear stated that there was a 28 foot easement currently, and <br />that should meet the City's needs. Honchell again replied that <br />the 90 feet was not a requirement, and that a modification could <br />be worked out between the respective parties. <br /> <br />Spear again emphasized that he did not want to give up 90 feet if <br />he could avoid it. <br /> <br />Wiski asked Mr. Spear if he did have difficulty in making sure that <br />there was a secondary drainage outlet. Spear replied that he did <br />not have a problem with this; he just thought that 90 feet was <br />excessive. Wi ski replied the final plat will establish the <br />eventual size of the easement. <br /> <br />Schmidt suggested that ten feet on either side should be adequate <br />to meet the drainage concerns, and subsequently asked for <br />clarification of the turnaround requirements on major thorough- <br />fares. Wiski proceeded to explain the City policy. <br /> <br />Goedeke asked whether the substantial drop-off on County Road B <br />would present a problem. Schmidt replied that no modifications had <br />been planned at this point in time. <br /> <br />Dressler asked Spear if he did have any difficulty dedicating <br />this additional six foot easement for the pathway. Spear said he <br />had a concern that does askew his lot line or the alignment of <br />the homes. <br />