Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page# 6 <br /> <br />Wednesday, October 4, 1989 <br /> <br />5. Filing of easements providing common access to the four <br />contiguous effected properties for vehicular purposes. <br /> <br />6. That funds be placed in escrow for a 5 foot sidewalk as <br />required. <br /> <br />7. That the site be developed in accordance with the plans <br />submitted to the Planning Commission on October 4, 1989. <br /> <br />Stokes stated that he can't see that Mr. Reinhardt should be <br />obligated to dedicate the right-of-way on the north parcel at <br />this time. <br /> <br />wietecki agreed with Stokes that requiring dedication on the <br />north parcel would constitute a taking and that it would be <br />unfair to try to correct a 1979 mistake now. <br /> <br />DeBenedet suggested that when the matter goes to the Council, <br />staff should report on what actually occurred in 1979. <br />DeBenedet stated his concern about being consistent and pointed <br />out that there were a number of cases where land has been <br />dedicated in the past. DeBenedet stated that this would not be <br />of taking but would be a reasonable requirement to the <br />application at hand which would be consistent with what other <br />communities are doing. <br /> <br />Johnson testified that the discussion in no way minimizes the <br />fact that Reinhardt's properties are well maintained but is a <br />question of carrying out policy on County right-of-way <br />dedication. Johnson testified that Dale will be updated in the <br />future and that Roseville shouldn't have to pay for additional <br />right-of-way. <br /> <br />Stokes said that the city is being consistent with the policy <br />because they would be requiring 10 feet of right-of-way <br />dedication on the property in question. Stokes stated that the <br />City would be on safe ground if it deals only with the parcel in <br />question and suggested that the city Attorney be consulted to <br />determine if it would be a taking on the other lot. <br /> <br />Johnson suggested that the Planning commission should make a <br />recommendation, staff should investigate additional facts for the <br />Council so that they can make the final decision. <br /> <br />Goedeke asked if <br />County Road B-2. <br />needed on B-2. <br /> <br />additional right-of-way would be needed on <br />Keel stated that no additional right-of-way is <br />