2004_0726_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.0 BACKGROi1ND: 4.1 In mid to late1950's this area of Roseville (south of Roselawn Avenue and along either side of Huron Avenue) was platted as Roselawn Acres, which subdivisionplat dedicated the public right-of-way necessary for Huron Avenue. The dedication included a 30 foot by 30 foot turn-about area on both the west and east side of the southern terminus of the right-of-way. 4.2 Since that date, there have been a number of subsequent subdivisions that have provided the public right-of-way necessary to fully constructHuron Avenue from Roselawn Avenue to Ruggels Street, without the need for a turn-about. However, the turn-about areas have remained in tact as dedicate right-of-ways. 4.3 Recently, Mr. Yin met with the City Planner to review his desires to construct an attached two car garage and sunroom on to his existing home at 1866 Huron Avenue. This discussion lead to the discovery of the odd remnant right-of-way. 5.0 STAFF FINDINGS: 5.1 The proposal to vacate the eastern 30 foot by 30 foot dedicated public right-of-way has been reviewed by the Public Works Department and determinedto be unnecessary. Specifically,Huron Avenue, at this location, has been constructed within a 60 foot wide (east to west) right-of-way. It is adequate to supportthe necessary public infrastructure. 52 In review of the lots along the east of Huron Avenue, Mr. Lin's lot and the lot at 1867 Huron Avenue are the only lots along Huron Avenue that include this unne� � right- of-way. It should alsobe noted that 1866 and 1867Dellwood Avenue have a similar situation. 6.0 STAFF COMMENT & RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Based on the determination of the Public Works Department that the previously dedicated 30 foot by 30 foot road right-of-way is no longer necessary for public infrastructure, the City Planner recommends approval of the STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION request by Yayun Lin. 7.0 SUGGESTED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: 7.1 On July 7, 2004, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the Lin street right-of-way vacation request. At the hearing, no citizens addressed the Commission. CommissionerTraynor did ask the City Planner whether there were standardsunder which to review right-of-way and easement requests. The City Planner indicated that there is no standard, but that the vacation of such public land is usually tied to a determinationby the Public Works Department that the land is no longer necessary for public use/needs, F'F�5$ L�k�'f��177�b0� d[� Page 2 of 3