Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 27, 1993 <br />BE PROVIDED IN THE CITY OF LITTLE CANADA SUBJECT TO <br />SUBMISSION OF A LETTER OF INTENT WAICH OUTLINES THE <br />BENEFITS WHICH WOULD BE RECEIVED BY THE CITIZENS OF THE <br />CITY OF LITTLE CANADA <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Pedersen. <br />Ayes (5) LaValle, Pedersen, Hanson, Morelan, Scalze. <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />The Administrator indicated that staff would include <br />information in the City's newsletter on a periodic <br />basis on the services provided by the Roseville Area <br />Senior Program. <br />RECESS At this point in the meeting, 9:02 P.M., Council took a <br /> short recess. The meeting was reconvened at 9:12 P.M. <br />SCUIS~EY Council reviewed the City Administrator's letter dated <br />ROAD October 21st regarding the Sculley road easement <br />EASEFIENT issue. The Administrator reports in that letter that <br />ISSUE the firm of Carley-Torgerson Surveying did the original <br /> surveying of the Sculley property when it was divided <br /> in 1980, and there is no evidence of a road easement <br /> description being prepared at that time. Therefore, <br /> there is no indication that the City was at fault in <br /> failing to record the road easement. <br /> Mr. Sculley submitted a report prepared by the City <br /> Planner in 1980 on the easement issue. That report <br /> indicated that the easement was to angle along the <br /> backs of the lots being divided. <br />Scalze pointed out that that was the recommendation of <br />the City Planner at the time, however, the Council only <br />required the easement run toward the north property <br />line. <br />Sculley asked if the easement did not exist today since <br />it was never recorded, and if the property then was <br />still under the ownership of his mother. <br />The City Administrator replied that this was correct. <br />Sculley asked if his mother still owns the property if <br />the City has the right to claim a road easement at this <br />time. <br />The Administrator replied that the action in requiring <br />the road easement is based on the fact that this was a <br />condition of the subdivision in 1980 that was not acted <br />upon and was not discovered until this subsequent <br />application was made. <br />Page 15 <br />