03-25-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2-1-2015 City of Lttle Canada 515 Little Canada Road Little Canada, Minnesota 55117 Mr. Mayor and City Council Members, This letter is in follow-up to a petition that was submitted to the Mr. Hanson, City Administrator, for a Rose Lane street vacation. He has reviewed and indicated that the street vacation could not be considered by petition (ref 1). In subsequent discussions with Mr. Hanson, he indicated that I may address a letter directly to the Little Canada City Council to request the street vacation process to be initiated by City Council. Therefore I am requesting the Council's consideration of the Rose Lane street vacation petition previously submitted, review of the enclosed documentation and for the Council to initiate the street vacation process. Arguments for a Rose Lane street vacation and establishment of a private easement are: I. Rose Lane is not feasible to improve as a street this location. This has been communicated in a City Engineer's Report and reiterated during a 2012 City Council meeting: "The City Engineer's report dated October 1'r, 1976 indicating that the improvement of Rose Lane in this location is not economically feasible." (Att 3) 2. Access and use to this section of Rose lane has been communicated to me as private. a) Access — the following is the City's communication to me regarding this section of Rose Lane as private. "Mr. Anderson does have the right to use this area for his driveway. Mr. Anderson is responsible for maintaining the driveway. it is my understanding based on conversations with both of you that he has told you that you could use his driveway with his prior approval before each instance of usage. That seems like before usage begins. From what 1 understand, you or your representatives (**Att 1) have chosen to ignore his request. You document this in attachment 6 (ref 3). Therefore, Mr. Anderson it within his rights to ask you to discontinue usage just like anyone would have the right to not allow others to utilize a private driveway." (ref 2) b) Use — Rose lane has had continued private storage benefits for Mr. Anderson; recent examples being trailer storage and vehicle/truck parking. (Att 2). I have initiated discussions with Mr. Anderson on multiple occasions in hopes to find common ground that would lead to equitable access or use of Rose Lane. These efforts have failed. He has specifically indicated that the Rose Lane right of way is his driveway (Att 3), his use is private, and my use would be trespassing. In good faith, I have submitted the petition for the Rose Lane vacation and I believe it aligns with communications from Mr. Anderson & the City that I) Rose Lane is for private use and 2) this section of Rose Lane is not feasible to improve as a street. I am requesting that the City Council give full consideration for the need to maintain public street right-of-way over this section of Rose Lane. If the Council is agreeable to considering a vacation of a portion of Rose Lane, I ask that the Council initiate a street vacation for vote during a regular upcoming City Council meeting. Regards, Sam Roberto Attachments: 1. 308 Savage Lane, Some Construction Background 2. 298 Rose Lane, Little Canada MN 55117, right-of-way storage 3. City of Little Canada Council Meeting 3-29.12, Regular Meeting Minutes page 4 References: 1. Letter from Mr. Hanson to Mr Roberto 1-7-15, Review of Rose Vacation Petition 2. Email correspondence from Mr. Hanson to Mr. Roberto, 8-23-1 3. Letter from Mr. Roberto to Little Canada Code Enforcement, 8-5-11 3