Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION <br /> DATE: 11/13/00 <br /> ITEM NO: c-1 <br /> P D en A val.- Manages?� proved: Agenda Section: <br /> / CONSENT <br /> es ription: A request by James Westby to reaffirm approval of a roadway easement <br /> vacation and a minor subdivision for 480 Lovell Avenue. (PF2642) <br /> 1.0 REQUESTED ACTION <br /> 1.1 James Westby has requested the City Council reaffirm approval of action taken in 1994 <br /> that vacated a roadway easement and approved a two lot minor subdivision. <br /> 2.0 BACKGROUND <br /> 2.1 On May 23, 1994 the Roseville City Council approved the vacation of an unnecessary <br /> roadway easement. However, the Council retained the former roadway easement area as <br /> a utility and drainage easement. At the same meeting the City Council also approved the <br /> division of a platted lot and former road easement into two lots. <br /> 2.2 Resolutions for the roadway easement vacation exist from the 1994 approval. However, <br /> these documents were never recorded with Ramsey County. Thus the roadway easement <br /> vacation expired six months after the Council's approval. <br /> 2.3 Similarly, the lot division was never recorded actually creating the two lots from the <br /> single lot and vacated roadway easement and this action also expire six months after the <br /> Council's approval. <br /> 3.0 STAFF FINDINGS <br /> 3.1 It is not uncommon for requests to expire and seek reaffirmation from the City Council. <br /> 3.2 In the case of the request(PF2642) by Mr. Westby,it appears neither the vacation or <br /> minor subdivision was ever followed through by either the applicant or the City. <br /> 3.3 The Engineering Department has reviewed the previous action by the City Council and <br /> has indicated they support the reaffirmation request. <br /> 3.4 The Community Development staff has reviewed the previous lot division and discussed <br /> the action with Mr. Westby to determine whether the former action is consistent with his <br /> current intentions. The Community Development staff has concluded that the lot division <br /> meets all applicable City Codes and is consistent with Mr. Westby's current proposal. <br /> Reaffhnation PF 2642.doc Page 1 of 2 <br />