Laserfiche WebLink
<br />REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />DATE: 7-27-92 <br /> <br />ITEM NO.: ~-1 <br /> <br />Department Approval: <br /> <br />Manager Reviewed: <br /> <br />Agenda Section: <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Hearings <br /> <br />City of Roseville request for vacation of <br />drainage easement at 2228 and 2234 Rosewood <br />Lane North. <br /> <br />Backqround: <br /> <br />1. When the Rosewood Addition was platted, the easement was <br />acquired by the City for storm drainage. The City has <br />subsequently installed storm sewer to serve the area <br />eliminating the need for an easement. The easement, <br />however, remains in force. <br /> <br />2. The lot in question was split into two lots. A house exists <br />on the easterly lot and a new owner is proposing to construct <br />a house on the westerly lot. <br /> <br />3. Based on past discussion with similar easement situations, it <br />has been determined that the City will become the applicant <br />in these types of situations and vacate the easements at no <br />cost to the landowner. <br /> <br />4. The Roseville Planning Commission unanimously recommended <br />approval of the City of Roseville request for vacation of a <br />drainage easement at 2228 and 2234 Rosewood Lane North. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />1. Deny the easement vacation based on the finding that the <br />vacation would be detrimental to the general health, public <br />safety, and welfare. <br /> <br />2. Approve the vacation based on the finding that the easement <br />is not necessary to protect the general health, public <br />safety, and welfare. <br /> <br />Policy Objectives: <br /> <br />1. To vacate easements that are no longer necessary. <br /> <br />2. To facilitate the development of single family homes in the <br />communi t~· . <br />