Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CD <br /> <br />REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />~,(¡.2 <br /> <br /> <br />DATE: 11/13/00 <br />ITEM NO: C-l <br /> <br />Manager 1). proved: Agenda Section: <br />!~ CONSENT <br /> <br />A request by James Westby to reaffirm approval of a roadway easement <br />vacation and a minor subdivision for 480 Lovell A venue. (PF2642) <br /> <br />1.0 REQUESTED ACTION <br /> <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 /> <br />2.0 BACKGROUND <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />3.0 STAFF FINDINGS <br /> <br />3.1 It is not uncommon for requests to expire and seek reaffirmation from the City Council. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />ReafThnation PF 2642.doc Page 1 of 2 <br />