Laserfiche WebLink
<br />® <br /> <br />REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br /> <br />DATE: 11/13/00 <br />ITEM NO: <br />pproval: Manager Approved: Agenda Section: <br />CONSENT <br />Item Description: A request by James Westby to reaffirm approval of a roadway easement <br />vacation and a minor subdivision for 480 Lovell Avenue, (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 :&om 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 form 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 appHcant 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 detennine whether the fonner action is consistent with his <br />current intentions. The Community Development staffhas concluded that the lot division <br />meets all applicable City Codes and is consistent with Mr. Westby's CUffent proposal. <br /> <br />Reaffinnation PF 2642 Page I of2 <br />