pf_03104 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council received and considered the Planning Commission's recommendation on Monday, March 22, 1999; and WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council moved to table until April 28, 1999 any action on the request at that meeting due to concerns regarding the current and proposed use of the site; and WHEREAS, the RoseviIle City Council subsequently at the March 22, 1999 meeting adopted an interim ordinance (moratorium) No. 1220 temporarily prohibiting development within the "S-C" Zoning District for Parcels Adjacent to Areas Zoned for Residential Uses; and WHEREAS, the RoseviUe City Council subsequently at its April 12, 1999 meeting adopted an interim ordinance (moratorium) No. 1221 extending and amending Ordinance No. 1220, Temporarily Prohibiting Development Within the "S-C" Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the proposed development of Bradley Limited Partnership is affected by the interim ordinance and may be affected by possible changes to official controls arising out of the study currently being undertaken by the City as directed by the City Council at its April 12, 1999 meeting; and WHEREAS, the proposed vacation of the drainage and utility easement, the conveyance of a replacement easement, and the proposed relocation or rerouting of utility lines may be unnecessary or wasteful given the potential for possible changes to official controls affecting the parcel; and WHEREAS, the utility lines currently located in the easement are not in immediate need of repair and any construction activity increases the potential for disruption of an essential public service and inconvenience to the public; and WHEREAS, the property owner is not precluded or limited in its ability to request vacation and relocation of the easement and utility lines in the future, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, hereby determines that the request to vacate and relocate certain utility and drainage easements and utility lines is premature, and otherwise is not in the public interest, given the interim ordinances adopted by the City Council and the pendency of the planning study referenced above, and that the request to vacate said easement is hereby denied. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Goedeke, and upon vote being taken thereon the following voted in favor thereof: Wiski, Maschka, Mastel, Goedeke and Wall and the following voted against the same: None WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 2