Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of <br />Roseville, Minnesota (the "City"), Ramsey County, Minnesota, that minor subdivision to create two <br />residential lots, both meeting the applicable R-l, Single Family Residential District requirements, <br />for property located at 500 Roselawn Avenue be approved, subject to the following conditions: <br /> <br />A. The proposed minor subdivision should provide afive-foot wide utility and drainage <br />easement adjacent each property of both Parcel A and B. <br /> <br />B. A detailed grading plan with the building slab or first floor elevation and drainage <br />depicting directional flow must be submitted to the City Engineer for review and <br />approval prior to building permit issuance for Parcel B. <br /> <br />C. The City policy is to accept parkland or cash in lieu of land dedication for the creation of <br />new lots. In this case, cash will be accepted in lieu of parkland dedication. The <br />dedication fee is $500.00 for the newly created Parcel B. The fee will be collected prior <br />to issuance of a building permit on said Parcel B. <br /> <br />D. Deferred assessments of$I,532.50 (street) and $829.56 (storm sewer) must be paid to <br />the City prior to the quit claim being signed by the City. <br /> <br />E. <br /> <br />The City policy is to accept a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) upon the issuance of a <br />building permit. In this case, a SA C fee is required and will be collected upon the <br />issuance of a building permit for Parcel B. <br /> <br />F. <br /> <br />The City Engineer must review and approve the driveway access along McCarrons <br />Boulevard South prior to the issuance of building permits. The attached survey indicates <br />a generalized access area. <br /> <br />G. The applicant must record the two lot minor subdivision within 60 days after the <br />approval of the City Council. <br /> <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council <br />Member Mastel, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: Goedeke, <br />Maschka, Wiski, Mastel and Kysylyczyn <br />and the following voted against the same: None <br /> <br />WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. <br /> <br />2 <br />