Laserfiche WebLink
WHEREAS, said request will create two parcels that meet all applicable requirements <br />(width, depth, size, and setback requirements) of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance; and <br />WHEREAS, Parcel B will contain the existing home, which parcel meets all applicable <br />codes; and <br />NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City <br />of Roseville, Minnesota (the "City"), Ramsey County, Minnesota, that minor subdivision to create <br />two residential parcels, all meeting the applicable R-1, Single Family Residential District <br />requirements, for property located at 425 North McCarron's Boulevard be approved, subject to <br />the following conditions: <br />A. The proposed minor subdivision should include a five foot wide utility and drainage <br />easement adj acent to all side and rear property lines, including the interior property line <br />between Parcel A and Parcel B. <br />B. Detailed grading plans with building slab or first floor elevation and drainage direction <br />must be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to building permit <br />issuance on Parcel A. <br />C. The City policy is to accept cash in lieu of land dedication for the creation of new lots. <br />The dedication fee is $500.00 for the newly created Parcel A. The fee shall be collected <br />prior to issuance of a building permit on said parcel. <br />D. The City policy is to accept a Sewer Availability Charge (SAC) upon the issuance on <br />building permits for all newly created lots. In this case, new sewer and water service is <br />required for Parcel A, the location of which shall be approved by the City Engineer. The <br />SAC fee is required and will be collected on Parcel A at the time the building permit is <br />issued. , <br />E. The City Engineer and must review and approve the driveway curb cuts along Cohansey <br />Boulevard prior to the issuance of building permits. <br />F. The City policy is to accept additional street right-of-way to meet city roadway plans. In <br />this case, no additional right-of-way is required in this area. <br />The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council <br />M e m b e r and upon vote being taken thereon, the-following voted in favor: <br />And the following voted against the same: <br />WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />