Laserfiche WebLink
<br />3. The applicant proposes to initially plat only the <br />easiest and least valuable lots, using existing frontage only, <br />and has not addressed the more valuable and complex northern and <br />northeastern portions of the site. <br /> <br />4. The applicant's prior applications for business zoning <br />indicate that the northern portion of the site will not be used <br />as a school in the future, as it has been in the past. <br /> <br />5. The applicant has requested a comprehensive plan change <br />from school to park and low density for only a portion of the <br />site, not the entire site. <br /> <br />6. The applicant has not submitted a plan for vehicular <br />circulation to, through and around the northern portion of the <br />site. <br /> <br />7. If the existing Burke Avenue were extended through the <br />site, Preliminary Plat Lot 2 would become a sub-minimum width <br />corner lot. <br /> <br />8. The proposed park dedication is not consistent with city <br />park plans, or the interests and wishes of the residents to the <br />southwest of the site. <br /> <br />9. The proposed plat creates a future planning problem for <br />the land immediately north of proposed Lots 2 through 9, <br />designated Lot 1 in the proposed plat. Due to its size, proposed <br />Lot 1 is unsuitable for residential use. Until a final <br />determination is made on the proposed use of that property, it is <br />impossible to properly plan the area covered by the proposed plat <br />of Gerald Kaufhold. <br /> <br />10. The proposed park dedication lacks sufficient <br />accessibility to the public at large and would be extremely <br />difficult to supervise and police. <br /> <br />11. The developer is unwilling to sell proposed Lots 2 <br />through 9 subject to deed restrictions that the northerly portion <br />of the site, proposed Lot 1, will remain in residential use. <br /> <br />12. There has been an insufficient showing by applicant of <br />any hardship or change of circumstances which justifies not <br />presently planning for the present or future development of the <br />entire parcel consistent with its current residential zoning. <br /> <br />NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by the City Council of the <br />City of Roseville that the application for a comprehensive plan <br />change and for a preliminary plat for the property owned by <br />Gerald Kaufhold at 1130 Country Road B is denied. <br /> <br />The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly <br /> <br />2 <br />