Laserfiche WebLink
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City <br />of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 26t�' day of October 2015 at 6:00 <br />p.m. <br />The following Members were present: McGehee, Willmus, Etten, Roe <br />and Laliberte was absent. <br />Council Member Willmus introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 11264 <br />A RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING THE DENIAL OF THE PROPOSED <br />PRELIMINARY PLAT OF OAK ACRES <br />(PF15-010) <br />WHEREAS, Arthur Mueller, applicant for approval of the proposed plat, owns the <br />residential property at 2201 Acorn Road, which is legally described as; <br />PIN: 08-29-23-44-0016 <br />That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 29, <br />Range 23, according to government survey, described as follows (all bearings in thas <br />description being based on the South line of said Southeast Qu�rter as an East and West <br />line): <br />Commencing at a point 33 feet North of the South line and 1221.63 feet West of the East <br />line of sRid Section 8; thence North 0 degrees OS minutes West 295 feet to the point of <br />beginning of the tract being described; thence East 290.64 feet; thence North 4 degrees 41 <br />minutes East 81.70 feet; thence North 14 degrees 23 minutes 30 seconds East 184.29 feet; <br />thence North 5 degrees 51 minutes 30 seconds West 14.61 feet; thence West 339.77 feet; <br />thence South 0 degrees 08 minutes East 265 feet to point of beginning, Ramsey County, <br />Mannesota. <br />AND WHEREAS, the applicant has sought approval of the Oak Acres preliminary plat, <br />herein referred to as the "project"; and <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council, at its regular meeting on September 28, 2015 <br />reviewed the project, the pertinent zoning and subdivision regulations, and the public record, <br />received additional comments from the applicant and members of the public in attendance, and <br />made the following findings of fact as grounds for disapproving the project and denying the <br />application by motion: <br />Page 1 of 3 <br />