Laserfiche WebLink
Roseville City Council <br />DRAFT Minutes of 1{����'�� Pg 24 of 38 <br />I Mr. LeTendre opined that this area had contributed to increased density with <br />� other redevelopments in the near vicinity. Mr. LeTendre questioned the <br />� City's legal position if they were to deny this application due to the proposed <br />� cul-de-sac and long term maintenance costs; and sought clarification that be- <br />� cause the application was submitted prior to the moratorium being in place, <br />� it was excluded. <br />7 <br />t3 City Attorney Anderson advised that the moratorium didn't govern, as it <br />�� wasn't effective until January 30,2007, the date of publication. Mr. Ander- <br />F� son further addressed cul-de-sacs and his interpretation of City Code. <br />31 <br />7 2 Mr. Stark addressed the development of a Preliminary Plat and denials based <br />1� on City Council considerations related to health, safety, general welfare and <br />] 4 convenience of the City. Mr. Stark further addressed the public notification <br />1� for the Public Hearing at the Planning Commission level with mailed and <br />1� published notice; with additional City Council testimony taken, as per cur- <br />1� rent policy, at City Council discretion, but not publicly noticed. Mr. Stark <br />1� further noted that staff didn't take an advocacy position; but looked to the <br />1� technical merits to provide recommendation to the City Council allowing <br />`� [� them to make their policy decisions. <br />�.1 <br />��� Darrell LeBarron, 2101 ''�V County Road B <br />�� Mr. LeBarronpersonally endorsed the project, and noted that — along with a <br />�� number of other neighbors of Mr. �ue�ler — had chosen not to sign, if ap- <br />�:� proached, as they were supportive of Mr. Mueller's proposed development <br />�� plan. Mr. LeBarron provided a brief history of the original development in <br />2� the area by Mr. Mueller's father in the 1940's and noted that some neighbors <br />�� currently in oppositionto the projectwere currently living on those subdi- <br />�� vided properties. Mr. LeBarron disputed allegations that 98% of the neig- <br />�� hbors were against the project. <br />�l <br />�� Previous neighborhood support had been provided, and confirmed by staff, <br />�� of property owners at 2101 W County Road B; 2121 "�1�' County Road B; <br />�� 2192 Acorn Road; 2220 Acorn Road; and 2237 Cleveland Avenue. <br />�5 <br />3� Vivian Romalingam, 2182 Acorn Road <br />:�� Ms. Romalingam questioned the legality of the City Council considering this <br />3� application one day before the moratorium went into effect. <br />3� <br />