Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />� <br />4 <br />a <br />�t <br />7 <br />� <br />� <br />1� <br />1� <br />Roseville City Council <br />DRAFT Minutes of 1���� ��' Pg 2 5 of 38 <br />Discussion ensued, with City Attorney Anderson clarifying, implications of <br />the moratorium, and requirements under State Statute 462.358 dealing with <br />subdivisions for municipalities; and requirements for a municipality to make <br />a decision within 120 days, with tonight being the last meeting before that <br />time had expired, thus the last opportunity for action. <br />The applicant, Mr. Mueller was present. <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned Mr. Mueller as to whether he had acquired <br />a drainage easement, to which Mr. Mueller responded, "no." <br />1�? Councilmember Kough expressed to Mr. Mueller his personal concerns re- <br />�� garding the proposed development, and whether he would reduce the density <br />1� and character of the neighborhood. <br />1 �} <br />1 �a <br />Tf <br />�� <br />1� <br />�� <br />�l <br />�� <br />�� <br />�4 <br />�5 <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />� �� <br />:� o <br />�l <br />Mr. Mueller advised that with three lots, they would be long, narrow lots <br />rather than the proposed �/a acre lots; with long driveways; and more trees <br />lost. Mr. Mueller opined that the homes he's proposing would improve the <br />neighborhood economically and aesthetically. <br />Mayor K�ausi��g closed public comment. <br />Ihlan moved, Kough seconded, denial of the Preliminary Plat as proposed. <br />Discussion ensued, and City Attorney Anderson recommending, the need for <br />findings of fact to support denial of the proposal. <br />Councilmember Ihlan prefaced her findings by opining that this proposed <br />development was one of the motivating factors for the moratorium study; <br />and should be taken into consideration. <br />�� Councilmember Ihlan presented the following findings of fact, based on City <br />�� Code, Section 1102.03 adopted in 1956, related to health, safety and general <br />�� welfare considerations; opining that many unanswered questions needed <br />�� resolution as well: <br />�6 1) Insufficiency of the cul-de-sacdesign, which was proposed as private at <br />�7 first, and following Council concerns, was now proposed as a public cul- <br />3� de-sac against the previous clear message of the City Council's lack of <br />3� support (i.e., dimensions, traffic and turns onto street; creation of public <br />