My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011_0509_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2011
>
2011_0509_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/9/2012 4:26:05 PM
Creation date
1/9/2012 4:03:13 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
218
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment H <br />EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE <br />1 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of <br />2 Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 9th day of May 2011 at 6:00 p.m. <br />3 The following Members were present: Willmus; McGehee; Pust; Johnson; and Roe; <br />4 and none were absent. <br />5 Council Member Roe introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />6 RESOLUTION NO. <br />7 A RESOLUTION APPROVING OUTDOOR STORAGE AS A CONDITIONAL USE <br />$ AT 2400 TERMINAL ROAD (PF11 -010) <br />9 WHEREAS, AirGas North Central, applicant for approval of the proposed conditional use, on <br />10 the property at 2400 Terminal Road, which is legally described as: <br />11 <br />Lot 1, Block 1, Highcrest Second Addition <br />12 WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the <br />13 proposed CONDITIONAL USE on April 6, 2011, voting 7 -0 to recommend approval of the use based on <br />14 the comments and findings of the staff report prepared for said public hearing; and <br />15 WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council has determined that approval of the proposed <br />16 CONDITIONAL USE will not result in adverse impacts to the surrounding properties based on the <br />17 following findings: <br />18 a. The proposed use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Division <br />19 believes that the proposed outdoor storage of cylinders is not in conflict with the <br />20 Comprehensive Plan, but that it advances land use Policy 11.2 through the CU process <br />21 established in the zoning ordinance which controls and /or restricts the use of open storage <br />22 areas in the industrial district. <br />23 b. The proposed use is not in conflict with a Regulating Map or other adopted plan. The <br />24 proposed outdoor storage CU is not in conflict with such plans because none apply to the <br />25 area surrounding the property. <br />26 C. The proposed use is not in conflict with any City Code requirements. The Planning Division <br />27 has determined that the use of the site as a gas processing and distribution facility is a <br />28 permitted use and that the outdoor cylinder storage can be addressed under the CU process <br />29 as well as meet all applicable City Code requirements; moreover, a conditional use <br />30 approval can be rescinded if the approved storage use fails to comply with all applicable <br />31 Code requirements or conditions of the approval. <br />32 d. The proposed use will not create an excessive burden on parks, streets, and other public <br />33 facilities. Planning Division staff does not expect such a use to have any noticeable impact <br />34 on any parks or public infrastructure. <br />35 e. The proposed use will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood, will not negatively <br />36 impact traffic or property values, and will not otherwise harm the public health, safety, and <br />Pagel of 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.