Laserfiche WebLink
RCA Exhibit C <br />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 12t'' day of January 2015 at 6:00 <br />p.m. <br />The following Members were present: <br />and the following Members were absent: <br />Council Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. <br />A RESOLUTION APPROVING A TEMPORARY BOAT SALES, SERVICE, AND <br />OUTDOOR STORAGE FACILITY AS AN INTERIM USE AT 1705 COUNTY ROAD C <br />(PF09-025) <br />WHEREAS, Boaters Outlet has applied for renewed approval of the proposed temporary <br />boat sales, service, and outdoor storage facility as an interim use in conjunction with RECO Real <br />Estate, LLC, owner of the property at 1705 County Road C; and <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the <br />� proposed interim use on December 3, 2014, voting 4— 0(with one abstention) to recommend <br />�� approval of the use based on testimony offered at the public hearing as well as the information <br />� and analysis provided with the staff report prepared for said public hearing; and <br />� WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council has determined that renewed approval of the <br />�� proposed interim use will not result in adverse impacts to the surrounding properties based on <br />the following findings: <br />� a. The proposed use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary <br />for the public to take the property in the future because the service and storage of <br />_ boats is similar to the historical use of the subject property for storage and service <br />, of buses and semi-trailers, and the continuation of the interim use would not <br />significantly exacerbate negative impacts on the land which may have occurred at <br />any time during the past 40 years or more. <br />, b. Ten years of this same use has not proven to impose an excessive burden on <br />� streets, parks, or other facilities, and the renewed approval will not lead to any <br />, increases is such impacts. <br />_� c. Public comment received about the proposal suggests that the existing use has not <br />. had negative impacts on surrounding properties, so renewed approval of the use <br />will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise harm the <br />� public health, safety, and general welfare. <br />Page 1 of 4 <br />