Res_11456 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

EXTRACT OF THE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Roseville, Ramsey County, State of Minnesota, was held on the 9t' day of October, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. The following City Council Members were present: Laliberte, McGehee, Willmus, Etten and Roe And the following were absent: none. City Council Member Willmus introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 11456 A RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING THE DENIAL OF A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CENTRE POINTE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 1177 TO PERMIT COLLEGE OR POST-SECONDARY SCHOOL, OFFICE BASED, AS A PERMITTED USE AT 2955 CENTRE POINTE DRIVE (PF17-014) WHEREAS, the City of Roseville has received a valid application for approval of a Concept Planned Unit Development to amend the Centre Pointe Planned Unit Development; and WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council at its regular meeting on September 25, 2017, reviewed the application along with the record of the public proceedings, including City staff report and public consideration, by and between the City Council, and denied the application based on the following factual findings: 1. The requested PUD amendment does not conform to the City's economic development goals for the relevant geographic area because the expected job creation is not of a sufficient quantity desired by the City. 2. The requested PUD amendment does not conform with the intent of the existing PUD regarding permitted uses of the relevant geographic area. 3. The requested PUD amendment is not consistent with the intent of the underlying zoning requirements for permitted uses within the relevant geographic area. AND WHEREAS, said findings of fact underpinning the denial were reported to the property owner and applicant in a letter dated October 2, 2017. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roseville, Minnesota, that the application discussed herein was denied September 25, 2017. The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member McGehee and upon a vote taken thereon, the following voted in favor: McGehee, Willmus, and Etten voted against: Laliberte and Roe WHEREUPON said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.