My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2021_0222_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2021
>
2021_0222_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2022 2:14:46 PM
Creation date
1/13/2022 2:06:14 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.
/
778
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
the trail connection. He indicated he would make sure the conditions are worded 343 <br />correctly before going to the City Council. 344 <br /> 345 <br />Ayes: 6 346 <br />Nays: 0 347 <br />Motion carried. 348 <br /> 349 <br />Member Gitzen moved, seconded by Member Pribyl, to recommend to the City 350 <br />Council approval of the requested zoning variance to allow the homes on 351 <br />proposed Lots 2 – 20 of the Enclave at McCarrons Lake plat to be built with a 352 <br />zero setback on one side property line, based on the content of this RPCA, public 353 <br />input, and Planning Commission deliberation with conditions a and b as well as 354 <br />access easements. 355 <br /> 356 <br />Ayes: 6 357 <br />Nays: 0 358 <br />Motion carried. 359 <br /> 360 <br />Member McGehee indicated it was her understanding when it comes to lakes that the 361 <br />City has the ability to be more restrictive than the existing State conditions, but do not 362 <br />have the ability to be less restrictive. She thought in making these conditions that the 363 <br />City should reserve the right to make it more restrictive if that seems to protect the 364 <br />safety and welfare of the people around the lake and the neighborhood. 365 <br /> 366 <br />Mr. Lloyd explained all of that may be true but his earlier comment to the 367 <br />Commission was if there are additional conditions or concerns about the access there 368 <br />that the Commission focus those concerns or conditions on what might be built and 369 <br />where it might be built on the land itself. The City of Roseville does not have 370 <br />regulations that pertain to use of the lake, being a public water body. He did not 371 <br />know if it was appropriate to establish conditions that affect the use of the lake. 372 <br />Certainly, the effects of the upland improvements on the water quality, the amount of 373 <br />use the lake might see, based on the shared access seems entirely reasonable. He 374 <br />encouraged the Commission to keeps its focus on the upland area and the impacts of 375 <br />what happens there. 376 <br /> 377 <br />Member McGehee agreed but would like to urge the people that spoke, if there are 378 <br />concerns, there is a McCarrons Lake Association that should have more information 379 <br />about what they are thinking about the lake. She did not think the Commission had 380 <br />enough information to make additional conditions, but she would like the individuals 381 <br />to present that at the City Council meeting if there were concerns. 382 <br /> 383 <br />Member Pribyl moved, seconded by Member McGehee, to recommend approval 384 <br />of the proposed controlled access as a Conditional Use, based on the content of 385 <br />this RPCA, public input, and Planning Commission deliberation. 386 <br /> 387 <br />Ayes: 6 388 <br />Nays: 0 389 <br />Motion carried. 390 <br /> 391 <br />RCA Attachment D <br />Page 8 of 51
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.