2021_0222_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 1 of 2 EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF 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 1 Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 22nd day of February 2021 at 6:00 p.m. 2 The following Council Members were present: _________; 3 and _____ were absent. 4 Council Member _____ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 5 RESOLUTION NO. ___ 6 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED CONTROLLED ACCESS IN ‘THE 7 ENCLAVE AT MCCARRONS LAKE’ PLAT AS A CONDITIONAL USE (PF20-029) 8 WHEREAS, Airborne McCarrons, LLC, has submitted a valid application for approval of a 9 controlled access as a conditional use on behalf of the property owner, Matthias Schlosser; and 10 WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as 11 Outlot B, The Enclave at McCarrons Lake, Ramsey County, Minnesota 12 WHEREAS City Code §1009.02.C establishes general standards and criteria that pertain to all 13 conditional uses; and 14 WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission held the duly noticed public hearing for the 15 request on February 3, 2021, and having closed said public hearing, voted unanimously to recommend 16 approval of the proposed controlled access based on the public record and the Planning Commission’s 17 deliberation; and 18 WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council has made the following findings regarding the general 19 standards and criteria established in §1009.02.C: 20 1. The proposed use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan 21 does not speak directly to the proposed use or the subject property, but the use of residentially zoned 22 lakeshore land for residential lake access is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 23 2. The proposed use is not in conflict with any Regulating Maps or other adopted plans. The site is 24 within the geographic scope of the Rice – Larpenteur Vision Plan, which acknowledged “unique 25 lakefront living” and access to Lake McCarrons. The proposed controlled access does not appear to 26 be in conflict with that plan. 27 3. The proposed use is not in conflict with any City Code requirements. No specific plans have yet been 28 presented, but any improvements to the controlled access site will need to conform to all applicable 29 City Code requirements or receive variances to specific zoning provisions as may be necessary. It 30 should be noted City jurisdiction stops at the Ordinary High Water Level, with the MnDNR 31 regulating lake structures, such as docks. 32 4. The proposed use will not create an excessive burden on parks, streets, and other public facilities. 33 The proposed shared lake access should not create any discernable burden on parks, streets, or other 34 public facilities that is distinct from the impact of the accompanying residential development itself. 35 RCA Attachment F Page 7 of 8