My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CCP 01312022
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2022
>
CCP 01312022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/27/2022 2:06:22 PM
Creation date
1/27/2022 2:05:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
1/31/2022
Meeting Type
Regular
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.
/
346
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
RCA Attachment D <br />Mr. Paschke suggested the Commission make another motion if there is one to be <br />made to support. <br /> <br />Member Pribyl moved, seconded by Member Kruzel, to recommend to the City <br />Council approval of the proposed Victoria Shores Preliminary Plat, based on the <br />content of this RCA, public input, and Planning Commission deliberation, with <br />the conditions listed in the RCA. (PF17-020). <br />Ayes: 5 <br />Nays: 2 (McGehee, Schaffhausen) <br />Motion carried. <br />Member McGehee explained she could make a motion to deny the Conditional Use, <br />but she did not know on what basis because staff seems to think that all the boxes <br />have been checked and she did not think it has anything to do with the health, safety, <br />and welfare of either the lake or the residents or the people using the lake or the <br />ability of the people on the lake and property owners to use the property. She <br />indicated as she read this application she was surprised to move it forward. It is a <br />problem and she thought it was evident. She did not think that staffsÓ findings are <br />accurate when they determined, that there is no implication here for health, safety, <br />and welfare. She wondered if the Commission could put a limit on how many boats <br />and how long the docks can be. <br /> <br />Member Bjorum thought the issue was that the dock is considered to be on the public <br />land because it is in the water so the City does not have the control to dictate the dock <br />or number of docks or long the docks can be. That is all to a different regulatory <br />body and the City does not have control over that. <br /> <br />Member McGehee asked if the Commission had any control and can the Commission <br />deny a Conditional Use permit. <br /> <br />Mr. Lloyd explained yes a Conditional Use can be denied if there is a public health, <br />safety, welfare issue. He noted there is ten different criteria and four extra <br />requirements that are discussed in the staff report providing for the framework of the <br />review. The question of the shared access is not strictly speaking the dock and how <br />many people might share it, the question would be, is there a public health, safety, <br />welfare argument to be made against the residential use of the lakeshore land that is <br />proposed to be shared. If it were a single homeowner with that land there would be <br />zoning requirements pertaining what could be built on the land and where and how <br />close to the shoreline, etc. Those same requirements apply to this if it is shared <br />among them. The City absolutely has a role in regulating how that land is used but <br />not how the public water adjacent to the land is used. <br /> <br />Member McGehee asked if the City could regulate that there would be no boathouse <br />and also that nothing could be stored on that land during the winter. <br /> <br />Mr. Lloyd agreed, not because he thought it is an untenable position or something, <br />but the qualification is the Commission can make those requirements or those <br />Page 17 of 65 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.