CCP 01312022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Attachment F EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE 1 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of 2 Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 31st day of January 2022 at 6:00 p.m. 3 The following Council Members were present: _________; 4 and _____ were absent. 5 Council Member _____ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 6 RESOLUTION NO. ___ 7 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED CONTROLLED ACCESS IN THE 8 ÒVICTORIA SHORESÓ PLAT AS A CONDITIONAL USE (PF21-001) 9 WHEREAS, BuilderÓs Lot Group, LLC, has submitted a valid application for approval of a 10 controlled access as a conditional use on behalf of the property owner, the estate of George John 11 Reiling; and 12 WHEREAS, the subject property is legally described as 13 Outlot A, Victoria Shores, Ramsey County, Minnesota 14 WHEREAS City Code §1009.02.C establishes general standards and criteria that pertain to all 15 conditional uses; and 16 WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission held the duly noticed public hearing for the 17 request on April 7, 2021, and having closed said public hearing, voted 5-2 to recommend approval of the 18 proposed controlled access based on the public record and the Planning CommissionÓs deliberation; and 19 WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council has made the following findings regarding the general 20 standards and criteria established in §1009.02.C: 21 1. The proposed use is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan 22 does not speak directly to the proposed use or the subject property, but several shared accesses 23 already exist on Lake Owasso and the use of residentially zoned lakeshore land for residential lake 24 access is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 25 2. The proposed use is not in conflict with any Regulating Maps or other adopted plans. The site is not 26 subject to any such regulating maps or other adopted plans. 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 accesses should not create any discernable burden on parks, streets, or 34 other public facilities that is distinct from the impact of the accompanying residential development 35 itself because the boardwalks and pier-style docks are designed to impose minimal impact to the 36 wetland and lake. Page 1 of 2 Page 3 of 4