Laserfiche WebLink
WHEREAS, the Appeal was referred to the Roseville Board of Adjustments and Appeals <br /> and was considered at a public meeting held on January 10, 2011; and <br /> WHEREAS, at its January 10th meeting, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals referred <br /> the Appeal to the Roseville Planning Commission for its review and report pursuant to <br /> Minnesota Statutes § 462.354, Subd. 2; and <br /> WHEREAS, the Planning Commission met on February 2, 2011 to review the Appeal <br /> and voted 5 to 0 to confirm the decision of the Community Development Director to deny the <br /> Petition; and <br /> WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals at a public meeting held on February <br /> 14, 2011 received and considered the report of the Planning Commission, documents and <br /> testimony from City staff and evidence from parties appearing at the hearing; <br /> NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ROSEVILLE BOARD OF <br /> ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS: <br /> FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS <br /> 1. A Petition was received from Rita Mix and other property owners surrounding 3253 and <br /> 3261 Old Highway 8 requesting that the Roseville City Council amend the Roseville <br /> Comprehensive Plan to recommend "Medium Density Development" with future zoning <br /> to be of density no greater than R-6 for 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8. <br /> 2. The Petition is a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. <br /> 3. The property owners submitting the Petition were owners of property adjacent to and <br /> surrounding 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8. <br /> 4. The owners of the property located at 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8 did not join in the <br /> Petition and have not petitioned for or requested a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. <br /> 5. Roseville City Code Section 201.07 does not allow adjacent property owners to initiate a <br /> Comprehensive Plan amendment. <br /> 6. The Petitioners do not have standing and are not authorized to seek a Comprehensive <br /> Plan Amendment of the property located at 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8. <br /> The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member <br /> Johnson and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor: <br /> Willmus; Pust; McGehee; Johnson; and Roe <br /> and none voted against. <br /> 2 <br />