Laserfiche WebLink
EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE <br /> CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEVILLE <br /> Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City <br /> of Roseville, County of Ramsey, Minnesota, was held on the 12th day of January 2015 at 6:00 <br /> p.m. <br /> The following Members were present: McGehee, Willmus, Laliberte, and Roe; <br /> and the following Members were absent: Etten. <br /> Council Member Willmus introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br /> RESOLUTION NO. 11205 <br /> A RESOLUTION APPROVING A TEMPORARY BOAT SALES, SERVICE,AND <br /> OUTDOOR STORAGE FACILITY AS AN INTERIM USE AT 1705 COUNTY ROAD C <br /> (PF09-025) <br /> WHEREAS, Boaters Outlet has applied for renewed approval of the proposed temporary <br /> boat sales, service, and outdoor storage facility as an interim use in conjunction with RECO Real <br /> Estate, LLC, owner of the property at 1705 County Road C; and <br /> WHEREAS, the Roseville Planning Commission held the public hearing regarding the <br /> proposed interim use on December 3, 2014, voting 4—0 (with one abstention)to recommend <br /> approval of the use based on testimony offered at the public hearing as well as the information <br /> and analysis provided with the staff report prepared for said public hearing; and <br /> WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council has determined that renewed approval of the <br /> proposed interim use will not result in adverse impacts to the surrounding properties based on the <br /> following findings: <br /> a. The proposed use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary <br /> for the public to take the property in the future because the service and storage of <br /> boats is similar to the historical use of the subject property for storage and service <br /> of buses and semi-trailers, and the continuation of the interim use would not <br /> significantly exacerbate negative impacts on the land which may have occurred at <br /> any time during the past 40 years or more. <br /> b. Ten years of this same use has not proven to impose an excessive burden on <br /> streets,parks, or other facilities, and the renewed approval will not lead to any <br /> increases is such impacts. <br /> c. Public comment received about the proposal suggests that the existing use has not <br /> had negative impacts on surrounding properties, so renewed approval of the use <br /> will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise harm the <br /> public health, safety, and general welfare. <br /> Page 1 of 4 <br />