Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Roseville City Council <br />Minutes of 1/29/07 Pg 31 of 38 <br />Pust moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10478 entitled, "A <br />Resolution Eliminating the Planned Unit Development Designation for the <br />Property at 2435 - 2459 Rice Street (PF 07-004)." <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan questioned if this was the property several months ago <br />requesting a Conditional Use Pennit (CUP) for an automobile dealership; <br />and what ramifications for the City's control ofthe property. <br /> <br />Mr. Stark advised that only new vehicle sales would be allowed; and discus- <br />sion ensued regarding past action. <br /> <br />Applicants, BHJN (ACR Homes) <br />No longer seeking car licensing and rental approval; that it was very difficult <br />to obtain from the State for the metropolitan area; and they were simply fol- <br />lowing the zoning and things allowed under that zoning. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson provided comment on the property's designation <br />and current zoning applicable. <br /> <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Roe; Kough; Pust; Ihlan and Klausing. <br />Nays: None <br /> <br />16. Appeal Administration Zoning Decision for 436 Lovell Street <br />Community Development Director John Stark revised the appeal of an ad- <br />ministrative ruling of the Community Development Director regarding the <br />interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance as applicable to 436 Lovell Avenue. <br />Mr. Stark briefly summarized the Staff Report dated January 29,2007 re- <br />garding numerous complaints received by staff between October 1 De- <br />cember 1,2006 regarding use of the single-family home as an office. Most <br />complaints were related to on-street parking, with as many as 12 cars ob- <br />served parked within close vicinity to the property and presumed to be asso- <br />ciated with office use. <br /> <br />Mr. Stark advised that staff, after conferring with City Attorney Jay Squires <br />who was in agreement with staff's interpretation, had informed the property <br />owner on December 1,2006 that the property was not a permitted use as an <br />office use in an R-I Single-Family Zoning District, except as permitted as a <br />home occupation or as a "low impact public or quasi-public use." Mr. Stark <br />