CC_Minutes_2007_0129 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville City Council Minutes of 1/29/07 Pg 32 of 38 noted that the applicant was asserting that they should be treated as such, as defined by City Code, Section 1002.02. Mr. Stark requested Council denial of the appeal of the Community Devel- opment Director's Administrative Ruling. Mayor Klausing welcomed Mark Manderfeld, Attorney for the appellant and the property owner; Patricia Denny, Executive Director of Partnerships for Minnesota Futures, Inc. (the lessee/renter of the property); and Jody McClennan, The appellants, Ms. Denny and Ms. McClennan, each pro- vided extensive verbal testimony, with visuals, regarding their credentials, the history of their firm, the company's mission, the nature of the business being conducted on-site, and their research and interpretation of City Code as obtained from the City's website, prior to current lease and use of the property. Mayor Klausing acknowledged that the firm's service to disabled individuals was a laudable mission, but the item of dispute appeared to be the broad definition in City Code of "quasi-public" related to the purpose and use of the property, and the Administrative Ruling that the use was inconsistent with the spirit and intent of City Code as it related to permitted land uses in the R-l Zoning District. Mr. Manderfeld interpreted that the for-profit firm's provision of govern- ment funded services and functions for public purpose and benefit and still complied with City Code; and provided several examples of case law. pro- vided, based on condemnation law (See Attached). Councilmember Pust respectfully disagreed, from her perspective as an at- torney; and sought to focus on information regarding land use, not condem- nation proceedings. Councilmember Pust acknowledged the administrative functions performed at the site, but questioned whether the work done was for a public purpose, and sited land use legislation and applicable statutes. Mr. Manderfeld responded and asserted that, while no direct resident care was provided at the site, the use of the property was not adverse to the neighborhood; and that the firm would qualifY as a low impact public or quasi-public use as identified by code.