My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0129
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0129
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:44:44 AM
Creation date
2/27/2007 3:51:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/29/2007
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
138
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Roseville City Council <br />Minutes of 1/29/07 Pg 32 of 38 <br />noted that the applicant was asserting that they should be treated as such, as <br />defined by City Code, Section 1002.02. <br /> <br />Mr. Stark requested Council denial of the appeal of the Community Devel- <br />opment Director's Administrative Ruling. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing welcomed Mark Manderfeld, Attorney for the appellant and <br />the property owner; Patricia Denny, Executive Director of Partnerships for <br />Minnesota Futures, Inc. (the lessee/renter of the property); and Jody <br />McClennan, The appellants, Ms. Denny and Ms. McClennan, each pro- <br />vided extensive verbal testimony, with visuals, regarding their credentials, <br />the history of their firm, the company's mission, the nature of the business <br />being conducted on-site, and their research and interpretation of City Code <br />as obtained from the City's website, prior to current lease and use of the <br />property. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing acknowledged that the firm's service to disabled individuals <br />was a laudable mission, but the item of dispute appeared to be the broad <br />definition in City Code of "quasi-public" related to the purpose and use of <br />the property, and the Administrative Ruling that the use was inconsistent <br />with the spirit and intent of City Code as it related to permitted land uses in <br />the R-l Zoning District. <br /> <br />Mr. Manderfeld interpreted that the for-profit firm's provision of govern- <br />ment funded services and functions for public purpose and benefit and still <br />complied with City Code; and provided several examples of case law. pro- <br />vided, based on condemnation law (See Attached). <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust respectfully disagreed, from her perspective as an at- <br />torney; and sought to focus on information regarding land use, not condem- <br />nation proceedings. Councilmember Pust acknowledged the administrative <br />functions performed at the site, but questioned whether the work done was <br />for a public purpose, and sited land use legislation and applicable statutes. <br /> <br />Mr. Manderfeld responded and asserted that, while no direct resident care <br />was provided at the site, the use of the property was not adverse to the <br />neighborhood; and that the firm would qualifY as a low impact public or <br />quasi-public use as identified by code. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.