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 33 of 38 <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing questioned where the line would be drawn for support ser- <br />vices for a public service indicating a quasi-public use in residential areas. <br /> <br />Mr. Stark noted that, if the City Council voted to overturn the administrative <br />ruling, City Code would indicate the need for the use to meet design, parking <br />and signage standards for an office use as defined; including five on-site <br />parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable office space in a <br />striped and curbed parking lot; with application for variance before the Plan- <br />ning Commission required. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson opined that he interpreted this as office use; and <br />concurred with Mr. Stark, citing the need to look at the overall City Code. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust opined that the Case Law presented by Mr. Manderfeld <br />was not applicable to the appeal consideration. <br /> <br />Mr. Manderfeld opined his interpretation of the use of public funds for pub- <br />lic use; noted the lack of definition of "quasi-public" in City Code; further <br />opined that the low traffic impact and hours of operation were well within <br />the intent of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing asked the appellants if they had made contact with staff <br />prior to establishing their office in the single-family residentially zoned area <br />to verify and clarify their interpretation of City Code. <br /> <br />The appellants responded that they had not made personal contact with staff. <br /> <br />Mr. Manderfeld opined that the language of the law is what it is, and should <br />be able to be understood without specific definition when there is none. Mr. <br />Manderfeld further noted that the firm's for-profit status was irrelevant. <br /> <br />Mr. Stark opined that previous neighborhood testimony had addressed the <br />impact felt by the neighbors. <br /> <br />Mr. Harold Ristow, 2356 Top Hill Circle, spoke off camera, and presented a <br />petition to the City Council, with 21 signatures, attached hereto and made a <br />part thereof, in opposition to the current use of the residential property, seek- <br />ing that the ruling of staff and the City Attorney be upheld, in order to up- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.