pf10-017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 2.4 Section 1015.04C of the City Code specifies that the only "evidence" that is to be provided to the City Council for the purpose of deciding on an appeal is the appeal itself and that information which contributed to the ruling which is the subject of the appeal. This ordinance does, however, give the City Council the discretion to seek additional information or clarification. The intent of this provision, is that the City Council receive and review only the information reviewed by staff, the nature of staf�s analysis culminating in the decision being appealed, and the appeal. To allow the unrestricted inclusion of additional information is to invite the parties on one or both sides of the appealed issue to introduce new topics which broaden and dilute the original ruling. City staff is aware that representatives of North Como Presbyterian Church, the appellant, and perhaps other members of the public are interested in providing more information and clarification of the issues beyond what has been provided to the City Council for review. 44 3.O STATE STATUTES AND CASE LAW a� The appellant identified several State Statutes and other legal implications in support of 46 the appeal; the City Attorney has prepared a memorandum, included with this staff report 47 as Attachment B, addressing these legal issues. The appeal also raised several questions 4e pertaining to the R-1 zoning regulations; these will be addressed in the following 49 50 4.0 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 6� 68 69 �o 71 72 73 74 75 76 paragraphs. ZONING AND REGULATED/UNREGULATED USES 4.1 First, neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the City Code discusses gardens of any kind beyond general references which merely acknowledge their presence and limit the machinery used in them to household-scale rototillers and the like. Zoning codes are established to regulate the development of land uses to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare, and Euclidean (i.e., use-based) zoning codes like Roseville's are often intended and interpreted to prohibit uses which are not included in a list of uses associated with a given zoning district. This convention serves to obviate the question of whether, say, a metal foundry may be established on an R-1 property; a metal foundry is not in the list of allowed uses and, consequently, would not be permitted. Reliance on a Euclidean list of allowed uses is not a perfect system, however; for example, the list of uses allowed in Roseville's business districts includes auto parts stores, battery stores, and candy stores among others, but cellular phone stores are not in the list. Despite the omission of cell phone stores from the list of accepted uses in business districts, they are considered to be permitted uses. This is meant to illustrate the fact that mere exclusion from the list of allowed uses does not necessarily mean that a use is or ought to be prohibited. 4.2 The church and preschool uses on the subject property are regulated by the zoning code as conditional uses; because these uses predate Roseville's conditional use regulations, they are considered legal, nonconformities and, as such, the church and preschool may continue to operate without requiring formal approval as conditional uses. The annual, temporary State Fair park-and-ride facility on the church property is not a church use, despite utilizing the church's parking lot. Given the great intensity of the traffic generated by park-and-ride facilities during the State Fair, such a use would not be allowed on an R-1 property but for the fact that it was carefully reviewed for this location (among others) and approved as an interim use with several operational conditions to minimize the potentially harmful impacts. Appeal_RCA_052410 Page 2 of 7 -� .�