Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />� <br />� <br />:� <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />�D <br />11 <br />1� <br />1:� <br />1 �r <br />1� <br />1 F� <br />lf <br />Ras�ville City Council <br />DRAFT Minutes of 1/29/07 Pg 33 of 38 <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 />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 />City Attorney Anderson opined that he interpreted this as office use; and <br />concurred with Mr. Stark, citing the need to �ook at the overall City Code. <br />Councilmember Pust opined that the Case Law presented by Mr. Manderfeld <br />was not applicable to the appeal consideration. <br />l� Mr. Manderfeld opined his interpretation of the use of public funds for pub- <br />1�� 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 />� 3 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 />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />3� <br />;� � <br />�� <br />�� <br />�� <br />The appellants responded that they had not made personal contact with staff. <br />Mr. Manderfeld opined that the language of the law is what it is, and should <br />be able to be understoodwithout specific definition when there is none. Mr, <br />Manderfeld further noted that the firm's for-profit status was irrelevant. <br />Mr. Stark opined that previous neighborhood testimony had addressed the <br />impact felt by the neighbors. <br />�� Mr. Harold R�stow, 2356 Top Hill Circle, spoke off camera, and presented a <br />�� petition to the City Council� wi�th 21 signatures, attached hereto and made a <br />��3 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 />