2008_0324_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.0 BACKGROUND 4.1 The property, located in Planning District 13, has a zoning designation of Limited Business (B-1) District and a Comprehensive Plan designation of Limited Business (LB). The proposed deli and catering uses are prohibited in the B- I District; such uses are however allowed in the Limited Retail (B- I B) District, which is also supported by the LB guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. 4.2 In November 2007, the Community Development Department received an application (PF07-069) to rezone the property at 1901 Lexington Avenue from the existing B- I District to B- I B in order to allow the proposed deli and catering facility. Because Roseville's official guiding policy documents (i.e., the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance) seemed to clearly indicate that such a rezoning was the appropriate mechanism for permitting the proposed uses on the property, Planning Division staff supported the application and, pursuant to a public hearing held on December 5, 2007 the Planning Commission recommended (5-2) approval of the rezoning request. 4.3 On January 14, 2008 the City Council expressed its inclination to deny the rezoning and tabled the item, encouraging the applicant to withdraw the application and work with Planning Division staff to devise another way of permitting the desired uses on the property without opening it up to other traffic-intensive uses allowed in the B- I B District. The Council identified a zoning text amendment or Planned Unit Development as applications that could allow the desired uses and that they could possibly support. 4.4 Planning Division staff reviewed these options with the City Attorney and determined that neither of these applications would be appropriate for the current purposes. The PUD is not a good fit because it is intended to be used in "unique situations" (there's nothing about the present situation that meets this criterion of uniqueness), and because approving a PUD solely to accommodate a prohibited use would be the equivalent of granting a permanent Interim Use Permit, which seems to be a precedent that should be avoided. The zoning text amendment was also eliminated as an option because the necessary changes to the zoning ordinance to legitimately allow the restaurant use on that property would require considerably more time and policy discussion than could be devoted to it in a timeframe that also meets the applicant's needs. An INTERIM USE PERMIT (IUP) application, therefore, seems to be the most appropriate remaining alternative to temporarily allow the deli and catering use on the property until a comprehensive update of the Zoning Ordinance can be completed. 4.5 This process, while convenient under the circumstances, is not without risk, however. The Community Development Department intends to complete a thorough update of the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the updated Comprehensive Plan, but if the Code is not updated by the expiration of an approved IUP - or if the updated ordinances still prohibit limited restaurant uses on the property - Mr. Schueller could be left with a restaurant building that he can't use. 5.0 INTERIM USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS 5.1 Section 101 2.09 (Interim Uses) of the City uoae establishes the regulations pertaining to INTERIM USE PERMITS. a. Section 101 2.09A states: The City Council ma authorize an interim use of 'property. Y Interim uses may not be consistent with the land uses designated on the adopted Land ["FO08-008RCA032408 (2).doc F"age 2 of 4