pf08-008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4.O BACKGROUND 1� 4.1 The property, located in Planning District 13, has a zoning designation of Limited 2� Business (B-1) District and a Comprehensive Plan designation of Limited Business (LB). 2: The proposed deli and catering uses are prohibited in the B-1 District; such uses are 2: however allowed in the Limited Retail (B-1B) District, which is also supported by the LB z guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. 3� � 4.2 In November 2007, the Community Development Department received an application s (PF07-069) to rezone the property at 1901 Lexington Avenue from the existing B-1 District 3:� to B-1B in arder to allow the proposed deli and catering facility. Because Roseville's 3' official guiding policy documents (i.e., the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning s=. Ordinance) seemed to clearly indicate that such a rezoning was the appropriate �� mechanism for permitting the proposed uses on the property, Planning Division staff 3� supported the application and, pursuant to a public hearing held on December 5, 2007 the 3 Planning Commission recommended (5-2) approval of the rezoning request. 3�; 4.3 On January 14, 2008 the City Council expressed its inclination to deny the rezoning and 3�� tabled the item, encouraging the applicant to withdraw the application and work with ac; Planning Division staff to devise another way of permitting the desired uses on the a property without opening it up to other traffic-intensive uses allowed in the B-1 B District. a; The Council identified a zoning text amendment ar Planned Unit Development as a� 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 �t: that neither of these applications would be appropriate for the current purposes. The PUD 4 is not a good fit because it is intended to be used in "unique situations" (there's nothing a 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. 5� The zoning text amendment was also eliminated as an option because the necessary 5, changes to the zoning ordinance to legitimately allow the restaurant use on that property S:� would require considerably more time and policy discussion than could be devoted to it in � a timeframe that also meets the applicant'S rieedS. Ari 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 Deparhnent intends to complete a thorough update of the 5: � Zoning Ordinance to reflect the updated Comprehensive Plan, but if the Code is not Fc updated by the expiration of an approved IUP — or if the updated ordinances still prohibit s a limited restaurant uses on the property — Mr. Schueller could be left with a restaurant c�i building that he can't use. S.O INTERIM USE PERMIT APPLICATIONS h 5.1 Section 1012.09 (Interim Uses) of the City Code establishes the regulations pertaining to 6�� INTERIM USE PERMITS. E�. a. Section 1012.09A states: The City Council may authorize an interim use of properry. Interim uses may not be consistent with the land uses designated on the adopted Land PF008-008_RCA 032408_FinalReport Page 2 of 4 -� �