pf10-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5? Mr. Lloyd noted that, in 1997approval for a Conditional Use Permit for parking to accommodate a veterinary 53 clinic was allowed; and that the parking was allowed to remain until such a time as the City determined that 51 the parking spots were hazardous to traffic, at which time the original conditions could be enforced for 55 removal of that parking. Mr. Lloyd advised that, due to staff turnover, the condition had not been enforced until 55 current staffs research had found this previous Conditional Use Permit and conditions when reviewing the , i parcel for an Interim Use application in March 2008 for a deli use at the site. Mr. Lloyd advised that, as part of :t? that Interim Use approval in 2008, as a separate action, the City Council required that those parking areas be >n removed, as it had been determined by staff and the City Council that it would be hazardous to continue their ��n use, even if not often. Mr. Lloyd advised that, since 2008, staff had been in discussion with the property owner s i to remove that parking, to no avail; and Mr. Hussain's request for an amendment to the existing Conditional �>? Use to allow the parking areas to remain being a legitimate option at Mr. Hussain's disposal. 63 Mr. Lloyd advised that, in the Planning Commission's review of conditional use criteria, two were of .;a importance: that of traffic and circulation around the property; and advised that there was no way to use the �5 parking areas except for ingress/egress based on their proximity to Lexington Avenue and impacts to Autumn 63 Street. Mr. Lloyd advised that it continued to be staffs recommendation that those parking spaces are too e? dangerous to remain in use and recommended DENIAL of the proposed Conditional Use amendment es pursuant to City Code, Section 1013.01, based on the comments and findings of Sections 4— 5, and the >7 recommendations of Section 6 of the staff report dated February 3, 2010. io Discussion among Commissioners and staff included County Road requirements for a vehicle ro turn around �i on site before accessing a County Road, and a similar case on Autumn Street based on potential safety �)_ consideretions, as repeatedly expressed by residents along Autumn Street during past hearings. �3 Commissioner Gottfried expressed consternation that the property owner had not complied with previous City � t Council findings requiring removal of the parking areas; and why staff had been unsuccessful to-date in 75 enforcing this Council provision. Commissioner Gottfried noted the waste of taxpayer dollars in staff time in is attempting to remedy this situation, when the property owner had been asked repeatedly to bring the property 7� up to City Code. Commissioner Gottfried spoke adamantly in support of DENIAL of the applicant's request. it� Further discussion included whether the property owner had violated the conditions of the original Conditional ; s Use Permit, with the CUP remaining with the property; and if this were a newly-developed property, the ao condition would not be allowed under today's City Code and ordinances. a i Mr. Paschke advised that the property owner had not been amenable to removing the parking areas due to 9? costs of removing the blacktop and installing concrete curb; and that staff continued to work with the City's a3 legal counsel to remedy the situation that had been ongoing sine 2008; however, those processes took time. a-t Mr. Lloyd concurred, and noted that the applicant was not concemed with the use of the parking areas, but s> was more concerned with the expense related to removing the parking areas, sod for those areas, and 3s installation of new curb at the driveway aprons. a� Commissioner Wozniak observed that costs had probably increased since the 2008 City Council directive; <3i3 however, noted that in today's market, the property owner may be able to get favorable rates from a a� contractor. �o The applicant was not present. >) i Chair poherty opened closed the Public Hearing at 7:36 p.m., with no one appearing for or against. )? MOTION �s Member Gottfried moved, seconded by Member poherty to RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL � t DENIAL of the proposed CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT based on the comments and >>;; findings of Sections 4 and 5, and the conditions of Section 6 of the staff report dated February 3, 2010; and to RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL ORDERING COMPLIANCE with Resolution 9414, �� requiring the removal of the subject parking areas by June 1, 2010; based on the determination of the �a Public Works Director that the use of these parking areas would adversely affect the flow of traffic in 9� the area, as detailed in said staff report dated February 3, 2010. ioo Ayes:S �� o t Nays: 0 �oz Motioo carried. .-. --. Page 2 of 2