pf10-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2£3 3.O STAFF COMMENTS 29 3.1 As noted in Section 1.2 of this report, the City Attorney had concerns during the 3o February 22"d City Council meeting about whether there were sufficient findings to deny 31 the proposed CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT. Attachment A of this staff report is 32 a letter from the Attorney indicating that the recommended denial would be legally 33 sound. 34 3.2 Attachment A also suggests that enforcement of the provisions of a CUP "may not be 3� appropriate ... given that the property is not currently being used as a veterinary clinic 36 [i.e., the land use authorized by the CUP]." If, in fact, Roseville is not allowed to enforce 3� the conditions of the CUP when a veterinary clinic is not present, then the City is unable 38 to require the removal of the paved areas and Mr. Hussain no longer needs to amend the 39 requirements of the existing CUP to allow the paved areas to remain on the property. In ao this case, the City Council could direct staff to assist Mr. Hussain in withdrawing his 41 application since its approval or denial would be irrelevant. Moreover, the City might a2 have no means for effecting the removal of the hazardous parking areas without the 43 return of a veterinary clinic or submission of a proposal to completely redevelop the 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 property. 3.3 The City Council may alternatively decide that it wishes to enforce provisions of the CUP that are determined to apply generally to the property and not pertain specifically to the authorized veterinary clinic use. In this situation, the Council could direct Planning Division staff to reproduce draft resolutions denying the proposed cotvD�T�otvAL usE PEx1vt�T a1vtENDlvtElvT and enforcing compliance with the conditions of the approved CUP (by ordering the removal of the subject paved areas or other, preferred measures). 51 3.4 52 53 54 If the City Council chooses to enforce general (i.e., not use-specific) conditions of the CUP note that, contrary to the indication in Attachment A, revocation of a CUP is not the only remedy to noncompliance with the conditions of an approval; Section 1014.01 E (Penalties for Conditional Use Permit Violations) of the City Code says the following: 55 Failure to comply with the requirements of a conditional use permit might result in 56 revocation of the conditional use pernut. Further, any person violating the requirements of 57 a conditional use permit shail be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be 58 punished by a fine not to exceed seven hundred dollars ($700.00) or by imprisonment not 59 to exceed ninety (90) days, or both. [Emphasis added.] so 4.0 s� 4.1 62 RECOMMENDATION Discuss the findings of the City Attorney and determine whether certain provisions of the existing CUP can be enforced in the absence of the specifically-authorized use. 63 4.2 Direct City staff accordingly either to work with the applicant to withdraw the 64 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT application or to return to the March 29, 2010 E5 City Council meeting to continue taking action on the application. Prepared by: Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd (651-792-7073) Attachments: A: Letter from City Attorney B: City Council Resolution 9414 PF10-002 RCA 032210.doc Page 2 of 2 -�'� ��