pf10-002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

24 4.0 25 4.1 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 BACKGROUND Riaz Hussain owns the property at 1901 Lexington Avenue, which has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Neighborhood Business (NB) and a zoning classification of Limited Business (B-1) District. 4.2 In 1997 Roseville's City Council adopted Resolution 9414, approving a CONDITIONAL USE PEx1�1�T for a veterinary clinic on the property. The primary condition of this approval states that the existing parking areas may be used only for employee parking but that: "The parking area�sJ along Autumn Street must be removed if the determination is made by the Ciry that said parking area[sJ creates [sicJ a safety hazard or adversely affects [sicJ the flow of traffrc in this area. " Although the original language suggests a singular parking area, the aerial photographs from that time illustrate the presence of two paved areas and the Planning Commission minutes clearly indicate that the discussion includes removal of both parking areas. 4.3 As the Planning Commission and City Council were considering a subsequent application in March 2008 to approve the temporary use of the property as a deli, Public Works Department staff determined that the use of these parking areas accessing Autumn Street would, in fact, create a safety hazard and adversely affect the flow of traffic in the area given its close proximity to busy Lexington Avenue. Because of this determination, the Planning Commission recommended (and the City Council then required) the removal of these parking areas in compliance with the conditions of the 1997 approval. 44 4.4 What follows is a brief summary of the communications between the property owner and 45 the City pertaining to the removal of the parking areas from March 2008 to the present: 46 a. Summer 2008: the property owner's real estate agent called to inform staff that the a� approved deli use would not be going forward. Staff reminded the agent of the 4s requirement to remove the paved areas, and the agent indicated that he would, in 49 turn, remind the property owner. 5o b. October 6, 2008: staff sent a letter to the property owner to request compliance by 51 June 1, 2009 since the weather in 2008 was no longer conducive to removing the 52 asphalt and establishing grass or other landscaping. 53 c. May I 5, 2009: staff sent a letter to the property owner as a reminder of the 54 approach of the June 1 deadline. 55 d. May 26, 2009: property owner sent a letter to staff acknowledging that he had 56 misread the deadline established in the October 6`�' letter and requesting until July 5� 1, 2009 to attend to the matter. 5� e. June 29, 2009: property owner addressed the City Council to request that the 59 requirement to remove the paved areas be reconsidered. Council asked staff for 6o additional information on the topic so that Councilmembers could determine if 61 they would revisit their previous decision. City Council decided not to reconsider s2 its earlier decision, leaving in place the requirement to remove the paved areas. 63 f. September 28, 2009: staff sent a letter to inform the property owner of the 64 Council's decision and establish a new deadline for compliance of October 16`�'. 65 This letter also informed the property owner of his legal right to attempt to amend PF10-002 RCA 022210 Page 2 of 5 � •-,,