pf_03799 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

�� REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 9/24/07 ITEM NO: 10.a Departmcnt r�pproval: �i�� nager A roval: Agenda Section: MD/DM REPORTS Item Description: Consideration 1.0 REQUESTED ACTION: of an Administrative 2 1.1 Twin City Co-ops Federal Credit Union, owner of the vacant Denny's restauran \'� 3 site, is appealing a ruling made by former Community Development Director ��j -�'�% 4 John Stark, requiring the removal of the building foundation and parking lot and --- � 5 the re-vegetation of the site, as a requirement of their Demolition Permit. 6 7 9 10 11 1.2 City Code Section 1014.04.0 allows for an appeal to the City Council, acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, of an administrative ruling made by the Community Development Director pertaining to zoning and/or subdivisions. 2.0 PROJECT HISTORY: 12 2.1 The Denny s Restaura site, located at 1880 Perimeter Drive, has been purchased 13 by Twin City Co-ops. 1 h restaurant is currently vacant. Twin City Co-ops 14 int�ends to build a new structure on the site in about tw�ears:. --- ------ — --- - --- _ --- 15 16 2.2 Twin City Co-ops allowed Roseville's Police Department to use the building for 17 training purposes. The structure now is empty and has become a constant site for 18 break-ins, vandalism, and possibly, a place for graffiti. 19 20 2.3 Twin City Co-ops applied for a Demolition Permit on June 20, 2007. This 21 application proposed to demolish the building, but to leave the foundation/slab 22 and parking lot in place until the time a new building is constructed. Under this 23 plan, the building foundation/slab and the parking lot would then be removed at 24 the time of re-build as neither was to be utilized with the new building. 25 26 2.4 On July 12, 2007, the applicant was informed by Community Development 27 � Director that requirements of permit issuance would be the removal of the 28 building foundation/slab and parking lot and the re-vegetation of the site. This 29 ruling was based upon staffs opinion that the partial alteration of the site would 30 create a blighted property as well as the potential for unwanted activities within 31 the area. The partial removal would not be in conformance with the goals of the 32 Comprehensive Plan related to blight elimination and prevention. It is the opinion 33 of staff that without immediate construction, and with no guarantee of 34 development of the site, adjoining property values may be negatively impacted. 35 Furthermore, the parking lot currently is an accessory to the principle use. The 36 zoning district for this property (B-1B) does not permit an accessory parking lot , . � Page 1 of 3 C:\Documents and Settings\jamie.radel\Desktop\RCA1880PerimeterDr09192007.doc