My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03799
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3700
>
pf_03799
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/28/2014 1:13:26 PM
Creation date
7/3/2013 11:39:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3799
Planning Files - Type
Conditional Use Permit
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 <br />54 <br />55 <br />56 <br />57 <br />58 <br />59 <br />60 <br />61 <br />62 <br />63 <br />64 <br />65 <br />66 <br />67 <br />68 <br />69 <br />70 <br />71 <br />72 <br />73 <br />74 <br />75 <br />76 <br />77 <br />78 <br />79 <br />80 <br />81 <br />82 <br />83 <br />2.5 <br />3.0 <br />as a principle use. If the building is taken down without the removal of the <br />parking area, the parking area would become a principle use and, therefore, would <br />be in non-conformance with the City Code. <br />On September 5, 2007, Twin City Co-ops appealed the ruling of the Community <br />Development Director requiring the additional removals and re-vegetation. <br />BACKGROUND: <br />3.1 When demolition permits are issued, it is the policy of the Community <br />Development Department to require full removal of buildings, driveways, parking <br />lots, and utilities unless the applicant can demonstrate that the individual elements <br />will be re-used with the new construction. <br />3.2 Leaving elements, such as foundations, in the ground to initially save on <br />demolition costs can and has caused problems for property owners and staff. <br />There have been instances where new owners of property have not been informed <br />by previous owners of buried elements and then have experienced construction <br />delays and cost over-runs due to unexpected additional work. These types of <br />problems have led to lawsuits and have consumed considerable amounts of staff <br />time. <br />3.3 Allowing partial building/site elements, such as empty buildings, concrete slabs, <br />and vacant parking lots, to remain on a site for extended periods subjects the <br />surrounding area to visual blight and can have a negative impact on property <br />values. Also, vacant parking lots attract cars with "for sale" signs and the <br />dumping of debris; this leads to additional work for staff when complaints are <br />received. <br />3.4 There is no guarantee that the new building will be built at the end of the , <br />proposed two-year period. With an uncertain economy, business plans can change <br />and the proposed two-year period could be extended further into the future. <br />4.0 <br />!� <br />POLICY IMPLICATIONS: <br />A general goal within the City Comprehensive Plan (2003) is to "eliminate blight <br />and prevent deterioration of buildings and infrastructure" (Section 3, Page 4). <br />5.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: <br />5.1 Staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal by Twin City Co-ops to allow <br />the building slab/foundation and parking lot to remain and require the removal of <br />these elements and the re-vegetation of the site. <br />5.2 An alternative option to the removal the building slab/foundation and parking lot <br />and re-vegetation of this site is for the property owner (Twin City Co-ops) to <br />maintain the existing building in good condition (i.e.: in compliance with the <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />C:\Documents and Settings\jamie.radel\Desktop\RCA1880PerimeterDr09192007.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.