Laserfiche WebLink
<br />The Roseville Planning Staff recently found what appears to be an error in the 1985-1986 original document of the <br />City creating a new zoning designation for property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Lexington <br />Avenue and Garden Avenue. This may have been done because the two legal descriptions became transposed in <br />the documents. In summary here is what happened: <br /> <br />At 1813 Lexington Avenue, the owner requested (1985) a "B-1" Limited Business zone and a "B" designation on <br />the City's Comprehensive Plan. The legal description for this site was: <br /> <br />"the East 203.07 feet of the South 1 /8 of the Northeast % of the South % except the North 67 feet of the East 178 <br />feet of the North % of the South % of Section 15, Township 29, Range 23". (commonly known as 1813 Lexington <br />Avenue) <br /> <br />The original hearing was held on June 5, 1985. The Council held a similar hearing on June 10, 1985. At that time <br />the legal description was transposed to read in the ordinance as follows: <br /> <br />"the West 125 feet of the East 328.07 feet of the South 165.04 feet of the Northeast % of the Southeast % Section <br />15, Township 29, Range 23, (subj to ave)". (commonly known as 1125 Garden Avenue) <br /> <br />The second description is that of 1125 Garden Avenue, which according to city and county current records is a <br />single family residential use, zoned for "R-1" Low Density Residential uses and shown on the City's <br />Comprehensive Plan as "LD", Low Density Residential. <br /> <br />Staff has discussed this with both property owners. The City can correct this error by holding a hearing on a <br />corrective ordinance on October 2, 2002 at which time the zoning designations would be switched. The "B" <br />Comprehensive Plan designations would be attached to 1813 Lexington Avenue, and the "LR" Comprehensive <br />Plan designations attached to 1125 Garden Avenue. There is no cost to either property owner. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Duncan to recommend approval of Planning File <br />3427, a corrective ordinance, establishing 1125 Garden Avenue as R-1 (Single Family Residential) zoning <br />and a corrective resolution establishing 1125 Garden Avenue as LR (Low Density Residential) <br />Comprehensive Plan designation. <br /> <br />Ayes: 5 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carries. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Pepper, to recommend approval of Planning File <br />3427, a corrective ordinance, establishing 1813 Lexington Avenue as B-1 (Limited Business) zoning and a <br />corrective resolution establishing 1813 Lexington Avenue as B (Business) Comprehensive Plan <br />designation. <br /> <br />Ayes: 5 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br />e. Planning File 3459: Request by the City of Roseville to consider amended text in the B-6 Business Park <br />District (Section 1005.07) pertaining to pre-existing non-conforming uses. <br /> <br />Chair Duncan opened the hearing and request City Planner Thomas Paschke provide a summary of the project <br />report dated October 2, 2002. <br /> <br />Dennis Welsch informed the Commission that property owners, Northco Real Estate, St Paul Properties, Hagen, <br />and Reco/Regan requested that the City Council/Planning Commission discuss the merits of either: <br /> <br />1) not rezoning any Twin Lakes land to B-6 until a redevelopment proposal is in hand, or <br /> <br />2) expanding the "pre-existing, nonconforming use" text definition and exceptions for their land uses and buildings <br />within the proposed Twin Lakes "B-6" rezoning area. <br /> <br />The applicants' purpose would be to allow "pre-existing, nonconforming lots, uses and structures" to expand, <br />intensify, or change to another "nonconforming" use in order to stabilize the lease and cash flow as well as retain or <br />expand existing and new tenants. <br /> <br />In July 2002, the City Council requested that the Planning Commission review the case and provide further <br />recommendations regarding the "pre-existing non conforming lots, uses and structures". Since July the applicants <br />have been working with staff and the City Attorney to develop more explicit language dealing with the "non- <br />