My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2007_0924
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2007
>
CC_Minutes_2007_0924
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/23/2007 1:48:08 PM
Creation date
10/23/2007 1:48:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/24/2007
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, September 24, 2007 <br />Minutes Page 15 <br />tion and parking lot, and the re-vegetation of the site, as required in their Demoli- <br />tion Permit. <br />Mr. Darrow noted that City Code, Section 1014.04C allows for an appeal to the <br />City Council., acting as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, of any administra- <br />tive rulings made pertaining to zoning and/or subdivisions. <br />Mr. Darrow referenced the September 5, 2007 letter from Cindy M. Hartley, Di- <br />rector of Facilities, with Twin City Co-ops Federal Credit Union, appealing this <br />decision, providing their rationale and perceptions for this appeal. <br />Mr. Darrow noted staff s review of the strict interpretation of City ordinance, and <br />in order to comply with ordinance, recommended that the City Council deny the <br />appeal by Twin City Co-ops to allow the building slab/foundation and parking lot <br />to remain and to require the removal of those elements and re-vegetation of the <br />site. <br />Discussion included parking allowances via a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) <br />across all businesses districts within the City; timing in staff notice to Twin City <br />Co-ops and their delayed response; and staffl s rationale for partial site elements to <br />remain on site for extended periods creating blight for surrounding businesses. <br />Councilmember Ihlan opined that a vacant building seemed less desirable than a <br />concrete slab in the middle of a parking lot; and further opined that there were <br />other examples of vacant and abandoned buildings across the community that <br />could be considered blight. Councilmember Ihlan opined that it would seem bet- <br />ter to demolish the building while awaiting redevelopment, and ultimately costing <br />the applicant less in the long run. <br />Mr. Darrow advised that, if the appeal were approved, it would be in direct con- <br />flict with the City's zoning ordinance, the CUP process, and the City's Compre- <br />hensive Plan. <br />Further discussion included application of a time limit on demolition and redevel- <br />opment of the site; and action and recommendation by the City's Planning Com- <br />mission for time frames on this property for twelve (12) months for a Building <br />Permit application, with a possible six (6) month extension at the discretion of <br />staff, as a condition of their CUP that had been approved in January of 2007. <br />Cindy Hartley, Director of Facilities, Twin City Co-ops Federal Credit Union <br />Ms. Hartley reviewed details of her September 5, 2007 letter to the Community <br />Development Department; noting damages to the building from vandalism and <br />weather-related issues; and increasing costs for monitoring the site and attempting <br />to secure it from vandalism. Ms. Harley further reviewed apparent communica- <br />tion issues between staff, their general contractor, and Twin City Co-ops related <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.