CC_Minutes_2010_0222 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, February 22, 2010 Page 17 Councilmember Pust requested additional time to review those items brought up tonight, recognizing the City's interest in supporting the business community, while recognizing the serious nature of non-compliance issues. Councilmember Pust noted that government regulation of such a business was based on the actual nature of the business in selling alcohol. Councilmember Pust asked license holders to provide her and/or Acting Chief Mathwig with information on national- ly-known training programs of which they were aware, for further review by her and Councilmember Roe to determine if they met best practices. Mayor Klausing thanked business owners for their attendance and input. No action taken c. Adopt a Resolution to approve the Request by Riaz Hussain for an amend- ment to an existing CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) to allow the park- ing areas adjacent to Autumn Street to remain at 1901 Lexington avenue (PF10-002) Mr. Hussain provided a bench handout related to his request for this CUP amendment. Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the history of this request to eliminate a condition requiring removal of two paved parking areas on the south side of his property accessing Autumn Street, as detailed in the RCA dated February 22, 2010. Mr. Lloyd advised that the Planning staff continues to advocate for and support the recommendation of the Planning Commission to DENY the requested CUP amendment and related action ordering compliance with terms of Resolution No. 9414 requiring the removal of the parking areas by June 1, 2010, based on the determination of the Public Works Director that use of those parking areas would adversely affect traffic flow due to the parcel's proximity to Lexington Avenue. Mayor Klausing sought to define the two issues: frustration in Mr. Hussain's non- compliance with previous conditions; and safety concerns addressed by staff and the Planning Commission for this property, and how adjacent and similar proper- ties didn't create similar safety concerns. Mr. Lloyd noted the differences in City Code addressing residential and commer- cial properties, based on traffic volume related to one a commercial parcel rather than a residential property; location of the intersection and current use of the property not creating heavy volumes, but not guaranteed for potential future, per- mitted uses. Further discussion among Councilmembers and staff included setback require- ments; former approval for veterinary clinic use, which never occurred; staff con- cerns related for public safety; changes to City Code in 1996, one year prior to approval of the original CUP and requiring parking off the boulevard as well as