My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2010_0222
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
CC_Minutes_2010_0222
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2010 12:42:56 PM
Creation date
3/12/2010 12:42:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/22/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
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
Request for Planning Commission Action <br />Date: 02/16/2010 <br />~ e n~l~ +ta ~~ na~- <br />zraa J ~ <br />Request by Riaz Hussain for an amendment to an existing Conditional Use <br />Permit to allow the parking area adjacent to Autumn Street At 1901 <br />Lexington Avenue N Roseville MN 55113. <br />Introduction: <br />This submittal is about the parking area adjacent to Autumn Street next to <br />the property at 1901 Lexington Avenue N Roseville MN 55113.The property <br />has a comprehensive plan designation of Neighborhood business(NB) and <br />a zoning classification of Limited Business(B-1) district. <br />These parking areas were under conditional use permit as an employee <br />parking areas through the life of the property as a veterinary facility and <br />then as a internet sales office until such time that a change occurred in the <br />in the usage of the property. In 2008 a Deli was planned at the site but was <br />not implemented. The planning director assumed that, that was sufficient <br />enough to be determined as a change and further claimed that the original <br />determination was not dependent on a change proposed or actual. This <br />raises several procedural issues for a controlling body such as a city as we <br />shall see. Suffice it to note here that if the change did not matter and the <br />original conditions allowing the conditional usage had not changed then <br />why this requirement did not get the attention of the Planning Director at <br />some other time since it did not matter whether a change happened or not. <br />Even worse, we as a city, then need to explain why did we even bother with <br />the conditional use permit in the first place when we were going to change <br />it at any time even if no condition had changed. Was the use permit <br />arbitrary? Notice also that the revocation of the use permit never occurred <br />or even brought up during the life of the building as the internet sales after <br />the doctor left. During our time or as the Internet sales office or the <br />veterinary facility conditions never changed and yet we have the parking <br />problem and the alleged hazard that goes with it. The fact is that we are <br />using this place even less as a parking space than the other tenants. Each <br />summer I have had the area cordoned off and no cars were ever parked, <br />ours or anybody else' since the first letter that I received from the planning <br />director. <br />This submission requests a reconsideration of the conditional use permit <br />based on new information pertaining to the parking areas in question. <br />Terminology: <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.