100322_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

28 3.0 STAFF COMMENTS 29 3.1 As noted in Section 1.2 of this report, the City Attorney had concerns during the so February 22nd City Council meeting about whether there were sufficient findings to deny 31 the pTOpOSed CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT. AttaChment A Of th1S Staff TepOrt 1S s2 a letter from the Attorney indicating that the recommended denial would be legally 33 sound. s4 32 Attachment A also suggests that enforcement of the provisions of a CUP "may not be s5 appropriate ... given that the property is not currently being used as a veterinary clinic ss [i.e., the land use authorized by the CUP]." If, in fact, Roseville is not allowed to enforce s� the conditions of the CUP when a veterinary clinic is not present, then the City is unable s8 to require the removal of the paved areas and Mr. Hussain no longer needs to amend the ss requirements of the existing CUP to allow the paved areas to remain on the property. In 4o this case, the City Council could direct staff to assist Mr. Hussain in withdrawing his 4� application since its approval or denial would be irrelevant. Moreover, the City might 42 have no means for effecting the removal of the hazardous parking areas without the 43 return of a veterinary clinic or submission of a proposal to completely redevelop the 44 property. 45 33 The City Council may alternatively decide that it wishes to enforce provisions of the 46 CUP that are determined to apply generally to the property and not pertain specifically to 47 the authorized veterinary clinic use. In this situation, the Council could direct Planning 48 Division staff to reproduce draft resolutions denying the proposed coN�iTioNaL usE 4s PE�iT aMEN�MENT and enforcing compliance with the conditions of the approved CUP 50 (by ordering the removal of the subject paved areas or other, preferred measures). 51 3.4 52 53 54 If the City Council chooses to enforce general (i.e., not use-specific) conditions of the CUP note that, contrary to the indication in Attachment A, revocation of a CUP is not the only remedy to noncompliance with the conditions of an approval; Section 1014.O1E (Penalties for Conditional Use Permit Violations) of the City Code says the following: 55 Failure to comply with the requirements of a conditional use permit might result in 56 revocation of the conditional use permit. Further, any person violating the requirements of 57 a conditional use permit shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be 58 punished by a fine not to exceed seven hundred dollars ($700.00) or by imprisonment not to exceed ninety (90) days, or both. [Emphasis added.] 4.0 61 4.1 62 63 42 64 RECOMMENDATION Discuss the findings of the City Attorney and determine whether certain provisions of the existing CUP can be enforced in the absence of the specifically-authorized use. Direct City staff accordingly either to work with the applicant to withdraw the CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT appllCatlOri OT t0 Teturil t0 t�le MaTC�l 29, 2010 City Council meeting to continue taking action on the application. Prepared by: Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd (651-792-7073) Attachments: A: Letter from City Attorney B: City Council Resolution 9414 PF10-002 RCA 032210.doc Page 2 of 2