2010-02-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 03, 2010 Page 6 the application as the applicant had requested additional time to continue 251 gathering information in support of his application. Mr. Lloyd further noted that 252 one member of the public from the neighborhood was in attendance at that 253 meeting and was allowed to comment for the record as he would be unable to 254 attend the continued public hearing when the request would be discussed in 255 more detail. 256 Mr. Lloyd noted that, in 1997approval for a Conditional Use Permit for parking to 257 accommodate a veterinary clinic was allowed; and that the parking was allowed 258 to remain until such a time as the City determined that the parking spots were 259 hazardous to traffic, at which time the original conditions could be enforced for 260 removal of that parking. Mr. Lloyd advised that, due to staff turnover, the 261 condition had not been enforced until current staff’s research had found this 262 previous Conditional Use Permit and conditions when reviewing the parcel for an 263 Interim Use application in March 2008 for a deli use at the site. Mr. Lloyd advised 264 that, as part of that Interim Use approval in 2008, as a separate action, the City 265 Council required that those parking areas be removed, as it had been determined 266 by staff and the City Council that it would be hazardous to continue their use, 267 even if not often. Mr. Lloyd advised that, since 2008, staff had been in discussion 268 with the property owner to remove that parking, to no avail; and Mr. Hussain’s 269 request for an amendment to the existing Conditional Use to allow the parking 270 areas to remain being a legitimate option at Mr. Hussain’s disposal. 271 Mr. Lloyd advised that, in the Planning Commission’s review of conditional use 272 criteria, two were of importance: that of traffic and circulation around the property; 273 and advised that there was no way to use the parking areas except for 274 ingress/egress based on their proximity to Lexington Avenue and impacts to 275 Autumn Street. Mr. Lloyd advised that it continued to be staff’s recommendation 276 that those parking spaces are too dangerous to remain in use and recommended 277 DENIAL of the proposed Conditional Use amendment pursuant to City Code, 278 Section 1013.01, based on the comments and findings of Sections 4 – 5, and the 279 recommendations of Section 6 of the staff report dated February 3, 2010. 280 Discussion among Commissioners and staff included County Road requirements 281 for a vehicle to turn around on site before accessing a County Road, and a 282 similar case on Autumn Street based on potential safety considerations, as 283 repeatedly expressed by residents along Autumn Street during past hearings. 284 Commissioner Gottfried expressed consternation that the property owner had not 285 complied with previous City Council findings requiring removal of the parking 286 areas; and why staff had been unsuccessful to-date in enforcing this Council 287 provision. Commissioner Gottfried noted the waste of taxpayer dollars in staff 288 time in attempting to remedy this situation, when the property owner had been 289 asked repeatedly to bring the property up to City Code. Commissioner Gottfried 290 spoke adamantly in support of DENIAL of the applicant’s request. 291 Further discussion included whether the property owner had violated the 292 conditions of the original Conditional Use Permit, with the CUP remaining with 293 the property; and if this were a newly-developed property, the condition would not 294 be allowed under today’s City Code and ordinances. 295 Mr. Paschke advised that the property owner had not been amenable to 296 removing the parking areas due to costs of removing the blacktop and installing 297 concrete curb; and that staff continued to work with the City’s legal counsel to 298 remedy the situation that had been ongoing sine 2008; however, those 299 processes took time. 300 Mr. Lloyd concurred, and noted that the applicant was not concerned with the 301 use of the parking areas, but was more concerned with the expense related to 302