My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03113
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3100
>
pf_03113
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2011 10:33:20 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 3:48:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3113
Planning Files - Type
Planning-Other
Project Name
Shopping Center Study
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
1354
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
<br />... <br /> <br />12/15/99 WED 16:04 F.~X 16123402644 <br /> <br />DORSEY WHITNEY <br /> <br />@003 <br /> <br />DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP <br /> <br />Honorable Mayor Daniel Wall <br />and City Council Members <br />December 15, 1999 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />1. GeneraJlv. <br /> <br />Given the historical background of the City's ordinances and the impetus the City gave LO the <br />investment in and actual development and tenanting of the Shopping Center as well as the <br />responsible manner in which the Shopping Center has been developed, maintained and operatcd. <br />M & J was surprised to recently learn of the new and sevcrc change in approach to regulating the <br />use of the Shopping Center by the City. By virtue of the proposed Ordinance, rhe value of the <br />Shopping Center and the ownership interests of M & J therein will be extremely and <br />detrimentally impacted. Significant investment has been made in th~ Shopping Center by M & J <br />in reliance upon the past directives of the City. We find the proposal an undue rt~traint on ollr <br />client. Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Inc., the City's planning consultant, purportedly comacted <br />all property owners as part of their study, Further, the Request for City Council Action dared <br />December 13. 1999, st3tes that "a shopping center property owner/manager me~li ng was also <br />held." Notably, M & J was never contacted relative to providing input nor notified by the City of <br />the threatened action. <br /> <br />2. The Ordinance is ambiszuous as written and subject to interpretation. <br /> <br />One concern we have relative to this Ordinance is that it is generally ambiguous and vague. As <br />was evident from the comments of many citizens at the City Council meeting on December .l31h, <br />this Ordinance lacks clarity and is subject to many differeIlt interpretations. For example, the <br />following provisions are ambiguous: <br /> <br />A. The Ordinance fails to adequately differentiate between applicability 10 new <br />developments and to exi$ting property. For instance, the Plan Requirements set forth in Section <br />1006.013 taken literally would not permit redevelopment of existing space of less than 10.000 <br />square feet in size or having less than six (6) uses. More significant]y. if 1he general <br />development restrictions set forth throughout the Ordinance are to be applied equally to both <br />types of projects, existing properties will effectively have a veil of moratorium over them relati ve <br />to any changes due to the economically onerous implication of sLlch feature. This cannot <br />possibly be the intention of the City. <br /> <br />B. Section 1002.02 of the Code, as amended by the Ordinance .would define 1wenry- <br />four hour uses as "any commercial use that is regularly open for business or involves other <br />significant outdoor activity during any hour between 10:00 p.rn, and 7:00 a.m." The terms <br />"regularly" and "significant" are vague terms and warrant a more succinct definition. In fact. a1 <br />the City Council meeting on December 131h, Mayor Wall slated that the term "regularly" ,"'as <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.