pf_03113 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

... 12/15/99 WED 16:04 F.~X 16123402644 DORSEY WHITNEY @003 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP Honorable Mayor Daniel Wall and City Council Members December 15, 1999 Page 2 1. GeneraJlv. Given the historical background of the City's ordinances and the impetus the City gave LO the investment in and actual development and tenanting of the Shopping Center as well as the responsible manner in which the Shopping Center has been developed, maintained and operatcd. M & J was surprised to recently learn of the new and sevcrc change in approach to regulating the use of the Shopping Center by the City. By virtue of the proposed Ordinance, rhe value of the Shopping Center and the ownership interests of M & J therein will be extremely and detrimentally impacted. Significant investment has been made in th~ Shopping Center by M & J in reliance upon the past directives of the City. We find the proposal an undue rt~traint on ollr client. Dahlgren, Shardlow & Uban, Inc., the City's planning consultant, purportedly comacted all property owners as part of their study, Further, the Request for City Council Action dared December 13. 1999, st3tes that "a shopping center property owner/manager me~li ng was also held." Notably, M & J was never contacted relative to providing input nor notified by the City of the threatened action. 2. The Ordinance is ambiszuous as written and subject to interpretation. One concern we have relative to this Ordinance is that it is generally ambiguous and vague. As was evident from the comments of many citizens at the City Council meeting on December .l31h, this Ordinance lacks clarity and is subject to many differeIlt interpretations. For example, the following provisions are ambiguous: A. The Ordinance fails to adequately differentiate between applicability 10 new developments and to exi$ting property. For instance, the Plan Requirements set forth in Section 1006.013 taken literally would not permit redevelopment of existing space of less than 10.000 square feet in size or having less than six (6) uses. More significant]y. if 1he general development restrictions set forth throughout the Ordinance are to be applied equally to both types of projects, existing properties will effectively have a veil of moratorium over them relati ve to any changes due to the economically onerous implication of sLlch feature. This cannot possibly be the intention of the City. B. Section 1002.02 of the Code, as amended by the Ordinance .would define 1wenry- four hour uses as "any commercial use that is regularly open for business or involves other significant outdoor activity during any hour between 10:00 p.rn, and 7:00 a.m." The terms "regularly" and "significant" are vague terms and warrant a more succinct definition. In fact. a1 the City Council meeting on December 131h, Mayor Wall slated that the term "regularly" ,"'as