Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br />12/15/99 ~~D 16:05 FAX 16123402644 <br /> <br />DORSEY WH ITNEY <br /> <br />@006 <br /> <br />DORSEY & WHITNEY lLP <br /> <br />Honorable Mayor Daniel Wall <br />and City Counci] Members <br />December 15, 1999 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />5. The Ordinance is impractical and onerous. <br /> <br />A. It is impractical for an owner of a shopping center to he required to maintain a <br />parking lot (i.e repaving and restriping) during normal business hours wilen there arc parked <br />vehicles, pedestrians and traffic in the parking area. To perform parking lot maimenan<.:e durin,g <br />normal business hours would impose an unreasonable hardship on the property owner. <br /> <br />B. Further, the Ordinance does not provide for flexibility tor the City to con:-;ider <br />individual properties on a case-by-case basis. Most of the property in the City of Roseville is <br />already developed and may be a non-conforming use. Any minor changes Ie use, even thost:: Llses <br />by tenants which cannot be controlled by a property owner, may trigger the application of the <br />Ordinance. <br /> <br />6. The Ordinance is unfair and discriminatory. <br /> <br />This Ordinance should apply to all property within the City of RoseviUe and not ju~t to <br />"SC" zoned property. There are severa124 hour commercial uses within the City that may have a <br />more significant adverse impact on residents than shopping centers. For example, an all night <br />convenience store or fast food restaurant near a residential area could have all night deliveric:s or <br />a loud speaker system which is more disruptive to adjacent residents. Applying the Ordinance to <br />just a few selected properties within the City of Roseville is unfair and discriminatory. <br /> <br />7. The Ordinance is overreachinl?,. <br /> <br />A. Section l006.02(L)(2)) of the Code, as amended by the Ordinance, and as <br />proposed by the revisions recommended by the City Council on December 13th, is overreaching <br />because it would require the owners to have a personally answered telephone answered 24 hours <br />per day to take complaints. <br /> <br />B. The concept of allowing certain activities to occur if there is adequate screening is <br />what many cities typically require. This is a reasonable requirement which many Minnesota <br />cities apply on a broad basis to all commercial uses. This Ordinance appears to go beyond the <br />standards frequently applied by other Minnesota cities. <br /> <br />In conclusion, while our client desires to remain sensitive to the objective of maintaining a <br />harmonious relationship between occupants of a commercial district on the one hand and a <br />residential district on the other, we find the proposed Ordinance onerous, overreaching and <br />