pf_03251 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

,<L'Q~l' y, ji'L^NAGAN l.:L-L' OC.. l''1J u ..... (FRi) 9.22' 00 16:5!/ST, 16:42/NO. 4863201417 P 5 Mayor and City Council Members City of Rosevi1le September 22, 2000 Page 4 A second factor deals with compatibility of the site plan, including internal traffic circulation, with contiguous propenies. In this regard, the analysis of the additional parking requirements posed by this operation seems to be seriously flawed. The Staff Report indicates that the Hamline Center contains 66,337leaseable square feet, and provides 223 off street parking spaces. The report indicates that the shopping center "shares" 114 parking spaces with the adjoining office building. However, according to the appJicable parking requirements stipulated in the Report, the 24,000 square foot office building, requiring 5 off street parking spaces per 1,000 leaseable square feet, would, for its own operations, require 120 parking spaces, 6 less than it currently provides. Therefore, there are no "surplus" spaces left for use by the shopping center. Furthermore, correspondence dated August 23,2000 (copy #4 enclosed) from the owner of the office building already on file with the City, indicates that the conversion of Hamline Center to the proposed gambling operation will negate and cause the termination of the existing cross-parking easement between the Hamline Center and the adjoining office building, so that these 114 parking spaces will no longer legally be available for use by customers and employees of the Hamline Center. Consequently, the shared parking provisions of Section 1005.01 are not applicable. Moreover, based on the requirement recited in the StafTReport of 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of leaseable retail space, it appears that if the Center were to be brought into compliance with current ordinances, it would require 331 parking spaces, which is 108 more than the 223 currently provided. This enormous parking deficiency will only be further aggravated by the approval of a gambling operation. The area to be leased for gambling, if it stayed as retail, would require 58 spaces. However, the gambling operation) by ordinance, will require a minimum of 100 parking spaces (1 space for every 3 seats), with the actual need> as assessed by the Staff, being closer to 120 to 150 spaces. The upshot of all this analysis is that the approval of the gambling operation will increase the current parking non-conformity by 62 to 92 spaces, and create a major parking problem in this neighborhood, which is primarily residential The Conditional Use analysis also requires an assessment oftbe compatibility of this use with contiguous properties. and the impact on the market value of contiguous properties. Obviously, in Chapter 303, the City has already detennined that similar amusement uses like video and other table games and arcades have a detrimental effect on residential properties, schools and churches, by requiring the 1)500 foot setback noted above. There is no substantive difference between the proposed 300 seat gambling operation and an 8 customer video arcade with respect to its impact on residences, churches and scbools. The enonnous magnitude of the proposed gambling operation wiU only magnify the adverse consequences many times over those presented by a small video arcade.