pf_03251 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

FROM BEST & FLANAGAN (FRli 9.22' 00 16:51.:81 1642/NO. 486320141~ Mayor and City Council Members City of RosevilIe September 22, 2000 Page 5 In addition, there has apparently been no consideration of how this use will affect the redevelopment of the nearby Arona site or any residential concerns regarding planning for that site. The combined Arona-Hamline Cen1ter area is listed in the Cjty's Comprehensive Plan as one of its "redevelopment areas", and is supposed to be one of five areas in the City designated for'a "master planning" process_ Approval of this sizeable gambling operation without any such planning contradicts the Comprehensive Plan and will preclude any significant redevelopment of Hamline Center. The proposed gambling center is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan requirements for Hamline Center, in particular. In the 1994 Planning District Three Evaluation, which was included as part of the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update, the Hamline Center was recommended, by the Planning Commission, to be changed in designation to Medium Density ResidentiaUBusiness. It was recommended in this evaluation that the Hamline Center be used as a smaller nE~ghborhood commercial center, accompanied by additional multi-family structures. The City Council indicated that if the shopping ceoter ever redeveloped, that it should be redeve:loped as a mixed use development of medium density residential with a smaller neighborhood shopping center. (See enclosed copy #5.) Obviously, the proposed gambling operation completely contradicts this plan. Clearly, the substantial alterations planned for the gambling operation constitutes a "redevelopment" of this Center. The gambling operation wiH transform Hamline Center into a "destination" shopping center, completely incompatible and inconsistent with the smaller neighborhood shopping center and residential use required by the Comprehensive Plan. A City is legally pr()hibited from allowing land uses which contradict its Comprehensive Plan in this fashion. v. No Notice of Public Bearine. Chapter 108.0} of the City Code (copy #6 enclosed) requires that notice be mailed to all property owners within 350 feet for any public heari,ng involving a comprehensive plan. zoning or subdivision matter. No notice was mailed to the Church, nor, to the best of our knowledge, to any other adjoining property owner prior to the Planning Commission meeting on September 13, 2000. This is pwLicularly ironic, given that the last time this issue was considered by the Planning Comm.ission, at their meeting of April 12th, the Planning Commission had extensive discussion about the fact that no notice of this proposal had been provided to the neighborhood at that time when this subject was fIrSt considered in April. At that time, one Planning Commission member suggested that if the residents were not included in the planning process, then it would appear to be a circumvention of the neighborhood process. At that April meeting, City Staff assured the Planning Commission that they would attempt to notify more property owners and neighbors for a neighborhood meeting. To the best of our knowledge, no such meeting was held at that time, or since, by the City or the develop<:r. In any case, failure to notify the neighbors, as required by this Ordinance, should be C(lrrected, and a new public . _ 1"'__11 "mnnf,