pf_03251 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

6E8T &: FLANAGAN !71)'1\ Q 2~L'!V\'r:.. r~/"'T 'r:.. 42/NIO 486')201417 P 7 \.i..I.1 J ), '..' u 1 v : :) L/ ~. 1. 1 U: ~ j'. J 1. I Mayor and City Council Members City ofRoseviJJe September 22, 2000 Page 6 hearing set after the required notice is provided to adjoining property owners. The fact that notice has apparently now been sent out for Monday's meeting does not retroactively "fix" this mistake because the Planning Commission recommendation you are evaluating was based on incomplete input Conclusion When thi!l location was first proposed for a gambling operation last April, the developer requested a re-zoning to Business PUD. This re-zoning procedure would address a number of the issues raised in this letter, such as the intensification of the non-:- confonning use status and the failure to satisfy the conditional use penn it factors. We request that the City Councit send this proposal back to the Planning Commission, to be evaluated on this basis. This would allow for adequate notice to the neighborhood, and could avoid the legal deficiencies of the current CUP proposal, which, in our opinion, is clearly not pennitted under the City Code. The Church remains opposed to the proposed gambling operation, and is likely to oppose it whether based on a fe-zoning to Business PUD or as a CUP. because the Church does not believe that this proposed use is either compatible with or desirable for this neighborhood. At least such a re-zoning, however, would allow the City to consider approval of this gambling operation under a regulatory procedure that is not in violation of the City Code, and provides the required notice to aU affected neighbors so that appropriate public discussion can take place. GDS/dcm Enclosures cc: City Attorney Joel ]ammk (by fax 65/-452-5550) Thomas Paschke (by.fax 651-490-2931) 123794V9410-920903