My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03251
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3200
>
pf_03251
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 1:11:32 PM
Creation date
12/9/2004 7:00:36 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
173
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Mayor and City Council Members <br />City of Roseville <br />October 2, 2000 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />include gambling facilities. It would be completely defensible to not so interpret <br />"amusement establishments" and take some time to study the structure of your city code to <br />determine exactly where gambling facilities should be placed. Given the 1,500-foot <br />setback in Chapter 303 for amusement devices, you should reconsider including gambling <br />facilities in the B2 retail zone. <br /> <br />2. You may interpret your code to apply the L500-foot setback in Chapter 303 <br />to gambling facilities. Again, this is an interpretation open to the city council and is ' <br />completely defensible. <br /> <br />3. The council could interpret city code to consider an "amusement <br />establishment" in the B2 retail zone as an intensification of a nonconforming use or <br />structure. In Code Section 1006.017 dealing with 24 hour uses you provide: <br /> <br />A significant change in the regular hours of operation of any existing use to twenty- <br />four (24) hours located within 300 feet of a residential district constitutes an <br />expansion and intensification of the use and shall require modification of the plan <br />and improvements to the site in compliance with the standards specified below for <br />twenty-four hour uses. <br /> <br />In addition, the substantial amount of additional parking and building renovation required <br />suggests that it is an intensification of use. Again, this is a matter of council interpretation <br />and would be defensible for the council to so interpret its own ordinances. <br /> <br />4. The council could declare a moratorium on placement of gambling facilities <br />throughout the city because of the conflict between its various code provisions. The <br />moratorium would be designed to permit the council to study the impact of its current code <br />provisions and make a fully informed, final decision amending its conflicting code <br />provisions so that they no longer conflict with one another in locating gambling facilities. <br /> <br />In my opinion each of these items is defensible should you be challenged legally. <br /> <br />I hope this is helpful to you in your deliberations. <br /> <br /> <br />Allen D. Barnard <br /> <br />ADB/rys <br />cc: Joel Jamnik <br />Dennis Welsch <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.