pf_03251 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

as previously discussed in 1995, by passing an ordinance amendment that eliminates any ambiguity regarding the zones within the City where gaming is allowed and what review procedures, if any, would be employed in reviewing site proposals. Having classified a bingo hall as an amusement establishment, however, has led to a claim by the previous and present attorney for one of the neighbors that Chapter 303 should be applied to the facility, since that Chapter provide specific controls for businesses that have amusement devices or activities. This claim has been made in spite of a provision in Chapter 303 that the Chapter is not intended to apply to any tax-exempt operations, and that Chapter 304 contains specific and in some cases contradictory provisions solely applicable to charitable gaming activities. Since under Minnesota law only certain charitable, non-profit organizations may conduct non-casino bingo and gaming activities, and since it is a fundamental canon of statutory construction or ordinance interpretation that the specific shall govern over the general, it is my opinion that the proposed bingo hall use is explicitly and implicitly excluded from the provisions of Chapter 303. Consequently, I have concluded that under the Code Chapter 303 is inapplicable to the proposed use (and specifically the 1500 foot separation requirement sought by counsel for the neighbors), and that only Chapter 304 is applicable to the proposed use. Again, my interpretation is subject to clarification or reinterpretation by the Council. . Is a bingo hall an intensification of a nonconforming shopping center use? Another claim that has been made is that the shopping center is a nonconforming use that under the City Code can not be intensified or expanded. As indicated in the staff report, the proposal by the owner is to lease a vacant bay of the shopping center for another permitted business use. While the shopping center/ business use is a conforming use, it has nonconformities as to current design requirements. The City Code and past practice of the City has been to allow the continued use of these properties, including allowing property owners to remodel, update and in some cases make structural and site improvements, but to require as a condition of any permits or approvals a proportionate and related level of improvement to those design elements that do not meet current standards. There is no proposed enlargement of the building footprint, and the overall parking requirements for both types of uses is consistent. While the testimony seems to indicate that the traffic generated by the new use may have different surge characteristics, the volume and timing of these unique characteristics are manageable according to the staff report with the conditions recommended to Council. Efforts to preclude the continued use of the site or to attach conditions to approvals that far exceed a proportional and measured relationship to the past and current use could be construed to be a taking of the property. It is my opinion that the staff report properly characterizes the proposed use as consistent with past levels of business activities on the site and suggests a rational and balanced set of site improvement measures as required by the City Code. 2