pf_03251 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Joel Jarnnik September 28, 2000 Page 2 includes the practical impact of the actual, physical uses. As estimated by the City's staff, this use will expand and intensify the current use of the shopping center witb respect to the parking requirements, in a dramatic and materia} way. Consequently, I still believe that approval of this gamblwg operation wjll violat:e Section 1011.02. This conclusion is supported by the specific provisions of Section 1006.0 J 7, dealing with the effects of operating a "24-hour use" in a shopping center. This ordinance contains a specific finding that a 24-hour use within 300 feet of a residential district "constitutes an expansion and intensification of the use" This specific language, concludes, as a matter of City policy~ that such 24-hour uses "expand and intensify" the existing shopping center uses. This language obviousJy tracks precisely with the language in Section 1011.02, prohibiting "expansion>> and ((intensification" where there is an existing nonconformity. Therefore, based on your own ordina.oces aJ1d the conclusive findings contained in those ordiI1ances, because Hamline Center is an existing :qonconfonnip.g.. use, the addition of a Dew 24-hour use where none c\JITently exists does "expand" and "intensify" the nonconformity, J would also like to reiterate my position concerning Section 1011.05, which '. stipulates that only "incidental alterations" may be made to a property which contains a nonconforming use. The information which we have to date, whjch presumably will be investigated by staff, indicates that the developer will be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to make alterations to the Center to accommodate this use. You have indicated that the City should not consider, in decidiDg whemer there are more than "incidental" alterations, any alterations which are required to satisfy City Code. However, there is no reasOJ1 why the gambling operation necessarily has to operate as a 24-hour use. If it was willing to restrict its hours to 10;00 p.m., then the 24-hour ordinance would not be appJicable, and none of the exterior alterations required by the ordinance would be necessary. However, the applicant has elected to request a use which triggers the 24-bour ordinance. In such instance, it is not the City's fault that these additional alterations are being required, but the requirements are incidental to the specific new use being requested by the applicant. Under those cjrcumstances, the applicant cannot complain about the inclusion of these additional expenses in determining whether more than "incidental" aherations. are being made. This case is significantly different than a circumstance where a newly-passed ordina11ce (such as a sprinkling requirement) is imposed on a pre-existing use (such as an apartment building), a.nd men the City must determine whether the construction of the ordinance-required alterations will necessarily trigger complete Code compliance. In the hypothetical suggested, the imposition of additional expenses is entirely City~induced, since the use by the property owner remains constant. In the preseIlt circumstances, dealing with Hamline Center, the additionaJ requireme,C\ts for alterations are being ! [/8 d 6SS89v29SS 'ON/6J7: 8/ 'lS/SS: ~ [. v 00.62 '60 (IHi) ----- vm~H