pf_03251 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-- Mayor and City Council Members City of Roseville September 29,2000 Page 2 required one spac.e for every three seats is apparently not legally required for the proposed gambling operation, since this type of use, which would otherwise require more intensive parking suggested by the Staff, is not considered as a legal matter in esta.blishing the required parking. Thus, Mr. Ja.mnik has apparently concluded that the additional parking burden described in the Staff reports is not a matter of a legat Code requirement, but would only be a practical need given the particular use involved. As indicated in my enclosed correspondence YO Mr. Janmik, this, in my opinion, does Dot mean that the proposed gambllng use is not an "intensification" and '"expansion" of the existing uses at Harnline Center, Even if the additional parking for this llse is not legally required, it does represent an intensification and expansion of the current uses. 1 continue to assert, with great confidence, that the approval of the proposed gambling operation would be a clear and direct violation of YOllr ordinances which regulate nODc.onforming uses. As you can see from the enclosed correspondence, the fact tha.t the gambling operation is proposed as a 24-hour use is, perhaps, the clearest factor in establishing the ga.mbling operation as a vi.olatioI1 of your nonconforming use ordinance, The 24-hour use ordinance states, as a finding enshrined in your ordinances, that a 24- bour use located within 300 feet of residentially zoned property "constitutes an expansion and intensification of the use". Therefore, it violates the nonconforming use ordinance, and your approval of the conditional use permit would be iJlegal. II. Failure to SCiitisfy Conditional Use Criteria. As stated in my previous correspondence, it is our opinion that this application does not sa.tisfy the six factors that are required to be evaluated for any conditional use permit, The most significant factors are as follows: A. Traffic and Parking. It is my understanding that no additional traffic analysis has beeD performed by Staff since the last meeting. As a result, the potential for congestion at times when the bingo operations are commencing or concluding have not been evaluated, leaving the Council with inadequate information on this issue, The eXlsting parking deficiency for Hamline Center, which deficiency will be l11ade much worse by this proposed operation, continues to be one of the most significant adverse impacts that will be created iftlUs proposal is approved. Mr. Jamnik has explained his analysis, as to why the actual parking deficiency may not violate your specific parking ord,inances, and I disagree with his analysis. However, the Council should certainly consider the practical fact that there is a substantial parkwg deficiency for thi~ Center, which win be greatly aggravated by the gambling operatioJ!, a3 it evaluates whether a conditional use permit is appropriate for this operation. Even if the specific parking ordinances, according to one interpretation, do not cause the Center to be in violation of those specific ordinances, the Council can [liS d 6S999VZ99S 'ON/6v: S 1 'IS/1 g: S [ 00 ,62 '60 (lEd) WOHd