pf_03251 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mayor and City Council Members City of Roseville September 29, 2000 Page 3 and should disapprove of the coJ1ditional use pennit because, as a practical matter, an existing parking deficiency will be made much worse. B. 1.500 Foot ~etback. Mr. Jamnik has indicated that Chapter 303, which regulates "amusement devices, areas or game room business" is not applicable to this proposed operation, since a differeDt city ordinance (Chapter 304) specificaUy regulates gambling operations. I disagree with his wterpretation. Nevertheless if Chapter 303 does not legally require a 1500 foot setback, the Council stiU can and should apply this setback requirement in evaluating a gambling proposal, when it is required to be approved as a conditional use permit. Obviously, as argued in my previous correspondence, if a. 1500 foot setback from churches, schools and residences is appropriate for a 9-game video center, it certainly is also appropriate for a 300 seat gambling operation. Because of the close similarity of a gambling operation to the "amusemel1t devices" regulated by Chapter 303, the City should be guided by its own st8Ildards and values, as reflected in its requirement of a 1500 setback. Therefore, the City shou1d deny thi5 conditional use permit application because it is so close to adjoining residential areas, schools and churches. C. Violation of Comprehensive Plan. As indicated in my previous correspondence, the gambling center is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan requirements for Hamline Center. The City cannot and should Dot approve, as a. conditional use, a gambling operation which wiH convert thjs Center into a "destination" shopping center, instead oftbe neighborhood shopping center and residential use required by the Comprehensive Plan. At the very least, it should only be approved as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the Center and the adjoining Arona area. m. Compliance 'Yith 24-IJou.r Ordinance. There are two issues with respect to the 24-hour use ordinance which I hope the Council will address in detail. First, there js some question as to whether the Jighting requirements are or wiU be complied with. I have enclosed a copy of a memo whjch we found in the City files, which I believe was provided by the developer. It indicates that the developer "cannot add or relocate lighting to make 100% compliance. The cost for the minimal addition is prohibitive" (paragraph 3). Obviously, since lhis memorandum may be two or three weeks old, circumstances may have changed. Nevertheless, we hope the Council will investigate this with Staff. [[Iv d 6S98gv~99S 'ON/6v: 8! 18/29: 8 [ 00,62 '60 (IH-i) WOH.~