Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Welsch. Dennis <br /> <br />From: <br />Sent:. <br />To: <br />Cc: <br />Subject: <br /> <br />MARK TRAYNOR [MTRA YNOR@ucare.org] <br />Monday, April 29,2002 12:12 PM <br />den nis. welsch@ci.roseville.mn.us <br />troy. d uncan@us.pwcglobal.com <br />Comments re: Proposed Resolution & Ordinance <br /> <br />Dennis, <br /> <br />I have a fel^, conm\ents regarding the proposed resolution and ordinance. I am providing <br />them in advance of Wednesday's meeting in case you want to forward them to Joel." I will <br />leave to you whether you think they merit further consideration. They came to my mind as <br />I reviewed the stuff over the weekend. I am no way an expert in land use or municipal law. <br /> <br />1) In the resolution, do we need a finding of fact regarding the impact of such businesses <br />when they are concentrated in an area? Our ordinance suggests that concentration is an <br />issue (i.e. such businesses have to be 500 feet from each other), and I did not see a <br />related finding of fact. <br /> <br />2) Possible change to paragraph 18 of proposed resolution so that it reads: <br />"The Planning Commission/City Council finds that the location of sexually oriented <br />businesses in close proximity to residential and commerical properties within the City of <br />Roseville will have a potentially detrimental effect on the City by lowering property <br />values." It currently suggests that such a business in any part of the city would lower <br />property values and the research doesn't appear to state this. <br /> <br />3) Should we add a Roseville-related finding (new paragraph 18.5) related to increase in <br />crime, such as: <br />"The Planning Commission/City Council finds that the location of sexually oriented <br />businesses in, or in close proximity to, residential areas within the City of Roseville <br />will increase rates of crime in those areas." <br />Currently, although the research suggests this, the draft does not include a Roseville- <br />related finding for crime. <br /> <br />4) I'm sure this is just due to the fact I am not used to reading ordinances, but I found <br />the definition section confusing. In particular, the sub-definitions in "Se*ually <br />Oriented Uses-Principle." I wish I had some suggestions for improvement. . It's <br />y fine. <br /> <br /> <br />5) T noticed on pages 7 and 8 of the proposed ordinance that there are a couple occasions <br />where, instead of "se*ually oriented uses - principal", it reads "se*ually oriented uses, <br />prine 1.'1 This is probably a typo~ <br /> <br />6) On page 7, should it read "day cares" or "day care center"? <br /> <br />7) On page 7, section 1017.04, I think the percentage references in numbers and <br />parentheses are not consistent. <br /> <br />8) You will probably talk more about the map at the meeting, but I have a couple <br />quesLions. <br />a) Is the identified area a quarter mile from just B-1? Aren't churches and day care <br />centers in other B zones? <br />b) The asterisk states that B-1 zone was "excluded". Is it supposed to read "included" ? <br />Also, was B-1 included in the area from which a quarter mile was marked because of the <br />presence of schools, churches, day care, etc? The asterisk notes it was included b/c of <br />multi-family housing only. <br /> <br />Hope these are helpful, Dennis, <br /> <br />Seeya Wednesday I <br /> <br />t'lark,612-676-3377 <br />