Laserfiche WebLink
Consulting Planners One Groveland Terrace 612 377-3536 <br />Minneapolis <br />Minnesota 55403 <br />Howard Dahlgren Associates / Incorporated <br />MEMORANDUM <br />DATE: 11 February 1983 <br />TO: Roseville City Council <br />ATTN: James Andre, City Manager <br />FROM:Howard bahlgren <br />'PE Deluxe Check Proposal to Amend B-1 District <br />f <br />f <br />, <br />This. memo is a sequel to our Planning Report, Case Number 1417, dated <br />2 February 1983 relating to a suggestion for, the Council's consideration <br />xf <br />x <br />following the regular Planning Commis. -ion meeting of 9 February. <br />... <br />3 <br />, <br />The Commission recommended (at our suggestion) that the ,amendment sought by <br />Deluxe Check. adding -a special use to the B-1 District to be as.follows <br />"Mail orderr sales and order processing offices, including,' <br />and in conjunction therewith, manufacture, assembly, storage, <br />and shipment of consumer mail order products, subject to <br />limitations that may be applied by the C•.ty Council." <br />ThQ Planning Commission felt than this offered '. the Council an opportunity <br />�to consider each application for such use on an individual basis, and ' <br />,z <br />lim �ti n �s that may be a ro <br />g .such use. y appropriate in each circumstanice. However, <br />1 <br />as a; matter cif good ordinance implementati.on, it does leave 't.he <br />y h <br />applicant stwith `a very wide range in the scope of the use,`. which we Ieel <br />may 'second thought) subject to misuse and • inter �etation <br />4: g Y be sub ' 7 P possibly <br />4. <br />1c<�ddng, to litigation. I therefore .discussed this with Steve ;North and <br />we agreed hat` it, might be helpful to consider a slightly` different approach, <br />' <br />in consultation with our City Attorney, carrying out the intent of; tale. 'r <br />`t4' <br />Planning :Commission';s 'recommendation, but with more. precise definition and <br />{ <br />s fi <br />I imita `.iori <br />s <br />-have. r.Viewed ' the reii`ised. approach with -Robert Bell who -_:indicates he, -is... <br />in agreement, and likes the more precise definition "because recent Supxeme <br />Court decisions have., made special uses ' (someti.mes referred to as conditional <br />uses).almost analagous to permitted uses''. I have also reviewed the <br />revised lan tea e b telephone with Steve Peterson who has been representing <br />g g Y P , P. g <br />; <br />Deluxe Check in this matter. Steve noted that. he is in agreement,�..and wi <br />check further with his colleagues regarding mailing limitations. <br />.proposed.'+ <br />ft , <br />f <br />' <br />i <br />