Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />Because our building has been legally occupied by office uses for over 30 years and has never contained <br />and was not designed or constructed for retail uses, applying the ground floor retail use restriction to <br />our building would not serve the purposes behind the Council’s direction and therefore we believe it <br />should be excluded from this restriction. While we understand that the office uses in our building could <br />continue as legal nonconforming uses unless and until they ceased for a period of six months or longer, <br />this potential risk which we may not be able to control as landlords (for example if a tenant vacates the <br />building but continues paying rent under the lease) presents a great deal of uncertainty that would <br />potentially jeopardize our ability to refinance the property when the loan comes due. <br />As such, we respectfully request that either the Main Street segment be narrowed to exclude our <br />property from the ground floor retail use requirement altogether, or that certain exceptions be built <br />into the DTPP Amendment to otherwise exclude our building from these restrictions. Possible <br />exceptions that could address our concerns include the following: <br /> Exclude all office uses that legally existed prior to adoption of the 2011 DTPP <br /> Exclude all buildings that were originally designed and constructed for non-retail use <br /> Exclude all buildings that would require substantial remodeling and reconstruction to <br />accommodate ground floor retail uses <br />Thank you very much for considering our concerns and the possible solutions we’ve offered to address <br />these concerns in your drafting of the DTPP Amendment. We look forward to receiving and reviewing it <br />prior to the Planning Commission hearing on this matter which we understand may occur as early as <br />June. <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br />Michael Halow <br />7.A. - Page 30