My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf08-017
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
2008
>
pf08-017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/29/2014 9:07:02 AM
Creation date
6/24/2013 3:30:54 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
08-017
Planning Files - Type
Rezoning
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
RESOLUTION NO. 10625 <br />A RESOLUTION DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN <br />ACCORDANCE WITH § 1005.015 AND § 1013.01 OF THE ROSEVILLE CITY <br />CODE FOR RED DOG HOLDINGS, LLC, D/B/A CASH N PAWN FOR A <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PAWN SHOP AT 2181 — 2195 <br />SNELLING AVENUE (PF08-014) <br />WHEREAS, Red Dog Holdings, LLC applied for a conditional use permit to allow <br />a pawn shop in the existing building at 2181 — 2195 Snelling Avenue, referred to as the <br />Rosewood Shopping Center; and <br />WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on April <br />2, 2008, on the conditional use permit application; and <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council heard the matter at its regularly scheduled <br />meeting of Apri128, 2008, and heard coinments from staff, interested members of the <br />public, and the applicant; and <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Code sets forth six criteria for the issuance of a <br />conditional use permit that the Planning Co�ninission and Gity Council shall consider <br />when reviewing an application, which are: <br />1. Iinpact on traffic; <br />2. Impact on parks, streets and other public facilities; <br />3. Compatibility of the site plan, internal traffic circulation, landscaping and <br />structures with contiguous properties; <br />4. Iinpact of the use on the market value of contiguous properties; <br />5. Impact on the general public health, safety and welfare; and <br />6. Compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan. <br />Pursuant to Minnesota law, the applicant has the burden of proving that the proposed use <br />will not have an adverse impact in regard to any of these factors; and <br />WHEREAS, the Roseville City Council concluded that the applicant did not show <br />that the proposed use would be consistent with the factors set forth in the Roseville City <br />Code for the issuance of a conditional use per�nit; and <br />WHEREAS, after considering all of the evidence, and duly discussing the matter, <br />a motion was made at the April 28, 2008 Roseville City Council meeting to deny the <br />conditio»al use permit application; and <br />� � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.