Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-.-1-- <br /> <br />MAS LON <br />EDELI\-LA..~ <br />BOR1\lAN <br />& BRAND <br /> <br />a P",fi,uional Limited <br />Liability PurtMr.hip <br /> <br />October 27, 1995 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />compatible with the B-3 zone and will be beneficial to the community. <br /> <br />Car-X's compatibility with the B-3 zone is evidencedby similar businesses in <br />the B-3 zone, particularly the Naftalia Alkali development of an Alpha Muffier and <br />Brake Shop at 3114 N. Lexington Ave. The Alpha development is almost identical to <br />Bernstein's proposed development. It consists ofa similar muffier and brake shop, <br />which abuts an apartment complex, has yellow sign age, and has limited "turn-around <br />space." Furthermore, the City Council granted Alpha two set back variances. The <br />acceptance in 1994 by the City Council of the similar Alpha development shows, if <br />nothing else, that the denial of Bernstein's application for an almost identical muffier <br />shop will be an arbitrary decision. As indicated by the Report, Bernstein's Car-X "is <br />consistent with the B-3 General Business zoning classification," and "works well on ! <br />the site." ~ 5 <br />...h..- ") <br />The evidence also indicates the development will have a beneficial - rather than ,.~( , <br />a negative - impact on the surrounding community. As shown by Bernstein's <br />application, which is supported by the Report, the proposed development will e~anct' <br />the surrounding businesses, the additional traffic will be less than that gene~tedOy the <br />prior development, and the noise level and any negative ;visuaL~c~eighboring <br />properties will be minimal. Moreover, Car-X's propo d~lio'Y~tgn, which is 20 feet <br />tall, will be less obtrusive than Alpha's similar yellow ~gn of 22~u~e feet. That Mr. <br />Bernstein is willing to comply with the specifications et.~rth byAhe ity engineer and <br />Planning Department evidences that the city's denial 0 emstei' application is <br />arbitrary. See Inland Constr. Co. v. City of Bloomington, 292 Minn. 374, 195 <br />N.W,2d 558 (1972) (developers sustained light burden of proof to show development <br />would not adversely affect the area when all of their plans were in accordance with the <br />city engineer's and planning department's plans). <br /> <br />CONCLUSION <br /> <br />The facts set forth above, together with the lack of any specific evidence by the <br />City, indicate a prima facie case of arbitrariness. The facts may. also support an action <br />for bad-faith, which would enable Mr. Bernstein to recover his expenses and <br />attorneys' fees in pursuing this matter. <br /> <br />Although the tone of this letter may sound harsh, it is intended only to convey <br />the seriousness of the situation. Mr. Bernstein wants to be a productive and <br />contributing member to the City ofRoseville, and would like to resolve this matter <br />amicably. The City Council should and must consider this matter before its next <br />