pf_02070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

opinion is tnzt the proiect wi! 1 bave oni y minimal impact IJn traffic on Rice Street ~~d Minn~sota street. See the reports tram Benshoof and Associates. Inc. whicA have been pro~ided to the ~it7 Council. SPECIA~_q~E~~~JT_~PPROVA~_~~~ES~ The use requested herein is a special use. and therefore in additio~ to meetinq pertorm&nce standards similar to those for a permitted use. we RtUSt. show th~t other more subjective performaace standards listed in Exhibit D attached hereto are met. A use is. however. a permitted use. subject to meeting the perfon~ce standards. In fact. the Minnesota Supreme Court in the case of ~4,,~~,_s~nEs_tatesJ~.e_~~~~.pts_-,-=-_~itt. of ChanhM~~. 342 R.W.2d. 335 (Minn. 1984) held: (W)ben a ci t., designates a spe.:i fie ':.se as permissible in the 1)artieular zone or district, the City has exercised its discretion and determined that the p~rmitt..ed use is consistea~ with the public health, safety and general welfare aDd consistant with the qoals of its comprehensive plan. Until the district is reaoned or the zoning ordinance ia either amended or successfully chall enged. that determination 1s conclusive. Section 12.035 of the Roseville Zoniug Code set~ forth the criteria for issuance of a special ~e permit. See attached Kxhi~it D. criteria two tbrou9h aix havo not beeD raised a8 an issue. Criteria number one has been raised as an issue but there is no evidence before you that the proj~ct as designed will ba~e a neqative impact on traffic. The overwhelming evidence supports ~ur contention that the project wi 11 have on1 y a !lioima! traffic impact which wi 11 be further lessened by the resurfacinq and. reconfi9uration of Rice Street in 1991. As recently as 1988. the Minnesota Supre~ Court. in ~~n.~o~ v. Ci~1 of Bloomingtop 421 N.W.2d. 301 (Minn. 1988) reiterated the basis for deteTmininq whet.t.er a city council's actions will be upheld by the Court u~on review. The standard of review is wh~thQr the l:it., council's actions uere teasonable. Is there a "reasonable basis for the decision" or 13 t~e deo:-i~ion "unreasonable. arbitrary and capr~~~o~s.n Denial of a s~ecial use permit is arbitrary if it is established by the developer that all standards specified b, the ordina~ce as a condition of qra~tin9 the permit application have been met. ScotJ _ County ,LumbeJ,:' ~o~PJJ}Y,I__~~~_~_ ~_.___CjJ,:r._Q.f__~b.,lli~u, 411 N.N.2d. 721 (Minn. App. 1988). -3-