pf_02070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

SPE~IA.L qJ;E. P~I,T _~p-RQVAt.~r~~~~~ o~inion is that the prQject will have only minimal impact on tt~f~ic on Rice street a~d Minnesota Stree~. See the reports fram Ber.shoof and Associates. Inc. which have been provia~ to the city COW1cil. The use reqvested herein is a special use. ~nd theref~r6 in addition to ~eti~q pp.rformance standards simdlar to tnose for a permitted use. we must show that other more subjective ~erfot1RClce standards listed in EEhibit D attached hereto are met. A use is. however, a penni. tted use. 9~bject ::'0 meetin~ the ~h~rformance stan~ards. !r. fact. the Minnesota Supreme Court in the case of ~b.!1>>b~~s~n _EsJates ~Rejil._i,4e!1~L~_<:_:tty of~h-&~ha5s~p" 342 N.W 'ld. 335 'Miun. 1984} held: (W)hen a city designates a specitic use as pe~issible in t~e particular zone or d1striC'''. the City has eaeTci..ed its discretion aJ\d determined that the permitted use is consistent with the puJ:lic health, safety and general welfare and consistant with the gogls of its co~~ehensive plan. Until the district is rezo~ed or the zoning ordiu8.Ilce is either a:nended or successful! Y challenged.. that determination is conclusive. - Section 12.035 of the Roseville Zoning Code sets forth the cri tE!ria fot' issuance of a special use penai. t. See attacbed Exhibit D. Criteria two through six have not ~een raised as an issue. Cliteria number one has been raised as an issue but there is no evidence b~fore you that the project as designed will have a negative impact. on traffic. The over",helminq evider.ce supports our contention that the pr~ject wiil have only a mini.al traffic imp4Ct which wi 11 be further lessened by the resurfacing and re~onfi9uration of Rice Street in 1991. As rec~ntly as 1988. the Minnesot~ supreme Court, in ~~~~~?n v. Ci~Y of BJoomin9to~ 421 N.W.2d. 301 (Minn. ~988) reiterated the basis for determining whethf!r e. city cO\\ncil's actions will be \1~held bv the Conrt unon r~vie". ....he standa.rd of review is whether the cit., council"!; actlons ~e-~e .eas.~~!!b!ft ts there a "reasonable basis fO'" the decision" or is the decision "unreasonabl e, arb1 trar,. and capricious." Denial of a special ~s~ ?ermit is arbitrary if it is established by the developer that all stand~rds specified by the ordinance as a condition of 9rantinq the permit application have been met. Scot,t_ County Lumbe~ comp~,nY,I__J.n~!..- .Y_..__CJ~.l__q~__.Sb~t!tp". 417 N.W.2d. 121 (Ninn. App. 1988). -3- -