Laserfiche WebLink
application when they say the road was not specifically referenced in <br />the 1969 CUP. Additionally, this map was hand-drawn, is out of scale <br />and was prepared without the benefit of a survey. Consequently, the <br />City cannot have been granting use of the back road with this CUP, as <br />the application was vague and gave the City no clear Indication of the <br />extent of this road or any claim relating to it, nor any indication of what <br />exactly they were granting the club. Moreover, the club was properly a <br />non-conforming use, not a proper subject for a Conditional Use Permit. <br />Even if the 1969 CUP had included the road, the club created a <br />change of circumstances that now necessitates Its revocation. By <br />selling the land for Woodhill Ridge to our developer, the club not only <br />benefitted financially, but by Its own actions, caused the creation of a <br />subdivision. The subdivision, conceived of well after the 1969 CUP, <br />constitutes a change in circumstances. In fact, it is likely that had the <br />Woodhill Ridge subdivision existed in 1969, the 1969 CUP would have <br />specifically denied Woodhill Country Club access via Woodhill Avenue. <br />Therefore, the City should now revoke the 1969 CUP and reissue it <br />with a specific denial of the club's use of the back road and Woodhill <br />Avenue. Under Minnesota law, this is perfectly acceptable and, as long <br />as the City lays out its reasoning and has a rational basis for its action <br />(in this case the change of circumstances and its accompanying safety <br />concerns) a court will defer to the City Council's decision. See, Arcadia <br />Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 267 Minn. 221, 226 (1964); <br />Molnar v. County of Carver Board of Commissioners, 568 N.W.2d. <br />177,180 (Minn. App. 1997); and Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d. <br />409 (Minn. 1981). <br />WHETHER OR NOT THE CLUB'S LAND ABUTS PUBLIC PROPERTY, <br />THE CLUB HAS RELINQUISHED ACCESS TO WOODHILL AVENUE <br />The club also claims that due to the recently stated Intentions of <br />John Plllsbury when he owned the land on which the back road is <br />locoted, the back road is a public roadway. This assertion is <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />» « <br />. I <br />:i <br />:i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I