Laserfiche WebLink
C? 'rl •'£ 'L'^-'^r.z T~Z~'- * * <br />A Ian R. Nettles <br />Darnel B. johnaon <br />Eaiit T. Andifion. Jr.* <br />jamaa M* Niui <br />Cam* L Hna <br />FjuI L Bohftsick, II <br />*AIm WAMiai ia Flanaa <br />\fEYBR, NJU5, ANDERSON. JOHNSON &. NETTLES, P. <br />attorneys at L^'X' <br />5C0C .S'ORWEST C£.\T£A <br />90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET <br />M1.NNE.APOLIS. MINNESOTA 55-K32.4121 <br />uOLDEN VALLf OFFICE; <br />Ponduood Oft:c« *rk <br />4979 Clton Memorial Highway <br />Goidan Valiev. Minncteca 5542 <br />6I2/541-;55! <br />Fax 612/541.9239 <br />612/541.2181 <br />FAX o12/)37-5894 <br />May 9, 1991 <br />Mr. Mark Barnhardson <br />City Administrator <br />City of Orono <br />P. 0. Box 66 <br />Crystal Bay, MN 55323 <br />Re: Special Permit Application <br />1960 Shoreline Driv^ <br />Dear Mr. Bernhardson: <br />Encloaed herewith please find a copy of the recent decision by <br />the Minnesota Court of Appeals, captioned State of Minnesota by <br />Minneyolis Park Lovers, et al, v. City of Minneapolis. Ai~you <br />know from our previous discussion, this recant decision by the <br />Court of Appeals addresses issues very similar to those raised by <br />the Orono City Council's recent decision regarding 1960 Shoreline <br />Drive. Specifically, the Court of Appeals ruled that a <br />Minneapolis City Ordinance had bee*' misinterpreted and misappl -j,d <br />by the City in allowing a Lake Calhoun high rise project to <br />proceed. Minneapolis City Ordinance provided that if there was <br />discontinuance of the conditional use permit, for any reason, the <br />conditional use permit would lapse. Additionally, the Court of <br />Appeals annunciated that the standard review for actions by the <br />City under the case was not the customary "arbitrary and <br />capricious" scope c£ review, but rather the much broader scope of <br />review that allowed the Court to internret the ordinance on its <br />own. <br />I believe that the State of Minnesota by Minneapolis park Lovers <br />V. City of Mlnneaylis case~sets fbVth principals which both ~ <br />control and make invalid the April 22, 1991 decision by the Orono <br />City Council to grant the conditional use permit to 1960 <br />Shorel .te Drive. Interestingly, that same conclusion was made <br />and finds support in the March 8, 1990 memorandum to ms. Mabusth, <br />Zoning Administrator, from Susan Pare-Shapiro, Assistant City <br />Attorney wherein Me. Shapiro addressed Code Section 10.3 Subd. 5e <br />whl;h provides: