Laserfiche WebLink
09 -91 If:-'• - », I • * ^ <br />Fttrch«r work was not undertaken because an adjacent <br />landowner obtained a temporary injunction preventing any <br />conetruetion interfering with certain easenenta. In February <br />1987/ the City, through the Minneapolis Conwunity DavrLopment <br />Agency (M.C.D.A.)r sought to take the easements through eminent <br />doaaia. The district court rejected the City's attempt to <br />condemn the easements in August 1987. The easement litigation <br />has since been resolved. <br />la June 1988, L.C.A. sold the site property to Li.ncoln <br />pjjop®3pty (liincoln) • Lincoln and L.C.A. proposed a joint venture <br />consisting of two towers to accommodate the easements. On July <br />12, 1988, the soning administrator, pursuant to an opinion of <br />City's planning department, advised L.C.A. and Lincoln that <br />plan was acceptable without further concept review. Xn <br />February 1989, Lincoln defaulted on the contract for deed and <br />the property reverted to L.C.A., which decided to develop the <br />site itself. <br />On April 12, 1989, the loning administrator advised L.C.A. <br />the cenditionsl use permit was no longer valid because it failed <br />to establish the conditional use. L.C.A. appealed this '-.ecision <br />to the City council, which held public hearings considering the <br />validity of the conditional use permit. <br />The City council, by a 10-3 majority, held the previously <br />approved conditional use permit remained valid. However, their <br />approval was conditioned on L.C.A. filing proper plans with the <br />Oity. City staff reviewed the new plans and determined they <br />- 4 -