Laserfiche WebLink
Via. 0? •?! 15:a" -ir r=.n;.:** — * * <br />conpliad with the term tt the original oonditionai use pemit. <br />Based on this detem.in.tien, the 1985 conditional use 'perait <br />2T9iba1s4<1 in full fores dnet sffsc*** <br />IB OctobBr 1989, Minn«apolia ?ark Lovers (M.P.L.S.)^ sued to <br />.top construction of the project. The City answered, while <br />L.C.A. moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a <br />claim upon which relief can be granted. M.P.L-S. made a <br />croee-motlon for summary judgment on count II of its complaint, <br />concerning the expiration of the conditional use permit. <br />Since the district court considered matters outside the <br />pleadings, L.C.A.'s motion was treated as a motion for summary <br />judgment pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02. The district court <br />denied M.P.L.S.'s motion for summary judgment and granted <br />L.C.A.'s motion to dismiss the complaint. M.P.L.S. appeals from <br />the judgment entered in favor of L.C.A, and the City. <br />ISSUES <br />1. Did the district court err by not reviewing the decision <br />of the City council de novo, where the City council interpreted <br />an eaisting ordinance and applied it to the facts? <br />2. Did the City council err in determining the conditional <br />use permit remained valid? <br />M s T. s 1s a nonprofit corporation which was formed <br />«« fn.ppropr Ute <br />developBient. <br />V <br />- 5 -