Laserfiche WebLink
MA'I r ' r 1 1 “ • - r ’’Z Z- <br />but ranhut th. Intarpretacion of au ordinance. The proper <br />standard of review of a city-a interpretation of an existing <br />ordinance 1. a question of law for the court. S22 Fsankls <br />_ _ __ dales. T-- V Kca.viU^> «5 <br />(Minn. 1980). cases restricting the district court's review of <br />a city's decision to a deteralnatlon of whether it was <br />•arbitrary and capricious- involve fact-finding or pollcy-naking <br />powers, and therefore do not control in this ease. Sej, m.9 <br />Mann v. ritv of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d at 416-17. <br />«he City council deterained, an<jer exis^tng Ctcy ordi,n«"g9?.' <br />the conditional use pemit issued to L.C.A. had not expired. <br />The district court erred by not reviewing the actions of the <br />City council do novo. Therefore, .M.P.L.S.'s eonplaint nust be <br />r«in*tat«d. <br />a. Since the City council's interpretation of the zoning <br />code is not binding on this court, we undertake independent <br />review. new.lt v. Cj'T <br />App. 198S), net, for lev. denied ( -nn. Sept. 26, 198S). The <br />City council determined the 1985 conditional use permit issued <br />to l.C.A. did not expire. However, n.f.L.S. argues the <br />conditional uso permit lapsed under each of three City <br />ordinances containing one year expiration or invalidation <br />provtaions for such pornlts. Those include: <br />A- MiimeopoliSs Minn.f Code of Ordinances S 522.160 (1976), <br />which provtdos a conditional use permit: <br />- 7 - <br />!<