Laserfiche WebLink
Lyi � vi .+�.�+��v � VIL'YIJVJiv VviGl/ 7V IV.�7 �' .V.�/ IV IVV. 17.7 <br /> for the City when dealing with simi�ar <br /> requeats �or acceseory uses and etructures on <br /> unbuildable, eubstandard lota . <br /> (�) The applicante' proposed interpretation of <br /> the acceseory atructur� ordinances ie in <br /> complete conflict with the original intent of <br /> the code. <br /> Orano, Minn. , Re9olution 2576 (Feb. 1.3 , 1989) . The reaolution <br /> require.d the removal of the dock and it was subsequently removed by <br /> Tillotson . <br /> In May 1991, Stodola and Peter�on filed a complaint , alleging: <br /> (1} illegal removal of a r.or.-conforcr�ing hoa�. dock, (2 ) <br /> unconstitutional taking, (3) arbitrary and capricioua conduct , (4 ) <br /> vague and amb�9uous regulatione, and (S) denial of equal <br /> protection. The trial court determined that the denial of <br /> reapon8ents ' applicatian was arbitrary and capriciou9 , and ordered. <br /> the city to approve respondentg ' application for a arared dock . It <br /> atayed the order for 30 days to allow the partiea an opportunity to <br /> negotiate the apecific terme of the shared dock project . when the <br /> partie$ could not agree, the court issued an eYder adopting <br /> respondents ' propoeal . Thie appeal followed. <br /> D E C I S I 0 N <br /> In zoning matters, this court independently reviews the record <br /> and the city' s decieion. 134�t western Co leg�_v Ci v of_ A�t� <br /> ��� 281 N.w. 2d 865 , 868 (Minn. 1979) . Far both legielative <br /> (zoning) and quasi-�udicial (special uee permits and variances) , <br /> decisione by a city, the standard of review is wheLher the action <br /> was reasonable. vanL�nd��hQor v Citv of �n�ta Hei aht�, 336 <br /> N.W. 2d 503 , 508 (Minn. I983? . The n�iturE of•' the � ;tion bears on <br /> � -4- ' <br />