Laserfiche WebLink
. ' 1 <br /> for the City when dealing with similar <br /> requests for accessory uses and structures on <br /> unbuildable, substandard lots . <br /> (C) The applicants ' proposed interpretation of <br /> the accessory structure ordinances is in <br /> complete conflict with the original intent of <br /> the code . <br /> Orono, Minn. , Resolution 2576 (Feb. 13 , 1989) . The resolution <br /> required the removal of the dock and it was subsequently removed by <br /> Tillotson. <br /> In May 1991, Stodola and Peterson filed a complaint, alleging: <br /> (1) iliegal removai of a :�or.-confor<i�ing boat dock, (2) <br /> unconstitutional taking, (3) arbitrary and capricious conduct , (4) <br /> vague and ambiguous regulations, and (5) denial of equal <br /> protection. The trial court determined that the denial of <br /> respondents ' application was arbitrary and capricious, and ordered <br /> the city to approve respondents ' application for a shared dock . It <br /> stayed the order for 30 days to allow the parties an opportunity to <br /> negotiate the specif ic terms of the shared dock proj ect . When the <br /> parties could not agree, the court issued an order adopting <br /> respondents ' proposal . This appeal followed. <br /> D E C I S I O N <br /> In zoning matters, this court independently reviews the record <br /> and the city' s decision. Northwestern College v Citv of Arden <br /> Hills, 281 N.W. 2d 865, 868 (Minn. 1979) . For both legislative <br /> (zoning) and quasi-judicial (special use permits and variances) , <br /> decisions by a city, the standard of review is whether the action <br /> was reasonable . VanLandschoot v Citv of Mendota H_eiahts, 336 <br /> N.W. 2d 503 , 508 (Minn. 1983) . The nature of-' the action bears on <br /> -4- ' <br />