Laserfiche WebLink
1.111 vi vlwnv vlt,.-.1,wdiv VV/GI/ 7V IV..77 1_1' .V.)/ IV IVV. 17.7 <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 <br /> ordinancesatien of <br /> in <br /> the accessory str <br /> • <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) illegal removal of a non-conforming 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 specific terms of the shared dock project . When the <br /> parties could not agree, the court issued an order adopting <br /> respondents ' proposal . This appeal followed. <br /> DECISION <br /> In zoning matters, this court independently reviews the record <br /> and the city' s decision. western Co lea v Ci v o A den <br /> $ills, 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. VanLandechoot v. City of Mendota Heiekta, 336 <br /> N.W.2d 503 , 508 (Minn. 1983) . The nature of the ::tion bears on <br /> -4- <br />