LP-038 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

oil f. ' ," ( 'fue testirrony of Barry Jchnson further indicates that there has been a dranatic change in land use as distinguished fran zoning WherEby lands zoned B-3 have been do.vn-zoned at the owners' request to residential uses and this inclu:3es the properties innediately west of the subject site. ML. Johnson further established that the City r s ownership of lands lying irrrrediately north of the oorrrrercial site at the northwest corner of Mississippi Street and Silver Lake Ibad precluded there- after the extension of that a:>mrrercial use. In suppJrt of this finding, we respectfully refer the court to SlID Oil Company v. Village of NeN Hope, 1974, 300 Minn. 326, 220 NW2d 256. Finding of Fact N:>. 11, that a restaurant with a liquor license is a higher intensity oomrercial use than a restaurant without a liquor license, thereby rraking the oonflict with the prop:>sed rorrprehensive plan nore substantial, is again well borne out in the record by the recitations of the extended hours of use beyond nor:nal business hours and the existing zoning does not create a vested interest which is not , 245 subject to change, see Alnquist v. 'I'c:1Wn of Marshan, 1976, Minn . NW2d 819. Finding of Fact No. 12, that a license application, similar in all resr:ects to the subject application, was denied by the ColIDcil on FebruaIY 10, 1976 is borne out by the rerord and no o:::rnpellirig reason has been offered by Plaintiff to warrant a reoonsideration of previous COlIDcil action Finding of Fact No. 13, that the CmIDcil would be acting arbitrarily in issuing the subject license as there is no oorrpelling reason in the interest of tie . . public g:::>OO to issue such on-sale intoxi.cating liquor license, is sUfPOrted by Polrran v. City of Royal ton, previously cited. In sUITlffition, it is the City's contention that the Findings Of Fact supp:>rting the denial are adequately supp:Jrted in the reoord and that it would be inappropriate for the trial oourt to substitute its discretion for that of the Council. 'fue zoning cases cited by COlIDsel for the Plaintiff, in his Supplerrental }Errorandum, are inapplicable in liqu::>r license application cases. . Resp2Ctfully subIni tted, CI'lY OF NEW BRIGITON, RA}EEY COUNTY, MINNESOI'A JOM F Lais, Barmigan & Ciresi, New Brighton Ci Attorneys 409 Z.tidvest Federal Building St. Paul, Hinnesota 55101 (612) 224-3781 -6-