Laserfiche WebLink
<br />() <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />1 <br />0,\ <br />:J <br />. .,c:, <br />-,; <br /> <br />Other relevant facts and circumstance strongly support a valid <br /> <br />'I <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />basis for issuance of the re4uested on- sale liquor license: <br /> <br />(a) Plaintiff's property on November 23, 1~76. was zoned B-3, <br />general business according to the comprchensi ve zoning <br />ordinance which lawfully permits Plaintiff's intended restaurant <br />use with on-sale liquor. <br /> <br />(b) Plaintiff;s property had been zoned B-3 general business, <br />since August 13, 1964 (12 years). <br /> <br />_ (c) That the existing zoning circumventing Plaintiff's property <br />on November 23. 1976, was compatible with a "high-style 'I <br />restaurant as proposed with an on-sale liquor license: <br /> <br />South: Property Zoned B-3 general business <br />improved November 26, 1976, with shopping <br />center and off street parking. <br /> <br />East: Property Zoned B-3, general business, <br />ariCIcontiguous to Plaintiff's property improved <br />with building containing commercial enterprises , <br />viz., Plaza Cleaners, Farmers Insurance <br />Group, Horstad-Todd Construction, Balcony <br />B~auty and Barbers, North East Realty, <br />Innsbruck Realty, Stanton Realtors, Law <br />Office and off street parking lot. <br /> <br />West: Property Zoned B-3. general business <br />c;n-November 23, 1976; unimproved. <br /> <br />North: Property Zoned R-3B, which permits <br />(apartment buildings) two story multi -residen- <br />tial. On November 23, 1976, improved with <br />Eighteen (18) unit apartment building, two <br />(2) duplexes and residential property existi ng <br />in R-3B Zoning. A public road intervenes and <br />separates Plaintiff's property from the R-3B <br />Zoned property to the North. <br /> <br />(d) The R - 3B Zoning to the North permitting apartment buildings <br />on November 23, 1976 and improved in part with an eighteen (18) <br />unit apartment building, was obviously zoned to provide a legitimate <br />buffer for the B-3. General Business to the south. <br /> <br />(e) private citizens who purchased or constructed residential <br />structures (duplexes and single family homes) in R-3B Zoning <br />(apartments permitted) adjacent to known B-3, general business <br />zoni ng wai ve their right to complain of a legitimate use permitted <br />by existing zoning. Plaintiff's property had been zoned B-3, general <br />business since August 13, 1964. Four rezonings took place at <br />"request of owners II shortly before and after November of 1976 in <br />the face of Plaintiff's B-3 Zoning. <br /> <br />Defendant premises its denial of the on-sale liquor license on <br /> <br />November 23, 1976 on certain findings of fact contained in City Council Reso- <br />lution 1811. These findings represent no more than a sham "procedural" <br />compliance with recent Minnesota Supreme Court decisions requiring <br /> <br />-3- <br />