Laserfiche WebLink
<br />o 0 <br /> <br />findings by Municipalities. l.ylka v. City of Crystal (1969) 283 Minnesota <br /> <br />192. 167 NW 2nd 45. :'\ reaslInable inspection of these Findings indicate <br /> <br />such Finriings reprt'sem "On\~lllsions and presump1ion~ not supported by <br /> <br />the Evidpnce. <br /> <br />FII'\DINGS OF FACT <br /> <br />1. Tha1 1hl' clrea .ut'nerally north of MissisSlppi ~>reet and <br />'.\"est of Si J vel' Lake Hoad. in which the subject property <br />is Ioca1ed. is primarily zoned and developed for residen- <br />1ial use; <br /> <br />Findil.g number 1 is misleading. The area is zoned R-3R <br /> <br />which pel'mits apartment buildings (two(2) story multi-resirlen- <br /> <br />tial use). ThifO zoning constitutes a buffer for lower densit:y <br /> <br />i1roperties situated farther North. This area contains in part <br /> <br />an pxistinl.! eighteen (18) unit apartment building and two (2) <br /> <br />dllpltxes ( or 4 plex). <br /> <br />I tlat the property to the immediate north of the subject <br />prl1pt'rty is den-loped with single family and duplex dwellings; <br /> <br />:'!!ose pPJ"s.)ns construL'1ing or purchasing single family dwellings <br /> <br />v;thin H-3B Zoning (permitting apartment buildings) have no <br /> <br />, .:.;1 andi ng" ;0 complai n as property owners i n a~tual R-1 <br /> <br />Zoni ng districts. (Sin~.d{' family resi dence district); they <br /> <br />jlun:hase or construct such property with knowledge of their <br /> <br />II nderlyi ng zoning ann in this instance as an obdous buffer 10 <br /> <br />lhp B-:~. general business to the South. <br /> <br />:L That the serving of liquor in the commercial operation Viould <br />gent'rate adrlitional noise in the area; <br /> <br />Thi~ finding is pt'esumptive and withOUT hasis. There may well <br /> <br />be :-;lll'W noi se ~enerated from the shopping center to the South <br /> <br />and 1111' ,.;maIler shopping center immediately East of Plaintiff's <br /> <br />p r'(.~el'1.v. T:lt' presumed addi1 ional noise from Plaintiff's <br /> <br />proposed,:;mall category res1aurant with on-sale liquor license <br /> <br />is speculati ve. :1nd insi gnificant in view of the existing shopping <br /> <br />center which Cittendant traffic. small shopping center contiguous <br /> <br />and East of Plaintiff. ,md heavily travelled Silver Lake Road. <br /> <br />-4- <br />