Laserfiche WebLink
Z.B. <br /> <br />October i 0, 2004 Page <br /> <br />The AUAR included nine pages of existing and predicted traffic operations and <br />showed that the street system could accommodate development with recom- <br />mended improvements, which were incorporated into the realignment p]ans for <br />the major streets and intersections. <br /> In preparation for redevelopment, the city purchased all of the single-family <br />homes except Dahline's. Single-family residential housing was no longer a per- <br />mhted ~9r conditional, use within her district, and Dah]ine's home was consid- <br />ered a nonconfonmng use. <br /> The city then entered into an agreement to allow a.develope; Io build a four- <br />story, 129-unit senior independent and assisted-living apartment building. <br /> The city granted the developer a conditional-use permit to build the new <br />building, but attached several conditions to it, One of the conditions was that <br />it improve Alder Lane,.the street that ran'past Dahline's house to the building. <br /> Dahline sued to stop the project, and the court rulsd in the city's favor. <br /> Dahline appealed, arguing the city's actions in granting the permit were <br /> arbitrary and capricious because the project would cause traffic congestion. <br /> D E CISIOtN: Affim'~ed. <br /> The city did not act unreasonably or abuse its discretion in approving the <br />conditional use permit. <br /> Dahline argued the project would cause congestion on Aider Lane but did <br />not offer any evidence in support of this. <br /> The record showed the city considered the AUAR, which was an extensive <br />study of traffic patterns of the entire district, and conditioned the permit on the <br />improvement of Alder Lane to city standards. <br /> Thus, there ,;vas no evidence refuting the city's claim it acted in good faith <br />and carefully considered ali [he evidence before granting the permit. <br />~'ee also: Mohler v. City of St. Louis Park, 643 iV. l,E2d 623 (2002). <br />~'ee ciiso: CiQ~ of Bloomin,~ron v. Ci~.. of Burnsville, 666 iV. PV2d 4~4 (2003). <br /> <br />th'ar ~he~a~ <br />nat'ion:, This: <br />discri;r~;:rm~ilon <br />iSes[, p~a~ric.es <br /> <br />'_~; ';C(';~' ~.u,;lafl ~';olismng _~'oup...~.a,/ .'eproauction :s ::ronibi~ed. For more :nicrmaiion '3~ease call ,617'. <br /> <br />145 <br /> <br /> <br />