Laserfiche WebLink
iyu.,,7�r LP JC <br />LAW OFFICES OF <br />William G. Hawkins and Associates <br />WILLIAM G. HAwnsrs <br />Legal Assistant: <br />TAMMI 1. UvEGes <br />BARRY A. SLTLLIVAN HOLLY G. PROVO <br />March 19, 2004 <br />Jeff Smyser <br />Planning Director <br />Lino Lakes City Hall <br />600 Town Center Parkway <br />Lino Lakes, MN 55014 <br />2140 PouRr1. AVENUE Nom <br />ANOKA, MjNNE OTA 55303 <br />PHONE (763) 427 -8877 <br />FAX (763) 421 -4213 <br />E-MAIL HawkLaw1@aol.com <br />Re: Eagle Brook Church CUP Application <br />Dear Jeff: <br />You have requested a written response from this office to the letter dated February 4, <br />2004 from the Marty law firm in the above- referenced matter. <br />First, I would like to summarize for you the standards of law which are applicable to <br />conditional use permit application decisions by a municipality. A decision to approve <br />or deny a CUP application is subject to the "rational basis" test. Cities have wide <br />discretion in CUP cases; the question becomes whether the decision had a reasonable <br />basis or whether the city acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or capriciously. Zylka v. City <br />of Crystal, 167 N. W 2d 45 (Minn. 1969); Swanson v. City of Bloomington, 421 <br />M. W.2d 307 (Minn. 1988); Barton Contracting Co. v. City of Afton, 268 N W 2d 712 <br />(Minn. 1978). Is there a factual basis for the Council's decision that is legally <br />sufficient? If not, the decision will be viewed as arbitrary. Trisko v. City of Waite <br />Park, 566 N. W.2d 349 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997). The Council should state the reasons <br />for its decision contemporaneously and in more than lust a conclusary fashion. Zylka, <br />supra; Earth Burners, Inc. v. County of Carlton, 504 N, W. 2d 66 (Minn. Ct. App. <br />19931. A tack of stated reasons leads to a presumption of arbitrariness. Zylka, supra; <br />Communications Properties, Inc. v. County of Steele, 506 N.W.2d 670 (Minn. Ct <br />App. 1993); f?.A. Putnam & Associates, Inc. v. City of Mendota Heights, 510 N.W.2d <br />264 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). <br />A CUP is different from a variance. A CUP permits property, within the broad <br />discretion of the City Council, to be used in the manner expressly authorized by the <br />