Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335.

91 citing documents.

PTL, LLC v. Chisago County Board of Commissioners 656 N.W.2d 567 Minn. Ct. App. 2003
Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n v. City of Chanhassen, Nat’l Capital Corp. v. Vill.
Rockford Township v. City of Rockford 608 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Rockford Township v. City of Rockford 608 N.W.2d 903 Minn. Ct. App. 2000
Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n v. Chanhassen, see also Minn.Stat.
In Re Livingood 594 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1999
In Re Livingood 594 N.W.2d 889 Minn. 1999
Investments, see also Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n v. City of Chanhassen, -41 (Minn.1984).
AVR, INC. v. City of St. Louis Park 585 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
AVR, INC. v. City of St. Louis Park 585 N.W.2d 411 Minn. Ct. App. 1998
support of its argument, AVR cites Trisko v. City of Waite Park, in which this court held that a municipality must base a decision to deny a conditional use permit on “something more concrete than neighborhood opposition and expression of concern for public safety.” (quoting Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n v. City of Chanhassen, ), review denied (Minn. Sept.
Trisko v. City of Waite Park 566 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Trisko v. City of Waite Park 566 N.W.2d 349 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
A municipality must base the denial of a conditional use permit on “something more concrete than neighborhood opposition and expression of concern for public safety.” Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n v. City of Chanhassen, (concluding that “non-specific testimony that the proposed McDonald’s poses potential traffic hazards” fails to rebut “the city engineer’s testimony that the intersection *356 could handle the anticipated traffic”).
SuperAmerica Group, Inc. v. City of Little Canada 539 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
SuperAmerica Group, Inc. v. City of Little Canada 539 N.W.2d 264 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
See Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n v. City of Chanhassen, (holding denial of permit must be based on something more concrete than “non-specific” neighborhood opposition); (holding city may rebut expert testimony with nonex-pert testimony), review denied (Minn. May 23, 1991); Scott County
Neitzel v. County of Redwood 521 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
Neitzel v. County of Redwood 521 N.W.2d 73 Minn. Ct. App. 1994
See Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n v. City of Chanhassen, (distinguishing between conditional use and permitted use).
Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton 504 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton 504 N.W.2d 66 Minn. Ct. App. 1993
v. City of Chanhassen, (denial of conditional use must be based on something more concrete than neighborhood opposition and expressions of concern for public safety and welfare).
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 502 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1993
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 502 N.W.2d 203 Minn. 1993
See Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n v. City of Chanhassen
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 488 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis 488 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Medical Services, Inc. v. City of Savage 487 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Medical Services, Inc. v. City of Savage 487 N.W.2d 263 Minn. Ct. App. 1992
Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n v. City of Chanhassen
Northpointe Plaza v. City of Rochester 465 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1991
Northpointe Plaza v. City of Rochester 465 N.W.2d 686 Minn. 1991
il’s reliance on the “purpose” of Bl-b zoning to find Superamerica in non-compliance with the CUP requirements and presumably to find no protectible property interest, this court has held that where, as here, the applicant for a CUP complies with the specified permit requirements, “approval of a permitted use follows as a matter of right.” Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’n v. City of Chanhassen, see also Littlefield, 785 F.2d at 601 (citing Curry v. Young, 285 Minn. 387, 397 , ).
Northpointe Plaza v. City of Rochester 457 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Northpointe Plaza v. City of Rochester 457 N.W.2d 398 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Farmington Township v. High Plains Cooperative 460 N.W.2d 56 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
Farmington Township v. High Plains Cooperative 460 N.W.2d 56 Minn. Ct. App. 1990
But see Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’ (Simonett, J. concurring) (underpinning for this rule of strict construction no longer exists).
Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of City of Moorhead 446 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Rowell v. Board of Adjustment of City of Moorhead 446 N.W.2d 917 Minn. Ct. App. 1989
Glen Paul Court Neighborhood Ass'n v. Paster 437 N.W.2d 52 Minn. 1989
Glen Paul Court Neighborhood Ass'n v. Paster 437 N.W.2d 52 Minn. 1989
See Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass’
Chase v. City of Minneapolis 401 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Chase v. City of Minneapolis 401 N.W.2d 408 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
the Minnesota Supreme Court distinguished a city’s review of permit applications requesting permitted and conditional uses.
Day v. Wright County 391 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Day v. Wright County 391 N.W.2d 32 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
* * * To be effective any restriction on land use must be clearly expressed.”
City of Barnum v. County of Carlton 386 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
City of Barnum v. County of Carlton 386 N.W.2d 770 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
The Minnesota Supreme Court explained in Chanhassen Estates Residents Associa *776 that: A conditional or special use permit may be denied for reasons relating to public health, safety, and general welfare.
Good Neighbor Care Center v. City of Little Canada 357 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
Good Neighbor Care Center v. City of Little Canada 357 N.W.2d 159 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
J.C. Penney Co. v. Commissioner of Economic Security 353 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 1984
J.C. Penney Co. v. Commissioner of Economic Security 353 N.W.2d 243 Minn. Ct. App. 1984