pf_02792 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

MASLON EDELMA"'I BORMAN & BRAND a Profasional Limitod Liability Partrur.hip October 27, 1995 Page 3 Township of Grow, 296 Minn. 1,206 N.W.2d 19 (1973). If there was no rational basis for the decision, the decision is arbitrary, and will be reversed by the courts. To determine whether a decision is arbitrary, courts look at the City's standards for the issuance of the Permit. If the standards are specific and the applicant has fulfilled all of the standards, a denial of the Permit will be arbitrary as a matter oflaw. When the standards are more general, courts look at the compatibility of the proposed development to the particular zone and whether the development will endanger the public health, s.afety and general welfare of the surrounding community. The absence of specific standards makes the denial of a Permit more vulnerable to a finding of arbitrariness. RoseviUe's standards for the issuance of a Permit are general in nature. They include: 1. Impact on traffic; 2. Impact on parks, streets, and other public utilities; 3. Compatibility with the site plan, internal traffic circulation, landscaping, and structures with contiguous properties; 4. Impact of the use on the market value of contiguous properties; 5. Impact on the general public health, safety and welfare; and 6. Compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Because the City's standards are general, the focus of the City's determination to issue a permit must be based upon the proposed development's compatibility with the B-3 zone and the affect on the surrounding area. General objections by the City will not suffice; the City must present specific evidence to show incompatibility or an adverse affect to the surrounding community. MinnetonkaCongregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v. Svee, 303 Minn. 79,226 N.W.2d 306 (1975). Moreover, neither opposition by neighbors nor traffic concerns are an adequate basis for denial when the City has little evidence to support an adverse affect on the community or surrounding businesses. See Northpointe Plaza v. City of Rochester, 457 N.W.2d 398 (Minn. App. 1990), afPd. 465 N.W.2d 686 (Minn. 1991); see also Metro 500 v. City of Brooklyn Park, 297 Minn. 294, 211 N.W.2d 358 (1973) (denial of a Permit to a service station could not be justified on the grounds that station endangered public welfare when there was no specific evidence presented to show station would create hazards, light, fire or health problems). The City has no specific evidence to show Car-X's incompatibility with the B-3 zone or that it will have an adverse affect on the surrounding community. To the contrary, the specific evidence before the City Council indicates that Car-X is