Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />court <br /> <br />decision "without affording any special deference" to the district court's review. Scott County <br />Lurnber Co. v. City of Shakopee, 417 N.W.2d 721, 726 (Minn. App. 1988), review denied <br />(Minn. Mar. 23, 1988). <br />This court's review of city council's decision to deny a conditional use permit is limited to <br />deteImining whether the denial of the conditional use pennit was unreasonable, arbitrary, or <br />capricious. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 416-17 (Minn. 1981); Molnar v. <br />County of Carver Bd. ofCmm'rs, 568 N.W.2d 177,181 (Minn. App. 1997). Pure questions of <br />law, however, are reviewed de novo. Nordmarken v. City of Richfield, 641 N.W.2d 343, 346 <br />(Minn. App. 2002), review denied (Minn. June 18,2002). <br />A city's denial that is based on a legally sufficient reason and supported by a factual basis <br />IS not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. C.R. Invs., Inc. v. Village of Shoreview, 304 <br />N.W.2d 320, 325 (Minn. 1981). On appeal we affirrn a municipality's decision so long as any <br />one stated reason shows its decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Trisko v. City of Waite <br />Park, 566 N.W.2d 349, 352 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Sept. 25, 1997). <br />Appellate comis defer to a municipality's decision when the factual basis for the denial has even <br />the "slightest validity." White Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. v. City of White Bear Lake, 324 <br />N.W.2d 174, 176 (Minn. 1982). The pennit applicant has the burden to persuade the appellate <br />court that the municipality's reasons for denial of the conditional use perrnit are imperrnissible. <br />Hubbard Broad., Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757, 763 (Minn. 1982). <br />In 1965 the legislature enacted the Municipal Planning Act (MP A), currently codified at <br />Minn. Stat. 99462.351-.365 (2002), which provided "municipalities the authority to engage in <br />comprehensive municipal planning activities." Nordmarken, 641 N.W.2d at 347. Under the <br />MPA: <br />The goveming body may by ordinance designate certain types of developments, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />http://vlww.courts.state.mn.us/opinions/coa/current/opa040672-1123.htm <br /> <br />11/23/2004 <br />