Laserfiche WebLink
D.Standard of review for preliminary and <br />final plats <br />State, by Rochester When drafting and adopting a subdivisionordinance, cities have a lot of <br />Ass'n of <br />discretion in choosing their language and setting design standards. When <br />Neighborhoods v. City <br />drafting and adopting a subdivision ordinance, the city is said to be utilizing <br />of Rochester <br />,268 <br />N.W.2d 885(Minn. <br />its legislative (or law-making) authority. When using its legislative authority, <br />Henning v. <br />1978); <br />the only limits on the city’s authority is that action must be constitutional, <br />Village of Prior Lake, <br />rational,and in some way related to protecting the health, safety,and welfare <br />435 N.W.2d 627 <br />(Minn.Ct. <br />of the public. This is known as the “rational basis standard” andit is <br />App.,1989); <br />generally a relatively easystandard for cities to meet. <br />VanLandschoot v. <br />City of Mendota <br />Heights, <br />336 N.W.2d <br />503(Minn.,1983) <br />In contrast, when administering an existing subdivisionordinanceby <br />reviewing a preliminary or final plat application, the city’s discretion is much <br />more limited. Generally, when reviewing a subdivision application, the city <br />is no longer acting in its legislative capacity. When reviewing subdivision <br />applications, the city is said to be exercising a quasi-judicial (judge-like) <br />function. Rather than legislating for the broad population as awhole, the city <br />is making a quasi-judicial determination about an individual subdivision <br />application regarding whether the application meets the standards of the city <br />ordinance. <br />In quasi-judicial circumstances, the city must follow the standards and <br />requirements of the ordinance it has adopted. If an application meets the <br />requirements of the ordinance, generally it must be granted. If an application <br />is denied, the stated reasons for the denial must all relate to the applicant’s <br />failure to meet standards established in the ordinance. In sum, the city has a <br />great deal of liberty to establish the rules, but once established, the city is as <br />equally bound by the rules as the public. <br />In quasi-judicial situations, a reviewing court will closely scrutinize the <br />Northwestern College <br />v. City of Arden Hills <br />, <br />city’s decision to determine whether the city has provided a legally and <br />281 N.W.2d 865 <br />factually sufficient basis for denial of an application. <br />(Minn. 1979) <br />Kottschade v. City of In quasi-judicial situations, due process and equal protection are the main <br />Rochester <br />,537 <br />reasons for the more stringent scrutiny. Due process and equal protection <br />N.W.2d 301(Minn. <br />under the law demand that similar applicants must be treated uniformly by <br />Ct. App.,1995). <br />the city. The best process for ensuring similar treatment among applicants is <br />to establish standards in the ordinance and to provide that if standards are <br />met, the subdivision application must be granted. An application may <br />generally only be denied for failure to meet the standards in city ordinances. <br />A reviewing court will overrule a quasi-judicial city subdivision decision if it <br />determines that the decision was arbitrary (failed to treat equally situated <br />applicants equally or failed to follow ordinance requirements). <br />SGC23 <br />UBDIVISION UIDE FOR ITIES <br /> <br />