Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2011

Home

State, by Rochester Assn of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885 (Minn. 1978); Henning v. Village of Prior Lake, 435 N.W.2d 627 (Minn. Ct. App.,1989); VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503 (Minn.,1983) Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 1979) Kottschade v. City of Rochester, 537 N.W.2d 301(Minn. Ct. App., 1995). D. Standard of review for preliminary and final plats When drafting and adopting a subdivision ordinance, cities have a lot of discretion in choosing their language and setting design standards. When drafting and adopting a subdivision ordinance, the city is said to be utilizing its legislative (or law- making) authority. When using its legislative authority, the only limits on the city's authority is that action must be constitutional, rational, and in some way related to protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public. This is known as the "rational basis standard" and it is generally a relatively easy standard for cities to meet. In contrast, when administering an existing subdivision ordinance by reviewing a preliminary or final plat application, the city's discretion is much more limited. Generally, when reviewing a subdivision application, the city is no longer acting in its legislative capacity. When reviewing subdivision applications, the city is said to be exercising a quasi-judicial (judge -like) function. Rather than legislating for the broad population as a whole, the city is making a quasi-judicial determination about an individual subdivision application regarding whether the application meets the standards of the city ordinance. In quasi-judicial circumstances, the city must follow the standards and requirements of the ordinance it has adopted. If an application meets the requirements of the ordinance, generally it must be granted. If an application is denied, the stated reasons for the denial must all relate to the applicant's failure to meet standards established in the ordinance. In sum, the city has a great deal of liberty to establish the rules, but once established, the city is as equally bound by the rules as the public. In quasi-judicial situations, a reviewing court will closely scrutinize the city's decision to determine whether the city has provided a legally and factually sufficient basis for denial of an application. In quasi-judicial situations, due process and equal protection are the main reasons for the more stringent scrutiny. Due process and equal protection under the law demand that similar a pplicants must be treated uniformly by the city. The best process for ensuring similar treatment among applicants is to establish standards in the ordinance and to provide that if standards are met, the subdivision application must be granted. An application may generally only be denied for failure to meet the standards in city ordinances. A reviewing court will overrule a quasi-judicial city subdivision decision if it determines that the decision was arbitrary (failed to treat equally situated applicants equally or failed to follow ordinance requirements). SUBDIVISION GUIDE FOR CITIES 23