Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/04/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 9 RDNT again appealed. It argued that the City's conditional use permit ordinance standard was legally insufficient and that the City's denial of its conditional use permit application was arbitrary and capricious. DECISION: Judgment of court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of Minnesota concluded that the City acted within its discretion in denying RDNT's conditional use permit application. In so concluding, the court first held that the City's conditional use permit ordinance standard—which required that a proposed use not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise halm the public health, safety, and welfare—was legally sufficient. However, the court did note that the factual basis for the City's findings based on that subjective standard would be more closely examined than would the City findings based on a less subjective standard. Examining the City's findings, the court held that the City had a reason- able factual basis to determine that the proposed use would injure the sur- rounding neighborhood or otherwise harm the public health, safety, and welfare. The court found that there was evidence that the proposed use would increase traffic on already busy streets. Importantly, the court noted that even though the City streets would not be at capacity, the City could still conclude that the proposed use would nonetheless injure or otherwise harm the neighborhood. Street capacity alone was not dispositive as to whether traffic would injure the neighborhood or otherwise halm the public health, safety, and welfare. It was not a capacity issue, but was a livability issue, said the court. RDNT had also argued that the City unreasonably, arbitrarily, and capriciously determined that RDNT's proposed mitigation efforts would be insufficient to alleviate the traffic issues. The court disagreed. The court found that the city adequately considered the proposed mitigating condi- tions and had reasonably determined that they would not alleviate traffic concerns. See also: C. R. Investments, Inc. v. Village of Shoreview, 304 N. W.2d 320 (Minn. 1981). See also: Minnetonka Congregation oflehovah's Witnesses, Inc. v. Svee, 303 Minn. 79, 226 N. W.2d 306 (1975). Zoning News from Around the Nation MISSOURI The state Legislature is considering a measure that would give prefer- ence for state grants to Missouri counties that meet an "agri-ready" designation standard. Counties would receive "agri-ready" designations if they meet various requirements including not having any health or zon- © 2015 Thomson Reuters 11