My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2004
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2004
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:34:29 AM
Creation date
11/1/2004 8:51:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
11/04/2004
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
223
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
League of Minnesota Cities <br /> Insurance Trust <br />145 Universib/Avenue West. St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 <br />(651) 28Z-Z200 , (800) 925-1122 <br /> Fax: (651) 281-1298 ,'TDD: (651) 281-1290 <br /> www.imnc, org <br /> <br /> LMCIT RISK MANAGEMENT MEMO <br /> THE NECESSITY OF ADEQUATE FINDINGS/ <br />REASONS TO SUPPORT MUNICIPAL LAND USE DECISIONS <br /> <br />When a ci~'s land use decision is challenged in court, the court's review is quite narrow. The <br />standard of review of a city's land use decision is limited to whether the ci~ had a rational basis <br />for its decision. ;'Land use decisions are entitled to great deference and will be disturbed on <br />appeal only in instances in which the city's decision has no rational basis." SuperAmerica <br />Group, Inc. v. Ci7 of£.itde Cancdct, 539 N.W.2d 264, 266 (Minn. App. 1995). That is, courts <br />review a municipal body's decision [o determine if it is unreasonably arbitrary or capricious. <br />S~vanson v. Ci~. of Bloomingron, 42l N.W.2d 307, .313 (Minn. 1988). This narrow.scope of <br />review accorded to the [and use decisions of cities reflects judicial recognition that local <br />governing bodies are in the best position to assess what zoning classifications and decisions best <br />serve the public welfare. £ctrson v. ~?asfling[on Count, 387 N.W.2d 902, 905 (Minn. App. <br />1986).. <br /> <br />In land use cases, Minnesota courts are looking for a sufScient statement of the reasons given by <br />the cig/to grant or deny an application request. The role of the court is to examine the city's <br />reasons and ascertain whether the record before the city council supports them. The reasons <br />given by the city, must be [egalty sufficient and have a factual basis. <br /> <br />Minnesota case law and statutory law demands that the reasons ~'or a city's decision on a land use <br />case be articulated on the record. We recommend the cit7 adopt writing findings of fact, or <br />"reasons," and conclusions of law when it makes land use decision. The city should approve a <br />document that contains ail the relevant facts. The document should then apply those facts to the <br />relevant criteria. <br /> <br />When a city,' is presented with a land LISe application, the role of the city council/planning <br />commission is to apply the facts, presented to the law and to articulate the reasons for its decision. <br />The role of the city,' council/planning commiss'ion is to-determine and consider how the hcts <br />presented to them compare with the city's articulated standards. The city, council and/or <br />planning commission should base their decision on the facts presented at the hearing and then <br />apply those facts to the legal standards contained in city, ordinances and relevant state law. City <br />stat'f |'eports should reference applicable ci~ code provisions. (E.g. review standards in <br />ordinance granting a variance.) <br /> <br />68 <br /> <br />AN '-QUALOPPORTUNITY/AFFiRMAT!VEACTfON EMPLOYER <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.