Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor and Members of the City Council <br /> City of Orono <br /> December 3, 2020 <br /> Page 3 <br /> II. THE APPLICATION, AS AMENDED, FULLY COMPLIES WITH THE CITY'S <br /> SUBDIVISION AND ZONING ORDINANCES. <br /> It is, and has always been, the goal of the Jacobs Trust to propose a subdivision of the <br /> Property that fully complies with the City's subdivision and zoning ordinances. As amended, the <br /> Shoreline Estates application achieves that goal. To the extent that neighbors have identified <br /> aspects of the application that they believe do not conform to the requirements set forth in the <br /> City's ordinances, the Jacobs Trust has amended its application to eliminate those possible non- <br /> conformities. The application, as amended, is fully compliant with all requirements of the City's <br /> ordinances. <br /> Municipal land use decisions are subject to a rational basis standard of review. <br /> SuperAmerica Group, Inc. v. City of Little Canada, 539 N.W.2d 264,266 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). <br /> A decision lacks a rational basis if it is unsupported by substantial evidence, rests on a legally <br /> insufficient reason, or is premised on subjective or unreasonably vague standards. PTL, LLC v. <br /> Chisago County Bd. of Comm'rs, 656 N.W.2d 567, 571 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). "[W]here a <br /> subdivision ordinance specifies standards to which a proposed plat must conform,it is arbitrary as <br /> a matter of law to deny approval of a plat which complies in all respects to the subdivision <br /> ordinance." Nat'l Capital Corp. v. Village of Inver Grove Heights, 301 Minn. 335, 337, 222 <br /> N.W.2d 550, 552 (1974). In other words, if a preliminary plat application satisfies all approval <br /> standards in the City's subdivision ordinance,the City is legally obliged to approve the application <br /> and lacks the discretion to lawfully deny it. <br /> To the extent that members of the community oppose the Jacobs Trust's application <br /> because they want the Property developed in a different way or simply do not want the Property <br /> developed at all, these sentiments are not legally sufficient reasons for the City Council to deny <br /> the application. The law in Minnesota is that community opposition to a landowner's desire to use <br /> its land for a particular purpose is not a legally sufficient reason for denying a zoning or subdivision <br /> approval. Scott County Lumber Co. Inc. v. City of Shakopee, 417 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. Ct. App. <br /> 1988)and Amoco Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis,395 N.W.2d 115 (Minn. Ct.App. 1986). Indeed, <br /> the Minnesota Supreme Court has held that a local government entity must base the denial of an <br /> application for such an approval on "something more concrete than neighborhood opposition and <br /> expression of concern for public safety and welfare." Chanhassen Estates Residence Assoc. v. <br /> City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335, 340 (1984); see also Scott County Lumber Co. Inc. v. City <br /> of Shakopee, 417 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) and Amoco Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis, <br /> 395 N.W.2d 115 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). <br /> The City does not have the discretion to deny,based on mere community opposition or any <br /> other reason, a preliminary plat application that fully complies with the City's subdivision and <br /> zoning ordinances. The Jacobs Trust is therefore hopeful that the City Council will approve this <br /> 267234.DOC <br />