City of Mounds View v. Johnson

4 Citing cases

  1. Ridge Creek I v. City of Shakopee

    No. A09-178 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2010)

    This court on occasion has upheld a zoning decision on the ground that a rational basis existed despite conclusory findings. See, e.g., City of Mounds View v. Johnson, 377 N.W.2d 476, 479 (Minn. App. 1985), review denied (Minn. Jan. 23, 1986). The absence of adequate findings creates a presumption that the municipality's actions were arbitrary or capricious and shifts the burden of proof to the municipality.

  2. In Matter of Livingood

    No. C2-98-262 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 1998)   Cited 1 times

    This court on occasion has upheld a zoning decision on the ground that a rational basis existed despite conclusory findings. See City of MoundsView v. Johnson, 377 N.W.2d 476, 479 (Minn.App. 1985), review denied (Minn. Jan. 23, 1986). The supreme court has also considered the sufficiency of a finding in the context of the "cumulative effect" of the testimony and discussion in the record.

  3. Prior Lake Oaks v. City of Prior Lake

    No. C4-97-1435 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 1998)

    But in the area of zoning, this court has shown somewhat more deference. See, e.g., R.A. Putnam Assoc.,Inc. v. City of Mendota Heights, 510 N.W.2d 264, 266, 268 (Minn.App. 1994) (upholding decision based in part on finding that "[t]he proposed project does not limit development to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain and surrounding land use"), review denied (Minn. Mar. 15, 1994); see also City of Mounds View v. Johnson, 377 N.W.2d 476, 479 (Minn.App. 1985) (upholding rational basis despite conclusory findings), reviewdenied (Minn. Jan. 23, 1986).

  4. Fisher v. City of Chanhassen

    No. C7-97-828 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 1997)

    The supreme court specifically held that when a municipality refuses to rezone because it would be inconsistent with its comprehensive land use plan, that action does not, "without evidence to the contrary, constitute arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the village council." Sun Oil Co. v.Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 337, 220 N.W.2d 256, 263 (1974); seealso City of Mounds View v. Johnson, 377 N.W.2d 476, 478 (Minn.App. 1985) (holding inconsistency with comprehensive plan is legally sufficient reason for denial) (citing Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757, 763 (Minn. 1982)), review denied (Minn. Jan. 23, 1986). Therefore, unless there is other evidence that the city's action was arbitrary, the developers' appeal must fail.