Semler Constr. v. City of Hanover

14 Citing cases

  1. Save Lantern Bay v. Cass County Planning Commission

    683 N.W.2d 862 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 7 times
    Stating that the summary nature of final plat approval acknowledged in Semler does not "strip final-plat decisions of all meaning" and that "[f]inal-plat decisions are still subject to review for mistake or abuse of discretion"

    The plain meaning of the ordinance requires our interpretation that persons having an interest affected by the PC's decision can appeal either preliminary or final plat decisions. Respondents' reliance on Semler Constr., Inc. v. City of Hanover, 667 N.W.2d 457 (Minn.App. 2003) is unavailing and ultimately works against them with respect to the timing issue. While the Semler court explained in detail the superior "importance" of preliminary-plat decisions as compared to the "mechanical" nature of final-plat approval, it did not strip final-plat decisions of all meaning.

  2. Pebble Creek Rochester v. City of Rochester

    No. A05-1493 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 16, 2006)

    Preliminary approval "is intended to be comprehensive and, in fact, is the most important step in obtaining approval of the subdivision." Semler Const., Inc. v. City of Hanover, 667 N.W.2d 457, 461 (Minn.App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 2003).

  3. Valley Paving v. Hampton Township

    No. A08-0389 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 27, 2009)

    Generally, for an act to be wrongful in this situation it must be "[a]ffirmative misconduct, rather than simple inadvertence, mistake, or imperfect conduct." AAA Striping Servs. Co. v. Minnesota Dep't of Transp., 681 N.W.2d 706, 720 (Minn.App. 2004) (quotation omitted); see also Concept Props., LLP, 694 N.W.2d at 822; Semler Constr., Inc. v. City of Hanover, 667 N.W.2d 457, 466 (Minn.App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 2003).

  4. Dayspring Dev., LLC v. City of Little Canada

    No. A04-1158 (Minn. Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2005)   Cited 2 times

    1. Little Canada's 100-day Rule In Semler Const. Inc. v. City of Hanover, 667 N.W.2d 457 (Minn.App. 2003), review denied (Oct. 29, 2003), this court outlined the importance of the preliminary plat application and approval process. Specifically, this court held that the primary emphasis is placed on preliminary plat approval and "once the conditions and requirements therein are satisfied, the plat mechanically receives final approval."

  5. Graffiti Entm't, Inc. v. Speed Commerce Inc.

    Civil No. 14-752 ADM/FLN (D. Minn. Nov. 6, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    In Semler Const., Inc. v. City of Hanover, a development company obtained contractual approval from the city to subdivide and develop an area of land. 667 N.W.2d 457, 459 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). Later, after elections changed the members of the city council, the city ordered the development company to cease performing work it was undertaking in connection with the previously approved development.

  6. Harstad v. City of Woodbury

    902 N.W.2d 64 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 8 times

    We note that this court has applied equitable estoppel to estop a municipality from asserting that an application was not automatically approved by operation of law. Semler Constr., Inc. v. City of Hanover, 667 N.W.2d 457, 466 (Minn. App. 2003) (applying equitable estoppel against city to preclude it from denying developer's final-plat approval request because city had contracted with the developer to extend the one-year preliminary-plat review process to eight years), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 2003); see also N. States Power Co. v. City of Mendota Heights, 646 N.W.2d 919, 925 (Minn. App. 2002) (concluding that developer was not estopped from asserting its right to automatic approval), review denied (Minn.

  7. In re Living Word Bible Camp

    No. A14-0464 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 6, 2015)

    The FPUD approval process used in this case was akin to the process used to approve a plat, in which review of a preliminary plan is comprehensive, subject to alteration but not comprehensive review during the final plat-approval process. See Semler Constr., Inc. v. City of Hanover, 667 N.W.2d 457, 462-63 (Minn. App. 2003) (noting two-tier statutory provisions for plat approval applies comprehensive consideration to the preliminary plat and that "once the conditions and requirements [for preliminary plat approval] are satisfied, the plat mechanically receives final approval"), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 2003); but see Save Lantern Bay v. Cass Cnty. Planning Comm'n, 683 N.W.2d 862, 866 (Minn. App. 2004) (stating that the summary nature of final plat approval acknowledged in Semler does not "strip final-plat decisions of all meaning" and that "[f]inal-plat decisions are still subject to review for mistake or abuse of discretion"). We are satisfied that the commission complied with this process.

  8. Ridge Creek I v. City of Shakopee

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

    Because Ridge Creek stipulated that its final plat did not comply with city regulations, the second condition is not met. In attempting to overcome compliance with the requirements of section 462.358, subd. 3b, Ridge Creek relies on Semler Constr. Inc. v. City of Hanover, 667 N.W.2d 457 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 2003), and argues that final-plat approval was required once the district court approved the preliminary plat.

  9. Kammeuller v. City of St. Paul

    No. A09-392 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 29, 2009)

    We conduct an independent review of the decision by the city council, without deferring to the district court. Semler Const., Inc. v. City of Hanover, 667 N.W.2d 457, 461 (Minn. App. 2003), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 2003).

  10. Jordan R.E. Serv. v. City of Gaylord

    No. A08-0294 (Minn. Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2009)

    11 (1995). Jordan urges this court to find that the city had a duty to approve the final plat based on the city's approval of the preliminary plat. Jordan argues that the city, in effect, exempted it from the ordinance requirements and that the parties "fully vetted the CUP criteria in connection with this PUD prior to preliminary plat approval," citing Semler Constr., Inc. v. City of Hanover, 667 N.W.2d 457, 462-63 (Minn.App. 2003) (noting that preliminary plat approval establishes the nature, design, and scope of a development project; that the primary emphasis is placed on preliminary plat approval; and once preliminary plat conditions and requirements are satisfied, the plat mechanically receives final approval), review denied (Minn. Oct. 29, 2003).