RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington
| Decision Date | 06 January 2014 |
| Docket Number | A13-0310 |
| Parties | RDNT, LLC, Respondent, v. City of Bloomington, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
Reversed
Hennepin County District Court
Tamara O'Neill Moreland, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., Bloomington, Minnesota (for respondent)
Paul D. Reuvers, Jason J. Kuboushek, Stephanie A. Angolkar, Iverson Reuvers Condon, Bloomington, Minnesota (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Johnson, Presiding Judge; Smith, Judge; and Minge, Judge.*
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
RDNT, LLC owns and operates a senior-living facility in the city of Bloomington. RDNT wishes to expand the facility by constructing a building that would contain, among other things, 67 assisted-living apartments. The city council, however, denied RDNT's application for a conditional-use permit. RDNT sought relief from the district court, which ordered the city council to issue the permit. On appeal, the city argues that the city council appropriately exercised its discretion by denying the conditional use permit. We agree with the city and, therefore, reverse.
RDNT owns and operates the Martin Luther Care Campus, which presently consists of two buildings, Martin Luther Manor and Meadow Woods Assisted Living. RDNT seeks to expand its campus by building a new "catered living facility." The proposed new facility would be a 123,055-square-foot building comprised of 67 apartments and various on-site amenities.
The campus is surrounded on its east, south, and west sides by dense woodlands. To the north, the campus is bordered by East 100th Street, beyond which is a residential neighborhood. The sole public entrance to the campus is on its north side, at the L-shaped intersection of East 100th Street and 13th Avenue South. From that intersection, 13th Avenue South runs north, with the residential neighborhood on its east side and an elementary school on its west side. Approximately 80 percent of the traffic to and from the campus is carried by 13th Avenue South. The remainder of the traffic to and from thecampus is carried by East 100th Street, to the east of its intersection with 13th Avenue South.
In September 2011, RDNT applied to the city for a conditional-use permit (CUP) that would allow the construction and use of the proposed expansion. RDNT presented its application to the city's planning commission at a public hearing in November 2011. Several nearby homeowners expressed opposition to the project on the ground that, among other things, the project would aggravate existing traffic issues in the surrounding neighborhood. City staff recommended that the application be denied because the project would conflict with provisions of the city's comprehensive plan. Both the city and RDNT presented traffic studies indicating that the proposed expansion would increase the number of daily trips to and from the campus, although they disagreed about the precise amount of the increase. The planning commission unanimously recommended denial of the expansion. The city council met to consider the application in a public hearing later in November 2011. Homeowners again expressed opposition to the project, and city staff again recommended denial. In December 2011, the city council passed a resolution denying RDNT's application by a vote of four to three.
In January 2012, RDNT petitioned the district court for a writ of mandamus to compel the city to issue the CUP. In August 2012, both RDNT and the city moved for summary judgment. In December 2012, the district court granted RDNT's motion and entered judgment in favor of RDNT, thereby reversing the city's denial of the CUP application. The city appeals.
The city argues that the district court erred by reversing its denial of RDNT's CUP application. Specifically, the city argues that its reasons for denying the application are legally sufficient and supported by a factual basis.
A city council has broad discretion to grant or deny a CUP application. Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192, 196, 167 N.W.2d 45, 49 (1969). Nonetheless, a city's land-use decision cannot be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Swanson v. City of Bloomington, 421 N.W.2d 307, 313 (Minn. 1988). If a city council explicitly states its reasons for denying a CUP application, this court asks whether those reasons are legally sufficient and, if so, whether the reasons have a factual basis. Trisko v. City of Waite Park, 566 N.W.2d 349, 352 (Minn. App. 1997), review denied (Minn. Sept. 25, 1997). A city council's denial of a CUP is legally sufficient if it is based on reasons "relating to public health, safety and general welfare or because of incompatibility between the proposed use and a municipality's comprehensive municipal plan." Hubbard Broad., Inc. v. City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757, 763 (Minn. 1982). A city council's denial of a CUP is not legally sufficient if the city bases its denial on land-use standards that are "'unreasonably vague'" or "'unreasonably subjective.'" Trisko, 566 N.W.2d at 353 (quoting C.R. Invs., Inc. v. Village of Shoreview, 304 N.W.2d 320, 327-28 (Minn. 1981)). Not all of a city's reasons for the denial of a CUP need be legally sufficient and supported by facts in the record. Id. at 352. Rather, a city's denial of a CUP is proper if at least one of the reasons given for the denial is both legally sufficient and has a factualbasis. Id. A party appealing a city council's decision bears the burden of persuasion on appeal. Hubbard Broad., Inc., 323 N.W.2d at 763.
On an appeal from a district court's review of a city council's decision to deny a CUP application, this court independently considers the record before the district court together with the city's decision, without affording any special deference to the district court's review. Northwestern Coll. v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865, 868 (Minn. 1979). Thus, this court essentially conducts a deferential review of the city's decision and a de novo review of the district court's decision. See id.
In this case, the city's resolution stated four reasons for denying RDNT's CUP application. Three reasons relate to conflicts with the city's comprehensive plan, and one reason relates to concerns about public health and welfare. We will address the city's reasons in turn.
The city argues that the district court erred because RDNT's proposed use is incompatible with various parts of the city's comprehensive plan. The city specifically cites three conflicts, each of which is included in the city council's resolution denying the application: (1) the proposed expansion would make the campus a "larger traffic generator" that is not "adjacent to a collector or arterial street"; (2) the proposed expansion "would negatively impact the character of the surrounding low density neighborhood"; and (3) the proposed expansion consists of high-density housing that is not located near transit, amenities, services, and employment.
In response, RDNT argues that the city cannot base its denial of the CUP application on conflicts with the city's comprehensive plan because the plan has not been enacted as an "official land use control." RDNT contends that the city's comprehensive plan is simply a guide and that, to make it an official control, the city must take further steps to enact it through "ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building codes and official maps," as required by statute. See Minn. Stat. § 473.852, subd. 9 (2012). RDNT attempts to show that the plan is not yet an official control because the "Implementation Element" section of the plan states that the next step is "actually implementing the plan" through a variety of means. RDNT contends that the true official controls in this case are the zoned setback limitations, not the city's comprehensive plan.
Conflict with a comprehensive plan typically is a legally sufficient ground for denying a CUP application. See Hubbard Broad. Inc., 323 N.W.2d at 763. In this case, the Bloomington City Code specifically requires the city to find that a proposed conditional use will not conflict with the comprehensive plan before granting a CUP application. Bloomington, Minn., City Code (BCC) § 21.501.04(e)(1) (2013). The city code also requires RDNT to obtain a CUP before proceeding with its proposed expansion. See BCC § 19.27(d)(4) (2013). Thus, as a condition of granting RDNT's CUP application, the city code required the city council to ensure that RDNT's expansion would not conflict with the comprehensive plan. Because compliance with the city's comprehensive plan is required by the relevant ordinance, the comprehensive plan is an "official control" that is a legally sufficient basis on which to deny RDNT's CUPapplication. Thus, we will proceed to address the city's arguments concerning whether the proposed expansion would conflict with the comprehensive plan.
The city argues that it properly denied the CUP application because the proposed expansion, coupled with the existing campus, constitutes a "larger traffic generator" that is not located adjacent to an arterial or collector street. The city's comprehensive plan states: The city contends that the proposed expansion would conflict with the comprehensive plan because the campus is designated quasi-public and because the nearest arterial or collector street, Old Shakopee Road, is six blocks from the campus.
In response, RDNT argues that this provision of the comprehensive plan does not provide a legally sufficient ground for denial of its CUP application because...
To continue reading
Request your trial