8.1. SR 02-19-2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2350 WYCLIFF STREET - SUITE 200 • SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55114 TELEPHONE 651-224-3781 • FACSIMILE 651-223-8019 www.kellyandlemmons.com NEIGHBORHOOD, which we think it WILL.” A comment from the resident living at 1757 Tipton Circle states “Within a mile radius, there is an early childhood center, a park, and a senior activity center. These are vulnerable places and we must consider the safety of the children and people in this area. Again, we strongly urge you to vote NO to the conditional use permit. The safety and financial stability of our neighborhood is at stake.” An email from a resident dated January 15th states “I need you to understand that we will NEVER FEEL SAFE IN OUR HOMES IF THIS FACILITY IS ALLOWED.” The opinions by residents are not supported by any facts and are pure speculation. During the Council discussion, Mayor Dietz stated that the vast majority of the police calls from other ResCare facilities were for medical issues, missing person, mental health issues and welfare checks and that the Elk River Police Department could handle the increase in calls and that the number of police calls is not used to determine validity of businesses coming to Elk River. The Mayor also commented that allowing Level 1 and 2 sex offenders in the ResCare facility concerned him even though there are over 40 Level 1 and 2 sex offenders currently living in Elk River. The Mayor’s concern was that the Level 1 and 2 sex offenders would be in one facility. There are no facts to support this statement. Finally, the Mayor discusses other locations and suggests that the ResCare facility should be in another area of the City. This is contrast with your statement that the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance allows this use at this location. The Mayor also commented that there could be lots of problems with the ResCare facility. This comment is pure speculation and not based on any facts. Appellate Courts will reverse a governing body’s decision regarding a conditional use permit application if the governing body acted unreasonable, arbitrarily or capriciously. Schwardt v. Cnty. of Watonwan, 656 N.W.2d 383, 386 (Minn. 2003). There are two steps in determining whether a governing body’s denial was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington, 861 N.W.2d 71, 75 (Minn. 2015). First, the court must determine if the reasons given by the governing body were legally sufficient. C.R. Invs., Inc. v. Vill. Of Shoreview, 304 N.W.2d 320, 325 (Minn. 1981). Second, if the reasons given are legally sufficient, the court must determine if the reasons had a factual basis in the record. Id. “Where a zoning ordinance specifies standards which must be applied in determining whether or not to grant a conditional use permit, and the applicant fully complies with the specified standards, a denial of the permit is arbitrary as a matter of law.” Scott County Lumber v. City of Shakopee, 417 N.W.2d 721, 727 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). In Scott County Lumber, the court held that the city council acted irrationally when it denied a conditional use permit to a lumber company for operation of a gravel pit where the company had met requirements of city code, agreed to comply with 20 additional conditions imposed by city upon granting of permit, and the 20 conditions provided the city with adequate control over the project to insure minimum impact upon the environment. 417 N.W.2d at 727-28. The court further held that neighboring land owners expressing their own opinions and providing no expert testimony to support the view that the gravel operation would adversely affect their land was not a legally sufficient reason for denying a conditional use permit. Id. The court stated that “[c]ommunity opposition to a landowner’s desire to use his property for a