Letter 2-9-05
Fredrilcson
¡:¡:¡:f:l~~fiiÐJ
February 9, 2005
VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL
Roger Knutson
Campbell Knutson P A
1380 Corporate Ctr Curve
Suite 317
Eagan,1fJN 55121-3451
\1 (-, :-
¡ : "---,,,!
L " _. ,I "',_~. '0"" .' ~
Re: Chanhassen - Yoberry Farm
Dear Mr. Knutson:
Consistent with our. di1)Gll$$iQIlQf ]anllClry }L2D_Q~ ,JE>ll.QmitJbi§Jet1~rtoYºll. as the
Chanhassen City Attorney to summarize our position that the City of Chanhassen Planning
Commission was and the City Council is compelled by Minnesota law to recommend the
rezoning of the Yoberry Farm land from Rural Residential to Residential Single Family.
Specifically, our client, Yoberry Farms, LLC, requested the rezoning of35.79 acres which would
be subdivided into 57 single-family lots and 8 outlots. The proposed rezoning was
recommended in the Staff Report and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Both the Staff Report of January 4 and 18, 2005, and our review yield the conclusion that
the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In Minnesota, it is well
accepted that comprehensive planning drives zoning. In the seven county metropolitan area, a
local government unit is prohibited by state statute from adopting "any official control or fiscal
device which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan. Minn. Stat. § 473.865, Subd. 2. A
city's refusal to zone according to the comprehensive plan is evidence that such city is acting in
an arbitrary manner. See Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66 (Minn. 1984).
A legislative act, zoning or rezoning classification may be overturned if it is unsupported
by any rational basis relating to the promotion of public health, safety, morals or general welfare.
See Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d, 409 (Minn. 1981). To pass this rational basis
test, a City must provide a court with an adequate showing that the reasons for its decision were
based on promoting the public heath, safety and general welfare and achieving orderly and sound
development. We do not believe the City can satisfy this test based on the particular facts of the
Yoberry Farm situation.
Attorneys & AdVisor; 200 South Sixth Street
main 612.492.7000 Suite 4000
fax 612.492.7077 Minneapolis, Minnesota
www.fredlaw.com 55402-1425
:_~-~:::CES' r\/1ir~ne-'-lpor¡s, London ~:=FILiATES Mexico City, \/Varsa\;v. I'v1ontreal, Toronto. Vancouver
I
Roger Knutson
February 9, 2005
Page 2
For example, the 2020 Land Use Plan designates the area which includes Yoberry Farm
for development as Low Density Residential, 1.2-4.0 units per acre. Our client's proposed
development has gross density of 1.59 units per acre and 1.88 units per acre net after streets and
wetlands are taken out. Moreover, as the Staff Report confirms, all necessary public
infrastructure is readily available and of sufficient capacity. Clearly, this proposed development
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and no issue of premature timing due to insufficient
infrastructure is in the record.
A City's decision not to rezone a property is arbitrary and capricious if it does not
provide detailed, factual reasons to justify its denial. Findings of fact must be more than
conclusory statements. See Honn at 409,416. For example, the courts have held that a
municipality's vague reason of traffic congestion for denying a townhouse proposal was not
supported in fact when the council had specifically been told that the road in question could
accommodate the increased traffic. C.R. Investments. Inc.. v. Village of Shore view, 304 N.W.2d
320,325 (Minn. 1981).
In the present situation, we have a reasonable basis for belief that the primary reasons for
denial, based upon our review of the Chanhassen Planning Commission's Summary Minutes of
its January 18, 2005 meeting, appear to be traffic concerns and some issues regarding the layout
of the development. To the contrary, the Staff Report clearly provides that "the proposed street
layout appears to work welL" Indeed, streets to the north and south of Yoberry Farms were
designed and constructed to accommodate its development partly in recognition of MnDOr s
access spacing guidelines for T.H.41. Because there are no facts to contradict the Staff Report's
conclusion that the proposed street layout is satisfactory, the Planning Commission's reliance on
these traffic concerns is not supported in fact as required by c.R. Investments. Inc. Therefore,
the decision of the Planning Commission lacks a reasonable basis as required under Minnesota
law.
Once the rezoning matter is resolved, the final issue is compliance with the subdivision
ordinance. The Staff Report found that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
subdivision ordinance and recommends 46 conditions to assure compliance. All of the
conditions are acceptable to our client. Based upon a review of the Staff Report, the Planning
Commission meeting minutes of January 2,2005, and Minnesota case law, the record supports
approval of the plat, and does not support denial.
Specifically, where a subdivision ordinance specifies standards to which a proposed plat
must conform, it is arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law to deny approval of a plat which
complies in all respects with the subdivision ordinance. See National Capital Corp. v. Village of
Inver Grove Heights, 301 Minn. 335,222 N.W.2d 550 (1974). See also Odell v. City of Eagan,
348 N.W.2d 792 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984), BECA of Alexandria, L.L.P. v. County of Douglas, 607
~
..
Roger Knutson
February 9, 2005
Page 3
N.W.2d 458 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000). Minnesota case law clearly provides that such conforming
plats must be approved.
Please make this letter part of the record for the City Council's decision on Yoberry Farm,
and consider its content as part of your counsel to the City Council.
If you have any further questions or concerns regarding this matter, do not hesitate to
contact me or Jeff Serum of our office.
Sincerely,
DCS:jjs
cc: Kate Aanenson, Chanhassen Community Development Director
Bill Coffman
Chuck Alcon
Jeff Serum, Esq.
#3075473\2