Cited by

The governing body “need not necessarily prepare formal findings of fact, but it must, at a minimum, have the reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to writing and in more than just a conclusory fashion.” Honn v. City of Coon Rapids

However, “the nature of the matter under review has a bearing on what is reasonable.”

Id.; -16 (Minn. 1981) (holding nonverbatim record of public proceedings was sufficient when reasons for decisions were put in writing and not made in “conclusory fashion”).

The supreme court clarified the different formulations of the rational-basis standard of review in Honn v. City of Coon Rapids: “the standard of review is the same for all zoning matters, namely, whether the zoning authority’s action was reasonable.” -17 (Minn. 1981).

The supreme court clarified the various articulations of our review , often called “rational-basis review,” in Honn v. City of Coon Rapids: “the standard of review is the same for all zoning matters, namely, whether the zoning authority’s action was reasonable.” 13 -17 (Minn. 1981).

The basic standard of review for all zoning matters is the same: “whether the zoning authority’s action was reasonable.” Honn v. City of Coon Rapids

Council (MCEA), (); see also W. Area Bus.

(quoting Honn v. City of Coon Rapids , ).

9 standard of review is the same for all zoning matters, namely, whether the zoning authority’s action was reasonable.” --17 (Minn. 1981).

See Minn. Stat. §§ 606.01-.06 (2022); (explaining that the writ of certiorari is used “to review the proceedings of a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions”).

So long as there is a rational basis for what the city council does, this court will not interfere with the city’s decision even if it is debatable because “[a] city council has broad discretion in legislative matters.”

The basic standard of review for all zoning matters is the same: “whether the zoning authority’s action was reasonable.” 5 (Minn. 1981).

Swanson v. City of Bloomington , ().

Honn v. City of Coon Rapids , n.4 (Minn. 1981); Northwestern Coll., d at 868 n.4.

n.4 (Minn. 1981) (citing Northwestern College, d at 868 n.4).

-17 (Minn. 1981) (explaining that reasonableness can be determined by asking whether the decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious).

The question before the reviewing court is “whether the zoning authority’s action was reasonable.” Honn v. City of Coon Rapids , - 17 (Minn. 1981); see also Goerke Fam.

The question before the reviewing cour t is “whether the zoning authority’s action was reasonable.” Honn v. City of Coon Rapids , -17 (Minn. 1981); see also Goerke Fam.

.’ ” (citation omitted)); Honn v. City of Coon Rapids , , 417 (Minn. 1981) (explaining that zoning ordinances involve a wide range of value judgments and are inherently legislative rather than judicial in character).

Swanson, d at 311–12; –16 (Minn. 1981).

(quoting Honn v. City of Coon Rapids , , 414 (Minn. 1981) ).

Honn v. City of Coon Rapids

See, (holding a city’s non-verbatim record of public proceedings was sufficient where the reasons for decisions were put in writing and made in more than just a “conclusory fashion”).

Council , (MCEA) (quotation omitted); see also Honn v. City of Coon Rapids , (stating that certiorari is used to permit “review [of] the proceedings of a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions .

Honn v. City of Coon Rapids

d 409, 414 (Minn. 1981).

(reviewing factual determinations by municipality); -17 (Minn. 1981) (reviewing quasi- legislative decision of municipality).

(requiring municipal body to “at a minimum, have the reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to writing and in more than just a conclusory fashion”).

See, (concluding that certiorari was not the proper procedure to address a city’s rezoning decision because “rezoning involves a legislative determination”); Mendota Golf, (noting a declaratory-judgment action as appropriate to review a

See Minn. Stat. ch. 606 (2014); (The writ of certiorari is issued “to review the proceedings of a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi- judicial functions.”).