Cited by

Plowman, d at 583; - 96 (Minn. 1999); 301 Clifton Place L.L.C. v. 301 Clifton Place Condo.

(affirming the denial of a motion to correct the record filed after the case was submitted to oral argument as untimely).

See, -33 (Minn. 2010); -33 (Minn. 2008)

And we have warned that “[g]overnmental bodies must take seriously their responsibility to develop and preserve a record that allows for meaningful review by appellate courts.” In re Livingood

Denial of a CUP is not reasonable if the evidence establishes “that all of the standards specified by the ordinance as a condition to granting the permit have been met.” (stating that denial of a special-use permit which meets the requirements set by ordinance would be arbitrary); see 6 also (reaffirming that denying a permit with insufficient evidence is arbitrary or capricious).

“Gover nmental bodies must take seriously their responsibility to develop and preserve a record that allows for meaningful review by appellate courts.”

(denying a motion to supplement based in part on the agency’s representation that the record on appeal was complete).

-96 (Minn. 1999) (quotation omitted).

See, -92, 895 (Minn. 1999) (remanding for issuance of conditional-use permit where record did not support findings in decision denying permit).

“Governmental bodies must take seriously their responsibility to develop and preserve a record that allows for meaningful review by appellate courts.”

d 889, 893 n.3 (Minn. 1999) (stating that in reviewing a county board’s decision to deny a permit, an appellate court “should .

“[W]hen a governmental body denies a permit with such insufficient evidence that the decision is arbitrary and capricious, the court should order issuance of the permit.”

(finding that this court could not provide meaningful review of a conviction when no record of the trial was available); (“Governmental bodies must take seriously their responsibility to develop and preserve a record that allows for meaningful, review by appellate courts.”).

In cases where a variance has been denied, the general rule is that “[i]f the zoning authority’s decision is *733 arbitrary and capricious, the standard remedy is that the court orders the permit to be issued.” Stadsvold, d at 332

For example, we have noted that when a county zoning authority makes a decision on a conditional use permit, the reviewing court typically should “confine itself at all times to the facts and circumstances developed before that body.” , 893 n. 3 (Minn.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted).

See generally VanLandschoot, d at 508 .

893 n. 3 (Minn.1999) (stating that if decision-making body states reasons for quasi-judicial decision, review will be limited to legal sufficiency and factual basis for those reasons).

“Typically, when a quasi-judicial body such as a county board denies a permit, the reviewing court ‘should, of course, confine itself at all times to the facts and circumstances developed before that body.’ ” , 893 n. 3 (Minn.1999).

4 -96 (Minn.1999) (noting that court of appeals may consider documentary evidence not provided to district court if evidence is uncontroverted and supportive of district court’s decision).

-96 (Minn.1999) (quotation omitted).

Although we may consider extra-record documentary evidence that has conclusive value and that supports the result obtained at the district court, -96 (Minn.1999), such evidence may not serve as the basis for reversing the district court’s decision, Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co.

See In re Livin- *742 good, n. 3 (Minn.1999) (stating that when a quasi-judicial body states reasons for its denial, review of its decision “[i]s limited to the legal sufficiency and factual basis for those reasons” (quotation omitted)).

“Governmental bodies must take seriously their responsibility to develop and preserve a record that allows for meaningful review by appellate courts.”

Recently we explained further that “[t]he remands ordered in Earthbumers and White Bear Rod and Gun Club are merely exceptions to the general principle that when a governmental body denies a permit with such insufficient evidence that the decision is arbitrary and capricious, the court should order issuance of the permit.”