*1 long in relatively deciding the received at time clearly that call was the case said a.m., sug jury’s request first mean and the does not it was a case” 1:15 “close merits; knew that is what gests jury long the that juries that often take a time decid- address of testimony was. The current ing the guilt cases when the evidence is irrelevant; repe girl totally friend was the strong. conceding While this that was not testimony her that her address at tition of case,” appeals a “close the court of said West Seventh the time of the offense was any denying requests error in that the was helped jury in St. Paul would have “plainly prejudicial” repetition because the Granting re properly. decide case testimony would have shown that might helped jury quests have decide bearing state’s on the issue of illogically, but that is not the test case did not rule time out alibi defense. 416 request any is reasonable. 795. The at trouble with this is event, request fact is reasonable damning context all of necessarily does not mean guilt, evidence of defendant’s de- alibi request. deny no court has discretion to simply fense was worthy belief (Minn. Daniels, 332 State v. N.W.2d 172 jury. reasonable of appeals’ 1983). criticizing While the trial court’s suggests statement that it based its deter- approach, apparently wooden the court prejudice mination of its assessment appeals effect offers in stead possible error, impact any not on the approach of always granting wooden re likely impact of the error aon reasonable one, quest, an if the even unreasonable jury. strength Given the of the evidence of jury impasse. it is an says at factors, guilt and other we con- (4) reject ap We also the court of of appeals’ clude that conclusion peals’ any denying conclusion that error prejudicial wrong. error was is prejudicial. requests was Defendant Reversed and of conviction literally caught posses was red-handed in reinstated. burglary prop sion of tools and the stolen erty just burgled building a block from the burglary. hours after the It is obvious his condition he had been secret rain, waiting himself area,

police to clear out of the had then way

made his to the car. The fact that the fogged up suggests

car windows were peri defendant had car waited for a SWANSON, al., Respondents, John F. et od gave of time also. The fact that he v. obviously police false statement to the af stopped very damning. ter he was BLOOMINGTON, CITY OF damning Most of all is the evidence that Petitioner, Appellant. squad when went the officer back to the No. C3-86-782. car, off nylon defendant took his black coat the burglary and threw it over tools Supreme of Minnesota. Court dealing floor of the back seat. Our cases March prejudicial are error this context McMorris, summarized in State v.

N.W.2d 593 case appeals

which the court of relied in much analysis,

of its Spaulding, State (Minn.1980), easily

N.W.2d 870 distin

guishable on point expressly that we

described that case a “close case.”

Here the state’s evidence of defendant’s

guilt very strong. jury That the took *2 Ornstein, Bloomington R.

David Berg, City Atty., Atty., Associate Eric R. Wieland, Atty., Bloom- Asst. Henry E. ington, appellant. Waters, Fling, J. single-family L. John feet with a

Matthew house. Cadmus Grannis, Jr., Bloomington, applied Vance B. South for approval of preliminary Paul, respondents. subdividing plat St. final into the lot two resi- single-family dential lots. The city council Peskar, Paul, Stanley St. amicus G. curi- (hereinafter council) public hearings held ae. reports and received written from city’s *3 Planning of City Director and the Forester. Planning The Director of described the like- ly results of the creation of a new homesite OPINION —jeopardy vegetation lot, to the on the vegetation surrounding stress of the WAHL, Justice. properties, possibility increased of tree dis- John Swanson and Danald Cadmus damage ease and wind recommended —and brought declaratory judgment action in request subdivision be denied. Hennepin County challeng- District Court City The Forester concurred. A wildlife city Bloomington council’s denial of biologist, testifying on of neigh- behalf application to subdivide a residential lot bors, similarly disruptive described the ef- Timberglade 2nd Addition into two clearings area, fect of in the woodland loss residential lots. Swanson and Cadmus of windbreak benefits of and loss wildlife sought city’s to establish action A neighbors spoke op- habitat. of number arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable posing the Speaking subdivision. in favor they requested and an order that would Cadmus, Swanson, of the subdivision were or, alternative, compel subdivision landscape presented and a architect taking. would find that there was a The attorney. Cadmus and Swanson’s court, district after granted summary judgment to the city. The council based its to decision appeals of The court reversed and remand- deny approval preliminary of the and final ed, (1986), holding 395 N.W.2d 719 16.05.01(e) plat Blooming- on section of the respondents pursue were entitled to dis- City Code, provides: ton covery present to additional relevant (e) plattings, In the case of all the Plan- to the district court. We reverse ning or Commission the Administrative and reinstate of the trial Committee, Subdivision Review which- court. is applicable, ever shall recommend deni- of, deny, al Council shall Timberglade of the subdivision approval preliminary plat of a or final Bloomington unique of densely is in its following findings: it makes of the wooded, secluded character and serves as (1) wildlife as well as human proposed habitat. Its sin- That the subdivision gle family typically applicable general homes are located on conflict with exceeding sites thirty years, specific plans. one acre. For inception Timberglade from the of sub- (2) design improvement That or years division until two or three before the is in subdivision conflict instituted, suit was landowners applicable development plans. governed by there were a restrictive cove- (3) physical That the characteristics prohibited nant which subdivision of the site, including but not limited wooded, large protected lots natural vegetation, topography, susceptibility environment. siltation, susceptibility erosion flooding, storage, water and reten- Danald is the Cadmus fee owner of the tion, are such that the site not suit- property Timberglade real at 15 Road in type development or able Timberglade subdivision. John Swan- contemplated. use son is the purchaser proper- contract of the ty (4) and has physically resided there since October That the site is not suit- property 1984. The proposed density of devel- consists resi- able 46,000 dential of approximately square opment. lot they subdivision additional evidence which

(5) design of the submit That acquire through discovery. hoped to are like- proposed improvements or the court determined that because an district environmental ly to cause substantial complete verbatim record of the accurate damage. council was avail (6) the subdivision design That the able, proper it was to decide case based will type improvements rather on a review the record than health, safety, or detrimental conducting of the the trial public. general welfare of the Rapids, (7) subdivision design That the of the require To de type improvements will con- or the case, in this in the district novo court’s flict with easements of record view, infringe would on the decision-mak by judgment of easements established ing process weigh against economy. The policy *4 findings the made Specifically, council council, reviewed record of the court the (3), (5), (6) paragraphs and, of section finding support under and evidentiary for the 16.05.01(e), proposed concluding findings that the a rational and basis decision, granted summary the council’s in subdivision would result substantial de- city. ap The court judgment the of site, vegetation subject struction of on the peals single reversed on the large opening creating a which would not City Rapids that Honn v. Coon ground ques- in only property detrimental to of the give respondents a trial de novo to veg- jeopardize existing tion but would opportunity relevant addition adjacent The properties. etation on council al evidence when the had neither findings adopted the and memoranda of the agreed acquiesced nor in submission of Planning City of the Forester Director and by the case held and and, significant of on the basis destruc- granting summary judgment of finding vegetation of in tion made v. City Swanson inappropriate. of 16.05.01(e)(3),that site was not suit- § 719, Bloomington, 395 N.W.2d (Minn. 723 type development able for the of or use App.1986). contemplated. made the find- granted We to examine the mat- review 16.05.01(e)(5) of ing in on the basis § the context of our decisions in Honn in ter disruption and environmental to the site 409, City Rapids, v. Coon 313 N.W.2d Timberglade the entire subdivision that Broadcasting, and Hubbard Inc. v. City of by plat. approving would be created (Minn.1982), Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757 to har- Finally, neighboring the council noted cases, modify, monize our and to neces- property in owners were unanimous procedure sary, the for review opposition plat, to the and deter- decisions set out in Honn. Our review is planned mined that the removal trees first, focused on two issues: whether a vegetation subject property and court, declaratory judgment district in a disrupt integrity would the overall challenging of a action the denial subdivi- thereby negative woodland and have a ef- grant application, may summary judg- sion general persons fect welfare of on of a ment based its review record con- residing in Timberglade subdivision. case, sisting, municipal body's finding On this basis the council made the memoranda, findings accompanying and 16.05.01(e)(6). in § hearings brought Swanson Cadmus this action municipal body, well as memorandum challenging district second, applicant; submitted application. subdivision properly granted district court summary judgment moved for summary judgment city. council, including record before tran- I. hearings

scripts of the other plaintiffs submitted. The moved for an Before we determine whether compelling granted discovery order and asked court in this case summa-

3H the record We ry judgment on made determined College Northwestern council, requires City or whether Honn in v. Arden Hills that scope case, review for zoning such it is useful to to be used every reflect matters would be the same as approach to that used our traditional matters. for state adminis- agency trative Docking Storage, 865, decisions. Bear Inc. N.W.2d White Lake, We City indicated that the v. Bear re- White view would be of the (Minn.1982), we considered the made before zoning body. is, the local That judiciary countermanding zon- review role of by the district court would be municipal made decisions reached officials municipal supreme record and the authority court’s concluded “[t]he would make its review on the same management record. to interfere in the of munici- said, quoting We Reserve Mining Co. pal is, be, v. affairs and should limited Herbst, 808, 824, 256 N.W.2d (Minn.1977), sparingly invoked.” We reiterated the rule is our indepen- function to make an “[I]t we had set out Coon dent examination of an administrative governing Rapids standard of review agency’s record and decision and arrive at zoning matters: “The standard of our own conclusions as to the matters, propriety of namely, the same for according determination without zoning authority’s whether the action was * * * special deference to the same review con- reasonable Is there a ba- ‘reasonable ducted the trial court.” Id. sis’ for the decision? or is the decision ‘unreasonable, arbitrary capricious’? Then in Rapids, Honn v. of case, *5 ‘reasonably the decision debatable’?” presented were we appealed by a 176, Honn, at quoting N.W.2d city below, from an adverse decision N.W.2d at 417. where the record before the trial court was completely inadequate. that, that ease we except We said in those rare cases on held review the record was not city’s in which the decision has no rational appropriate. 313 N.W.2d at 418. basis, “it duty is the to judiciary exercise appropriate restraint and accord Honn a declaratory judgment involved deference civil to authorities in the per- par- action which the court formance of their duties.” Id. White Bear agree upon ties to record what had Docking special involved a permit use occurred before the city council and city which had been denied of White “agreed-upon” this for re- Bear Lake. Plaintiffs obtained writ view. Based this after-the-fact directing mandamus from the district court city’s the district court found the action in permit. the council to issue the We re- refusing plaintiff’s to rezone the land versed the order of the district court and single family multiple residential unit quashed writ, finding grounds arbitrary, residential and commercial to be for permit assigned by denial of the capricious, appeal, On unreasonable. council constituted a rational for the basis “agreed upon” we found the record re- decision and were well within the criteria quired by the district court to be inade- city’s set forth in zoning code. 324 quate for review and remanded the N.W.2d at 177. Honn, for case trial. 313 N.W.2d at 419. zoning

Concerned that councils and ordinarily boards did not make records of II. proceedings complete as and as for- The first issue whether a district agency, mal as those a state we set out a court, in declaratory challenging action procedure zoning review matters application, may denial a subdivision permitted declaratory judg- use of a grant summary judgment re based its ment action which the are enti- consisting municipal view a record aof tled to a trial. at Id. body’s findings, memoranda submitted parties, directly verbatim Honn did not overrule North- hearings. and, facts, College western under its own its lan- We proper decision but broad held Hubbard dis-

was mandating every may trial in trict guage, case conducted necessary every case. go beyond permit what is certain denials on the record be- unreasonable, unfair, nor where a very It is the record that case was cause complete has' to make a complete. failed clear at 761. We Id. noted adequate proceedings in zon- record of ‘city councils and boards “[w]here * * * ing require prove matters to proceed- do not make records of their of its decision before a district the basis ings complete and those formal as commission,’ agency administrative or state proper procedure persuaded by are curiae We amicus provides district court addi- ‘[n]ew League has of Minnesota Cities may received at tional evidence trial.’ salutary Amicus had a effect.1 advises Rapids, Honn v. Honn, many in reliance on cities added).” (emphasis 415-16 Id. at n. 3. expense of tran- have borne the court, It important was Hubbard scripts proceedings. of their These cities determining the fullness and fairness of findings carefully supported have made hearing council transcribed evidence so that their issue, permit plaintiffs that the had decisions, challenged, would not be decid- opportunity, by order of the district by a ed district court on basis of evi- court, augment by stipulation the record dence never considered them. Accord- motion, amicus, they opportunity of which did city hired a one state hear- holding themselves. The avail ing examiner to take evidence in a however, grounded, on the clearness 15-day hearing matter which in a resulted 3,487 completeness of the pages record on which the transcript. based its Our decision. conclu- It becomes clear that this and ex- effort parties acquiesed sion that both dis- pense if every property would be wasted permit determining trict court’s both the zoning request is owner whose denied can issue on denial and constitutional demand that the retried in case be a district particularly *6 record went to constitution- if procedure, rigidly court. Such a fol- al Even issue. had Hubbard ac- every case, lowed could lead the result to quiesced, already suggested had owner, property knowing compo- that a trial in its on the constitutional issue memo- particular council, might sition of a partial support of its motion for randum part evidence, withhold of the relevant summary judgment permit denial knowing put it in when could be the matter issue.2 323 N.W.2d at 761-762. came before the district court on review. Thus, city, making every effort to afford Hubbard, then, not stand does property owner a full and fair proposition permit may that a produce complete and to record of the on never be reviewed the record absent decision, basis of its council’s could be acquiescence parties. of the Nor do we in exercising power granted thwarted it aug requires believe that Honn a trial plan statute to determine and the use of case, every espe mentation of the record in land within its boundaries. Minn.Stat. light response of the cially of Minnesota (1982). 462.351 § Rather, our concerns in case. cities to court we concluded appeals, reversing have that a scope decision of the district court should establish the in the case conduct of us, relied on a municipality’s Hubbard Broadcast- deci ing, considering nature, City Afton, Inc. v. N.W.2d 757 sion fairness League parties coopera- 1. The Cities of Minnesota is a decision organization tive of 782 member Minnesota augment to a trial are entitled or to record cities. made additional evidence. relevant appeal 2. No constitutional issue was raised on case, only in Swanson's the issue on of whether adequacy proceeding at the local Swanson’s witnesses were to allowed an- adequacy of factual level and the questions swer and react to testimony proceeding. decisional record of the local other participants. Finally, they were municipal proceeding was Where the fair given every opportunity present to relevant complete, and the record clear and review material. should be on the record. Where munic- argument, plaintiffs’ At oral attorney im- ipal body findings con- has formal plied photos that certain and graphics were temporaneously with its decision and there hearing and, therefore, not allowed at the transcript is an verbatim accurate should have been made available proceedings, likely record is to be clear district court. A review of transcript complete. reveals, however, plaintiff’s own ex- When the review is conducted on pert voluntarily photos. withheld the Ha- the district court should receive “Perhaps sek stated: in lieu of the late [sic] only additional evidence is substantive hour, go through I’ll the graphics you sues raised the munici and considered explanation and there’s further need- only determining pal body and then ed, pull Further, we’ll the slides out.” both the additional evidence is material Mayor Hasek and Lindau commented on good there were reasons for failure to the limited graphics usefulness of the municipal proceedings. it at apparently which became distorted on The standard of review is the mu projection. Consequently, Hasek described nicipal unreasonable, body’s decision was detail; great content and this ver- arbitrary capricious, with review focused description, transcript, bal contained in the legal sufficiency of and factual basis was available for review the district given. for the reasons municipal proceeding Where the has argue Swanson and Cadmus under proceed been fair or record of that Honn, all cases challenging municipal complete, applies is not clear and matters, in zoning parties decisions should parties are entitled to trial or an augment allowed opportunity augment the record with in dis record trict meaningful They court. The review to additional relevant evidence. claim requires are entitled no less. they opportunity. were denied Al- though they challenge accuracy do not case, Swanson’s transcript, they of the council’s verbatim based its review of the coun argue that the record does not show the cil’s decision on the record. The extent which the council’s decision was a consisted *7 response neighborhood opposition, nor public hearings matter, including the on the appli- it prior does disclose data on similar sides; experts by statements on both writ for cations subdivision. reports by city planning ten the director of forester; contemporaneous argument, to the first tran the As findings by written the council on script testimony given contains of the which the council based its decision. From neighbors. Beyond the dowe not record, satisfactory this extensive review to which believe extent can be made. The record demon neighborhood role opposition played a is proceedings strates were fair. neighborhood feeling may relevant. While The matter considered four meet was at zoning not constitute the sole basis for a ings 20, 3, of May council: June decision, may it be taken into account. still Swanson, 17,1985. Cadmus, June June College Arden City Northwestern v. (Cadmus’ Hasek, attorney) Waters and Ed of Hills, Here, at 869. architect, N.W.2d respondent’s landscape were all described the reasons testify apparent council’s resolution allowed to without envi for its decision made clear that testimony time limits. Hasek’s alone cov concern, oppo- transcript pages print. neighborhood four ered small ronmental municipal for sition, major for the tional basis decision. reason was reason, finding is sufficient under application. Such of the subdivision ordinance, applica- denying plat for prior applications As to data similar hold court prop- tion. We that the district subdivision, unequal no treat- claim erly granted summary judgment to the facts, out, ment is set and on these there city. We reverse the decision of the court to be is not to seem none. Swanson would appeals reinstate request- compared any person with ever be court. the trial appli- receiving being an ing and denied Reversed; judgment of district court Bloomington. He cation for subdivision reinstated. compared property own- is to with other be 2nd Addition of Timberglade ers POPOVICH, (concurring special- Justice Bloomington, unique environment ly)- years, is here at issue. For which inception years agree until three two to I the result While with this here, request, has I Swanson’s that environment matter based on the facts am con- implication protected restrictive covenant been cerned large prohibited Rapids may subdivision lots. Coon be considered overruled Furthermore, completely. my opinion, would moratorium on new inappropriate conclusion. ordinance was lifted while coun- application. cil debated this subdivision agree appeals’ 1. I court of Thus, unlikely prior appli- similar it analysis provide of Honn for a trial granted. been cations subdivision have This court matter. now required by circumscribes a full trial as properly hold that We the district pro- municipal Honn when the record of a municipal decision on reviewed fair, ceeding complete; was clear and find- municipal proceeding the record where the ing under the facts of this case that oc- and the is clear and com- was fair That, course, curred. was not the law plete. of appeals

when the court considered this Thus, matter. court now this modifies III. Honn to the extent that a full trial de novo The second issue is whether the dis required certain cases summary judg granted trict court appeals court of could not have known city. is on ment Since review it decided when this matter that Honn was question the city is whether modified, correctly to be as we now do. It decision reasonable or wheth existed, in applied the law my as it then unreasonable, arbitrary capri er it was interpretations opinion. New law and new Rapids, v. City cious. Honn properly the are function of at 417. council is Code, Bloomington quarrel I section 16.- have no with this court’s 05.01(e)(5) deny prelimi approval desire to reduce trials de novo plat infringing final nary or if it finds “that de court and to avoid courts’ decision-making process municipalities. sign subdivision or part of improvements likely are to cause substan That is this court's function—to outline, damage.” city's guide Di tial environmental circumscribe and *8 Planning, part and system supervisory Forester its law rector biologist development powers. had an inade- likely all described wildlife review, effects, including so quate loss of record for environmental procedure vegetation trees and other both on lot court remanded and set out a damage reviewing zoning procedure adjacent properties, wind matters. That and on applicable good law and loss of windbreak effect. is still and still remains cases, finding now circum- likelihood of substan in future but this court damage a full trial the record fair sup is thus scribes when tial environmental provides complete. ported by the evidence and ra- courts, Thus, in 3. future cases trial trial, Minnesota, must denying

before full determine Respondent, STATE of municipality record whether the A meets this new criterion. record before SMITH, Michael Edward Mike a/k/a transcribed, might fully a municipality be Vukovich, Smith, Mike a/k/a a/k/a proceedings adequate, but were the fair “Mike,” Appellant. complete? determining: This involves hearing appro- were examiners utilized No. C4-88-35. priate proceedings? were witnesses sub- Supreme Court of Minnesota.

ject questioning by parties? other opinions expressed? there foundation for April 1, 1988. proof permitted? were offers of were matters outside the record relied on? appropriate

were permitted? continuances

was relevant evidence received? were

complete contemporaneous findings made municipalities’ support decision?

and other such considerations. In other

words, court must determine itself was fair and

adequate op- had a full views,

portunity to their wheth- proceedings

er the reflected the will of the

decision-makers and not 313).

(majority opinion at 17, 1985, In the June resolution

adopted by here, among council

other factors was a statement to the effect upon experience relied area, knowledge greater without I

specificity. don’t know what that was. future, general such statements augmented by

should proper findings,

joined governing majority

body. exactly Parties should know what

the decision-makers relied on. The test just neigh-

isn’t Here,

borhood opposition alone. rest of justifies expressed the result

this case.

YETKA, Justice.

I join special concurrence Mr. Popovich.

Justice