must approve a preliminary plat that proposes a permitted use and complies with the regulatory standards specified for that use, the board of commissioners exceeded its authority in denying PTL’s application for preliminary-plat approval on the basis that the proposed development was inconsistent with existing land uses and not well planned. The decision to deny preliminary-plat approval was based on legally insufficient reasons. To hold otherwise would undermine the legal doctrine that a subdivision plan tha that incompatibility between proposed use and “definite and objective standards” in city’s comprehensive plan justified denial of conditional-use permit), review denied (Minn. Jan. 5, 1996). But cf. Amoco Oil Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 395 N.W.2d 115, 118 (Minn.App.1986) (<HOLDING>). In contrast, for a permissible use, the law
holding that disability provision in comprehensive retirement plan constituted a welfare plan holding that provision in comprehensive plan requiring developer to demonstrate that proposed use is consistent with the comprehensive plans general intent and purpose was unreasonably vague subjective and did not furnish ground for denial of specialuse permit holding that city councils determination that proposed use was inconsistent with comprehensive plan justified denial of specialuse permit holding that the llupa does not provide for judicial review of a request to change a comprehensive zoning plan holding that reliance on comprehensive plan as basis for denying conditionaluse permit was improper where zoning ordinance did not list compliance with comprehensive plan as basis for denial