a comprehensive plan. Sun Oil Co., 300 Minn, at 333, 220 N.W.2d at 261. Contrary to Concept Properties’ novel interpretation of Sun Oil Co., the Minnesota Supreme Court in Sun Oil Co. sets forth the difficult standard that a private party must meet in order to challenge a municipality’s land-use decisions. Id. Because municipal bodies have broad discretion in making zoning and land-use decisions, they have no obligation to demonstrate that pri- or zoning classifications are mistaken. See id. (“The courts will reverse [zoning decisions] only where there are no grounds for reasonable debate and where the action of the [municipal body] is arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, or illegal.” (Quotation omitted)); see also Wedemeyer v. City of Minneapolis, 540 N.W.2d 539, 542 (Minn.App.1995) (<HOLDING>). Concept Properties’ contention that the City
recognizing minnesotas long history of acknowledging right of municipalities to exercise police powers by regulating land use and development recognizing separation of powers doctrine holding that any attempt by way of contract to deprive a city of  control over exercise of it police powers is void holding state legislation was a reasonable exercise ofits broad police powers in regulating the administration of drugs by health professionals where the decision to prescribe or to use is left entirely to the physician and the patient holding that land sales contracts were not securities because they involved no investment in an enterprise even if land was bought on expectation that development of the area would increase the value of the land