lot minimum) would be “inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.” The City also found that there was no compelling reason to amend the comprehensive plan to reinstate the subject property in the MUSA. Concept Properties contends that, by merely relying on the comprehensive plan, the City lacked a sufficient legal basis to deny its application. This argument is without merit. The Minnesota Supreme Court has specifically held that when a municipality refuses to rezone because it would be inconsistent with its comprehensive land-use plan, that action does not, “without evidence to the contrary, constitute arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the [city] council.” Sun Oil Co., 300 Minn. at 337, 220 N.W.2d at 263; see also Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66, 75 (Minn.1984) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Minnesota Legislature has
holding that refusal to zone in accordance with comprehensive plan is evidence that citys action was arbitrary holding that disability provision in comprehensive retirement plan constituted a welfare 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 holding that an agencys decision is to be set aside only if it is arbitrary capricious an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law  holding that the citys decision was arbitrary and capricious when it was contrary to the evidence and based solely on speculation arising from prior unrelated acts