With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that any attempt by way of contract to deprive a city of  control over exercise of it police powers is void
B: recognizing separation of powers doctrine
C: 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
D: recognizing minnesotas long history of acknowledging right of municipalities to exercise police powers by regulating land use and development
D.