|
I
<br />I
<br />
<br />12-03-1998 03:37PM PROM DORN LAW PIRM, LTD
<br />
<br />4275543 P.07
<br />
<br />510 N.W.2d 264, R.A. Putnam & Associates, Inc. v. City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County,
<br />[2Vlinn. App. 1994)
<br />
<br />Page 3
<br />
<br />2. A municipal zoning decision should not be
<br />disturbed if it has a rational basis.
<br />
<br />John F. Bannigan, Jr., James J. Hanton, ltannigan
<br />& Kelly, P.A., St. Paul, for respond,mB.
<br />
<br />James G. Golembeck, Pierre N. Regnier, Jardine,
<br />Logan & O'Brien, St. Paul, for appell2mt.
<br />
<br />Considered and decided by AMUNDSEN, P.J.. and
<br />PARKER and SCHUMACHER, JJ.
<br />
<br /> On March 24, 1992, the city's planning commiqgioI1
<br />voted 7-0 to recommend that the city council deny
<br />Rotflund's requests. The commission forwarded a
<br />written recommendation to the council, which
<br />conducted hearings on April 7 and April 21, I992.
<br />Minutes were kept of both meetings. Although
<br />Rottlund made some changes in the project design in
<br />response to the city's concerns, the council rejected
<br />the request for rezoning by a 3-2 vote on April 21,
<br />1992.
<br />
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />*266 OPINION
<br />
<br />SCHUMACHBR, Judge.
<br />
<br /> The district court ordered appellant The City of
<br />Menders Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota (city),
<br />to rezone property, grant a conditional use permit,
<br />and approve a sketch plan for the site. The city's
<br />xofion for an amended judgment or a new trial wa,
<br />denied. We rever~e. :~
<br />
<br />FACTS
<br />
<br /> Following the vote, .the city attorney prepared a
<br />resolution based on his notes, ~inntes of the planning
<br />commission and city council hearim3s, and the
<br />doeum~nt~ that had be~m filed with the city. The
<br />resolution, which was drawn in large part from the
<br />plannk~ commi.~ion's wriuen recommendation to
<br />the council, formalized the city council's findings of
<br />fact and deni~J of the rezoning request. Specifically,
<br />the council found:
<br />
<br />I. The proposed project doe~ not preserve the
<br />natural and scenic qualities of the subject areas,
<br />
<br /> !
<br />I
<br /> I
<br /> I
<br /> I
<br />I
<br /> I
<br /> I
<br /> I
<br /> I
<br />
<br /> In approximately 1957, the property in question
<br />zoned iow-density residential (R-l). In 1985, the city
<br />approved an amendment to its Comprehensive Plan
<br />intended to redesignate the property High-Density
<br />Resid~atial-Planned Unit Development (HI~-PUD).
<br />The Metropolitan Council rejected the ame~dmgnt
<br />because of concerns about noise from aircraft using
<br />Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. In 1987,
<br />however, the Metropolitan Coun,fl approved a
<br />similar amendment that changed the property's
<br />Comprehensive Plan designation to HR-PUD.
<br />Nevertheless, the property remained zoned R-I.
<br />
<br /> In 1987 and '199I, commercial development was
<br />proposed for the property. The city rejected the
<br />proposals. In the meantime, a 1989 study of airport
<br />operations indicated significant changes in airport
<br />ope, radons had increased both thc'number of flights
<br />over the site and the impact of aircraft noise on the
<br />city's residents.
<br />
<br /> In January 1992, respondent The Rotflund Company
<br />agreed to purchase the property from respondemt
<br />R.A. Pumam & Associates, Inc. Rottlund planned to
<br />build 68 townhomes on the property, each of which
<br />was expected to sell for $80,000.90,000. The
<br />following month, Rottlund asked the city to rezone
<br />the property to HR-PUD, grant a conditional use
<br />permit, and approve a sketch plan.
<br />
<br /> 2. The propo~d project do, s not limit development
<br />to a scale appropriate to the existing termixa and
<br />surrounding land use.
<br />
<br /> 3. The proposed project does not result in an
<br />effective and unified treatment of the development
<br />possibilities on the project aim.
<br />
<br /> 4. 'l'ne proposed project does not harmonize with
<br />existing and proposed developmeat~ in the areas
<br />surrounding the rite.
<br />
<br />5. The proposed project has the potential to
<br />depreciate surrounding property values.
<br />
<br /> 6. The proposed project uses private streets of
<br />inappropriat~ wi&hz; the City's policies encourage,
<br />wherever possible, dedication of public streets and
<br />roadways.
<br />
<br /> 7. The proposed off street parking fails to comply
<br />with Section 12.5 Subd. 2 of the Menders Heights
<br />Zoning Ordinances.
<br />
<br /> 8. The Applicam does not now have a final
<br />developer plan for Outlet A of the proposed
<br />project, which is intended for use as a day care
<br />
<br />Copyright (c) West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
<br />
<br />3'7
<br />
<br />
<br />
|