|
510 N.W.2d 264, R.A. Pamam & Associates, Inc. v. Cky of Mendom Height~, Dakota County,
<br />(Minn. App. i994)
<br />
<br />Page 4
<br />
<br /> 9. 'While the City's Comprehensive Plan was
<br />changed in 1985 to designate thi~ property to I-IR-
<br />PUD, a number of substantial changes have taken
<br />place in the southeast area of the City since that time
<br />which may r~der such designation inappropriate.
<br />
<br />*267 The council adopted the resolution at its next
<br />scheduled meethag, on May 5, 1992.
<br />
<br /> Putnam and Rottlund then brought an action to
<br />compel the city to rezone the property, issue a
<br />conditional use permit, and approve the sketch plan.
<br />The district court limited it~ review to the record tarot
<br />was before the city council at the 6rn~ of the
<br />council's decision. (FNI) In June 1993, the court
<br />concluded that the city's action was arbitrary and
<br />without factual basis and ordered the city to rezone
<br />the property HR-prOD, grant a conditional use
<br />lXnmait, and approve the sketch plan.
<br />
<br />ISSUES
<br />
<br /> I. Did the district court err by concluding that the
<br />city failed to properly record the basis for it, zoning
<br />decision?
<br />
<br /> 2. Did the distria court err by ordering the city to
<br />rezone the property, grant a conditional use permit,
<br />and approve the sketch plan?
<br />
<br />ANALYSIS
<br />
<br /> [1] This court independently examines a city's
<br />denial of a rezoning request. St. Croix Dev., Inc. v.
<br />City of Apple Valley, 446 N.W.2d 392, 397
<br />(Minn.App.1989), pet. for rev, 0~rfied (Minn. Dec.
<br />I, 1989). We do not accord any special deference m
<br />the d.im'ict court's review of the city's action. Id.
<br />
<br /> [2][3] 1. Rottlund and Putnam contend that the
<br />city's failure to make contemporaneous findings
<br />created a presumption that the city's actions were
<br />arbitrary. If a city council fails to record the basis
<br />for a zoning determination at the time it act,, the
<br />zoning action is presumed to be arbitrary. Zylka v.
<br />City of Crystal, 283 Mina, 192, 198, 167 N.W.2d
<br />45, 50 (1969). In this case, the planning commission
<br />prepared a written recommendation, the council
<br />videotaped its hearings, and the city took minutes of
<br />the p!~n}ng commission and city council hearings
<br />and transcribed the council meeting* at which reasons
<br />for the denial were discusse~l. This was enough to
<br />preclude a presumption of arbitrariness. Sec
<br />Swanson v. City of Bloomington, 421 N.W.2d 307,
<br />
<br />312 OVlinn. 1988).
<br />
<br /> [4][5] Even if this record had not been created, the
<br />resolution adopted at the May 5 council meeting was
<br />an adequate contemporaneous record. The
<br />requirement that contemporaneous findings be
<br />recorded prevent~ a city from offering "after-the-fact
<br />justifications * * * unrelated to the actual reasons for
<br />the initial decision." Uniprop Manufmcmred Hous. v.
<br />City of Lakeville, 474 N.W.2d 375, 379
<br />Ovfinn. App. 1991), pet. ~r rev. derded (Minn. Oct.
<br />11, 1991). This ratio~!e is not served by denying a
<br />city a reasonable amount of time to prepare a record
<br />or formalize its findings. We conclude that a~ long
<br />as tke necessary record is prepared within a
<br />reasonable time of a zoning decision, a municipality
<br />should not be premmed to have acted in an arbitrary
<br />manner. See. BBY Investors v. City of Maplewood,
<br />467 N.W.2d 631, 635 (Minn. App. 1991) (finding~
<br />made contemporaneously where council in process of
<br />drafting and adopting them 26 days after hearing and
<br />yom), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. May 23, 1991).
<br />
<br /> [6][7] Whether the record has been prepared in a
<br />reasonably timely hshion is a question that must be
<br />considered in light of the fact~ surrounding the
<br />zoning decizion, such as the complexity of the issues
<br />involved in reaching that decision. Here, the city
<br />was presented with a relatively complex rezoning
<br />requ.est and extensive docurnemmtion. The council
<br />adopted findin~ two weeks after tM hearing, at its
<br />next scheduled me~.ing. Under these fac~, we hold
<br />that the city's formal findings were prepared and
<br />adopted witbb a reasonable time.
<br />
<br /> [8][9] 2. We mu~t ~II determine whether the city's
<br />findings and deek~n were arbitrary. A zoning
<br />decision should not be disturbed if a city gives legally
<br />sufficient reasouz, and the reasons are ~otmded in
<br />fact. NBZ Enters., Inc. v. City of Shakopee, 489
<br />N.W.2d $31, 537 (Mhm. App. 1992), ~
<br />de.ed (Mkm. Sept. 30, 1992). In other *268.
<br />word,, a court should not [merfere with a municipal
<br />zoning decision that has a "rational basis" or is
<br />"reasonably debatable." Swanson, 421 N.W.2d at
<br />314; Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d
<br />409, 417 (1981).
<br />
<br /> [10] The city council offered several legally
<br />sufficient reasons in support of its denial of the
<br />zoning request. For example, the council was
<br />concerned that Rottlund'-q project w~ not
<br />approprixtely scaled in light of the surrounding land
<br />use. This reason finds faomal support in the recent
<br />
<br />Copyright (c) West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
<br />
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />1'
<br />I
<br />I:
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />
<br />
|