Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2011 - Special Jt Mtg w CC

Home

Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 2. A.G. Op. 59-A-32 (Jan. 25, 2002). Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66 (Minn.,1984); Olsen v. City of Hopkins, 178 N.W.2d 719 (Minn. 1970); Three Putt, LLC v. City of Minnetonka, No. A08-1436 (Minn. Ct. App 2009) (unpublished decision). State, by Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester. 268 N.W.2d 885 (Minn. 1978). i. Rezoning residential property When property is rezoned from residential to commercial or industrial, a two-thirds majority of all members of the city council is required. (This means there must be four affirmative votes on a five -member council, in most cases.) For other rezoning decisions, a simple majority vote of all members is all that is required. The Minnesota attorney general has issued an opinion that charter cities may not alter this voting requirement in their charter. The purpose of state law is to provide a uniform set of procedures for city planning and such procedures apply to all cities, charter or statutory. ii. Spot zoning The general rule is that property owners to do not acquire any vested rights in the specific zoning of their parcel. Cities may exercise their legislative discretion to rezone property in furtherance of the public, health, safety and welfare. Cities should, however, avoid a type of rezoning known as "spot zoning." Spot zoning usually involves the rezoning of a small parcel of land in a manner that: • Is unsupported by any rational basis relating to promoting public welfare. • Establishes a use classification inconsistent with surrounding uses and creates an island of nonconforming use within a larger zoned district (for example one lot where industrial uses are permitted in an otherwise residential zone). • Dramatically reduces the value for uses specified in the zoning ordinance of either the rezoned plot or abutting property. ZONING GUIDE FOR CITIES 41