Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/20/2015 - Joint with EPB

Home

RELEVANT LINKS: Kiges v. City of St. Paul, 240 Minn. 522, 62 N.W.2d 363 (Minn. 1953). State ex rel. Berndt v. Iten, 259 Minn. 77, 106 N.W.2d 366 (Minn. 1960). State, by Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester 268 N.W.2d 885 (Minn. 1978). Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66 (Minn. 1984). Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006). State v. Northwestern Preparatory School, 37 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 1949). County of Morrison v. Wheeler, 722 N.W.2d 329 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006). See Section V -C, Standards for reviewing zoning applications: limits on city discretion. State v. Northwestern Preparatory School, 37 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 1949). State v. Northwestern Preparatory School, 37 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 1949). While both the state and federal constitutions provide protections to landowners from government seizures of land (takings), the courts have long upheld zoning regulations as a reasonable use of a government's police power to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. However, there are still some federal and state constitutional restraints on city zoning authority. The adoption or amendment of a zoning ordinance is considered a legislative decision of the city council. Courts normally give legislative decisions great deference and weight, but the court will on occasion set aside or intervene in city zoning decisions if two important constitutional restraints in the federal and state constitution are violated. First, the courts may overrule a city zoning decision, when it determines that a zoning ordinance is unsupported by any rational basis related to promoting public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. Usually, in these cases the court finds that the city's actions were arbitrary and/or capricious. Second, when a zoning ordinance denies the landowner practically all reasonable use of the land, resulting in a "taking" of the land without just compensation; the court may order the city to pay compensation to the affected landowner. a. Legislative authority must be reasonable Under the federal and state constitution, zoning authority must be used in a manner that is reasonable and free from arbitrariness or discrimination. A city zoning decision is reasonable (not arbitrary), when it bears a reasonable relationship to the purpose of the zoning ordinance. Zoning ordinances may be found to be unreasonable when they appear arbitrary. When a zoning classification treats similarly situated individuals differently, there must be rational reason for the unequal treatment that bears a relation to the purposes of the ordinance (protection of the health, safety and welfare of the public). If no such reasonable or rational justification can be found, the court may decide that the city has been arbitrary. For example, the Minnesota Supreme Court invalidated provisions of one zoning ordinance that allowed public schools, but not private schools, to be located in a residential zone. The court ruled, in that instance, that the ordinance was arbitrary, because "the distinction between the different kinds of schools, upon which the classification made in the ordinance rests, is not based upon alleged evils which it is claimed exist in the case of private schools and do not exist in the case of public or parochial schools." League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 1/20/2015 Zoning Guide for Cities Page 13