|
510 N.W.2d 264, R.A. Pu~ & Associates, Inc. v. City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County,
<br />(Mitre. 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 />/lohn F. Bannigan, Jr., James J. I-Ianton, gannigan
<br />& Kelly, P.A., St. Paul, for respondents.
<br />
<br />James G. Golembeck, Pierre N. Regnier, Jardine,
<br />Logan & O'Brien, St. Paul, for appellant.
<br />
<br />Considered and decided by AMUNDSON, P.J., and
<br />PARKER and SCHUMACHER, J J.
<br />
<br /> On March 24, 1992, the city's planning commission
<br />voted 74) to recommend that the city council deny
<br />Rotflund'$ requests. The commission forwarded a
<br />written recommendation to the council, wkich
<br />conducted hearings on April 7 and April 21, 1992.
<br />Minutes were kept of both meetings. Although
<br />Rottlund made some c~nges in the project design in
<br />response to the city's concerns, the council rejected
<br />the request for rezoniag by a 3-2 vote on April 21,
<br />1992.
<br />
<br />*266 OPINION
<br />
<br />SCHUMACHER, Judge.
<br />
<br /> Thc district court ordered appellant The City of
<br />Mendota Heights, Dakota County, Minnesota (city),
<br />to rezone property, grant a conditional use permit,
<br />and approve a sketch plan for the site. Tim city's
<br />motion for an amended judgment or a new trial was
<br />denied. We rever~e.
<br />
<br />PACTS
<br />
<br /> Following the vote, the city attorney prepared a
<br />resolution based on his notes, minutes of the planning
<br />comml.q$ioll and city council hearings, and rite
<br />docurn_~rs that had been filed with the city. Tlm
<br />resolution, which was drawn in large part from the
<br />planning commission's written recommendation to
<br />the council, formalized the city councirs findings of
<br />fact and denial of the rezoning request. Specifically,
<br />the council found:
<br />
<br />I. The proposed project does not preserve the
<br />natural and scenic qualities of the subject areas.
<br />
<br /> In approximately 1957, the property in question was
<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 />Residential-Planned Unit Development (HR-PUD).
<br />The Metropolitan Council rejected the amendment
<br />because of concerns about noise from aircraft using
<br />Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. In 1987,
<br />however, the Metropolitan Council approved a
<br />simil~ amendment that changed the property's
<br />Comprehensive Plan designation to HR-PUD.
<br />Nevertheless, the property remained zoned R-1.
<br />
<br /> In 1987 and 1991, commercial development was
<br />proposed for the property. The city rejecvx/ the
<br />proposals. In the meantime, a 1989 study of airport
<br />operations indicated significant changes in airport
<br />operations had increased both the'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 pow.base the property from respondent
<br />R.A. Putnam & 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, ~ant a conditional use
<br />permit, and approve a sketch plan.
<br />
<br /> 2. The proposed project does not limit development
<br />to a scale appropriate to the existing terrain 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 site.
<br />
<br /> 4. The proposed project does not harmonize with
<br />existing and proposed developments in the areas
<br />surrounding the site.
<br />
<br />5. The proposed project has the potential to
<br />depreciate surrounding property values.
<br />
<br /> 6. The proposed project uses private sue, ets of
<br />inappropriate widths; 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 Mendota Heights
<br />Zoning Ordinances.
<br />
<br /> 8. The Applicant does not now have a final
<br />development plan for Ouflot A of the proposed
<br />project, which is intended for use as a day care
<br />center.
<br />
<br />Copyright (c) West Croup 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works
<br />
<br />
<br />
|