|
1~-~3-1W~ O~:SWMM PRUM DURN LNW PIR~, LIO qWFDDqJ K.~
<br />
<br />510 N.W.2d 264, R.A. Putnam & Associates, Inc. v. City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County,
<br />(Mm. App. 1994.)
<br />
<br />Page 4
<br />
<br /> 9. While the City's Comprehensive Plan was
<br />changed in 1985 to designate this 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 render such designation inappropriate.
<br />
<br />*267 The council adopted the resolution at its next
<br />scheduled meeting, oa May 5, 1992.
<br />
<br /> Putnam and Rotflund 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 its review to the record that
<br />was before the city council at the time of the
<br />council's decision. (PNI) 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-PUD, grant a conditional use
<br />pcrrnit, and approve the sketch plan.
<br />
<br />ISSUES
<br />
<br /> 1. Did the district court err by concluding that the
<br />city failed to properly record the basis for its zoning
<br />decision?
<br />
<br /> 2. Did the district 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. Cmix Dev., Inc. v.
<br />City of Apple Valley, 446 N.W.2d 392, 397
<br />(Minn. App. 1989), Vet. for rev. denied (Minn. D~.
<br />I, 1989). We do not accord any special deference to
<br />the district 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 acts, the
<br />zoning action is presumed to be arbitrary. Zylka v.
<br />City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 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 planning cor~miasion and city council hearings
<br />and transcribed the council meetings at which reasons
<br />for the denial were discussed. This was enough to
<br />preclude a presumption of arbitrariness. See.
<br />Swanson v. City of Bloomington, 421 N.W,2d 307,
<br />
<br />312 (Minn. 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. Thc
<br />require~me~_t that contemporaneous findings be
<br />recorded prevents a city from offering "after-the-fact
<br />justifications * * * unrelated to the actual reasons for
<br />the initial decision." Uniprop Manufactured Hous. v.
<br />City of Lakeville, 474 N.W. 2d 375, 379
<br />(Minn.App. 1991), bet. for rev. den~ed (Minn. Oct.
<br />11, 1991). This rationale 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 as long
<br />as the necessary record is prepared within a
<br />reasonable time of a zoning decision, a municipality
<br />should not be presumed 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) (findings
<br />made contemporaneously where council in process of
<br />drafting and adopting them 26 days after hearing and
<br />vote), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. May 23, 1991).
<br />
<br /> [6][7] Whether the record has been prepared in a
<br />reasonably timely fashion is a question that must be
<br />considered in light of the facts surrounding the
<br />zoning decision, 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 documentation. The council
<br />adopted findings two weeks after the hearing, at its
<br />next scheduled meeting. Under these facts, we hold
<br />that the city's formal findings were prepared and
<br />adopted within a reasonable time.
<br />
<br /> [8][9] 2. We must still determine whether the city's
<br />findings and decision were arbitrary. A zoning
<br />decision should not be disturbed if a city gives legally
<br />sufficient reasons, and the reasons are grounded in
<br />fact. NBZ Enters., Inc. v. City of Shakopee, 489
<br />N.W.2d 531, 537 (Minn. App. 1992), pet. for_rev.
<br />de,ed (Minn. Sept. 30, 1992). In other *268.
<br />words, a court should not interfere 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 ]egally
<br />sufficient reasons in support of its denial of the
<br />zoning request. For example, the council was
<br />concerned that Rottlund's project was not
<br />appropriately sealed in light of the surrounding land
<br />use. This reason finds factual support in the recent
<br />
<br />Copyright (c) West Group 1998 No c]a~m to origir~l U.S. Govt. works
<br />
<br />
<br />
|