Laserfiche WebLink
Memo <br />To: Lino Lakes Charter Commission <br />From: Kristin C. Nierengarten <br />Cc: Lino Lakes City Council <br />Date: April 3, 2025 <br />Mr" Squires <br />Waldspurger <br />MM &Mace, P.A. <br />Re: Regulation of Minimum Distance Between Businesses <br />The Charter Commission requested information about regulating the minimum <br />distance between similar types of businesses. Pursuant to the City's zoning authority, the <br />City could adopt this type of regulation. There are three main issues I address below for <br />your consideration: the authority to regulate minimum distances, the practical <br />implications of doing so, and the proper form of such regulation. <br />Authority to Regulate Minimum Distance <br />Under the Municipal Planning Act ("MPA"), the state has granted cities the <br />authority to regulate land use, which includes the authority to regulate the "uses of <br />buildings and structures for trade" (i.e., business locations). Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. <br />1. Specifically, the MPA allows a city to implement zoning regulations for the purpose of <br />promoting "public health, safety, morals, and general welfare." Id. Accordingly, if a city <br />were to implement a minimum distance requirement between businesses of the same <br />type, it must be able to articulate how the regulation would promote health, safety, <br />morals, or the general welfare. <br />Typically, minimum distance requirements are directed at businesses involving <br />some type of vice, such as gambling, alcohol, or adult content. As such, often the <br />justification for a minimum distance requirement relies on the negative effects that may <br />result from concentrating businesses in a particular area, such as the potential for <br />increased crime. Justifying a broader regulation on the minimum distances between any <br />businesses of the same type in the promotion of health, safety, morals, or the general <br />welfare may be more difficult. While this type of regulation has not been tested in <br />Minnesota courts, protecting existing businesses against competition likely would not be <br />a sufficient reason to enact such a regulation. <br />