12/13/2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

LMC League of Minnesota Cities Cities promoting excellence J Cities l3ulletin Number 1 January 7, 2004 Coalition forms to challenge municipal land use statutes Gary Carlson and Tom Grundho A new consortium of business interes has banded together under the name, "Alliance for Reasonable Municipal Regulation," or ARMR. As the name suggests, the group is seeking signifi- cant changes to planning and zoning and eminent domain statutes. The group includes the Minneso Automobile Dealers Association, the Builders Association of Minnesota, The Minnesota Realtors Association, the Alliance ofAutomotive Service Providers, the Minnesota Grocers Association, the Builders Association of the Twin Cities, the Minnesota Retailers Association, Marathon Ashlan Oil, the Outdoor Advertising Associa tion of Minnesota, and the Minnesota Petroleum Marketers Association. Proposed changes Outlined in a letter sent to legislators in December,ARMR is seeking changes to four areas of state law Without a draft of the bill, however, the proposed changes are somewhat vague. First, ARMR is proposing changes to MN Stats 462.357 subd. le to eliminate the current 50 percent damage threshold that allows a city to require that a non - conforming land use be made a conforming use in the event the property is destroyed to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value.This change would allow a non - conforming use to continue as long as the property is not abandoned for more than one year. ARMR also proposes allowing non- comforming uses to be improved (expanded). These efforts would seriously undermine a city's ability to gradually bring about changes to the character of an area. Second, the ARMR proposal would limit municipal authority to impose moratoriums to one year. Under Proposed ARMR legislation The following is a description of the ARMR legislation as outlined in the recent letter sent by ARMR to legislators: 1. Non - conforming uses should be allowed to continue even if damaged. ARMR legislation proposes to allow non - conforming uses to continue by eliminating the 50 percent damage threshold. The current 50 percent damage threshold allows cities to oust viable businesses from their locations should they suffer damage to their property. A business that had become a con- conforting use should be allowed to continue unless the property owner abandons the non- conforming use for more than one year. In addition, no viable business can remain profitable when they are prohibited by city ordinances from doing anything more than mere repairs of their property. Current law unfairly restricts property owners from improving their property, so ARMR advocates allowing property owners of non- conforining uses to improve their property. 2. Moratoriums should be limited to one year. Current law allows cities to pass temporary bans on certain types of property uses while the city gathers Continued on page 3 current law, a city can impose a morato- rium for up to one year with an automatic 18 -month extension. This change would severally limit the use of this important land - planning tool. Third, the bill would place limits on city fees or land dedication require- ments that would tie the fee or dedication to the "specific and unique attributable need created by the project." This requirement would add yet another test for determining the validity of municipal land use and development fees. The statute already includes adequate safeguards by which to measure the appropriateness of the municipal fees; this addition would simply spur new litigation. Fourth, the bill would amend the state's eminent domain statutes by allowing the award of attorney's fees to property owners if the final compen- sation award is more than 15 percent greater than the award originally offered by the government entity. The changes would also allow a business to receive compensation from the govern- ment entity for the "loss of going concern" when the business cannot be located within the same market area. The description of the bill also indicates that the ARMR bill would have the Legislature address when eminent domain can be used and would define "public purpose" for a taking. We expect the ARMR proposal to be introduced in the upcoming session and that hearings will be held. We will fully summarize the bill when it is introduced. t