Agenda Packets - 2003/09/22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

_______________________________________________________________________________ SCOTT J. RIGGS Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337-9260 Email: sriggs@kennedy-graven.com July 14, 2003 Mr. Jim Ericson Interim City Clerk-Administrator City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 RE: Zoning Code District Review Dear Jim: In light of the recent MN Supreme Court decision in the case of In the Matter of Denial of Eller Media Company’s Applications for Outdoor Advertising Device Permits in the City of Mounds View, Minnesota and the reasoning set forth in that case, an issue that has been discussed by the City in the past regarding the City of Mounds View Zoning Code and the districts contained therein now appears to warrant additional review by the City of Mounds View. Specifically, the issue is the existence of a public facilities (PF) district in the zoning code that covers a range of uses from public parks through wastewater treatment facilities. The PF district distinction is based solely on ownership of a parcel of land, which has to be by the City of Mounds View, and does not deal with the type of land use actually being made of a given parcel of land. As the MN Supreme Court points out in its opinion, zoning deals with land uses and the City’s authority to regulate such land uses. In the case of the PF district designation in the City of Mounds View’s City Code, the designation exists solely for the purpose of convenience for categorizing land owned by the City and not because of the actual use being made or the intended use to be made of a parcel of land, which should actually be the establishing or guiding factor of a zoning district designation. Thus, consistent with the MN Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Eller case, it may be best to revise or entirely delete the PF district designation existing in the City’s Code (which only applies to City-owned parcels) and to revise such districts to guide the uses made of those parcels, e.g.: parks- residential; wastewater treatment plants-industrial; city offices-business/commercial/industrial; golf courses-business/industrial (golf courses are a permitted use in a business district as presently defined by the Mounds View City Code). The revisions or elimination of the PF district would be consistent with the MN Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Eller case in that the “label” for the use allowed in the district would actually match the use being made of a given parcel of land, and that the “label” for a district would not be merely determined by who owns the property (which only applies in the case of the City, as the Mounds View City Code is presently drafted). Additionally, it could be argued that the existence of PF district “islands” for individual parcels of land that are surrounded by the City’s other zoning districts (which are appropriately based on land use issues) constitutes “spot zoning” as discussed in the MN Supreme Court’s Opinion. In any event, while over the course of the past three or four years this issue has been raised because of the rezoning that is required every time the City acquires a parcel of land, it would appear that the PF district designation makes little sense as a designated zoning district in a land-use context, and that the City should strongly consider revising its zoning code to deal specifically with zoning in the land-use context rather than in the ownership context.