08-20-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission August 20, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 4 ____________________________________________________________________________ July 14, 2003, letter, his correspondence to the City Council, Chapter 1118 of the Mounds View Zoning Code and the City’s “Facility Guide” for review. Director Ericson stated Council had directed staff to bring this issue to the Planning Commission for review and requested the Commission draft a proposed ordinance for the Council’s consideration. Director Ericson indicated the City Attorney’s response was perhaps the City was zoning improperly, as the zoning should be related to land use and not property ownership. He added the City Attorney felt this revision would make the City’s zoning code more consistent with conventional zoning concepts. Director Ericson presented a map showing the PF zones within the City. He noted the uses present within the City’s PF district were the following: city parks, wells and pump houses, City Hall, water treatment plant, water tower, The Bridges Golf Course and Community Center. Director Ericson discussed how these properties would be zoned if the City followed the example of other cities. He indicated the Planning Commission should discuss appropriate zoning for these parcels and the target was to eliminate the PF Zoning District. Director Ericson reviewed the “Facility Guide” map with the Commission. Commissioner Hegland asked where the PF zoning designation originated. Director Ericson responded it was implemented at some point after the 1970s. He explained each city came up with its own designations, with many of the labels being similar and others being unique to the community. He added other communities had the PF zoning designation and the City probably borrowed it from another zoning code. Commissioner Hegland questioned why the designation was a problem. He stated he felt PF (public facilities) would cover any property owned by the City and by definition it would be scattered around the City to serve the public. He added he did not understand the legal problem because the land use was to serve the public. Director Ericson replied he was not sure there was a legal problem. He added the Supreme Court had thought it was backward to zone the property according to ownership instead of the nature of its use. He indicated the drive was consistency with conventional zoning. Commissioner Hegland stated he felt the PF zoning designation was nature of use, as the nature of use was to serve the public. Discussion ensued regarding properties owned by the City that were not in PF Zoning District. Chair Stevenson asked how other communities designated parks and public facilities.