Laserfiche WebLink
/� ¢ f � � l, r�►.� F� � �� � <br />�; <br />��o� .�. ��� <br />Altomey at Iaw <br />bieece Diat (612) 337-926U <br />Emaz'1: sriggs a�r.ennedy-graven.com <br />Tuly 14, 2003 <br />N1r. Jim Ericson <br />Interim City Clerk-Administrator <br />City of Mounds '�Iiew <br />2401 Higl�way 10 <br />Matu7ds �Iiew, MN 55112 <br />RE: Zoning Code Dis9ric# l�ev�ew <br />I3ear Jim: <br />�. ligl�t of ihe recent �VIN Supreme Court decision in the case of In the Matter o�f Denial of Elier <br />Media C�mt�at�v9s Applications for Outdoor Advertisi� Device Pemuts in the Ci�y of Mottnds <br />View. 1lti�esoia and flie reasonin.g set for�h in that case, an issue that has been discussed by the '� <br />Ciiy in the past regarding t�he City of Mouuds View Zoning Code and the districts cont�vned tiierein - <br />now appears ta warrant addifianat review by the City ofMounds View. Specifically, the issue is the <br />existence of a public facifities (PF) disirict iri the zoning code tha� covers a range of uses from <br />public parks through wastewater treatment facilities. The PF clislrict distuiction is based solely on <br />ownership of a parcel of land, which has to be by ihe City of Mounds �Iiew, and. does n�t deal with <br />the i}pe of land use actually bei.ng made af a given parcel of Iand. <br />A.s the MN Supreme �ourt points out in its opinion, zoning deals with Ia.ud uses and the City's <br />auti3orify to regulate such land nses. In fhe case of the PF district designa�ion in the City of Mounds <br />View's City Code, the desi�.ation e�cists solely far the purpose of convenience far categorizing Iand <br />owned by the City and not because of the actual use being made or the intended use to be mad� of a <br />parcel of land, which should aciva.11y be ti�e establishing or guiding fact�r of a zoning olistrict <br />designa�ion. Thus, consistent with the MN Supreme Court's reasoning in the Eller case, it may be <br />best to revise or entirely delete the PF district desi�ahon existin� in tlie Czty's Code {which only <br />applies to Cifiy-owned parcels) and to revise such districts to guide ihe uses made af those parcels, <br />e.g.: parks-residential; wastewatar trreatrneni plants-industrial; city offices- <br />business/cornrnsrciaUindustrial; golf courses-busuless/industrial(golf courses ar� a pern�itted use in <br />a business disirict as presently defined by tYie i�Iounds View City Code). The revisions or <br />elir�sination of the PF disirict wouid be consistent with �tie 1VIN Supreme Court's reasoning in. the <br />Eller case in tt�at ihe "label99 for �e u.se allowed in t1�e districY would actually ma�ch �he u�e being <br />made of a�aven parcel of lax�d, arid that tihe i6label" for a district would not be merely detamli�ed by <br />SJR-234529v1 <br />MLJ125�7 <br />