Laserfiche WebLink
to the ity council <br />The plannin(j CGf :3l'u 4 4/i tlt thU cityland use <br />that the rezonlltg bu "'On 4 4J incol�ll il:iu .t <br />r� i ;:Cl.l use on the subject <br />plan, which callud for lots du;U.i•' rs recommenda- <br />property. <br />Tito council rejected the ;,�,n;,ing cor�mission <br />council gave no written <br />tion and rezoned the property to R '• ';hc <br />reasons orfllldings 5U?pOr t1rdJ �l:v ru Uning, TFiU CGL 1Ci1's mir,utts <br />iro council nerber1 belieVOd the proposed condo <br />indicated that tminium <br />was needed to serve the city's expanded housing requirements. Council <br />members stated that the property would be an ideal site since it was I <br />located within throe blocks of the central business district, and <br />since high donsity residential uses alreadY across two streets from <br />the property would be compatible with the proposed condominium and <br />Property for any other use unlike' <br />made development of the subject pro p <br />fire council amended its land use <br />After the rezonin action was taken, <br />lan to conform to the rezoninq• public hearings and protested <br />The Association appeared at the <br />the rezoning and sued the City' <br />RECISION between an <br />1, The court spent some time on distinguishing <br />islative act. If the <br />administrative or quasi-judicial ac6 or a leg' <br />act by the council was found to be administrative, then the municipal - <br />act orting the ordinance as a valid <br />.ty would. have the burden of supp <br />by findings of fact based upon sub - <br />exercise of the police power U( <br />that <br />n a <br />stantial evidence. The Minnesota Supreme Court heft acts inea leg;r, <br />municipality adopts or amends a zoning ordinance, <br />s delegated police powers. As a legisl�,...-� <br />islative capAcity under it rove that <br />act, a zoning or rezoning must be upheld unless opponents p <br />the classification is unsupp <br />orted by any rational basis related to . I.;. <br />romoting tba public health, safety, morals or general welfare, or <br />p without compensation. <br />that the classification amounts to a taking a of review in cases <br />The Supreme Court states that its narrow JCOp legislative body (the <br />of this ityp <br />e reflects a policy decision that a leg' <br />which zoning classifications best sere <br />council) can best determine <br />-2- <br />