Agenda Packets - 1982/09/27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2. The next arguni,::t prusuntud %.as that the council acted arbitrary and q uYlelous and wi Lileui :C.: Gla ilu rClation to promoting public health, safety, ;,:ore::; and gunor.al wulfaru. This was based on the fact tllaL tnU Grui:iii:iJ.i ii:'lGiiiiiy LhU rUj;Cl:4.y, when adopted against the planning co,..missi.on's reco;,.r.enciatioa, was inconsistent With the city's land usu plan, waL; tiv..rCa ter amended to con- form to the zoning chatrju. Thu Supru;1-u Court says that although other states have required conformance to the city's land use plan when zoning, they do not find that requirement in the Minnesota Statutes. The court citos 462.351 to 462.364 which provides for the adoption of a comprehensive land use plan to guide future developments in a municipality, and 462.357 which provides the municipality with power to effectuate its land use plan through zoning. Although the Association argued that the comprehensive land use plan must be amended before a zoning ordinance can be amended, the Minnesota Supreme Court said, "We read the Statute to require only that a land use plan be adopted before the initial zoning 1 ordinance is adopted. The Statute in fact does not require even that the zoning ordinance conform exactly to the City's land use plan. While it may seem desirable as a matter of municipal planning to amend the land use plan before adopting an in- 9 consistent zoning ordinance, s c a requirement is j properly a matter for the legislature, not for this I court, to consider." I In upholding the City's position, the supreme Court said that the City strictly followed the procedures of 462.357, Subds. 3 and 4, requiring that a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance first i be submitted to the planning agency for a recommendation and that public hearing be held. "There is nothing in 462.357 which makes -� the recommendation of the planning commission binding upon the city council or governing body." The Supreme Court then upheld the City's action and did not find that it had acted arbitrary and capricious and examined all of the evidence relating to the surrounding property and the need for the particular facility involved in the zoning. 3. As to the question of spot zoning, I would only indicate that the definition for this term as set forth by our Supreme Colut -4-