Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC & PC PACKET 03232015".Oil hary (T Joint City Council /Planning Commission Agenda Monday, March 23, 2015 5:30 p.m. (Food available at 5:15 pm) 1. Introductions 2. Land Use Training. Jed Burkett, Loss Control Attorney, League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust 3. Pyramid 4. Expectations 5. Questions is IIA114I %�In `I II,5 Land Use Training St. Anthony Village March 23, 2015 Pyramid of Discretion sea Appouw. c7 Zoning Conditional Uses fi UL"UIRI'(`1kS' ' Conditional Uses �a u�d F. Flpv�66- Lmtlosand oYaneMet NlMbOd[! d�yyM ,'1. nM I i 1 I 1 1 I ( I I L 1 II 1, I I 3 You be the quasi -Judge • Riney am already written In ortarence • Apply them fairly • open Process • Timely process Creating a record City must create record to support decision If decision Is challenged, counts will review the public record Record Should demonstrate • city ererdeed oppreprlete level of dlaurobon • appaed relevant standards In a raaewrcble feehlon Application Process • Staff review • Planning Commission • City Council • Written Findings of Fact • Don't forget the 6PDay Ruiel 4 Planning Commission • Advises city council • Evaluates staff Input • Makes recommendations to council • Subject to the open meeting law Public Hearings • A chance to explain and educate • Develop a record • Ask questions • Respect citizens • Calm and reassure • Explain procedures • Payadendm -Avoid hostile Confrontations Written Statement Adopt a single written statement whenever a city makes a quasi Judicial decision • "Findings of fact and conclusions of law" • identify relevant legal criteria • sbWary sbnderbor cads pm Islons • explain relevant facts relating to application • Men apply to legal criterla to facts found Judicial Review Adult Uses Sign Regulations RLUIPA Telecom t Disability Group Homes n E3 Questions? Call the League of Minnesota Cities -1-80 a2S3 22 • LMCIT Land Use Loss Control - J.d audud 65L281-1247 • Land Use Matenais on web site • PLtQ✓/ Iln <,wpJQPa.fXLPP4UgPMPIP[IPIPyP 00 LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INFORMATION MEMO Zoning for Religion When considering an application for land use involving a religious institution, cities must comply with the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RL UIPA) law. Learn the requirements of this law and read examples of provided by the U. S. Department of Justice of zoning actions and ordinance language that can violate it. RELEVANT LINKS 42 U.S.C. § 2000m et seq. Employment Div., Department of Human Resources of Ore. V. Smith, 42 U.S. 110 S. Ct. 108 L.Ed. 2°" 876 (1990). I. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) While it probably isn't every day that your city receives a land use application for a religious use, this is still an area of planning and zoning cities need to pay attention to. The way your city handles applications for religious uses must comply with the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). RLUIPA protects religious institutions from unduly burdensome or discriminatory land use regulations. This law was passed unanimously by Congress in 2000, after congressional hearings revealed that religious organizations were disproportionately affected by local land use decisions. Minority religions and start-up churches were impacted more than most. Congress also found that religious institutions were treated worse than comparable secular institutions and that zoning authorities were placing excessive burdens on the ability of congregations to exercise their faith. As a result, Congress enacted RLUIPA in an effort to protect religious freedom, houses of worship, and religious schools. However, 10 years after it was passed, RLUIPA remains something of a mystery to those involved in local land use regulation 11. Origins of RLUIPA A 1990 Supreme Court decision was the first step toward RLUIPA. Smith was fired as a drug counselor for ingesting peyote during a Native American ceremony. He was denied unemployment insurance by the state of Oregon because his termination was due to felony use of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court upheld the denial because the state ban on peyote was neutral and generally applicable. The Smith decision led to an outcry from religious groups that the courts were inadequately protecting the religious practice of individuals from the impact of government programs and policies. This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice wnceming specific situations. 145 University Ave. West v✓.w,.lmc.org 4/112010 Saint Paul, MN 55103 -2044 (651) 281 -1200 or (800) 925 -1122 ® 2013 All Rights Reserved RELEVANT LINKS: 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et see. Congress reacted in 1993 by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which established "strict scrutiny" of any law that substantially burdened a religious individual or institution. A church in Texas challenged a city historic preservation law under RFRA and in 1997 the case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Court struck down the application of RFRA to state and local government, ruling it was an unconstitutional violation of the limits of federalism. So Congress tried again, and after unsuccessful bills in 1998 and 1999, RLUIPA became law in 2000. III. RLUIPA prohibitions Department of Justice There is little guidance for compliance with RLUIPA, causing city officials, RLUIPA Policy Statement, Sept 2010. planners, and attorneys to puzzle over the language of this law. The following information from the U.S. Department of Justice provides examples of the kinds of zoning actions and ordinance language that might get a city into trouble with RLUIPA. A. Infringement of religious exercise 42 U.s.C. s 2000cua). RLUIPA bars zoning restrictions that impose a "substantial burden" on the religious exercise of a person or institution, unless the government can show that it has a "compelling interest" for imposing the restriction. In addition, the restriction imposed must be the least restrictive way for the city to further that interest. Minor costs or inconveniences imposed on religious institutions are not enough to trigger RLUIPA's protections. The burden must be "substantial." Once the institution has shown a substantial burden on its religious exercise, the city must show that the reason for imposing a restriction is "compelling." Because the religious organizations in the following examples have demonstrated a substantial burden on their religious exercise, and the justifications offered by the cities in these cases are not compelling, the cities would likely be in violation of RLUIPA. Example: A church has applied for a variance to build a modest addition to its building for Sunday school classes. The church demonstrated that the addition is critical to carrying out its religious mission, that there is adequate space on the lot, and that there would be a negligible impact on traffic and congestion in the area. The city denied the variance. Example: A Jewish congregation has been meeting in various rented spaces that have proven inadequate for the religious needs of its growing membership. The congregation purchased land and seeks to build a synagogue. The city denied the permit, and the only reason given is "we have enough houses of worship in this city already, and we want more businesses." League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/1/2010 Zoning for Religion Page 2 RELEVANT LINKS: 42 U.S. C. § 2000coft 1). 42 U.S C. § 2000cc(bx2). 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(bx3XA). 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3)(s). B. Comparability to secular institutions Under RLUIPA, religious assemblies and institutions must be treated at least as well as non - religious assemblies and institutions. This is known as the "equal terms" provision of RLUIPA. On its face, the ordinance below favors nonreligious places of assembly over religious assemblies, so the following example would be a violation. Example: A mosque leases space in a storefront, but zoning officials deny an occupancy permit since houses of worship are forbidden in that zone. However, fraternal organizations, meeting halls, and places of assembly are all permitted in the same zone. C. Discrimination among religions RLUIPA bars discrimination "against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination." If it were proven that the permit was denied because the applicants are Hindu, the example below would constitute a violation. Example: A Hindu congregation is denied a building permit despite meeting all of the zoning code requirements for height, setback, and parking. The zoning administrator is overheard making a disparaging remark about Hindus. D. Exclusion of religious assemblies RLUIPA provides: "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction." Exclusions like the example below are explicitly forbidden. Example: A city, seeking to preserve tax revenues, enacts a law that no new churches or other houses of worship will be permitted. E. Unreasonable limits on houses of worship Under RLUIPA: "No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction." The zoning scheme described below, if proven to be an unreasonable limitation on houses of worship, would constitute a violation. Example: A city has no zones that permit houses of worship. The only way a church may be built is by having an individual parcel rezoned, a process which in that city takes several years and is extremely expensive. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 4/7/2010 Zoning for Religion Page 3 RELEVANT LINKS: IV. Impact on zoning It is important to recognize that RLUIPA does not shield religious institutions from all land use regulation. A zoning ordinance can be enforced as long as it does not discriminate against or exclude religious uses, does not treat religious uses less favorably than comparable nonreligious uses, and does not impose a substantial burden. Religious land uses include places of assembly for worship such as churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples. But, RLUIPA can also encompass any number of associated religious activities, such as shelters, schools, soup kitchens, and community centers. Historically, most zoning ordinances have treated religious institutions like any other building. They usually are subject to setbacks, height limits, and lot size requirements. Often the impacts are limited to traffic and parking concerns that occur at the time of regular worship services. However, some ordinances specify zoning districts in which religious buildings are or are not allowed, and require that performance standards be met as to parking and site plan. Like any zoning regulation, the purpose is generally to mitigate the impact of the land use on its neighbors. Another traditional way of handling zoning ordinances is to treat churches and other places of worship as uses associated primarily with residential districts. Neighborhood churches were viewed as a classic residential use, often located on corner lots near larger streets. But the model has changed over time with new forms emerging. Large mega- churches draw thousands of worshipers to shopping- center sized facilities. Conversely, smaller storefront churches provide youth drop -in centers and religious outreach efforts. Many zoning ordinances have not yet addressed the variety of forms religious institutions can take. V. Review and plan Cities that have not reviewed their zoning ordinances for consistency with RLUIPA might start by taking a look at how religious land uses are currently regulated: • Does the zoning ordinance call them out as specific land uses? • If so, does the ordinance impose unique requirements or limit their location to certain districts? • How are religious land uses defined? If the ordinance uses the term "churches" the city should consider changing to a broader definition, as the term church can be viewed as discriminating among religions. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: Page Page 4 0 Zoning for Religion ege RELEVANT LINKS: Some ordinances now employ a broad definition of "places of assembly" that include both religious and non - religious uses. This approach may go a long way toward protecting the city from an equal terms challenge under RLUIPA. Cities should also consider whether the ordinance requires religious uses to undergo any particular approval process. If the ordinance leaves the city with significant discretion over the approval and conditions that may be attached, a city is more likely to face a substantial burden challenge under RLUIPA. Some ordinances regulate places of religious assembly as a conditional use. While a conditional use may be appropriate and may survive a challenge if applied fairly and judiciously, cities should be wary of this practice. Concerns a city may wish to address through a zoning approval process do not always pertain to all places of assembly but rather are focused on assemblies of a particular size. Consider classifying assemblies based on scale and impact, and have sliding zoning standards that apply accordingly. A small place of assembly may be permitted outright, yet a larger one would be subject to specified performance standards. While the meaning and impact of RLUIPA continues to be sorted out, cities should remain aware of the possibility that their zoning practices may be alleged to violate RLUIPA. Review of RLUIPA underscores the importance of careful planning, as well as ordinance drafting and administration, whenever a city receives a land use application for a religious use. Cities should work closely with their planners and attorneys to navigate this complex area of land use law. VI. Further assistance Jed Burkett For questions on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act 651.251.1247 jburkett@imc.org Imc.org and other land use situations, contact the League's Loss Control Land Use League of Minnesota Cities. Attorney. You can learn more about land use issues in the land use section of the League's website. League of Minnesota Cities Infonnation Memo: 4/1/2010 Zoning for Religion Page 5 00 L- AGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INFORMATION MEMO Zoning Decisions Zoning decisions are the source of controversy and confusion in many communities. Understanding a city's zoning authority and the standards associated with various zoning tools is important in navigating controversy and dispelling confusion. This memo discusses the nature of a city's decision - making authority and the legal standards associated with variances, conditional use permits, and nonconformities. RELEVANT LINKS: Learn more about zoning decisions in LMC information memos Zoning Guide far Cities and PlanningandZoning 101. I. Level of authority Zoning is a method of establishing a land use pattern by regulating the way land is used by landowners. A zoning ordinance, comprised of text and a map, generally divides a city into various districts and sets standards regulating uses in each district. A city has considerably broader authority when creating its zoning ordinance than it does when administering the same ordinance. Consequently, it is important for a city to be aware of what authority it is acting under whenever making a particular zoning decision. When adopting or amending a zoning ordinance, a city council is exercising so- called "legislative" authority. The council is advancing health, safety, and welfare by making rules that apply throughout the entire community. When acting legislatively, the council has broad discretion and will be afforded considerable deference by any reviewing court. City councils are ultimately accountable to the voters for legislative decisions. In contrast, when applying an existing zoning ordinance, a city council is exercising so- called "quasi-judicial" authority. The task is to determine the facts associated with a particular request, and then apply those facts to the legal standards contained in the zoning ordinance and relevant state law. A city council has less discretion when acting quasi judicially, and a reviewing court will examine whether the city council applied rules already in place to the facts before it. In general, if the facts indicate the applicant meets the relevant legal standard, then they are likely entitled to the approval. Variances and conditional use permits are two commonplace zoning tools that are quasi-judicial in nature. This material is provided as general information and is not a substitute for legal advice. Consult your attorney for advice concerning specific situations. 145 University Ave. West vmv..lmc.org 6/1/2011 Saint Paul, MN 55103 -2044 (651) 281 -1200 or (800) 925 -1122 ® 2013 All Rights Reserved RELEVANT LINKS: See Appendix A: Pyramid of discretion. LMC information memo, Land Use 1'nrtances. Minn. Slat. g 462.357, sub. 6. The amount of discretion a city has when making legislative versus quasi - judicial decisions is represented by the planning and zoning "pyramid of discretion." The bottom of the pyramid is where a city has the most discretion —when creating a comprehensive plan and corresponding land uses ordinances, such as a zoning ordinance. A city has less discretion when making quasi-judicial decisions as represented by the middle of the pyramid —the city is constrained by the ordinance and law that make up the foundation below. II. Variances Variances are an exception to rules laid out in a zoning ordinance. They are permitted departures from strict enforcement of an ordinance provision as applied to a particular piece of property if enforcement would cause "practical difficulties." Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances are generally for dimensional standards (such as setbacks or height limits) and may not be used to allow a use that is prohibited in the particular zoning district. Essentially, variances allow the landowner to break the dimensional rules that would otherwise apply. A. Practical difficulties "Practical difficulties" is a legal standard set forth in state law. Minnesota cities must apply the state statutory standard when considering applications for variances. The statute provides that requests for variances are heard by a body called the board of adjustment and appeals; in many smaller communities, the planning commission serves that function. Generally, the board's decision is subject to appeal to the city council. Under the statutory practical difficulties standard, a city may grant a variance if the facts satisfy the three - factor test for practical difficulties. 1. Use property in a reasonable manner The first practical difficulties factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is for a building too close to a lot line, or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/1/2011 Zoning Decisions Page 2 RELEVANT LINKS: 2. Circumstances unique to the property The second practical difficulties factor is that the landowner's plight is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property; that is, to the land and not personal considerations of the landowner. The statute further notes that economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties. 3. Maintain essential character of the locality The third practical difficulties factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. This factor generally contemplates whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. B. Granting variances If the facts surrounding a variance application satisfy all three of the statutory factors, then a city may grant the variance. State statute further provides variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. So, in addition to the three- factor practical difficulties test, a city evaluating a variance application should make findings as to: • whether or not the variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance, and • whether or not the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Whatever the ultimate decision on a particular variance application, a city should carefully consider each of the three factors of the statutory practical difficulties standard. While past practice may be instructive, it cannot replace the need for analysis of all three of the practical difficulties factors. Cities should review their zoning ordinance for provisions relating to variances to be sure they are consistent with the state statutory standard for practical difficulties. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo. 6/1/2011 Zoning Decisions Page 3 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. Stat. § 462.3595. LMC information memo, Land Use Conditional Use Permils. Leam more about land use issues in the land use section of the League's website. If a city finds it is issuing many variances to a particular standard, then the city may wish to consider the possibility of amending the ordinance to change the standard. In other words, if a city is consistently allowing landowners to break a particular rule, perhaps the need for the rule should be revisited. It could appear that the properties' plight was not particularly unique, or even that there is not an underlying reasonable basis for the rule. City councils have broad legislative authority when writing the rules, but when evaluating a variance application cities are limited to the quasi-judicial role of applying the state practical difficulties standards to the facts before them. III. Conditional and interim use permits Conditional use permits are authorized under state law. Whether to grant or deny a conditional use permit application is another zoning decision that is quasi-judicial in nature. A conditional use is a use that is generally compatible with a particular zoning district but because of hazards inherent in the use itself or because of special problems that its proposed location may present, the use is allowed by permit only if the special concerns are addressed as set forth in the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance typically details both the general standards that apply to all conditional uses, and the specific conditions that apply to a particular conditional use in a given zoning district. The conditions must be reasonable and practical. Unlike a permitted use, which a landowner is generally entitled to as a matter of right, a conditional use is allowed only after a statutorily required public hearing. Reasonable conditions may be attached to a conditional use permit based upon factual evidence contained in public record. City councils sometimes misunderstand the level and the nature of discretion they have when reviewing applications for conditional use permits. If a proposed conditional use satisfies the conditional use standards set forth in the zoning ordinance, then generally the landowner is entitled to the conditional use permit. The city made the legislative decision about the appropriateness of a kind of use in a zoning district when the council adopted the ordinance providing for the use as conditional. When considering a conditional use permit application, the city is tasked with the more limited quasi-judicial role of considering whether the facts of a particular application satisfy the standards set forth in the ordinance. If the belief is that a kind of use is unacceptable in a given zoning district, then consider not listing the use as a conditional one in the district in the first instance. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/1/2011 Zoning Decisions Page 4 RELEVANT LINKS: Minn. slat. s 462.3595, smba. A conditional use permit is a property right that "runs with the land" so it 3, attaches to and benefits the land and is not limited to a particular landowner. The state statute provides that a conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed. The attorney general has A.G. Op. 59 -A -32 (February opined that time limits such as sunset provisions or automatic annual review 27,1990). to include possible termination are not consistent with state law. The attorney general explained that cities may not enact or enforce ordinance provisions for conditional use permits which allow the city to terminate permits regardless of whether or not the conditions agreed upon are reserved. However, a city can certainly revoke a conditional use permit if there is not substantial compliance with conditions, so long as the revocation is based upon factual evidence, after appropriate notice and hearing. If a city wishes to place time constraints on particular uses, then the appropriate zoning tool is an interim use permit, rather than a conditional Minn. slat. § 462.3597 use permit. A state law passed in 1989 authorizes interim use permits for a temporary use of property until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. Cities may wish to employ interim use permits for uses that are not consistent with the city's long term plan and vision for the particular area, or where the use itself has a limited lifecycle. Interim use permits should be provided for in the city's zoning ordinance. A public hearing is required prior to issuance, and the land owner generally enters into an agreement with the city. Cities should periodically review their zoning ordinances to determine whether the conditional uses listed are uses that remain appropriate for the particular zoning district, and to make sure the conditions under which the uses will be allowed are specifically set forth. Cities have broad legislative discretion when establishing uses and conditions in their ordinance. But when administering conditional uses set forth in the ordinance, cities are acting in their more limited quasi-judicial capacity and are constrained to applying the standards in the ordinance to the facts of a particular application. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 611/2011 Zoning Decisions Page 5 RELEVANT LINKS: LMC information memo, Land Use Nonconjormities. Minn, stat. $ 462.357, sub. le. IV. Nonconformities Nonconformities are uses, structures, or lots that do not comply with the current zoning ordinance. A. Legal nonconformities Legal nonconformities are those that were legal when the zoning ordinance or amendment was adopted, in that they complied with preexisting ordinance and law. The rights of legal nonconformities are often referred to as grandfather rights. Legal nonconformities generally have a statutory right to continue unless: • the use is discontinued for more than one year, or • the structure is destroyed by more than 50% of its assessed market value, and no building permit is applied for within 180 days. Legal nonconformities may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion. There is a limitation to the continuance rights for nonconformities in National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) floodplain areas. Despite their right to continue without complying with the current zoning ordinance, it is important to keep in mind that all legal nonconformities must generally comply with other city ordinances, such as a nuisance ordinance or a licensing ordinance. B. Non -legal conformities In contrast to legal nonconformities, non -legal nonconformities are those that were not permitted when established and they do not have the rights associated with legal nonconformities. Before assuming a particular nonconformity is entitled to the statutory right to continue, it is important to consider whether the nonconformity ever complied with existing ordinance or law. Historically, the theory behind legal nonconformities was that the property would eventually comply with the zoning ordinance. The statutory right to continue was more limited, and cities could phase out nonconformities over time through a process called amortization. Furthermore, the nonconformity could not be upgraded or replaced, and nonconforming rights would cease if the nonconformity was discontinued or destroyed. But in 2001, the legislature prohibited amortization, except for adult uses. And in 2004, the legislature both altered the rule about destruction and afforded nonconformities the right to replacement, restoration or improvement, but not expansion. Cities should review their ordinance provisions concerning nonconformities and make sure they are consistent with the current state statute. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/1 /2011 Zoning Decisions Page 6 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/1/2011 Zoning Decisions Page 7 V. Creating a record Whatever the nature of or standard for a particular zoning decision, a city should create a record that will support it. If the city action is challenged, courts will review the decision on the public record. The record must demonstrate the city exercised the appropriate level of discretion and applied the relevant standards in a reasonable fashion. It may not matter that the city acted reasonably if the city is unable to prove its actions through the public record. When creating a record to support a zoning decision, every city should be Minn. star. § 15.99. aware of Minnesota's 60 -day rule. Under state law, a city must either approve or deny a written request related to zoning within 60 days of the LMC information memo, The time it is submitted to the city. The city may extend the time period for an 60- DayRule: Minnesota's additional 60 days, but only if it does so in writing before expiration of the Automatic Approval Statute. initial 60 -day period. Under the 60 -day rule, failure to approve or deny a request within the statutory time period is deemed an approval. So it is vitally important that cities scrutinize applications as they come in the door to first make sure all required information is present, and then to process those applications in an expeditious manner. A. Public hearings Holding a public hearing is an important component in developing the LMC information memo, Rabr;c Flemings, record. Public hearings are generally required before the adoption of any zoning ordinance or amendment, and before the granting of variances, conditional use permits, or re- zonings Minn. stat. s 46x357, subd. Under state law notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing must be 3. published at least 10 days prior to the day of the hearing. If the decision affects an area of five acres or less, mailed notice may be required to property owners within a 350 -foot radius of the land in question. Public hearings should include a complete disclosure of what is being proposed and a fair and open assessment of the issues raised. A public hearing should include an opportunity for the general public and interested parties to hear and see all the information and to ask relevant questions, provide additional information, and express support or opposition. In order to help the public hearing process run well, it is helpful for the city council to develop a written set of policies and procedures to follow at each public hearing. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/1/2011 Zoning Decisions Page 7 RELEVANT LINKS: League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/1/2011 Zoning Decisions Page 8 Neighborhood opposition is perhaps the most challenging issue for any city council or planning commission to deal with when considering the merits of a particular zoning application. Case law holds that the views of neighbors should not be the sole basis for a particular city action. In this regard, it is helpful to distinguish between what might be termed the "quantity" of the comments, as opposed to the "quality" of the comments. For example, well - supported testimony that brings forth relevant facts is the kind of information upon which a city council can rely. On the other hand, unsupported and unsubstantiated emotional opposition to a particular project should not be the basis for a decision. B. Written statements After a public hearing, the city should make findings to support its decision. In the case of a denial of a particular zoning application, Minnesota's 60 -day rule requires the reasons for a denial be put in writing and those reasons be adopted within the statutory timeframe. Failure to do so may result in the city council decision being overturned. Even where the application is approved, a written statement explaining the decision is advisable. The written statement explaining the reasons for the zoning decision is particularly important for quasi-judicial decisions such as variances and LMC information memo, Taking the Hystery Out of conditional use permits. The League recommends the city adopt written Findings of Fact. findings of fact and conclusions of law whenever a city makes such decisions. The document should identify the relevant legal criteria such as statutory standards or code provisions, explain the relevant facts relating to the particular application, and then apply those facts to the legal criteria. The document should provide a court with everything needed to uphold the zoning decision. VI. Further assistance Jed Burkett Zoning decisions can be controversial and confusing, and this memo is by 651.281,1247 no means a comprehensive discussion of all issues that may arise. If you 800.925.1122 jburkett@lmc.org have further questions relating to zoning decisions, please feel free to contact the League's Loss Control Land Use Attorney. When dealing with particular issues, it is also important to seek specific legal advice from your own city attorney. League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: 6/1/2011 Zoning Decisions Page 8 Appendix A: The pyramid of discretion The pyramid framework illustrates how much discretion the city has to make land use decisions based on the role it is playing. Variances 1% %P- IV Q Conditional Use Permits F Subdivision Applications Zoning /Subdivision Ordinances Cr Comprehensive Plan 6/1,20„ League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo: page g Zoning Decisions 2015 Mission �ain thou illa e C� To be a progressive and livable community, a "walkable" Village which is sustainable, safe and secure. ........................ \ VISION "Saint Anthony is a vibrant community that values our unique environment, our fiscal soundness and a tradition of being a desirable city in which to live, work, learn and play." STRATEGIC INITIATIVES Create &Maintain Healthy rhootls 2 -9 -2015 "W. ,- Implement Explore joint Continue Explore Assess new Plan & implement Continue grant organized collection fiber partnership farmer's market sustainable house "SAW signs on new technology tracking Continue Complete 2015 in SAVillage remodel project secondary City for all city applications Continue phosphorus street, utility and Shopping Center Continue accesses cooperative reduction initiative sidewalk project Explore Cultural- housing Create Update Hennepin ventures with Historical Center rehabilitation Communication County mass other entities Continue Silver DDetermine and reinvestment Plan dispensing plan Plan 2016 Lake &Mirror Lake feasibility study Provide more on- clean -up of underground line city services Programs Create Conduct levy & street , utilities from website Conduct Council Community National Incident improvemen Continue a rain Tour of City Profile Management program barrel &rain garden workshop Complete accessible Consider alternative polling Ensure city Explore Fix -it Systems training (or counciVsaf( Maintain resilient "Green Pedestrian signal place (Ramsey code reflects Clinics workforce , Become a (APS) funding Co) sustainability Continue Continue summer Review Step 4 City' Continue Mirror Continue Night initiatives project update surwal school compensation, = P lore roof gr�O Lake area to Unite Pursue southern & information Continue crime staffing and f oonn water sr°age Flooding options Explore "Gateway" sheet prevention organizational f Continue LED innovative citizen redevelopment Explore efficient strategies structure r wood fires lighting engagement ideas study collections of Identify traffic Analyze/validate impact impact Evaluate Code payments studies on major contracts Implement less Track "Storm Proofing" Provide road reconstruction Enforcement roadways & Expand long ter m r paper office concept (electrical education event program intersections revenue planning Exp lore alternate ou tag es ) Discuss options Enhance Expand sharing of energy ideas Review adequacy, for land use pedestrian & bike - major equipment Explore organics Exp Ban function &size of density /impact on friend routes �' including sidewalks r'g items with other public facilities walkability governmental Explore urban Assess parks Conduct entities farming Explore roundabouts & recreation emergency Continue exploring n Explore source facilities management equipment water access "TableTop" ownership vs. planning exercise leasing 2 -9 -2015