Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />'aH.17U~ <br /> <br />CITY/ELK RIVER ~~. LARKIN HOFFMAN <br />'\ <br /> <br />fiJo ' /004 <br /> <br />") <br /> <br />LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGRE~. LTD, <br /> <br />Mr. Robe~t c. Middaugh <br />City Administrator <br />Septembe~ 23, 1983 <br />Page Two <br /> <br />Custom Mpto~s site is inconsistent with the City's land Use map and <br />is an inappropriate use in this residential area ot the City. The <br />Planning Commission has therefore recommended that the site be rezoned <br />from industrial to residential. Your question is whether there would <br />be any legal restrictions on such a rezoning. <br /> <br />ISSUE <br /> <br />May the City rezone from indu~tria1 to residential uses a parcel o,f <br />land located in an area of the City designated for residential use <br />by the City's land Use map, and, actually use~ primarily for <br />residential purposes, where the City only five yeaJ:'s previously reZOne. <br />the property to Industrial and issued a Conditional Use Permit <br />permitting specific industrial uses on the property? <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br /> <br />The City clearly has a right to carryon comprehensive municipal plann <br />activities (such as the preparation of a land use map), and to impleme t <br />zoning regulations, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes SS 465.353 and 465. 57. <br /> <br />The Minnesota Courts have consistently held that zoning activities are <br />legislative matters and that rezonings are legislative acts which will <br />be sustained unless arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. See: Kiae <br />v. City of St. Paul, 62 N.W.2d 363 (1953); and Barton Construction o. <br />Inc.. v · City of Afton, 268 N.W. 2<1 712 (1978). Th~s s true even t oug <br />zoning act1Vit~esmay place substantial restrictions on the use of <br />property (see: McShane'v. City of Faribault, 292 N.W.2d 253 (1980)) or <br />have an adverse effect on property values. (~I ~ounty of ~sey v. <br />Steven~, 283 N.W.2d 918 (1979)). <br /> <br />The law in this state is that no property owner has a vested right in <br />the current ~onin9' of his property. (See: Pro, ert Research and Develo <br />Co. v. City o~ Eagan, 289 N.W.2d 157 (I980) . As long as a zon ng <br />ordinance bears a reasonable relationShip to public health, safety <br />or welfare, the COurts will not interfere with the legislative dstermin <br />of a rnunicipaly in zoning matters. '('See: Perron v, VillaQ:s of New <br />Brighto~, 145 N.W.2d 425 (1966)). <br /> <br /> <br />m{l!nt <br /> <br />tion.>C!, <br />1 <br /> <br />APPly these prinoipals to the issue presented by the proposed re20ning <br />of the Custom Motors site, it is our conclusion that there is no legal <br />prOhibition against the proposed re2oning, assuming that it is being <br /> <br />l> 'cI <br /> <br />tt:9t l>Q6t'~~'l>a <br /> <br />S9~~968-~t9 H3~90Hll nl~O H~W~~OH HI~~~l wo~~ <br />