HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-10-16 Minutes PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
TUESDAY - OCTOBER 16, 1984
PRESENT: Walter Prachar, Chairman Melvin Dupre
Elmer Murray Dan Tourville
ABSENT: Kathy Welk Bob Lindgren
Bob LaMotte
Chairman Prachar called the meeting to order at 7 :05 PM.
Appearance of Gordon Rehbein - He is requesting rezoning
of the east 740 feet of the south 265 feet of the SE s
of the SE 4 of Section 23, Township 31, Range 22, from
commercial to industrial. He will be expanding his
operations there from about 30 employees to about 60
employees, and adding on to the north end of his building
for storage.
Motion by Tourville, second by Dupre to have a public hearing
to rezone the east 740 feet of the south 265 feet of the
SE4 of the SE* of Section 23, Township 31, Range 22, from
commercial to industrial on November 11, 1984 at 7:00 p.m.,
motion carried.
Discussion on old Ordinance #10 - keeping of non - domestic
animals to be continued at the next regular meeting.
Motion by Dupre, second by Murray to adjourn, motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 9 :15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra Gonsior
Clerk
LAW OFFICES OF
Burke and }Hawkins
SUITE 101
299 COON RAPIDS BOULEVARD
JOHN M. BURKE COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 55433
WILLIAM G. HAWKINS PHONE 16121 784 -2999
THOMAS M. FITZPATRICK
May 22, 1985
Centerville City Council
1694 Sorel Street
Centerville, MN 55038
Re: Rezoning of 6805 20th Avenue South from Commercial to
Industrial
Gentlemen:
The following letter is written in response to your request for
my written opinion concerning the rezoning of the above
referenced property in November of 1980. Apparently several
questions have been raised concerning the propriety of this
action on the part of the City Council.
Procedurally under the Zoning Ordinance for the City a petition
to initiate rezoning may be commenced by the City Council, or
the Planning Commission, or 50 per cent of the affected land-
owners and 50 per cent of the persons within 350 feet. The
information provided to me indicates that the only party who
initiated the rezoning was the property owner. Under Minnesota
Statute 462.357 the enabling legislation dealing with amendments
to zoning ordinances for cities indicates that a city may in its
zoning ordinance establish the number of affected persons needed
to initiate a zoning change. While most communities merely
allow the owner of the property who requests the zoning to
petition, the Centerville City Ordinance is much more strict
than that. Since the zoning application was not initiated by
the requisite number of persons under our ordinance it would
certainly appear to be subject to challenge by the affected and
adjacent property owners. While it may be argued that the City
Council in acting upon the application in effect initiated the
application this argument is certainly not as strong as if the
rezoning was actually initiated by a separate council resolu-
tion.
There has been some discussion regarding the possible inconsist
ency of the rezoning to the Centerville Comprehensive Plan.
Minnesota courts have held that all inconsistencies between
zoning and a comprehensive plan do not necessarily invalidate
Centerville City Council
May 22, 1985
I Page 2
zoning decisions. However it would be my recommendation that if
1 there is any inconsistency it should be rectified immediately.
Since the procedure utilized in the rezoning is questionable I
would recommend that the Council immediately determine what type
of proposed development it wishes to encourage in this area, .
amend the Comprehensive Plan, if necessary to accomplish these
objectives, and initiate a rezoning to effect the policies and
goals in the plan.
Sincerely,
William G. Hawkins
WGH:mk
I
I