HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 01-31-2006 SpecialAgenda
City of Plymouth
Special City Council Meeting
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
6:00 p.m.
Plymouth Creek Center,
Fireside Room
1. Call to Order
2. Meeting with Plymouth Legislative Delegation
3. Adjourn
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
2006 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITY ISSUES
Local Control. The City of Plymouth believes that local control is the cornerstone of
representative local government. We urge legislators to put decision-making on local issues in
the hands of local officials. This leaves no question about who is responsible and increases
accountability. We oppose legislation that erodes local control or creates mandates without a
corresponding state appropriation or funding mechanism.
Levy Limits. Levy limits should not be re-enacted. Local government officials should have the
ability to make decisions on local taxation and service levels. State -imposed limits on local
decision making, such as proposed Taxpayer Bill of Rights or Taxpayer Satisfaction Survey, are
inconsistent with local accountability and do not provide meaningful information to citizens.
These are rigid formula mechanisms that counter representative democracy and challenge local
units of government to plan with financial confidence.
Market Value Homestead Credit. The City supports full funding of the Market Value
Homestead Credit. Each year since 2003, the State has not reimbursed cities for the Market
Value Homestead Credit. To date, Plymouth has lost more than $2 million in promised
reimbursements from the state. In order to remove unpredictability from budgeting and to
improve transparency, the City also encourages the state to provide Market Value Homestead
Credit directly to homeowners, rather than administering the program through the cities.
Transportation and Transit Funding. The entire economy benefits from a sound and
adequately funded transportation system. To adequately address growing congestion, this system
must be multi -modal. Consequently, significantly greater resources are needed to provide high
quality, efficient systems that include both transit and highways. The City encourages the
Legislature to identify long-term funding sources with growth potential that will increase
transportation funding to levels that will allow the building of high quality, efficient metropolitan
and local transit and highway systems. In addition, local elected officials should continue to be
included in MnDOT's decision-making process when state -aid roads and highways are planned
in a city. The City supports preservation of opt -out transit status, and the expansion of the transit
taxing district. The City supports the Legislature allowing revenue options for cities, such as
street utility fees. The City supports the constitutional amendment to dedicate 100% of MVST
for transportation purposes.
Emergency Preparedness. Additional measures have been identified as necessary for improved
emergency preparedness at the state and local levels including training for local fire and law
enforcement personnel, additional detection and decontamination capability, additional
vaccinations/antidotes and protective equipment, and improved interagency communications.
The Legislature should support and fund these activities at both state and local levels to improve
our readiness to meet emergency conditions that may arise from natural disasters, terrorist
attacks, and emerging threats.
Firefighter Staffing. Shortage of paid -on-call and volunteer firefighters is a statewide issue.
The City of Plymouth encourages the State to enact legislation to enhance recruitment and
retention of paid -on-call and volunteer firefighters. Consideration could be given to providing
tax credits and supplemental disability insurance.
Affordable and Life Cycle Housing. Economic and demographic trends indicate that
Minnesota's population is aging and workers need more affordable housing closer to where they
work. The region's population age 65 and older will likely double from the year 2000 to 2020.
Jobs in Plymouth are projected to increase approximately 27% during the same period. Housing
is both a statewide and local issue. The City urges the Legislature to maintain and increase
resources to the extent possible in order to encourage the development of affordable housing for
both of these groups. Local property taxes should not be relied upon to fund housing programs
because this increases the cost of housing for those most in need and has regressive impacts. We
oppose legislation that creates mandates without a corresponding state appropriation or funding
mechanism.
Clean Water Funding. The City supports fair and equitable funding of the Clean Water Legacy
Act by the State of Minnesota.
Sales tax exemption on local government purchases. When the State was experiencing a
budget shortfall in 1992, the Legislature repealed the sales tax exemption for local government
purchases. Cities now pay state sales tax for purchases of items such as road maintenance
equipment and building materials. Since the Legislature provided no additional state aids to
offset the cost, this policy effectively increased local property taxes to finance state government
operations. The City supports legislation to reinstate the sales tax exemption for all local
government purchases.
Utility Relocations. The City has experienced significant project delays due to lack of timely
response by utility companies in relocating utilities. Legislation is requested to require that if a
utility company fails to relocate utilities in a timely manner and causes a delay in a construction
project, the City shall be held harmless. The City opposes the Highway and Street Projects Cost
Rider (ICR) proposed by utility companies. This would add a line item for purported
government required relocations." The vast majority of utility relocations are done because the
utility company wants to do the replacement while the streets are disrupted. The City's work
rarely creates a situation that requires utility line relocation.
Cable Franchise Authority. The City supports the continued authority of local government
relating to franchising of cable services.
Laurie Ahrens
From: Roger Knutson [RKnutson@ck-law.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 3:01 PM
To: Laurie Ahrens
Cc: Anne Hurlburt
Subject: FW: Mendota Golf, LLP vs. City of Mendota Heights
A ohc
Knutson.pdf
Laurie, Attached is a copy of the golf course case, Mendota Golf vs.
City of Mendota Heights. The case involves a 17 acre par 3 golf course
in Mendota Heights. The property is zoned R-1, one family residential,
and guided under the city's comprehensive plan as GC, golf course. The
property owner entered into a purchase agreement to sell the property to
a developer. The developer applied to the city for a comprehensive plan
amendment to guide the property low density residential. The city
council denied the application. The Developer sued asking the court to
order the city to reguide the property consistent with the city's zoning
ordinance.
The Minnesota Supreme Court held:
1) There is a conflict between the city's comprehensive plan and zoning
ordinance which the city was required to resolve. The case was sent back
by the court to the city to resolve the conflict. The court did not
dictate how the conflict should be resolved. The city could change it
guiding, zoning designation or potentially both, to resolve the
conflict.
2) The lower court's ruling requiring the city to bring its
comprehensive plan into conformity with the zoning ordinance is
inconsistent with the statutory priority of comprehensive plans over
zoning ordinances.
3} The Court found that under the facts presented in this case, the
city did not act arbitrarily in denying the developer's application to
reguide the property from golf course to low density residential.
4) The court also found that its decision would not preclude the owner
from pursuing a regulatory.takings claim. A "taking" can occur when
regulations deny a property owner of all viable economic use of property
and under certain other circumstances. When this happens the city has to
pay for the property.
If you or the City Council would like to discuss the implications of the
case for Plymouth, I think the best setting would be a work session.
Kn.ut son . pdf > >
1
Land -use ruling may have wider eftect across metro
S-taffribunexom3 MINNEAPOLIS- ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
Last update: January 22, 2006 — 9:30 PM
Land -use ruling may have wider effect across
metro
The state Supreme Court's decision to allow a suburb to save a golf course as
open space against the property owner's wishes may be a prelude to more
clashes over private property rights and community interests.
David Peterson, Star Tribune
The magic that drew Pam Ehrlich to Mendota Heights -- minutes from downtown
Minneapolis but with the feel of the open countryside -- has been sliced away
piece by piece over the past 20 years. One meadow after another has turned
into driveways and lawns.
So when development threatened the tiny 18 -acre, par -3 golf course that abuts
the back deck of their house, she and her husband began churning out fliers
and canvassing neighbors to prevent the land's sale.
It would be a shame to lose all this open space so close to the city," she said.
Housing's taking over. There are already houses everywhere."
The Minnesota Supreme Court seems to agree -- or at least to sympathize with
Ehrlich's plight.
In a decision the Mendota Heights city attorney is calling an important
precedent, a divided high court has overturned two lower court rulings and
decided that Mendota Heights had a "legitimate interest [in] protecting open and
recreational space," meaning a city's wishes can trump those of a landowner
wanting to develop the property.
The decision, released Jan. 10, comes as other suburbs face similar battles --
and as the debate over the parallel issue of eminent domain has brought to front
and center the clash between community values and private property rights.
Last week, the City Council in neighboring Eagan promptly tore up a settlement
it had reached with the owner of a much larger golf course there allowing for
homes to be built on much of the site, deciding to push for a similar court
decision. Mayor Pat Geagan explained that until now, there were no "published
court cases that we felt truly supported the city's position" against developing
the property.
And officials in Eden Prairie have compared notes with their counterparts in
Eagan as they await proposals to convert the Bent Creek Golf Club, just west of
Interstate Hwy. 494.
Restricting owners' rights?
rage i or -i
http://www.startribune.com/462/v-print/story/198520.html 1/23/2006
Land -use ruling may have wider effect across metro
Amid those sorts of pressures, said Clifford Greene, of the Minneapolis law firm
Greene Espel and who represented Mendota Heights, "this is a major opinion
reinforcing the legitimacy of a community's desire to preserve open and
recreational spaces as part of an overall "It would be a shame to lose all this
open space so close to the city," land -use plan. A landowner is not entitled to
maximize profit from the use or sale of property."
Three members of the high court, including then -Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz
and Justice Alan Page, dissented from important elements of the majority
decision, warning of what they called "troubling and important implications."
Justice G. Barry Anderson wrote: "Put most bluntly, under the majority reading
of the comprehensive plan, the owners of the subject property are required, now
and in the future, to operate a golf course because it preserves 'open space' and
recreational opportunities for residents of the community."
Mike Cashill, one of three members in the partnership that owns the Mendota
Heights golf course, noted that his property was zoned for residential when it
was purchased in 1995. He does plan to open the course for golf this spring, he
said, but the matter isn't finished. "Mendota Heights is now required to resolve
the conflict between the zoning of our property and its guidance under the [city's]
Comprehensive Plan."
In fact, officials in all the affected cities do understand the possibility remains of
having to end up buying property, especially if the alternative is an owner losing
money.
Residents of Mendota Heights are divided. In interviews, some were fearful of a
major bump in taxes if the city ends up having to buy the course. Others
shrugged at the thought of its development. Still others were openly angry at the
idea of losing it.
An issue of character
The golf course is a strip of land that stretches west toward the Mississippi River
from Dodd Road. Homeowners along its southern side enjoy its scenic view.
People who have bought land based on those views are entitled to some rights
as well, said attorney Greene.
When you buy land knowing it's zoned single-family, you have a right to some
degree of reliance that your neighbor tomorrow will not put factory on that land,"
he said. "The alternative is a 'Wild West of development' where anyone with a
plot of land can decide what goes on it."
In this case, he said, what is pertinent is that the city's comprehensive plan
designates the golf course as just that. The land was also zoned for single-
family use. But state law calls for comprehensive city plans to trump zoning, and
the Supreme Court endorsed that notion in its decision.
Page Z o1:3
http://www.startribune.com1462/v-print/story/198520.html 1/23/2006
Land -use ruling may have wider effect across metro
Although it's true that the decision could hugely affect the property owner's
bottom line, Greene said, the bottom-line effect is unlikely to be any more than
the decision, made at almost the same moment as the Supreme Court's, by the
Historic Preservation Commission in Minneapolis. That panel recommended that
the City Council greatly scale back the size of residential towers proposed for
along the Mississippi River.
Why can't your neighbor put a skyscraper next to your house?" he asked. "The
answer is, it would destroy the character of the area -- even though the result for
the neighbor would be a lot more profit."
Ehrlich said she wouldn't insist on the land remaining a golf course, but believes
the city could view it as an opportunity for a pool or community center.
in any case it should stay open," she said. "We see foxes roaming around,
eagles flying by, a wolf sunning itself. It's a whole lot of fun."
David Peterson • 612-673-4440
02006 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
Page 3 of 3
http://www.startribune.com/462/v-print/story/195520.html 1/23/2006
Message
Anne Hurlburt
From: Roger Knutson [RKnutson@ck-law.com]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 1:09 PM
To: Anne Hurlburt
Subject: FW: Ernailing: opa040206-0110
Court
Appeals
Anderson, Paul H., J.
Mendota Golf, LLP,
VS.
Office of Appellate Courts
City of Mendota Heights,
Respondent,
Appellant.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME COURT
A04-206
rage 1 01 -11
of
Concurring/Dissenting: Anderson, G. Barry, J.,
Blatz, C.J., Page, J.
SYLLABUS
Filed: January 10, 2006
A city's comprehensive plan designation conflicts with a zoning ordinance designation when the
comprehensive plan prohibits a property use that is specifically permitted under the zoning ordinance.
Under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, Minn. Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1 (2004), a city does not have
a clear duty to amend a comprehensive plan designation that conflicts with a zoning ordinance designation
when there are alternative ways to reconcile the conflict.
Plaintiffs mandamus action is not appropriate to challenge a city's exercise of legislative discretion in
1/23/2006
Message rage l of _j 1
denying a proposed amendment to the city's comprehensive plan.
A city has a rational basis to deny a proposed amendment to its comprehensive plan with respect to
property currently used as a golf course when the city has a legitimate interest in reaffirming a historical
comprehensive plan designation and in protecting open and recreational space.
Because the amendment of a city's comprehensive plan is a discretionary act and the city had a
rational basis to deny a proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan, the district court erred in issuing a
peremptory- writ of -mandamus, ' directing tha city to ay nrnve an nnnliratinn fnr a comprehensive plandirecting
5 ..a.av J "rr Yr
amendment.
Reversed and remanded.
Heard, considered, and decided by the court en bane.
OPINION
ANDERSON, Paul H., Justice.
Appellant City of Mendota Heights appeals from a Minnesota Court of Appeals decision affirming a
Dakota County District Court writ of mandamus, which compels the city to amend its comprehensive plan to
allow respondent Mendota Golf, LLP, to turn its golf course property into a residential development. We
reverse, concluding that the city did not have a clear duty to amend its comprehensive plan and the city had a
rational basis to deny Mendota Golf's proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan. However, because we
conclude that there is a conflict between the city's comprehensive plan and the city's zoning ordinance that
has not been reconciled as required by Minn. Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1 (2004), we remand to the district court
to issue an order directing the city to reconcile the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance provisions.
Mendota Golf, LLP, owns a 17.5 -acre tract of real property located at the intersection of Dodd Road
and Bachelor Avenue in the City of Mendota Heights. Since the early 1960s, the property has been used and
operated as a nine -hole par 3 golf course. At present, the character of the neighborhood surrounding the
property is residential.
When Mendota Golf acquired the property in January 1995, the city's zoning ordinance designated the
property as Residential (R-1 One -Family Residential), while the city's comprehensive plan designated the
1/23/2006
Message rage i or i i
property as "Golf Course" (GC). At that time, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) provided
that a city's zoning designations took priority over conflicting comprehensive plan designations. Minn. Stat. §
473.858, subd. 1 (1994). In R-1 one -family residential districts, "[o]ne-family detached dwellings" are a
permitted use and golf courses are a conditional use. The comprehensive plan and zoning designations for the
property have not changed since 1995. Mendota Golf asserts that it purchased the property with the
understanding that if the golf course proved unprofitable, it had the "safety net of developing the Land Parcel
at some later point in time."
During the 1995 legislative session, the legislature amended the MLPA by adding a provision directing
local government units to reconcile conflicts between comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. Act of
May 17, 1995, ch. 176, § 5, 1995 Minn. Laws 593, 594-95. The amended statute, which became effective on
August 1, 1995, provides in relevant part:
If the comprehensive municipal plan is in conflict with the zoning ordinance, the zoning
ordinance shall be brought into conformance with the plan by local government units in
conjunction with the review, and, if necessary, amendment of its comprehensive plan required
1-1-1
under section 473.864, subdivision 2. After August 1, 1995, a local government unit shall
not adopt any fiscal device or official control which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan,
including any amendment to the plan, or which permits activity in conflict with metropolitan
system plans * * * .
Minn. Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1 (2004) (footnotes added). The amended statute also provides that an official
control "shall not be considered to be in conflict with a local government unit's comprehensive plan" if the
official control "is adopted to ensure the planned, orderly, and staged development of urbanization or
L1
redevelopment areas designated in the comprehensive plan." Id.
Mendota Heights asserts that it "has a long history and commitment to planning which has resulted in
unique residential living environments and business centers." The city adopted its first land use plan in 1960,
even before the MLPA went into effect and required communities to do such planning. The 1960 plan
focused on "high quality residential neighborhoods, open space and parks and well-planned commercial and
industrial areas."
In 1979, the city adopted a comprehensive plan that incorporated regional policies and guidelines under
1/23/2006
Message Page 4 or J I
the MLPA. The 1979 comprehensive plan placed the subject property in the land use category "(GC)
Golf Course" and "guided" the land on all sides
1/23/2006
Message rage -) of 3 t
of the property as Low -Density Residential. At the time, single-family residential development
surrounded the property to the north, south, and west, but the land across Dodd Road to the east was
undeveloped.
The city's 1979 comprehensive plan also set forth certain planning goals, which were reaffirmed in
2002. The goals from the 1979 plan that are most relevant to this case are: (1) maintaining the community
character and identity; (2) resisting the deterioration of the environment; (3) maintaining the existing
residential areas; (4) providing the optimum amount of active and passive open space for the enjoyment of all
of the city's residents; (5) encouraging the preservation of open space in the community by private property
owners in a manner consistent with the comprehensive plan; (6) encouraging planned usage of existing private
recreational facilities in order to avoid duplication and promote maximum enjoyment of all citizens in the city;
7) providing each neighborhood in the city with open space; and (8) preserving and enhancing the natural
beauty, uniqueness, and attractive appearance of the community.
The city adopted the 2002 comprehensive plan after engaging in a three-year review process during
which several public hearings were held. When the city adopted the 2002 comprehensive plan, it reaffirmed
that its goals and policies remain consistent with its original vision for development. Included among the
2002 goals and policies is the preservation of green spaces, open spaces, and recreational facilities.
Low -Density Residential (LR) is the most prevalent land use category in the 2002 comprehensive
plan. Land designated as LR may be developed with single-family residences at a density of not more than
2.9 units per acre. The corresponding zoning classifications for LR are all One -Family Residential: R-1, R-
IB, and R -IC. Other land use categories in the comprehensive plan include Commercial (LB and B),
Industrial (1), Mixed Use—Planned Unit Development (MU -----PUD), Public (PUB), Open Space (OS),
Institutional (INS), and Golf Course (GC).
As part of its process of updating the comprehensive plan, the city "reviewed a number of parcels
within the community for consistency between the Zoning Map and Comprehensive Land Use Plan." The city
apparently was anticipating the possibility that the character of some of these parcels would change. These
parcels were designated as "Infill Sites" in the city's Technical Plan. Mendota Golf's property is one of the
1/23/2006
Message Yage b or i 1
parcels designated as an infill site. The Technical Plan indicates that the zoning designation for the
property is R-1 and states
This site is currently a par -3 golf course and is guided as GC. This designation is proposed to
remain. In the event that future redevelopment of this site is contemplated, careful consideration
would need to be given to develop the site in a manner consistent with and sensitive to the
existing low-density residential neighborhood.
Despite published notice of the city's plans to revise its comprehensive plan, Mendota Golf did not appear
before the city to request alternate "guiding" of the property.
Under the 2002 comprehensive plan, all three golf courses in the city, including Mendota Golf's
property, are designated as "Golf Course." According to the comprehensive plan:
The Golf Course land use designation is intended to distinguish the commercial/recreation/open
space characteristics associated with golf courses. The corresponding zoning district
classifications are R-1, R-lA (One Family Residential) and R-2 (Medium Density Residential
1
District).
Under the city's zoning ordinance, golf courses are a conditional use within these residential districts. The
city apparently has not taken any steps to create a special zoning district classification for golf courses that
4]
corresponds to the Golf Course land use designation in the comprehensive plan.
In 2003, Mendota Golf decided to sell its property to a developer that planned to dismantle the golf
course and build single-family homes. Mendota Golf entered into a purchase agreement with the developer
that conditioned the sale of the property on "the buyer's obtaining necessary governmental approvals for
proposed residential development." The developer's proposed residential development would eliminate the
open space and recreational uses that the property presently provides to the city.
After entering into the purchase agreement, the developer submitted to the city a concept plan for a
residential subdivision on the property. According to the minutes of the city council meeting at which the
concept plan was considered, the mayor and several council members indicated that they would not support a
change in the city's comprehensive plan to allow residential development of the property. The city did not
take any formal action on the concept plan.
Mendota Golf subsequently submitted an application to the city requesting that the city amend the
1/23/2006
Message rage / oz .i i
comprehensive plan to change the designation of the property from "Golf Course" to "Low Density
Residential." In a letter attached to the application, Alan Spaulding, one of Mendota Golf's partners,
indicated. that Mendota Golf had failed to make the golf course "a profitable venture" and needed to "pursue
alternative uses." Spaulding stated that when Mendota Golf purchased the property in 1995, it understood that
it had the opportunity to develop the property. However, due to a subsequent change in the MLPA, which
Spaulding described as requiring developers to "meet the criteria of both Zoning and Comprehensive Plan"
designations, Mendota Golf is "now subject to the confining designation of `Golf Course' on the
Comprehensive Plan." Spaulding explained a "series of financial challenges and setbacks" that Mendota Golf
had experienced and emphasized that Mendota Golf has been "a good neighbor" to the community. Spaulding
asked the city to give it "more flexibility than the designation of `Golf Course' allows" and to "restore the
rights" Mendota Golf had when it acquired the property.
On June 11, 2003, the city advised Mendota Golf that its application to amend the comprehensive plan
was complete. Shortly thereafter, the city's consulting planner prepared a planning report and recommended
that "an alternative land use designation for the site, is appropriate, subject to qualified review of the
information provided by the applicant as to the viability of a golf course operation on the property." On June
24, 2003, the city's planning commission held a public hearing, evaluated Mendota Golf's application, and
unanimously (one commissioner abstained) recommended that the city council deny the proposed amendment
to the comprehensive plan. The planning commission based its recommendation on a finding that "the golf
course is the best use of the property consistent with the surrounding use of the neighborhood."
Mendota Golf's application to amend the comprehensive plan came before the city council on July 1,
2003. The council acknowledged receiving various documents, including staff reports and the letter from
Spaulding. According to the minutes of the council meeting, Spaulding told the council that the highest and
best use for the property is not as a golf course, "the character of the neighborhood is consistent with single
family use of the site," and it is not fair that Mendota Golf has to satisfy the conditions of both the
comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance, unlike other property owners in the city. Spaulding also
indicated that the comprehensive guide plan is arbitrary and contradictory to zoning.
1/23/2006
lViessage rags a ui 1
A city attorney advised the council that after the legislature amended Minn. Stat. § 473.858 in 1995,"a
local government cannot adopt any official control that conflicts with the comprehensive plan, and it "is pretty
clear that the comprehensive plan controls." The mayor commented that a few years previously the council
had updated the city's comprehensive plan and held many public hearings. A councilmember added that the
plan updating process was very extensive. When the mayor noted that Mendota Golf chose not to participate
in the process even though the law changed, Spaulding responded that Mendota Golf was not aware of the
hearings. The mayor then solicited comments from citizens in the audienr_,P_„ Several citizens spoke out
against the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, with some speaking on the value of preserving open
space and recreational opportunities in the community.
The city council then voted unanimously to adopt Resolution 03-46, denying the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment. In the resolution, the council stated that the amendment would have an
adverse impact on the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the community and the
surrounding land, and would be adverse to the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance."
After the city council denied the comprehensive plan amendment, Mendota Golf brought a mandamus
action in district court. Mendota Golf asserted that the city's zoning code provision applicable to. its property
expressly permits single-family residences; the "Golf Course" designation in the comprehensive plan has no
direct corresponding zoning classification; and the comprehensive plan designation and the zoning
classification for the property are incompatible. Mendota Golf further asserted that the city's "failure and
refusal to approve Mendota Golfs application to amend the Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation of the
property to `LR, Low -Density Residential' from `GC, Golf Course,' at such a time as the Property is and has
been zoned `R-1 One -Family Residential,' constitutes an arbitrary, irrational, capricious, illegal, and
unconstitutional act." Mendota Golf requested that the court issue a writ of mandamus commanding the city
to approve Mendota Golf's application for an amendment to the city's comprehensive plan.
After a hearing, the district court concluded that the city's denial of Mendota Golf's proposed
amendment to the city's comprehensive plan was arbitrary, capricious, and without a rational basis. The court
found that: (1) the proposed Low -Density Residential designation corresponds to the existing R-1 zoning of
1/23/2006
Message rage Y ei .31
the property; (2) single-family residential use is expressly made a permissible use under the existing R-
1 zoning designation; and (3) the city had made no attempts to bring the property's zoning into conformity
with the comprehensive plan "which in any way would prohibit the use of the subject property for R-1
zoning." The court then entered judgment in favor of Mendota Golf and against the city and issued a writ of
mandamus commanding the city to immediately "approve Petitioner's application for a Comprehensive Plan
amendment changing the Land Use Guide Plan designation of the Property from `GC' Golf Course to `LR'
Low -Density Residential," and to further submit the Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Metropolitan
Council for review and approval.
The city appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed the district court. Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of
Mendota Heights, No. A04-206, 2004 WL 2161422 (Minn. App. Sept. 28, 2004). The court of appeals
determined that "[t]he city failed in its statutory duty to reconcile the designations for the golf course
contained in the city's comprehensive plan and its zoning ordinance"; the city's "comprehensive plan contains
a peculiar provision stating that the primary authority for development decisions is the zoning ordinance"; and
there is a "logical inconsistency" in the city's refusal to allow Mendota Golf to use the land for a purpose that
is expressly allowed under the zoning designation. Id. at *2, 4. Accordingly, the court of appeals concluded
that the district court did not err by "directing the city to satisfy -its statutory obligation of reconciling the
discrepancy between its comprehensive -plan designation of the land and its zoning -ordinance designation of
the land by starting the process to amend the comprehensive plan." Id. at *2. In reaching its decision, the
court of appeals considered only the city council's stated reasons for its decision, not any "unarticulated
possible reasons," stating that "this is an appeal from the district court's mandamus decision, not a decision in
a inunicipal zoning matter." Id. at* 3.
I.
Mandamus is an extraordinary legal remedy." State v. Pero, 590 N.W.2d 319, 323 (Minn. 1999).
The authority to issue a writ of mandamus is statutory." In re State v. Wilson, 632 N.W.2d 225, 227 (Minn.
I5]
2001); see Minn. Stat. §§ 586.01-586.12 (2004). The two primary uses of mandamus are (1) to compel the
performance of an official duty clearly imposed by law and (2) to compel the exercise of discretion when that
1/23/2006
Message rage i u or -i i
exercise is required by law. See Minn. Stat. § 586.01; N. States Power Co. v. Minn. Metro. Council,
684 N.W.2d 485, 491 (Minn. 2004). However, a writ of mandamus does not control the particular manner in
which a duty is to be performed and does not dictate how discretion is to be exercised. See, e.g., State v.
Davis, 592 N.W.2d 457, 459 (Minn. 1999); State ex rel. S. St. Paul v. Hetherington, 240 Minn. 298, 301, 61
N.W.2d 737, 740 (1953); State ex rel. Laurisch v. Pohl, 214 Minn. 221, 226, 8 N.W.2d 227, 231 (1943). In
addition, a writ of mandamus "shall not issue in any case where there is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
in the ordinary course of law." Minn. Stat. § 5R6.02.
To determine whether mandamus is available here, we first address whether the city failed to perform a
duty clearly imposed by law when it denied Mendota Golf's application for an amendment to the city's
comprehensive plan. Mendota Golf's mandamus action is based on the city's duty under Minn. Stat. §
473.858, subd. 1, to reconcile conflicts between the city's comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance. This
subdivision of the MLPA provides:
If the comprehensive municipal plan is in conflict with the zoning ordinance, the zoning
ordinance shall be brought into conformance with the plan by local government units in
conjunction with the review and, if necessary, amendment of its comprehensive plan required
under section 473.864, subdivision 2.
Minn. Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1 (2004). Mendota Golf asserts that the city's comprehensive plan and its zoning
ordinance are "not in conformity" with respect to Mendota Golf's property and that the proposed amendment
to the comprehensive plan "would provide the lacking conformity." The city denies that its comprehensive
plan is in conflict with its zoning ordinance. Therefore, before proceeding any further, we must resolve the
issue of whether a conflict exists.
The MLPA provides little guidance in determining when a comprehensive municipal plan is in conflict
with a zoning ordinance. The MLPA does provide that an official control "shall not be considered to be in
conflict with a local government unit's comprehensive plan" if the official control "is adopted to ensure the
planned, orderly, and staged development of urbanization or redevelopment areas designated in the
comprehensive plan." Minn. Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1. Unfortunately, this provision does not help in resolving
the issue presented in this case because the property here is not designated in the city's comprehensive plan as
1/23/2006
Message
an urbanization or redevelopment area.
rage ii of z i
As stated earlier, Mendota Golf's property is located in a "One -Family Residential District" under the
city's zoning ordinance, but is designated "Golf Course" in the city's comprehensive plan. Mendota Golf
argues that these designations conflict because single-family housing is a permitted use under the zoning
ordinance, yet the comprehensive plan Golf Course designation "prevents implementation of the existing
permitted low-density residential zoning use." The city acknowledges that Mendota Golf's proposed use of
the property conflicts with the comprehensive plan, but contends that the zoning ordinance and comprehensive
plan designations are not inherently contradictory because golf courses are allowed in residential zones with a
conditional use permit and Mendota Golf's property has been used as a golf course since the early 1960s.
As a preliminary matter, we note that "[a] zoning statute or ordinance is one which, by definition,
regulates the building development and uses of property." In re Denial of Eller Media Company's
Applications, 664 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Minn. 2003); see Minn. Stat. § 462.352, subd. 15 (2004) (defining "official
controls" under the Municipal Planning Act as ordinances and regulations that control the physical
development of a city and "implement the general objectives of the comprehensive plan"). Generally, we
narrowly construe any restrictions that a zoning ordinance imposes upon a property owner. See, e.g., Frank's
Nursery Sales, Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N.W.2d 604, 608-09 (Minn. 1980) ("We must give weight to the
interpretation that, while still within the confines of the term, is least restrictive upon the rights of the property
owner to use his land as he wishes."). Consequently, "restriction[s] on land use must be clearly expressed."
Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n v. City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335, 340 (Minn. 1984). See
generally 3 Kenneth H. Young, Anderson's American Law of Zoning § 18.04 (4th rev. ed. 1996) (stating that
t]he consistent emphasis of the courts is upon the right of a landowner freely to use his property unless the
limitations imposed upon such use are clearly articulated"). In addition, by statute, zoning regulations must be
uniform for each class or kind of buildings, structures, or land and for each class or kind of use throughout [a
zoning] district." Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1 (2004).
In this case, Mendota Golf's property is located in a one -family residential district that specifically
allows "[o]ne-family detached dwellings" as a permitted use. Mendota Heights, MN, City Code § 12-1E-3
1/23/2006
Message Yage 12 or J I
2005); see Chanhassen Estates Residents Ass'n, 342 N.W.2d at 340 (explaining that subject to
compliance with specific requirements, regulations, and standards, a city's approval of a permitted use
generally follows as a matter of right). In contrast, the comprehensive plan designation allows the property to
be used only as a golf course. While the use allowed by the comprehensive plan may be allowed as an
exception under the zoning ordinance, the primary use allowed by the zoning ordinance is prohibited by the
comprehensive plan. We view this as a conflict.
Mendota Golf does not dispute that Ander the JALPA; the comprehensive plan ennt.mis, and the
161
property can be used only as a golf course. Consequently, Mendota Golf is subject to the most restrictive
use of its property, and the zoning ordinance does not clearly express the restrictions imposed upon the
property. In fact, it appears that the R-1 zoning designation for the property has no real significance if the
property can be used only as a golf course and cannot be used for residential purposes. Further, the
comprehensive plan designation creates a situation where Mendota Golf does not enjoy the same rights to use
its property as other property owners within the city's R-1 zoning district. This disparity appears to offend the
spirit of the uniformity requirement by denying Mendota Golf a use of its property that is expressly permitted
as to other property owners in the zoning district. For these reasons, we conclude that there is a conflict
between the city's comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance, which the city was required to resolve under
Minn. Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1.
II.
The writ of mandamus in this case requires the city to reconcile the foregoing conflict by amending the
comprehensive plan from its "GC" Golf Course designation to "LR" Low -Density Residential. The city
contends that the writ of mandamus "improperly divests the City Council of its constitutionally -based
legislative authority to determine local land uses." Therefore, we next consider whether the city had a clear
duty to resolve the conflict by amending the comprehensive plan to permit the development of single-family
housing on Mendota Golf's property. See Minn. Stat. § 586.01 (providing that a writ of mandamus may be
issued "to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty").
Under Minn. Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1, conflicts between a city's comprehensive plan and its zoning
1/23/2006
Message rage i -i or -i i
ordinance are to be reconciled either by (1) amending the zoning ordinance to conforin to the
comprehensive plan, or (2) by amending the comprehensive plan during one of the periodic reviews of the
plan. Minn. Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1. The city asserts that the district court's writ of mandamus is problematic
because the court directs the city to resolve the conflict in a specific way—by amending the comprehensive
plan—even though there are alternative ways that the city could reconcile the conflict. According to the city,
specific examples of how the conflict can be resolved include the following:
The City could bring the zoning ordinance into conformity with the plan, it could bring the plan
into conformity with the ordinance, or the City could choose to redesignate the property in a
manner different from the property's current designation in either the plan or the ordinance.
Even Mendota Golf acknowledges that there is more than one way to resolve the conflict.
The Minnesota legislature has delegated to municipalities the power to determine and plan the use of
land within their boundaries." VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503, 507 (Minn.
1983); see Minn. Stat. § 462.351 (2004) (stating that the purpose of the Municipal Planning Act is to provide
71
municipalities "with the necessary powers" to conduct and implement municipal planning). A
comprehensive plan contains "objectives, policies, standards and programs.to guide public and private land
use, development, redevelopment and preservation for all lands and waters within the jurisdiction of the local
governmental unit." Minn. Stat. § 473.859, subd. 1 (stating contents of comprehensive plan). Because land
use planning and regulation are within a city's legislative prerogative, the city has broad discretion when it
makes decisions in that arena. See Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 414 (Minn. 1981) (stating
that "a municipality acts in a legislative capacity" in adopting or amending a zoning ordinance, "regardless of
the size of the tract involved").
Here, the presence of alternative ways to reconcile the conflict between the comprehensive plan and the
zoning ordinance indicates that the city did not have a clear duty to amend the comprehensive plan to conform
to the zoning ordinance. Accordingly,
1/23/2006
Message Mage 14 01 J 1
we conclude that the district court exceeded the scope of its authority in this mandamus action by
interfering with the exercise of legislative discretion and ordering the city to reconcile the conflict in a specific
way—by amending the comprehensive plan. See State ex rel. Gresham v. Delaney, 213 Minn. 217, 219, 6
N.W.2d 97, 98 (1942) (explaining that mandamus may be used to compel public officers "to perform duties
with respect to which they plainly have no discretion as to the precise manner of performance and where only
one course of action is open"); Pohl, 214 Minn. at 227, 8 N.W.2d at 231 (stating that "courts do not undertake
to control the manner in P'hlch official acts of a discretionary nattire are to be performed"); 3 Filwarcl H
Ziegler, Jr., Arden H. Rathkopf & Daren A. Rathkopf, Rathkopf's The Law of Zoning and Planning § 56:2
4th ed. 1997 & Supp. 11/2001) (stating that "since zoning is a legislative function, it is beyond the judicial
power to rezone property from one classification to another").
We also conclude that the district court's writ of mandamus commanding the city to bring its
comprehensive plan into conformity with its zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the statutory priority of
comprehensive plans over zoning ordinances. Under the MLPA, the comprehensive municipal plan guides
land use in cities within the metropolitan area. Minn. Stat. § 473.859, subd. 1 (2004). Zoning ordinances are
intended to carry out the policies of a city's comprehensive plan. See Minn. Stat. § 473.851, subd. 9 (2004);
Minn. Stat. § 473.859, subd. 4 (2004) (requiring a comprehensive plan to have an "implementation program"
that includes "a description of official controls" that may be used to implement the comprehensive plan).
Since 1995, the MLPA- has provided that the comprehensive plan constitutes the primary land use
control for cities and supersedes all other municipal regulations when these regulations are in conflict with the
plan. See Minn. Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1 (providing that "the zoning ordinance shall be brought into
U
conformance with the [comprehensive municipal] plan" if there is a conflict). The MLPA further prohibits
cities from adopting any "official control which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan, including any
amendment to the plan." Minn. Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1; accord Minn. Stat. § 473.865, subd. 2 (2004).
Consequently, there is no statutory support for ordering the city to amend its comprehensive plan to conform
to the zoning ordinance. Further, the nature of the order itself—directing the city to bring its comprehensive
plan into conformity with its zoning ordinance—appears to violate the MLPA because this
1/23/2006
Message i -age i or i i
approach undermines the supremacy of the comprehensive plan visa -vis the zoning ordinance.
We further note that a city's comprehensive plan is part of a regional land use planning process.
Because "local governmental units within the metropolitan area are interdependent," the legislature has
established "requirements and procedures to accomplish comprehensive local planning with land use controls
consistent with planned, orderly, and staged development and the metropolitan system plans." Minn. Stat.
473.851 (2004); see generally City of Lake Elmo v. Metro. Council, 685 N.W.2d 1, 5-6 (Minn. 2004)
explaining that the Metropolitan Council reviews local comprehensive plans and has broad authority to
require modification of plans that are inconsistent with the council's overarching plan). Although the writ of
mandamus in this case did require the city to submit the comprehensive plan amendment to the Metropolitan
Council for review and approval, the role of the Metropolitan Council in coordinating local land use planning,
including "regional recreational open space," through the development of "metropolitan system plans" further
suggests that mandamus is not appropriate to compel the city to amend its comprehensive plan in these
circumstances. See Minn. Stat. § 473.852, subd. 8 (2004) (defining "metropolitan system plans").
Although Mendota Golf appears to accept that the city did not have a clear duty to amend the
comprehensive plan, Mendota Golf argues that the writ of mandamus is appropriate because the city acted
arbitrarily and capriciously "by failing to adopt a rational justification for denial" of the comprehensive plan
amendment, which would have eliminated the "unlawful conflict" between the city's comprehensive plan and
the zoning ordinance. The city emphasizes that land use policies and regulations are legislative matters, and
the city's desire to retain open and recreational space and to reaffirm the recently re-enacted comprehensive
plan provides a rational basis for the city's decision to deny Mendota Golf's proposed amendment to the
comprehensive plan.
Neither party specifically addresses the court's role in reviewing the city's decision within the context
of a mandamus action. Nonetheless, we believe that a discussion of the proper use of mandamus in municipal
zoning cases is appropriate to clarify the law. In an early case explaining the proper use of mandamus, we
commented on the tension that arises between "the well-settled rule that mandamus is an extraordinary
1/23/2006
Message Page 1b of J 1
remedy to be granted only in case the petition shows a clear right thereto" and our decisions concluding
that mandamus is appropriate when "discretion has been exercised in a clearly arbitrary and capricious
manner." Zion Evangelical Lutheran Church v. City of Detroit Lakes, 221 Minn. 55, 57, 21 N.W.2d 203, 205
1945) (quotations and citations omitted). We then explained that it is only in "rare cases" that "the officials
act in so clearly an arbitrary and capricious a manner that their action may be reviewed on mandamus." Id. at
57, 21 N.W.2d at 205 (quotations omitted).
I iOn tie cite council denied A ohiirnh'c nnnl;nat;nn fnr n bijildina nerm.t fnr n rtAr nhlirr.h "nn the. S 1 L.,GVl4, tdie Vi VVU 1 11 V iVLL W VS1l.F - J 4411V44 .ivii L1
ground `that the construction of said church would increase the automobile traffic hazard."' Id. at 58, 21
N.W.2d at 205. In determining that the facts in Zion did not present "one of those rare cases where there is a
clear right to the remedy of mandamus," we stated:
It is well established that mandamus cannot be used for the purpose of reviewing the decision of
a board or tribunal which has exercised its discretion within the jurisdiction conferred upon it by
law. Here the council has acted; and, even though the reason given for its denial may appear
erroneous, we cannot say that it has necessarily acted capriciously or arbitrarily. Absent
arbitrariness and caprice, mandamus does not lie for mere error in the exercise of discretion. * *
IJt is not for us in this proceeding to pass upon the merits of the ground for the denial. It
would be a novelty if, after the council has determined that the granting of a permit and the
erection of a building pursuant thereto would result in an increased traffic hazard, the court
should upon application overrule its decision of denial. Once the council's discretion is
exercised, there is no judicial remedy through mandamus. The court can compel a quasi-judicial
body such as a city council to exercise discretion; but, once that discretion has been actually
exercised, as here, the court is wholly without power through mandamus to compel such quasi-
judicial body to reverse, reconsider, or repeat its action. This fundamental principle, repeatedly
recognized by this court, is salutary and essential to the preservation of local government. The
court must not substitute its judgment for that of the city council and thus usurp the function of
local governing bodies.
Id. at 57, 58, 21 N.W.2d at 205-06. We then concluded that mandamus was not appropriate because the
church had an adequate remedy at law. Id. at 58, 221 N.W.2d at 206.
Our land use cases following Zion, however, have not always been clear or consistent in defining the
proper reach of mandamus. In Curry v. Young, 285.Minn. 387, 393-94, 173 N.W.2d 410, 413-14 (1969), we
reviewed our decisions and commented that the "use of mandamus to obtain relief' in land use matters "has
been denied in some cases and permitted in others." Acknowledging that "[t]hese decisions are not always
1/23/2006
Message rage 1 / or i i
easy to reconcile," we stated that "about the only rule we can glean from our cases is that mandamus
ordinarily will not lie to control the exercise of discretion by administrative agencies, but it will lie if there is
no other adequate and complete remedy." Id. at 395, 173 N.W.2d at 414, 415 (emphasis added).
Later, in Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 413 (Minn. 1981), we observed that litigants
were using "a variety of remedies for a variety of zoning cases," including "mandamus, certiorari, injunction,
and the declaratory judgment action." For example, we noted that "[m]andamus has been used to review
denial of a special use permit" and "for denial of a variance." Id. at 413 n.3 (citing cases). In some of these
cases, we strayed from our traditional view that mandamus is available only to compel a duty clearly required
by law and cannot control the manner in which discretion is exercised. We also strayed from our traditional
view that mandamus should be reserved for those "rare cases" involving egregious conduct where a. city
clearly acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. See Zion, 221 Minn. at 57, 21 N.W.2d at 205; see, e.g.,
C.R. Invs., Inc. v. Village of Shoreview, 304 N.W.2d 320, 328 (Minn. 198 1) (concluding that "the village acted
arbitrarily and capriciously in denying [a]. special use permit for reasons which either had no factual bases or
were not legally sufficient"); Minnetonka Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. v. Svee,. 303 Minn. 79,
83-84, 226 N.W.2d 306; 308 (1975) (concluding that mandamus would lie to enable a property owner to
secure a conditional use permit from a city to construct a church where the evidence did not support the city's
council's reasons for denying the permit).
In Honn, we sought to clarify -the procedure for reviewing municipal zoning matters. We stated that
review of a decision on "any zoning matter, whether legislative or quasi judicial," should be obtained by a
declaratory judgment action in the district court. 313 N.W.2d at 416. After describing the proper procedure
for review, we went on to state: "This is not to say that the form of the action by which the procedure is
initiated need always be a declaratory judgment action. Mandamus has its place, and there may be a quasi-
judicial proceeding presenting a legal question to which certiorari still lends itself." Id.; see also White Bear
Rod & Gun Club v. City of Hugo, 388 N.W.2d 739, 742 (Minn. 1986) (explaining that "a declaratory
judgment or injunction action is generally more appropriate, or sometimes mandamus" for reviewing
municipal zoning matters, but certiorari is appropriate to review "a narrow legal procedural question")_
1/23/2006
Message rage 18 OI -i 1
However, we have not provided any specific guidance on the "place" of mandamus in the review of
municipal zoning decisions.
Following Honn, parties have continued to seek review of routine municipal zoning matters through
mandamus actions. Further, the court of appeals has interpreted our decisions as allowing courts to issue a
writ of mandamus "even if the administrative body's act was a legislative decision if the body's failure to
perform `was so arbitrary and capricious as to constitute a clear abuse of discretion."' Hoskin v. City of
Eagan, 632N.W.2d 256, 258-59 `1-Vliiul. App. 2001) (rioLlLljlding that Mandamus can be applied to a city's
discretionary decision to deny an application to vacate public easements) (quoting McIntosh v. Davis, 441
N.W.2d 115, 118 (Minn. 1989)) (emphasis added); see also Curtis Oil v. City of North Branch, 364 N.W.2d
880, 884 (Minn. App. 1985) (affirming a writ of mandamus requiring a city to rezone a parcel of land where
the city's denial of a rezoning application was "arbitrary"). Consequently, in practice, it appears that the
extraordinary remedy" of mandamus is being used in quite ordinary zoning matters. Moreover, mandamus is
used in many cases in which an adequate remedy at law—a declaratory judgment action—is available.
At this point, we reiterate our guidance that the proper procedure for reviewing a city's decision in a
9l
zoning matter generally will be a declaratory judgment action, possibly including a request for injunctive
relief. See Honn, 313 N.W.2d at 416; see also Minn. Stat. § 462.361, subd. 1 (2004) (providing for judicial
review of municipal planning or zoning decisions in the district court); Minn. Stat. § 555.01 (2004) ("Courts
of record within their respective jurisdictions shall have power to declare rights, status, and other legal
relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed."). But cf. Interstate Power Co. v. Nobles County
Bd. of Comm'rs, 617 N.W.2d 566, 574 & n.5 (Minn. 2000) (clarifying that quasi-judicial zoning decisions of a
county board are reviewable by writ of certiorari based on a "narrow exception" that "exists because the
legislature has not.provided for judicial review of zoning decisions of county boards in the district court as it
has for zoning decisions of cities, towns and even county boards of adjustment").
While there are municipal zoning matters for which mandamus may be appropriate, these cases
typically involve claims that a city failed to perform a clearly defined duty that is required by a statute or
zoning ordinance. See, e.g., Glen Paul Court Neighborhood Ass'n v. Paster, 437 N.W.2d 52, 57 (Minn. 1989)
1/23/2006
Message rage i Y of .i i
concluding that a city's failure to comply with a statutory requirement of mailed notice to property
owners rendered an amendment to the city's zoning ordinance invalid); Advantage Capital Mgmt.
1/23/2006
Message rage zU of i 1
v. City of Northfield, 664 N.W.2d 421, 427-28 (Minn. App. 2003) (reviewing a writ of mandamus that
required a city to issue a building permit where the petition was based on the claim that the city failed to grant
or deny the building permit within the time limits prescribed by statute), rev. denied (Minn. Sept. 24, 2003);
ef. Chanhassen Estates Residents Assn v. City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335, 340-41 (Minn. 1984)
directing a city to issue a building permit where the proposed facility was a permitted use under the city's
zoning ordinance and the permit application complied with the specific requirements, regulations, and
1.0]
standards prescribed by the ordinance). "Courts generally agree that [a petitioner] in a mandamus action
must demonstrate a clear legal right to have the act in question performed and must demonstrate every
material fact necessary to show the existence of the plain duty to act with respect to the relief sought." 4
Rathkopfs The Law of Zoning and Planning, supra, § 64:4.
In contrast to cases involving a city's failure to perform a clearly defined duty, mandamus is not
appropriate to review the exercise of legislative discretion in municipal zoning matters. As we stated in Zion,
mandamus does not lie for mere error in the exercise of discretion." 221 Minn. at 58, 21 N.W.2d at 205; see .
also 4 Anderson's American Law of Zoning, supra, § 28.08 ("Mandamus is not available to compel the
legislative authority of a municipality to amend a zoning ordinance."); 8A McQuillan The Law of Municipal
Corporations § 25.307 (3d ed.) ("Mandamus proceedings cannot be used to interfere with the discretion of
zoning authorities."); 4 Rathkopfs The Law of Zoning and Planning, supra, § 64:6 (explaining that "[t]he
clear legal duty to act which evokes a . right to mandamus" does not arise with respect to an act that
principally involves the exercise of judgment and discretion"). We discern no basis for treating municipal
zoning decisions differently from other kinds of discretionary decisions for which mandamus is not
appropriate. See 4 Rathkopfs The Law of Zoning and Planning, supra, § 64:1 n.3 (stating "the application
and restrictions upon the use of a writ of mandamus do not differ in cases involving land use and land use
regulations"). The same concerns about respect for the legislative authority of local government bodies apply.
Accordingly, we reject Mendota Golf's suggestion that "the propriety" of the district court's issuance
of the writ of mandamus in this case is "clear." Rather, we conclude that a mandamus action generally is not
appropriate to review claims that a city acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying a proposed amendment to
1/23/2006
Message
a comprehensive plan.
IV.
Page 21 of 31
In this case, however, the city has not specifically challenged the appropriateness of mandamus to
review the denial of Mendota Golf's proposed comprehensive plan amendment. The city's omission is
understandable given the confusion that has persisted regarding the proper use of mandamus in municipal
zoning cases. Although the city does argue that the district court exceeded its powers by issuing a writ of
mandamus that directs the city to exercise its legislative authority in a specific manner, the city's primary
argument in this appeal is that Mendota Golf is not entitled to relief because the city had a rational basis for its
decision. Therefore, rather than requiring Mendota Golf to restate its claims in a declaratory judgment action,
we will consider the substance of the parties' arguments and determine whether the city abused its discretion
by denying the proposed comprehensive plan amendment. Cf. Scherger v. N. Natural Gas Co., 575 N.W.2d
578, 579 n.1 (Minn. 1998) (noting that "[t]he essence of this action was [a] request for a judicial declaration as
to the scope and validity of [an] agreement, and therefore was not appropriate for a writ of mandamus," but
stating that "we need not correct the procedure").
When reviewing municipal land use decisions, we typically utilize a rational basis standard of review.
11]
Honn, 313 N.W.2d at 414-15. Our scope of review is narrow. Id. at 414. We uphold a city's land use
decision unless the party challenging that decision establishes that the decision is "`unsupported by any
rational basis related to promoting the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare."' Id. at 414-15
quoting State by Rochester Assn of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885, 888 (Minn.
1978)). "[E]ven if the city council's decision is debatable, so long as there is a rational basis for what it does,
the courts do not interfere." Id, at 415. We do not give any special deference to the conclusions of the lower
courts, but rather engage in an independent examination of the record and arrive at our own conclusions as to
the propriety of the city's decision. Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865, 868 (Minn.
1979). Our review focuses "on the legal sufficiency and factual basis for the reasons given." Swanson v. City
ofBloomington, 421 N.W.2d 307,313 (Minn. 1988).
In this case, Mendota Golf, as well as the courts below, focused almost exclusively on the language in
1/23/2006
Message Page 22 of 31
Resolution 03-46 stating that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment would have an "adverse
impact on the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the community and the surrounding land,
and would be adverse to the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance." We conclude that focusing
solely on the language of the resolution is too narrow a focus. When a municipality renders a legislative
decision, we can look beyond the city's resolution and review the minutes of relevant meetings and documents
considered therein to determine whether the city had a rational basis for its decision. Cf. Crystal Beach Bay
ass 'n `r. County of KoochDc61n6, 309 Mir.,. 52, 55, 243 I`I.Y,T.2d 40, 42 k t Iki) 1,concluding that even where
findings are required a prima facie case of arbitrariness "may be rebutted if there is evidence. in the recorded
hearing testimony from which the reviewing court can ascertain a reasonable basis for the county board's
action").
When the municipal proceedings were fair and the record clear and complete, review is on, the record.
Swanson, 421 N.W.2d at 313. In this case, neither party disputes the district court's finding that the municipal
12]
proceedings were fair and there is "a clear record." The municipal record here includes the city council's
resolution and the minutes of the planning commission and city council meetings at which the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment was considered, as well as written reports and documents presented to the
city council. In addition, we also may consider documents reflecting the historical designation, regulation,
13
and character of the property.
At the city council's meeting on Mendota Golfs proposed amendment, the mayor commented that
Mendota Golf's property has been designated as golf course property in the city's comprehensive plan for
over 25 years. In the 2002 comprehensive plan, which the city had adopted just one year before Mendota
Golfs application to amend the comprehensive plan, the city specifically chose to retain the "Golf Course"
land use designation for the property—a designation that "is intended to distinguish the
commercial/recreation/open space characteristics associated with golf courses." According to the minutes of
the city council meeting, the city had recently updated its comprehensive plan, the planning process was very
extensive, including many public hearings, and Mendota Golf did not participate in any of those hearings.
Comments made during the planning commission and city council meetings conveyed the value that citizens
1/23/2006
Message Page 23 of 31
of the city place on the open space and recreational opportunities that the golf course provides.
A municipality has legitimate interests in protecting open and recreational space, as well as reaffirming
historical land use designations. See Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1 (including "recreation" among the
legitimate objectives of zoning); In re Denial of Eller Media Company's 4pplications, 664 N.W.2d 1, 10 n.7
Minn. 2003) (explaining that "[g]overning bodies have the right to meet the desires of their citizens for.
beauty and space—even in cities"); Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 337-38, 220 N.W.2d
256, 263 (1974) (upholding village's denial of a rezoning petition "based upon a legislative determination to
perpetuate its preexisting comprehensive zoning ordinance"). Accordingly, we conclude that legitimate
objectives supported the city's denial of Mendota Golf's application for an amendment to the city's
comprehensive plan, and Mendota Golf has failed to establish that the city lacked a rational basis for the
decision. Indeed, given the statutory priority of municipal comprehensive plans over local zoning ordinances
and the role of comprehensive plans in the regional planning process, it would be difficult to conclude that the
city abused its discretion by denying the proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan. Therefore, we
reverse the district court's decision requiring the city to approve Mendota Golf's application to change the
comprehensive plan designation for the property from "Golf Course" to "Low -Density Residential."
The dissent suggests that our decision means that "the owners of the subject property are required, now
and in the future, to operate a golf course because it preserves `open space' and recreational opportunities for
residents of the community." Such a suggestion indicates that the dissent has misconstrued our decision by
reading it too broadly. It is not our intent, and it is not necessarily the effect of our decision, to prescribe a
permanent comprehensive plan designation for the property. Our decision does not foreclose discussion and
negotiation between Mendota Golf and the city regarding the use of the property. In fact, in denying the
proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan, the city expressed a willingness to work with Mendota Golf
to explore other options for the property. Our decision also does not foreclose Mendota Golf from asserting a
14]
regulatory takings claim if the parties cannot resolve their dispute. Finally, our decision does not
foreclose other actions based on the circumstances as they may develop as a part of or following the city's
reconciliation of the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance provisions for the property, which cannot be
1/23/2006
Message Page 24 of 31
foreseen at this time. Our decision simply resolves the narrow issue that is properly before the court—
whether the city had a rational basis to deny Mendota Golf's proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan
V.
As stated above, we conclude that there is a conflict between the city's comprehensive plan and zoning
ordinance with respect to Mendota Golfs property and the city failed to reconcile this conflict as required
under Minn. Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1. We are mindful that the power to zone has been delegated to the city
counvii arid not to
1/23/2006
Message Page 25 of 31
the courts. Although mandamus is inappropriate "to control or interfere with the manner .in which" the
city exercises its discretion, mandamus can be appropriate "to set the exercise of that discretion into motion."
State ex rel. S. St. Paul v. Hetherington, 240 Minn. 298, 301, 61 N.W.2d 737, 740 (1953).
In arguments to our court, the city has stated that "if the Court concludes that there is a conflict
between the City's comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance, the Court should remand the case
instructing the lower court to amend the writ to direct the City to reconcile the conflict without depriving the
City Council of its legislative discretion to determine how any conflict should ultimately be resolved." In
essence, the city is not contesting its obligation to reconcile any conflicts between the comprehensive plan and
the zoning ordinance and is not objecting to a remedy that permits it to exercise its discretion in resolving the
conflict. Therefore, we remand to the district court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the city to reconcile
the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance provisions with respect to Mendota Golf s property as required
by Minn. Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1.
Reversed and remanded.
1/23/2006
Message
CONCURRENCE & DISSENT
ANDERSON, G. Barry, Justice (concurring and dissenting).
Page 26 of 31
I join in the majority opinion with respect to the conclusion that a conflict exists between the
comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance adopted by the City of Mendota Heights and I also join in the
remand to the district court requiring the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the city to reconcile the
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance provisions with respect to Mendota Golf's property as required by
Minn. Stat. § 73.858, subs. 1 (2004).
I dissent, however, from that portion of the majority opinion that holds that the City of Mendota
Heights had a "rational basis" for the city's denial of Mendota Golf's application for an amendment to the
city's comprehensive plan.
I dissent for two reasons.
First, having concluded that a declaratory judgment action is the better vehicle for addressing the
dispute between the City of Mendota Heights and Mendota Golf, I believe it is premature for this court to find
a rational basis in the action taken by the City of Mendota Heights. An advantage of declaratory judgment
proceedings are discovery procedures that may result in a better record than we have before this court today.
Further, as a matter of judicial restraint in not deciding cases before those cases are ripe for decision, I believe
the better course is to allow the City of Mendota Heights to address the conflict between the ordinance
provisions because it is at least possible that the conflict will be addressed in a manner that resolves the
dispute between the parties without further litigation. Further, we routinely defer to the exercise of municipal
legislative authority and I see no good reason to rush in now and answer a question that may or may not be
present after the ordinance conflict is resolved.
But second, I dissent from this portion of the majority opinion for substantive reasons as well.
One practical problem with the emphasis on "open space" as the basis for the city council's decision to
deny the amendment request is that, as the court of appeals noted, the comprehensive plan uses separate
designations for "golf course" and "open space." Indeed, preservation of "open space" is not mentioned in the
1/23/2006
Message Page Zl 01131
city council resolution denying Mendota Golf's application for a change in the comprehensive plan.
I find the argument that the City had "several public hearings" in connection with reviewing its
comprehensive plan to be unpersuasive. I have little doubt that residents of the community were indeed
interested in maintaining "recreation" opportunities and "open space," albeit at the expense of others, but the
fact remains that the subject property was zoned as "golf course" both before and after those "several public
hearings" and there was no reason for Mendota Golf to participate in the process absent an alternative use for
the property.
In short, it is not at all clear that there is, in fact, a rational basis for the city council's decision.
In addition to these practical difficulties complicating the majority opinion's rational basis argument,
there are troubling, and important, implications to the city council's decision endorsed today by the majority
opinion
While the majority opinion eloquently supports communal open space as a worthy municipal goal,
entirely absent from the opinion is a discussion of the severe restrictions on the rights of the property owner as
a result of the present form of the City's comprehensive plan. Put most bluntly, under the majority reading of
the comprehensive plan, the owners of the subject property are required, now and in the future, to operate a
golf course because it preserves "open space" and recreational opportunities for residents of the community. I
do not share the confidence of the majority that we have addressed only a "narrow" question of whether the
City had a rational basis to deny the request for an amendment to the City's comprehensive plan. The effect
of our decision is to tell Mendota Golf, and the owner of any other similar property, that the mere assertion by
neighbors that they enjoy a property owner's "open space" is sufficient to prohibit any (i.e., non -golf course)
use of the property as long as that preference appears somewhere in the municipal zoning ordinances.
While I acknowledge that Mendota Golf has not asserted a regulatory taking in this proceeding,
municipalities cannot ignore that both the federal and Minnesota constitutions provide protection for private
property rights, prohibiting the taking of public property for public use without just compensation. U.S.
Const. Amend. V; Minn. Const. Art. 1, section 13. While regulatory takings are difficult to establish,
Minnesota does recognize that property owners deprived of economic benefit as a result of zoning regulations
1/23/2006
Message Page 28 of 31
are entitled, under some circumstances, to compensation for a regulatory taking. See McShane v. City
of Farihault, 292 N.W.2d 253 (1980) (holding that airport zoning ordinance restricting use of property
adjacent to the airport to agricultural use when the highest and best use had over time become commercial use
constituted a taking, despite the fact that the existing use of the property was agricultural).
Perhaps, as the majority suggests, I have an "overly broad" interpretation of the effect of the opinion
we issue today. Perhaps I am premature in suggesting that there might be regulatory taking implications in the
actions talk, by l,A City.T2„+ .;z))art +ha+ proyiPrtcJ r -i girh+e are implicate it +hiss ie1- rvt^t_ g around aaVIonilLal, 11 U L 1V -But given +that LV V LJ it 114V LL2V 1111 11V Vtl 1 1 Lll V LL J LFLV VYn YA AiA
conflict between municipal ordinances and given that we are also now instructing litigants to use declaratory
judgment procedures rather than an extraordinary writ a fairly dramatic change from past practice—and
finally given that it is wholly unnecessary to resolve the issue of whether there is a rational basis for the City's
actions, I would remand this matter to the City of Mendota Heights to resolve the ordinance conflict and to
allow the property owner, if desired, to commence the appropriate action to properly frame the issues for
decision.
BLATZ, Chief Justice (concurring and dissenting).
I join in the concurrence and dissent of Justice G. Barry Anderson.
PAGE, Justice (concurring and dissenting).
I join in the concurrence and dissent of Justice G. Barry Anderson.
This section of the statute provides that local governments shall review and, if necessary, amend
their comprehensive plans and fiscal devices and official controls by December 31, 1998, and at least once
every 10 years thereafter. Minn. Stat. § 473.864, subd. 2 (2004).
LZ]
The amended statute applies to local government units within the seven -county metropolitan area.
Act of May 17, 1995, ch. 176, § 12, 1995 Minn. Laws 593, 598. Mendota Heights is located in Dakota
County and is subject to the statute.
31
Mendota Golf's property, as well as the city's two other golf courses, are identified in the city's Park
1/23/2006
Message
Plan as "open space."
Page 29 of 31
4]
When a local governmental unit submits its comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council, it must
either certify that "no amendments to its plan or fiscal devices or official controls are necessary" or submit the
amendments to the Metropolitan Council for information purposes. Minn. Stat. § 473.864, subd. 2 (2004).
The implementation program of the city's comprehensive plan indicates that "[mlinor revisions" to the city's
zoning ordinance "may be needed to address the development and policy issues identified. in the
Comprehensive Plan." However, the city's Technical Plan also expresses "concern" regarding the city's
obligations under the 1995 amendments to the MLPA: ,
Up until passage of the amendments to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act in 1995, zoning
took precedence over comprehensive planning when issues of inconsistencies occurred.
However, the amended Act now provides that comprehensive plans shall take precedence over
zoning when conflicts arise. The change presents challenges due to the fact that comprehensive
plans have traditionally served as "guide" plans. Prior to establishing a land use plan and/or
modifying existing land use designations, the City must fully understand potential ramifications
of these actions. There is currently no case law to provide guidance in this matter. At issue is a
lack of understanding of the implications of this law and the mechanisms available to the City to
assure that the Mendota Heights Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
51 _
The city notes that there is an inconsistency here between the type of writ of mandamus originally
requested_ and the type of writ issued. Mendota Golf originally petitioned the district court for an alternative
writ of mandamus, but the district court issued a peremptory writ. An alternative writ of mandamus permits a
defendant to answer the petition and show cause for not complying with the writ, while a peremptory writ
does not. See Minn. Stat. § 586.03. Peremptory writs may be allowed in the first instance only when the
right to require performance of the act is clear and no valid excuse for nonperformance can be given. Minn.
Stat. § 586.04. "In all other cases the alternative writ shall first issue." Id. In this case, the type of writ does
not appear to influence the reasoning or the result in any way.
Ll
Mendota Golf states that it "does not take issue with the general proposition that, since 1995,
municipal comprehensive plans are intended to `trump' inconsistent local ordinances, including zoning
ordinances" and acknowledges that the "Golf Course" comprehensive plan designation for the property
prevents the development of single-family housing on the property. See Minn. Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1, and
discussion infra at IL
IT]
But see Minn. Stat. § 473.175, subd. 1 (2004) (providing that the Metropolitan Council "may require
a local governmental unit to modify any comprehensive plan" if "the plan is more likely than not to have a
substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system pians").
gl
The court of appeals indicated that a "peculiar provision" of the city's comprehensive plan
essentially trumped that statute. The "peculiar provision" that the court of appeals referred to reads as
follows:
The Mendota Heights Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances will be the primary regulations
governing future land use and development decisions.
1/23/2006
Message Page 30 of 31
The court of appeals interpreted this provision to provide that whenever there is a conflict between the
comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance shall prevail. Mendota Golf, 2004 WL
2161422, at *2. But the provision also goes on to state that "as a means of implementing the stated land use
goals for [the city], the City may implement the following Zoning Ordinance provisions." (Emphasis added.)
Thus, the provision indicates that the comprehensive plan provides the planning element, or the "land use
goals," while the zoning ordinance provides the legislative means of carrying out those goals. We conclude
that the latter interpretation of the provision is more consistent with the established relationship between
comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances.
9]
We use "zoning" in a broad sense to encompass a municipality's land use decisions under its zoning
ordinances and rules, see Minn. Stat. § 473.852, subd. 9 (defining "official controls"), as well as its
comprehensive plan.
l0] -
In addition, we have indicated that "[a]ctions for inverse condemnation may appropriately be
brought by writ of mandamus." N. States Power, 684 N.W.2d at 491; accord Dale Properties, LLC v. State,
638 N.W.2d 763, 765 (Minn. 2002) ("Property owners who believe the state has taken their property in the
constitutional sense may petition the court for a writ of mandamus to compel the state to initiate condemnation
proceedings.").
111
The city proposes that we adopt "the `change or mistake' doctrine" in reviewing a city's decision to
deny a comprehensive plan amendment. Under the city's proposed "change or mistake" standard, the party
requesting an amendment to a comprehensive plan must demonstrate either that (1) a mistake was made in the
formation of the comprehensive plan or (2) the character of the neighborhood surrounding the land parcel, at
issue has changed so much that an amendment to the plan is merited. Although the city contends that the
change or mistake standard is consistent with case law developed in the context of proposed amendments to
zoning ordinance classifications, the change or mistake standard is a legal standard that a local government
body may apply in considering a request for a change in a zoning ordinance, not a judicial standard of review.
See Sun Oil Co. v. Village of New Hope, 300 Minn. 326, 335, 220 N.W.2d 256, 261-62 (1974) (noting that
there is a presumption that the original zoning was well planned and was intended to be more or less
permanent") (quotations omitted); see also Honn, 313 N.W.2d at 417 (stating that in legislative zoning
decisions, a city considers a "a wide range of value judgments" and the "inquiry focuses on whether the
proposed use promotes the public welfare"). Therefore, in reviewing a city's zoning decision, a court may
have occasion to assess the city's application of the "change or mistake" standard in determining whether the
city had a rational basis for its decision. But the rational basis standard remains the appropriate standard of
judicial review because it is most compatible with the broad discretion afforded to cities in zoning matters.
121
Because neither party has argued that the municipal record is incomplete, additional discovery
would not necessarily result in a "better record" as suggested by the dissent. See Swanson, 421 N.W.2d at 313
concluding that in a declaratory judgment action, "the district court should receive additional evidence only
on substantive issues raised and considered by the municipal body and then only on determining that the
additional evidence is material and that there were good reasons for failure to present it at the municipal
proceedings").
V1
In the district court, Mendota Golf moved to strike certain exhibits attached to the city's verified
answer to the petition for mandamus, including the city's 1959 comprehensive plan "report," the city's 1979
comprehensive plan, the city's subdivision ordinance, and other public records, arguing that they were not
1/23/2006
Message Page 31 of 31
presented at the municipal proceedings in this case. The city responded that these exhibits are all public
documents kept in the regular course of business and are matters of record relating to Mendota Golf's
property. The district court did not rule directly on the motion, but in the order allowing the writ, found that
only the exhibits attached to Mendota Golf's petition, not the additional exhibits attached to the city's verified
answer, "constitute, and include, the record of municipal review, below, as augmented solely by an aerial
photograph of the subject premises." We believe, however, that documents reflecting the historical
designation, regulation and character of the property are relevant to the city's decision to deny the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment. For example, the historical use of the property, including the designation of
the property in the city's 1979 comprehensive plan, was discussed during the planning commission and city
council hearings. To the extent that the district court did not consider these exhibits because they were not
specifically presented during the municipal proceedings in this case, we conclude that the district court erred.
j 141
The dissent raises the issue of a potential takings claim, but it is clear that no such claim has been
asserted in this action. Counsel for Mendota Golf made clear at oral argument that Mendota Golf
specifically elected not to raise a taking issue in this case and thus no taking issue is before the court." In
deciding the narrow issue presented, a discussion of the restrictions imposed on the rights of Mendota Golf by
the city's comprehensive plan would be inappropriate. Mendota Golf's argument that the city lacked a
rational basis for denying the proposed amendment to the comprehensive plan was based almost entirely on
the language that the city used in the resolution. Mendota Golf acknowledged in its brief that if the city "had
acted responsibly, conscientiously, rationally, and lawfully"—for example, specifically stating in the
resolution that the denial was based on the city's desire to maintain its existing land use designations—
alternative results might have been obtained." Further, we express no opinion on whether Mendota Golf
might ultimately have a valid takings claim based on the proposition that the restrictions on the use of its land
to a golf course constitutes a regulatory taking.
1/23/2006
Js
a
A-S, ' F ;x :
k0olf-C6urse
PRDTOBYLEq}iA FFER:'.l
EDEN PRAIRIE NEWS • G ! e e S ".
EDEN PRAIRIE
WEEKLY f2,000
JAN 5 2006 et n: a an
IIIIIII!!{lli(1{Illilll{{I{II{IIl{{{Illlililifllllll{NII{ City aitorr J _CC.Pews inembersin4tEendance.=
eCiEoura in :t0 and that's about.-It.''
f eSlC fltS.lnrh Want O Taste d,.I _ . , 'h}ousewain
k407.2i i82 X9X8y14xx,,, PIPSe17 2 Off. tJLtCSe
edthrough'thehoias
an iternlabelecl"E i!ah Pi1D"'`
Sy'garia Wei nerstro n The group was•rftade'up of'i1lib £first surptise-at.Tues residents.;conce ned.abgtit;t el
4' da3r s Cily 04-01meetIng wase future ai ti -tiers re'Qk Golf;#
thejaxe txsit
lblMik-hidting-d' e ye,'ar
t;ourse, foriiterl. ' nowri a
Edeiivale:- and a #ew i€eriTrai
is normally a:"`lxausekeePing" rie"HighSsattend-
meeting thnth tY -Eden Prair.e gthe eetzng for,cIass;
Counril0'ingthuigslikecoun>
ci3pip nfiuei#s'#ovariouscAiii-'
We have not,'recei ed.,a.:
popo_saX:to.:ddvelo:the.gulf:;
mis,k aid ineaing dates and course,'=- City Manage ' Scott.,,
tame fo;thV rsozamg year
y• .'
o pomfed oft. ' ,.
ry+-•.s. L-•i Y1n' '1 1'•_ l r - :ter. - '. -is. ?s.._ k'.'75 •''. - may_ ..
Tuitens said, usually'there area . BENS':C tEliK to ia9 ' 5 `>
3.
B Vtdek aolf .0 prflper y #vr dale 5
kk
0. M :J
60