Opinion ID: 2177018
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relationship of PD zoning to the comprehensive plan.

Text: The essence of constitutional zoning with no due process or equal protection problems is generally recognized to be demonstrated by the existence of a plan which uniformly, without discrimination and without unreasonable restrictions, promotes the general welfare. It is the basic instrument of municipal land use planning. 1 Rathkopf, § 12.02 at 12-5. Recent revisions in the zoning-enabling acts of states such as California, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Nebraska, and Washington require that the ordinance and all amendments be drawn in accordance with a comprehensive plan. [8] Courts have held that failure of an amendment to conform to the previously existing comprehensive plan results in invalid spot zoning. Id. at 12-6. Such a provision has been required to avoid arbitrary or capricious exercise of the zoning power and reduce the impact of growing restrictions on the right of owners to make free use of their land. Minnesota's municipal planning act, Minn.Stat. §§ 462.351-.364 (1982), provides for the optional adoption of a comprehensive plan; [a] municipality    may prepare, adopt and amend a comprehensive municipal plan and implement such plan by ordinance and other official actions   . Minn.Stat. § 462.353, subd. 1 (1982) (emphasis added). Under the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 473.851-.872 (1982), however, Dakota County and the city of Eagan were required to prepare and submit to the Metropolitan Council for approval a comprehensive land use plan containing objectives, policies, standards and programs to guide public and private land use. See Minn.Stat. §§ 473.859, subd. 1, .872 (1982). Each local government unit is also required to adopt official controls, i.e., ordinances and regulations which implement the general objectives of the comprehensive plan and which may include ordinances establishing zoning. See Minn. Stat. §§ 473.865, .852, subd. 9 (1982). The comprehensive guide plan submitted by the city of Eagan and approved by the Metropolitan Council during the course of this litigation specifies that the plan is meant to serve as a guide and should possess a degree of flexibility. Moreover, Minn.Stat. § 473.865, subd. 3 (1982), only requires amendment of any ordinances which conflict with the comprehensive plan. The city of Eagan argues that PD zoning does not conflict with its comprehensive plan in this case because PD zoning does not preclude eventual RB designation. Whether or not there is such a direct conflict as to mandate amendment of the ordinance is not determinative for the purpose of appellate review of the city's refusal to grant both designations. The designation of land uses on such a master plan is generally viewed as advisory and the city is not unalterably bound by its provisions. However, the recommendations should be entitled to some weight, particularly where the plan has been adopted by the legislative body although not implemented. See Sharninghouse v. City of Bellingham, 4 Wash.App. 198, 203, 480 P.2d 233, 236 (1971). The city's own comprehensive plan and map designate the property at issue as roadside business. While this designation is not binding, a refusal to zone accordingly is evidence that the city is acting in an arbitrary manner. Commentators have noted that a common objection to zoning flexibility devices is that their administration is subject to so many varied pressures that a curb on their discretionary use is essential. Note, The Administration of Zoning Flexibility Devices: An Explanation for Recent Judicial Frustration, 49 Minn.L.Rev. 973 (1965). Recent cases have emphasized even more the comprehensive plan aspect as a hedge against special interest, irrational ad hocery. Town of New Bedford v. Village of Mt. Kisco, 33 N.Y.2d 178, 188, 351 N.Y.S.2d 129, 136, 306 N.E.2d 155, 159 (1973) (emphasis in original). In Marino v. Zoning Hearing Board of Harrison Township, 1 Pa.Cmwlth. 116, 274 A.2d 221 (1971), the Pennsylvania court believed that comprehensive plans were neither absolute nor inviolate. 1 Pa. Cmwlth. at 122, 274 A.2d at 224. Nonetheless, the court ruled that flexible selective zoning ordinances which rezone on a case-by-case method and which are not enacted in accordance with a comprehensive plan are invalid. Id. at 121, 274 A.2d at 223. (Footnote omitted) The failure of the city to advance any rationale for not following its comprehensive plan and not granting the RB classification is strong evidence of arbitrary action. In Dillon the Colorado court overturned the denial of an application for rezoning because there was no evidence to support the denial. This court, in Inland Construction, stated that under Zylka v. City of Crystal, 283 Minn. 192, 167 N.W.2d 45 (1969), the failure of the council to articulate any legally sufficient basis for its determination made a prima facie showing of arbitrariness inevitable. 292 Minn. at 392, 195 N.W.2d at 569. In Rochester Association, this court refused to require that a zoning ordinance conform exactly to a land-use plan when adopted or to shift the presumption of validity which attaches to all rezonings even those that are inconsistent with a comprehensive plan. 268 N.W.2d at 889. The court pointed out that Minn.Stat. §§ 462.351-.364 (1976) does not require conformance to the land-use plan. [9] But in that case, the Rochester City Council had amended the land-use plan after amending the zoning classification, thus indicating an intent to alter the basic plan. In the case at bar, however, the city had indicated no intention of changing the land-use plan. Indeed, the city states that if the planned development plans fail, the developer can always come back and reapply for a roadside business classification. The ordinance is vague and equivocal as to what basic zoning means. The city's own comprehensive plan designates the property as RB. Refusing to grant an underlying rezoning is inconsistent with the zoning practices of neighboring cities. The parcel of land is not suitable for agricultural or residential use and plaintiffs have been paying commercial real estate taxes. Under these particular facts, the refusal to grant an underlying RB rezoning without stating any justification for the refusal is arbitrary and capricious action. We therefore remand to the Dakota County District Court for the issuance of an order directing the Eagan City Council to grant plaintiffs an underlying rezoning from agricultural in addition to the planned development zoning already granted. Reversed and remanded.