My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2004_0524
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2004
>
CC_Minutes_2004_0524
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:30:09 AM
Creation date
2/9/2006 12:53:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/24/2004
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />rage ~ or IV <br /> <br />land-use decisions. See Countv Builders. Inc. v. Lower Providence Township. 5 Pa.Cmwlth. 1. 287 <br />A.2d 849. 852 (! 972) (stating that subdivision ruling that effectively amends zoning ordinance <br />improperly allows local government to "hold in reserve unpublished requirements capable of general <br />application for occasional use"). Thus, we conclude that the board of commissioners' denial of <br />approval lacked a rational basis. <br /> <br />Because, as a matter of law, local officials must approve a preliminary plat that proposes a permitted <br />use and complies with the regulatory standards specified for that use, the board of commissioners <br />exceeded its authority in denying PTL's application for preliminary-plat approval on the basis that the <br />proposed development was inconsistent with existing land uses and not well planned. The decision to <br />deny preliminary-plat approval was based on legally insufficient reasons. To hold otherwise would <br />undermine the legal doctrine that a subdivision plan that complies with applicable regulations must <br />be approved as a matter of right. <br /> <br />II. <br /> <br />00 PTL also argues that the board of commissioners lacked legal authority to reject irs application for <br />preliminary-plat approval of a permissible land use on the basis that the preliminary plat failed to <br />implement the goals and policies of the county's comprehensive guide plan. We agree. <br /> <br />Compatibility with the public's health, safety, and general welfare of the local government's <br />comprehensive land-use plan is an appropriare consideration in approving an application for a <br />conditional use. See Minn.Stat. & 394.22 , subd. 7 (2002) (defining conditional use as use that may be <br />allowed on finding that it conforms to county's comprehensive plan); Hubbard Broad.. Inc. v. Citv of <br />Arron. 323 N. W.2d 757. 763 (Minn. I 982) (holding that city council's determination that proposed use <br />was inconsistent with comprehensive plan justified denial of special-use permit); SuperAmerica <br />Group. 539 N.W.2d at 267 (holding that incompatibility between proposed use and "definite and <br />objective standards" in city's comprehensive plan *574 justified denial of conditional-use permit), <br />review denied (Minn. Jan. 5, 1996). But cf Amoco Oil Co. v. Citv of Minneapolis. 395 N.W.2d 115. <br />118 (Minn.App. I 986) (holding that reliance on comprehensive plan as basis for denying conditional- <br />use permit was improper where zoning ordinance did not list compliance with comprehensive plan as <br />basis for denial). <br /> <br />**6 [2] In contrast, for a permissible use, the law recognizes that <br />when a city designates a specific use as permissible in a particular zone or district, the city has <br />exercised its discretion and determined that the permitted use is consistent with the public health, <br />safety, and general welfare and consonant with the goals of its comprehensive plan. <br />Chanhassen Estates. 342 N.W.2d at 340. But the board of commissioners denied PTL's application <br />for approval of a preliminary plat that proposed a permitted use because the proposed use, although <br />permitted, failed to implement the goals and policies of the comprehensive guide plan. In so doing, <br />the board relied on sections 1.02(J) and 1.05 of the Chisago County Subdivision Ordinance. Section <br />1.02(1) lists the implementation of the comprehensive guide plan as a stated purpose. Chisago <br />County, Minn., Subdivision Ordinance !l 1.02(1). Section 1.05 requires that the subdivision of land <br />"not be inconsistent with" the comprehensive guide plan. [d. !l 1.05. Thus, whether the board <br />exceeded its authority depends on whether sections 1.02(1) and 1.05 give the comprehensive guide <br />plan regulatory effect. <br /> <br />Under Minnesota law, each county "has the power and authority to prepare and adopt" a <br />comprehensive plan. Mirill.Srat. & 394.23 (2002) . The plan is to be implemented by official controls, <br /> <br />.. .ideliverv.html?dataid=A00558000000419 I 0003939398B92C3E6DED02C543&dest=atp&f 3/25/2003 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.