CC_Minutes_2004_0809 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Dennis Welsch August 9, 2004 Page 3 advisory. Also out of those cases one finds the concept that comprehensive plans are meant to serve as general guides to municipalities in setting zoning standards, and in future development. It is those zoning standards which govern a board's decision when reviewing a specific proposal. See, ~, Chanhassen Estates Residents Assn v. City of Chanhassen, 342 N.W.2d 335 (Minn. 1984). A comprehensive plan is, under Minnesota law, intended to be general in nature. See, e.g.,, C.R. Invs., Inc. v. Village of Shoreview, 304 N.W.2d 320 (Minn. 1981). In contrast, official controls are the ordinances and regulations which control the physical development of a municipality. Official controls may include ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building codes and official maps. Official controls would be the regulations that not only govern physical development of an entire area, but "any detail thereof'. They are said to "implement the general objectives of the comprehensive plan". See Minn. Stat. § 462.352, subd. 15. An amendment to an official control does not need any super majority. A majority vote of the governing body of the city is sufficient. Although case law in Minnesota does not give definitive guidance, it is the opinion of the undersigned that any amendment to or supplement of the master plan for the Twin Lakes development is not a change in the comprehensive plan. It is instead merely a retooling or amendment of a site specific plan governing the development within the defined area of Twin Lakes. In that sense it is akin to a planned unit development, in that it governs and allows for planned development or redevelopment of a specific nature along lines that may or may not incorporate characteristics of a number zoning districts. A master plan is one form of planned development zoning. It is a modern concept which seeks to meet current needs which permits adjustments to changing demands by allowing a use which does not correspond to those permitted in any single type of district. See Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66 (Minn. 1984). In fact, the City of Roseville has specifically adopted official controls for such districts by the designation of a B-6 Mixed Use Business Park District, set forth in the code in Section 105.07. Analytically, a master plan may be nothing more than a contract, or could be looked at as a site specific "official control" which governs development in the area. Under either analysis, it is not part of a comprehensive plan. Although not directly on point, the discussion in Amcon Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d 66 (Minn. 1984) would support that viewpoint. I therefore do not believe that a change to the site specific master plan for the Twin Lakes area is a change in the comprehensive plan. Nor do I believe that any change in the site specific master plan for the Twin Lakes area necessitates an amendment to the comprehensive