CC_Minutes_2012_0709 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

WilliaixrJ. Ma linen July 9,.2012 Page 2 Golf LLP v, City of Mendota Heights; 708 N.W.2d 1-62; 175 (Minn. 2006) (citing the MLPA, Minn, Minn. Stat. §. 478.859, subd. 1. As a result, a. city must amend its zoning regulations to conform to its comprehensive plan when the two are in conflict. MLPA, Minn.Minn. Stat. §478.859,subd. 1).See also,Mendota Golf;708 N.W.2d at 175. In a December 9, 2011, legal memorandum, the City Attorney noted that the City's comprehensive plan conflicted with its zoning code and recommended that the City eliminate the conflict. See Memorandum from Charles R. Bartholdi,Erickson, Bell, Beckman & Quinn, PA., to William J. Matinee, City Manager, dated Dec. 9, 2011 ("Bartholdi Memo," attached). The City Attorney's Bartholdi Memo answered three questions posed by the City Manager related to Community Mixed Use Zoning Districts under the Roseville Comprehensive Plan and'the Roseville Zoning Code. Id. at 1. Under the Roseville Comprehensive Plan, the memo notes, Community-Mixed Use districts are "guided for Uses which May include Community Business uses(i.e.[,] uses that promote community orientation and scale), but not.Regional Business uses (i.e,[,] regional scale uses)."Id. at 2. However, Section 1005.07 of the Roseville Zoning Code, which explains the purpose of -the "Community-Mixed Use (CMU) District," does not distinguish between Community. Business uses and Regional Business uses. The City Attonley's Bartholdi Memo opined -that "since the. Zoning Code does not expressly distinguish between Community Business and Regional Business uses, there may be certain Regional Business uses which may be allowed in Community-Mixed4Jse areas under the Zoning Code, which Would,result in a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code."14. at 2.1 In short, the City Attorney concluded that because "a Regional Business use is allowed in a Community Mixed-Use District under the Zoning Code, there is an apparent conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code." Id. at 3. And the City Attorney recommended that the City resolve the conflict by either amending its zoning code or its comprehensive. plan. Id. But.the. Minnesota. Supreme Court has held that because a comprehensive plan supersedes all other municipal regulations under the MLPA, the only appropriate method to resolve a conflict is to amend a city's zoning code.Mendota.Golf,708 N.W.2d at 1.75. Here, the City has yet to amend its zoning code to eonforin to its comprehensive plan, as it must under the MLPA. The conflict between the zoning code and the ' To determine whether a specific use is allowed in a community Business area, the City Attorney stated that"more than just use must be considered." Id. at 3. The analysis must be made on a "case by case basis"using factors"such as where the store or facility is. located, the uniqueness of the product sold or produced, the other uses and stores in the area, [and]whether similar stores or facilities are located nearby . . . . "Id.