CC_Minutes_2012_0709 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

• William J.Ma linen July 9,2012 Page 3 comprehensive plan is particularly relevant to the proposed Wal-Mart project The Wal- Mart project is proposed for construction in a Community Mixed-Use District under the Roseville Comprehensive Plan and the Roseville Zoning Code:One basis for the appeals of the Community Development Department's June 21 determination that the Wal-Mart project complies with a retail use in a Community Mixed-Use District is that Wal-Mart is a Regional Business. In light of the City Attorney's conclusion that the Roseville Zoning Code conflicts with the Roseville Comprehensive Plan on the Regional Business versus Community Business, the City should deny the preliminary plat at this time. We have also reviewedthe City Attorney's June 14, 2012,letter regarding whether the Council may consider the proposed Mute use of a subdivided property in evaluating a preliminary plat. Once again, for the reasons articulated in our May 21, 2012, letter to you, we disagree with the conclusion in the City Attorney's June 14 letter. As we pointed out in our May 21 letter, comprehensive consideration of a preliminary plat approval involves the discussion of the underlying project and the development agreement for that project Preliminary plat approval and a master project agreement work together, with City resolutions and ordinances, "to implement a public policy of beneficial long-term development."Semler Construction v. City of Hanover, 667 N.W.2d 457, 462 (Minn. Q. App. 2003). Nothing in the subdivision statute, Minn. Stat. §462.358, subd. 3b, limits the public discussion of preliminary plat approval, only to whether `the plat application conforms to the City's subdivision regulations. Rather, the statute's "primary emphasis on preliminary plat approval contemplates public policy' discussions: regarding the proposed development at the preliminary plat approval stage. Semler Construction, 667 N.W.2d at 463 (emphasis added). In fact, in Semler Construction the city included "extensive findings . . . that -the preliminary plat] was not in conflict with the city's comprehensive land-use plan." Id: at 462. It is the final approval of the plat that is "Mechanical"; the City's consideration of the final plat is limited to.determining whether the applicant has complied with the conditions set out in the preliminary approval. Id. at 462-63. And Semler Construction"did not strip final-plat decisions of all meaning."Save Lantern Bay v. Cass County Planning Comm'n, 683 N.W.2d 862, 866 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). Final plat decisions are"still subject to review for mistake or abuse of discretion." Id. The City Attorney's June 14 letter relies upon PTL, LLC v. Chisago Cty. Bd., 656 ' N.W.2d 567 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003), but that decision is not controlling. In PTL, the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a county's decision to deny a preliminary plat' where the subdivision compiled. with the zoning code but failed to implement a. comprehensive plan. However, PTL did not involve a conflict between a'comprehensive plan and a zoning code. Here, there is a conflict that between the Roseville