CC_Minutes_2012_0709 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

In order to determine which specific uses are allowed in Community Business and Regional Business areas,more than just use must be considered. Other factors such as where the store or facility is located,where the customer base is drawn from,the physical size of the store or facility,the uniqueness of the product sold or produced,the other uses and stores in the area, whether similar stores or facilities are located nearby, and other factors deemed relevant by the Community Development Department need to be reviewed to determine whether a use falls into a Community Business use area or a Regional Business use area. Consequently, each proposed use, together with the scope and extent of the use, the facilities associated with the use and the manner in which the use is to be implemented on the property must be evaluated by the Community Development Department on a case by case basis using the foregoing factors to determine whether it constitutes a Community Business or a Regional Business use. Until this determination has been made and whether such use is allowed or prohibited in the Community Mixed-Use District under the Zoning Code can the question of whether a particular use results in a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code be answered. To the extent that 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. Answer to Question No. 2: Minnesota Statutes § 473.865 states that a local governmental unit shall not adopt any official control or fiscal device which is in conflict with its Comprehensive Plan or which permits activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans. If an official control conflicts with a Comprehensive Plan as a result of an amendment to the plan,the official control shall be amended by the governmental unit within nine months following the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan so as to not conflict with the amended Comprehensive Plan: Minnesota Statutes § 473.858 provides that Minnesota Statutes §473.865 shall supercede the provisions of the applicable planning statute wherever a conflict exists. Therefore, the general Me is that in the event of a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code, the Comprehensive Plan controls. While the courts generally adhere to this rule, the Minnesota Court of Appeals in the case of PTL, LW v. Chicago County Board of Commissioners, 656 N.W. 2d 567 (Minn. App. 2003) decided that a County Board of Commissioners cannot deny approval of a plat solely on the basis that it does not comply with the comprehensive plan. In the PTL case, the court determined that the comprehensive plan is only a guide to setting zoning standards and that where a land owner complies with all of the requirements of a platting ordinance, the comprehensive plan does not provide an independent source of discretionary authority for denying approval of a preliminary plat. While the PTL case appears to be very narrow in its application, under certain limited circumstances a zoning code may prevail over a comprehensive plan. This means a conflict between a zoning code and comprehensive plan can matter. Answer to Question No.3: Since Minnesota Statutes §473.865 requires that the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan do not conflict, I would recommend that to the extent the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code may conflict as described in Answer to Question No. 1 above, the City Council amend either its Zoning Code or Comprehensive Plan to eliminate the conflict. CRB/alb •