pf_03614 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

advisory. out of cases one concept 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 Ass'n 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. S 462.352, subd. 15. An amendment to an official c~~EY super majoriry. A majority vote ofth;;governing body "OTI~[s sufficient. Although case law in Minnesota does not give definitive guidance, it is the opinion of the undersigned that any mn.enQmentj:g or SU1212lelllent of the master.J?lal} for the Twin L~s jevelol?~nt is not a change in~~nsi~~ plan: It is instead 111~rely a r.etooling or ~E1~~ent of a site~~n governing t~e deyelopmel~t within the defi~d area of Twin Lakes. ~ 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 mayor 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 nee s w lch permits adjustments tochanging demands by allowing a use which does not correspond to those permitted in any single type of district. See Amcon Corp. v. Citv 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, 'Lmaste~2lan m1!Lbe not~~oLco~~9 be loo~ as a site specific "official control" which governs development in the area. Under either ~alysi~t isr1Of.parf of a comprehensive plan. lthough 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