Laserfiche WebLink
9.Environmental concernsand natural <br />resource protection <br />Many cities utilize their subdivision ordinance to preserve trees, soils, <br />Sample environmental <br />preservation <br />wetlands,and other natural features during the development process. Where <br />ordinance <br />development requires the removal of natural features, cities may require <br />replacement or other mitigation. <br />10.Minor subdivisions <br />State statute allows cities to adopt ordinance provisions that consolidate the <br />Minn. Stat. § 462.358 <br />subd 3b;Minn. Stat. § <br />preliminary and final plat approval process. Sometimes this is referred to as a <br />505.03 subd 1 <br />“minor subdivision.” State statute also allows cities to approve subdivisions <br />Sample ordinanceand <br />without requiring the expense of a formal plat, in instances where the <br />forms for minor <br />subdivisions <br />subdivision of land results in lessthan five lots that are morethan 2 ½ acres <br />in size.This is also sometimes called a “minor subdivision.” Cities may opt <br />See Section IV-H <br />Minor subdivisions. <br />to do one or both in their ordinance. <br />C.Legal standardsin drafting subdivision <br />ordinances <br />City subdivision ordinances may differ greatly from city to city to reflect the <br />concerns and development goals of the city. However, all city subdivision <br />ordinances must conform to legal standards in state andfederal statute.In <br />addition, cities’ ordinances must beconsistent with state and federal court <br />rulings. <br />1.Municipal Planning Act <br />All city subdivision authority is granted to cities by and subject to the <br />Minn. Stat. §§ <br />462.351 to 462.365. <br />Municipal Planning Act found at Minn.Stat.ch.462.Ordinances may vary <br />Hubbard <br />from city to city, but all must comply with both the substantive and <br />Broadcasting, Inc. v. <br />procedural requirements contained in the Municipal Planning Act. In <br />City of Afton <br />, 323 <br />N.W.2d 757, (Minn. <br />addition, cities, including home rule charter cities,cannot adopt local <br />DI MA Corp. v. <br />1982; <br />ordinances that contradict the explicit provisions of the Municipal Planning <br />City of St. Cloud <br />, 562 <br />Act. <br />N.W.2d 312 (Minn. <br />Ct. App. 1997.) <br />Nordmarken v. City of <br />Richfield <br />, 641 N.W.2d <br />343 (Minn. Ct. App. <br />Northshor <br />2002); <br />Experience, Inc. v. <br />City of Duluth, MN <br />, <br />442 F.Supp.2d 713 <br />(D.Minn.,2006) <br />Costley v. Caromin <br />House, Inc <br />.,313 <br />N.W.2d 21(Minn. <br />1981;A.G. Op. 59-A- <br />32 (Jan. 25, 2002). <br />10LMC <br />EAGUE OF INNESOTA ITIES <br /> <br />