Agenda - Council - 02/09/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I 12-Ds-iss8 03:39PM FROM DORN LRW FIRM, LTD 42?5545 P.05 510 N.W.2d 264, R.A. Putnam & Associates, Inc. v. City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, (Mm. App. 1994) l'age 5 sin~e-farnJly construction immediacy adjacent to thc site and in a report by the city's consulting planners suggesting that the townhomes were larger than other kinds of medium-density housing. [11] Thc council was also concerned about thc increase in air traffic over the property that had been identified by the 1989 study. While the district court may have disagreed with the conclusions that thc council drew from the facts, the conclusions are not irrational, i court may not set aside the judgment of municipal officials merely'because the court might have reached another decision if it had been in the council's place. White Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. v. City of While Bear Lake, 324 N.W.2d 174, 176 (Minn. 1982). 66, 74 (Minn. 1984); see also Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.357, subd. 2 (1990) (zoning ordinance mpersedes comprehensive plan ff the two conflict). Nor does a discrepancy between a zoning ordinance and a comprehensive plan affect the presumption that a municipal zoning decision is v~d. State by Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885, 890 (Minn.1978). Rather, a refusal m zone in accordance with a comprehensive plan is merely evidence that the city's action was arbitrary. Amcon Corp., 348 N.W.2cl at 75. In view of the legitimacy of, and the hemal support for, the reasons given for the zoning decision in this case, we are not persuaded that the city's denial of Rottlund's re:zoning request was irrational or arbitrary. [12][13] Nor do we agree with the contention by Rottlund and Putnam that the zoning decision was arbitrary simply because it conflicted with the designated use for the property found in the city's comprehensive plan. A municipality should not adopt zoning that conflicts with its comprehensive plan. Minu.$tat. Sec. 473.865, sub& 2 (1990). Furthermore, if a conflict between a zoning ordinance and a comprehensive plan arises because of an amendment to the plan, the ordinance should be amended. Minn. Slat. Sec. 473.865, sub& 3 (1990). Nonetheless, a comprehensive plan's designation of land uses is advisory and does not unalterably bind a city. Ameon Corp. v. City of Eagan, 348 N.W.2d DECISION The city made a record of its findings within a reasonable 6n~_- of reaching its zoning decision. The district court erred by ordering the city to rezone, issue a conditional use permit, and approve Rottlund's sketch plan. Reversed. FN1. While the case was pending, the Metropolitan Council approved a city council amendment to the comprehensive plan that redesignated the subject property from HR-PUD to Middlo-Density Residential-Planned Unit Development (MR-PUD). Copyrio~ht (c) West Group 1998 No claim To original U.S. Govt. works TRT~I