Laserfiche WebLink
510 N.W.2d 264, R.A. Putnam & Assochtes, Inc. v. City of Mendota Heights, Dakota County, <br />(Mm. App. 1994) <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />sinCe-family construction imm~:Iia~y adjacent to thc <br />site and in a report by the city's consulting planners <br />suggesting that the townhomes were larger than other <br />kinds of medium-density housing. <br /> <br /> [11) Thc council was also concerned about thc <br />increase in air traffic over the property that had been <br />identified by the 1989 study. While the district court <br />may have disagreed with the conclusions that the <br />council drew from the facts, the canclusious are not <br />irrational. A court may not set aside the judgroe,t of <br />municipal officials merely'because the court might <br />have reached another decision if it had been in the <br />council's place. White Bear Docking & Storage, Inc. <br />v. City of White Bear Lake, 324 N.W.2d 174, 176 <br />(Minn. 1982). <br /> <br />66, 74 (Minn. 1984); ~ Minn. Stat. Sec. <br />462.357, subd. 2 (1990) (zoning ordinance <br />supersedes comprehensive plan ff the two conflict). <br />Nor does a discrepancy between a zoning ordinance <br />and a comprehensive plan affect the presumption that <br />a municipal zoning decision is valid. State by <br />Rochester Ass'n of Neighborhoods v. City of <br />Rochester, 268 N.W.2d 885, 890 (Minn.1978). <br />Rather, a refusal ~o zone in accordance with a <br />comprehensive plan is merely evidence that the city's <br />action was arbitrary. Amcon Corp., 348 N.W.2d at <br />75. In view of the legitimacy of, and the factual <br />support for, the reasons given for the zoning decision <br />in this case, we are not persuaded that the city's <br />denial of Rottlund's rezoning request was irrational <br />or arbitrary. <br /> <br /> [12][13] Nor do we agree with the contention by <br />Rottlund and Pumam that the zoning decision was <br />arbitrary simply because it conflicted with the <br />designated use for the property found in the city's <br />comprehensive plan. A municipality should not <br />adopt zoning that conflicts with its comprehensive <br />plan. Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.865, subd. 2 (1990). <br />Furthermore, if a conflict between a zoning <br />ordinance and a comprehensive plan arises because of <br />an amendment to the plan, the ordinance should be <br />amended. Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.865, subd. 3 (1990). <br />Non~heless, a comprehensive plan's designation of <br />land uses is advisory and does not unalterably bind a <br />city. Ameon Corp. v. City of Pagan, 348 N.W.2d <br /> <br />DECISION <br /> <br />The city made a record of its findings within a <br />reasonable time of r~aching its zoning decision. The <br />dis~ct court erred by ordering the city to rezone, <br />issue a conditional use permit, and approve <br />Rottlund's sketch plan. <br /> <br /> Reversed. <br />FN1. While the case was pending, the Metropolitan <br /> Council approved a city council amendmcm to the <br /> comprehensive plan that redesignated the subject <br /> property from HR-PUD to Middle-Density <br /> Residential-Planned Unit Development (MR.-PUD). <br /> <br />Copyright (c) West Group 1998 No claim to original U.S. Govt. works <br /> <br />TOTAl P.09 <br /> <br /> <br />