HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-22-75 PZMPRESENT:
EMERSON
MINING
PERMIT
PUBLIC
HEARING
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1975
Meeting called to order at 7:43 by Vice -Chairman Williams.
Williams, Dreher, Lundquist, Novak, Sovereign, Armstrong.
Mr. Folz and Paul Emerson made a brief presentation con--
ceLning the request for a special use mining permit for
the Eden Park plat. Folz estimated that there is 10,000
yards of gravel on the site. This will be removed from
the area in the southwest corner where a roadway is to be
placed. The material will be remaveddown to the grade of
the road. It will then be hauled further north to an area
near Downs Lake where a crusher will be installed. 4,000
yards will be used for making the streets within the plat
and the other 6,000 yards will be hauled off -site. The
present berm between the proposed site of the crusher and
Downs Lake will be extended further south so that there
will be no errosion to Downs Lake. Hauling of the ma-
terial off -site will be done by Emerson. No neighboring
land owners were present at the hearing.
MOTION by Armstrong
That the PZC recommends approval of issuance of a mining
special use permit to mine and crush 4200 cu. yards of
Class Five gravel for use as street base on the Eden Park
Subdivision and to mine, crush and haul off -site about
6,000 cu. yards of class 5 gravel. This permit shall be
limited to 90 operating days, not to exceed July 1, 1976,
with inspection as required by the Council.
SECOND by Sovereign.
VOTE All in favor.
MINUTES MOTION by Dreher
That the Minutes of the meeting of September 9, 1975, be
approved with the following amendments:
1. At page 3, SEWERS, MOTION by Sovereign, Alternative 4
of the Tri-Lakes Sewer Study" should be changed to
read "Facilities Plan Alternative 3".
2. At page 4, SEWERS, points 5, 6 and 7, "4" should be "3".
MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 1975 PAGE TWO
MINUTES
(Cont.)
PUBLIC
HEARING
WASHINGTON 37
AND
WILLARD MORTON
3. At LAKE ELMO SEWERS, line 4, change "area, the"
to read "area, and the".
4. At LAKE ELMO SEWERS, line 32, change "be" to read "by".
5. At LAKE ELMO SEWERS, line 35, change "properly" to
read "properly".
6. At PARRANTO, line 4, change "Lichte" to read "Licht".
7. At PARRANTO, lines 13,14 and 17, change "Aslanitis"
to "Aslanidis".
SECOND by Sovereign.
VOTE all in favor.
Mr. Aslanidis made a brief presentation concerning the
77-1/2 acre site located at the intersection of County
Roads 17 and 70 and described as the South 1/2 of the
SW 1/4, Section 25. Aslanidis said that there is no
slope exceeding 15%. The southern portion of the property
will be heavy density, the center portion will be medium
density, townhouses, and the northern portion will be
low density housing. The eastern area will be dedicated
to park and it contains a lake. Lundquist asked what the
staging and development would be in the site. Aslanidis
answered that, if the Metropolitan Council population
estimates are correct (and in Aslanidis' opinion, the
Metropolitan Council's estimates have always been low),
the area could be developed before 1990. Parranto, upon
being questioned, explained that the east 40 acres is
owned by Willard Morton, the west 37 acres is owned by
Washington 37, which is a limited partnership comprised
of 20 to 22 limited partners, with Bob Marriott as the
general partner. Parranto Brothers is employed by both
these parties. The division of the land will be as follows:
Rights -of -way
Low density residential
Medium density residential
High density residential
(Total residential)
Neighborhood commercial
Open space
10.25 acres
12.73 acres
16.98 acres
17.41 acres
47.12 acres
6.17 acres
14.02 acres
13. 21%
16.40%
21. 88%
22.440
60.73%
7.95%
18. 07%
MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 1975 PAGE THREE
PUBLIC
HEARING
WASHINGTON 37.
ND
WILLARD MORTON
(Cont.)
Parranto stated, upon questioning by Armstrong, that the
reason that this planning was done at such an early stage
was that it was requested by Howard Dahlgren. Parranto
stated that the Council had asked Dahlgren to request that
some plans be submitted for the property. Councilman
Abercrombie was present and indicated that the Council
never asked for plans and that the Council was not aware
that Parranto was developing the area until this request
was made. Parranto stated that they spent $4,000 to $5,000
on planning and the same requests had been made for the
Peltier property. Parranto went on to say that any project
like this needs three to four years advance approval by the
community in order to obtain an investor. He stated that
the front money needed is very large and that an investor
would not put up this money unless there was an indication
that the community accepted the project. Acceptance by
Lake Elmo of this area for PUD would be an indication of
the City`;s approval of the concept plan and he, therefore,
would be able to get an investor to come up with the front
money for further planning. Lundquist stated that the PUD
ordinance has a three -step concept:
1. The Concept Plan
2. The PUD Permit
3. The Staging Plan
The City can require a bond at the beginning of construction
to guarantee that the entire project will be built.
There is one 2-1/2 acre area, 160 feet wide and 660 feet
deep, owned by Mr. Franklin, which Washington 37 does not
own. Parranto indicated that they made an offer for
purchase of the 2-1/2 acres and it has not yet been accepted.
Sovereign indicated that the PZC does not have the necessary
documentation as required by the Lake Elmo PUD ordinance.
Parranto replied that all the documentation had been sent
but that it was lost some place between City Clerk's Office
and the City Attorney's Office.
The following people were present:
R. B. Abercrombie, 3091 Layton Court North
Michael Ahrens (Cimarron), 901 Lake Elmo Ave. No.
Bob Marriott, Parranto Bros.
Steven Schmidt, Washington 37 Properties
Tom Roe, Washington 37 Properties
Dorothy Lyons, 10072 North l0th Street
Pete Parranto, 1212 Commerce Bldg., St. Paul
Barbara L. Senness of Midwest Planning indicated that Dave
Licht and the City Attorney had discussed this request and
the PUD Ordinance and determined that this request is for a
conditional use permit. The PZC has 60 days to act after
the request was made. There was no questioning by any of
the public present.
MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 1975 PAGE FOUR
Pr 'IC
Hh__:ING
WASHINGTON 37
AND
WILLARD MORTON
(Cont.)
SEWER STAGING
PLAN
3M
AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPHS
MOTION By Armstrong
That the Washington 37 and Willard Morton application be
tabled until the further information as required under
Lake Elmo Ordinance No. 302.030, Subdivisions B, C, D
and E is furnished.
SECOND by Grace.
VOTE all in favor.
Barbara Senness indicated that the Council had approved a
sewer staging plan, a copy of which was passed around to
the PZC members, which was different from the PZC plan.
She asked that some unified plan be adopted so that Midwest
Planning could incorporate this in the comprehensive plan.
She requested that Midwest be furnished with a copy of the
Council's plan, which was prepared by Otto Bonestroo.
PZC also requested copies of this plan.
Barbara Senness informed the PZC that it was required by
law to forward the change to the Lake Elmo Comprehensive
Plan to the Metropolitan Council. Abercrombie stated that
the City Attorney, Don Raleigh, had indicated to the Council
that this was not required, since the original Comprehensive
Plan of Lake Elmo had never been approved by the Metropolitan
Council.
MOTION by Armstrong
That the PZC request an opinion of the City Attorney con-
cerning the Commission's responsibilities as to forwarding
this change to the Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan
Council.
SECOND by Sovereign.
VOTE all in favor.
Lundquist stated that the Metropolitan Council had taken
aerial photos of the Metro area and that these were avail-
able by contacting Tom Caswell or Kathleen Johnson of the
Council staff at 227-9421. Lundquist stated that it might
be a good idea for Lake Elmo to have two -foot contours
drawn from these maps and then to sell them to the indi-
vidual developers when the site is developed. Lundquist
will inquire further about the aerial photos and inform the
PZC.
MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 1975 PAGE FIVE
BT 'ET
The planning costs for 1975 through August amounted to
$12,176.93 for Midwest Planning and $233.94 in other
costs. Williams asked that Councilman Abercrombie get
a breakdown of the past costs so that the PZC could
effectively put together a budget for the next year.
3M The proposed meetings on the Environmental Impact State-
E.I.S. ment of 3M were discussed. The Oakdale Planning and
Zoning Commission will be holding a meeting on Thursday,
October 9, at 7:30 p.m. in the Oakdale City Hall. This
is to determine whether their Comprehensive Plan should
be amended for the 3M Development.
PARK PLAN
MOTION by Novak
The PZC recommends that the Joint Planning Commissions
Committee of Oakdale and Lake Elmo be reactivated and
become part of the Policy Input Committee of Lake Elmo
and Oakdale; and that this Committee hold at least three
meetings previous to December 5.
SECOND by Dreher.
VOTE all in favor.
The Policy Input Committee is composed of Mayor Graske
and Councilman Hanson of Oakdale and Mayor Eder and
Councilman Abercrombie of Lake Elmo. The chairman of
the Oakdale Planning and Zoning Commission is Bill Hemmings.
The Washington County Planning Department will make a
presentation to the City Council at the October 7 meeting
concerning the Park Development. All members of the PZC
are invited.
694 INTER- Sovereign suggested that the 3M Development might be enhanced
CHANGE by an interchange on 694 to be built at the 45th Street
intersection with 694. She suggested that this would relieve
the traffic from 212 and Ideal Street.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 p.m.
THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING IS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, at 7:30
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas G. Armstrong
Secretary
OLA-
p. m.
AGENDA--PLANNING-ZONING COMMISSION
CITY OF LAKE ELMO, MINN. 55042
MEETING TO BE HELD MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1975.
7:30 P.M.
7:30 P.M.
8:15 P.M.
9:00 P.M.
Roll Call
Hearing-- Mining Permit for Eden Park --Paul Emerson
Hearing-- Washington 37 Properties & Willard Morton
Application fFir Planned Unit Development
Sewer and Development Staging. Resolution of
differences between Council and PZC on Sewer
Time Table.
9:30 P.M. Discussion Period for PZC Members
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION:
--1976 Budget --Recommendation of PZC to Council on level
funding for Planning in 1976.
Note:
Planning costs for
$ `233.94
$12,176.93
$12,400.87
1975 through August:
PZC Direct costs
(supplies etc.)
•-- Midwest Planning
--PZC Input to 3M E.T.S. Policy Input Committee
of
CITY OF LAKE ELMO
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1975
Meeting called to order at 7:43 by Vice -Chairman Williams.
PRESENT: Williams, Dreher, Lundquist, Novak, Sovereign, Armstrong.
EMERSON Mr:.. Folz and Paul Emerson made a brief presentation con -
MINING cerning the request for a special use mining permit for
PERMIT the Eden Park plat. Folz estimated that there is 10,000
PUBLIC yards of gravel on the site. This will be removed from
HEARING the area in the southwest corner where a roadway is to be
placed. The material will be rennveddown to the grade of
the road. It will then be hauled further north to an area
near Downs Lake where a crusher will be installed. 4,000
yards will be used for making the streets within the plat
and the other 6,000 yards will be hauled off -site. The
present berm between the proposed site of the crusher and
Downs Lake will be extended further south so that there
will be no errosion to Downs Lake. Hauling of the ma-
terial off -site will be done by Emerson. No neighboring
land owners were present at the hearing.
MOTION by Armstrong
That the PZC recommends approval of issuance of a mining
special use permit to mine and crush 4200 cu. yards of
Class Five gravel for use as street base on the Eden Park
Subdivision and to mine, crush and haul off -site about
6,000 cu. yards of class 5 gravel. This permit shall be
limited to 90 operating days, not to exceed July 1, 1976,
with inspection as required by the Council.
SECOND by Sovereign.
VOTE All in favor.
MINUTES MOTION by Dreher
That the Minutes of the meeting of September 9, 1975, be
approved with the following amendments:
1. At page 3, SEWERS, MOTION by Sovereign, "Alternative 4
of the Tri-Lakes Sewer Study" should be changed to
read "Facilities Plan Alternative 3".
2. At page 4, SEWERS, points 5, 6 and 7, "4" should be "3".
MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 1975 PAGE TWO
MINUTES
(Cont.)
PUBLIC
HEARING
WASHINGTON 37
AND
WILLARD MORTON
3. At LAKE ELMO SEWERS, line 4, change "area, the"
to read "area, and the".
4. At LAKE ELMO SEWERS, line 32, change "be" to read "by".
5. At LAKE ELMO SEWERS, line 35, change "preperly" to
read "properly".
6. At PARRANTO, line 4, change "Lichte" to read "Licht".
7. At PARRANTO, lines 13,14 and 17, change "Aslanitis"
to "Aslanidis".
SECOND by Sovereign.
VOTE all in favor.
Mr. Aslanidis made a brief presentation concerning the
77-1/2 acre site located at the intersection of County
Roads 17 and 70 and described as the South 1/2 of the
SW 1/4, Section 25. Aslanidis said that there is no
slope exceeding 15%. The southern portion of the property
will be heavy density, the center portion will be medium
density, townhouses, and the northern portion will be
low density housing. The eastern area will be dedicated
to park and it contains a lake. Lundquist asked what the
staging and development would be in the site. Aslanidis
answered that, if the Metropolitan Council population
estimates are correct (and in Aslanidis' opinion, the
Metropolitan Council's estimates have always been low),
the area could be developed before 1990. Parranto, upon
being questioned, explained that the east 40 acres is
owned by Willard Morton, the west 37 acres is owned by
Washington 37, which is a limited partnership comprised
of 20 to 22 limited partners, with Bob Marriott as the
general partner. Parranto Brothers is employed by both
these parties. The division of the land will be as follows:
Rights -of -way
Low density residential
Medium density residential
High density residential
(Total residential)
Neighborhood commercial
Open space
10.25 acres
12.73 acres
16.98 acres
17.41 acres
13.21%
16.40%
21. 88%
22.440
47.12 acres 60.73%
6.17 acres
14.02 acres
7.950
18.07%
MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 1975 PAGE THREE
PUBLIC Parranto stated, upon questioning by Armstrong, that the
HEARING reason that this planning was done at such an early stage
\SHINGTON 37 was that it was requested by Howard Dahlgren. Parranto
ND stated that the Council had asked Dahlgren to request that
WILLARD MORTON some plans be submitted for the property. Councilman
(Cont.) Abercrombie was present and indicated that the Council
never asked for plans and that the Council was not aware
that Parranto was developing the area until this request
was made. Parranto stated that they spent $4,000 to $5,000
on planning and the same requests had been made for the
Peltier property. Parranto went on to say that any project
like this needs three to four years advance approval by the
community in order to obtain an investor. He stated that
the front money needed is very large and that an investor
would not put up this money unless there was an indication
that the community accepted the project. Acceptance by
Lake Elmo of this area for PUD would be an indication of
the City',s approval of the concept plan and he, therefore,
would be able to get an investor to come up with the front
money for further planning. Lundquist stated that the PUD
ordinance has a three -step concept:
1. The Concept Plan
2. The PUD Permit
3. The Staging Plan
The City can require a bond at the beginning of construction
to guarantee that the entire project will be built.
There is one 2-1/2 acre area, 160 feet wide and 660 feet
deep, owned by Mr. Franklin, which Washington 37 does not
own. Parranto indicated that they made an offer for
purchase of the 2-1/2 acres and it has not yet been accepted.
Sovereign indicated that the PZC does not have the necessary
documentation as required by the Lake Elmo PUD ordinance.
Parranto replied that all the documentation had been sent
but that it was lost some place between City Clerk's Office
and the City Attorney's Office.
The following people were present:
R. B. Abercrombie, 3091 Layton Court North
Michael Ahrens (Cimarron), 901 Lake Elmo Ave. No.
Bob Marriott, Parranto Bros.
Steven Schmidt, Washington 37 Properties
Tom Roe, Washington 37 Properties
Dorothy Lyons, 10072 North loth Street
Pete Parranto, 1212 Commerce Bldg., St. Paul
Barbara L. Senness of Midwest Planning indicated that Dave
Licht and the City Attorney had discussed this request and
the PUD Ordinance and determined that this request is for a
conditional use permit. The PZC has 60 days to act after
the request was made. There was no questioning by any of
the_public present.
MEETING OF THE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 1975 PAGE FOUR
PUBLIC
HEARING
WASHINGTON 37
ID
WILLARD MORTON
(Cont.)
SEWER STAGING
PLAN
MOTION Bt Armstrong
That the Washington 37 and Willard Morton application be
tabled until the further information as required under
Lake Elmo Ordinance No. 302.030, Subdivisions B, C, D
and E is furnished.
SECOND by Grace.
VOTE all in favor.
Barbara Senness indicated that the Council had approved a
sewer staging plan, a copy of which was passed around to
the PZC members, which was different from the PZC plan.
She asked that some unified plan be adopted so that Midwest
Planning could incorporate this in the comprehensive plan.
She requested that Midwest be furnished with a copy of the
Council's plan, which was prepared by Otto Bonestroo.
PZC also requested copies of this plan.
3M Barbara Senness informed the PZC that it was required by
law to forward the change to the Lake Elmo Comprehensive
Plan to the Metropolitan Council. Abercrombie stated that
the City Attorney, Don Raleigh, had indicated to the Council
that this was not required, since the original Comprehensive
Plan of Lake Elmo had never been approved by the Metropolitan
Council.
AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPHS
MOTION by Armstrong
That the PZC request an opinion of the City Attorney con-
cerning the Commission's responsibilities as to forwarding
this change to the Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan
Council.
SECOND by Sovereign.
VOTE all in favor.
Lundquist stated that the Metropolitan Council had taken
aerial photos- of the Metro area and that these were avail-
able by contacting Tom Caswell or Kathleen Johnson of the
Council staff at 227-9421. Lundquist stated that it might
be a good idea for Lake Elmo to have two -foot contours
drawn from these maps and then to sell them to the indi-
vidual developers when the site is developed. Lundquist
will inquire further about the aerial photos and inform the
PZC.
MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 22, 1975 PAGE FIVE
BUDGET The planning costs for 1975 through August amounted to
$12,176.93 for Midwest Planning and $233.94 in other
costs. Williams asked that Councilman Abercrombie get
a breakdown of the past costs so that the PZC could
effectively put together a budget for the next year.
3M The proposed meetings on the Environmental Impact State-
E.I.S. ment of 3M were discussed. The Oakdale Planning and
Zoning Commission will be holding a meeting on Thursday,
October 9, at 7:30 p.m. in the Oakdale City Hall. This
is to determine whether their Comprehensive Plan should
be amended for the 3M Development.
ARK PLAN
MOTION by Novak
The PZC recommends that the Joint Planning Commissions
Committee of Oakdale and Lake Elmo be reactivated and
become part of the Policy Input Committee of Lake Elmo
and Oakdale; and that this Committee hold at least three
meetings previous to December 5.
SECOND by Dreher.
VOTE all in favor.
The Policy Input Committee is composed of Mayor Graske
and Councilman Hanson of Oakdale and Mayor Eder and
Councilman Abercrombie of Lake Elmo. The chairman of
the Oakdale Planning and Zoning Commission is Bill Hemmings.
The Washington County Planning Department will make a
presentation to the City Council at the October 7 meeting
concerning the Park Development. All members of the PZC
are invited.
694 INTER- Sovereign suggested that the 3M Development might be enhanced
CHANGE by an interchange on 694 to be built at the 45th Street
intersection with 694. She suggested that this would relieve
the traffic from 212 and Ideal Street.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 p.m.
THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING IS TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas G. Armstrong
Secretary
1'LANN Nfj, Z(3.NiN'G
PLANNING, ZONING 62. 5
MUNICIPAL PLANNING MEW]
462.351 Municipal planning and development; statement of policy
The legislature finds that municipalities are faced with mounting prob-
le,: s p, o7iding means of guiding future development of land so as to
inbure a safer, more pleasant and more economical environment for residential,
commercial, industrial and public activities and to promote the public health,
safety, morals and general welfare. Municipalities can prepare for anticipated
changes and by such preparations bring about significant savings in both
private and public expenditures. Municipal planning, by providing public
guides to future municipal action, enables other public and private agencies
to plan their activities in harmony with the municipality's plans. Municipal
planning will assist in developing lands more wisely to serve citizens more
effectively, will make the provision of public services less costly, and will
achieve a more secure tax base. It is the purpose of sections 462.351 to
462.364 to provide municipalities, in a single body of law, with the necessary
powers and a uniform procedure for adequately conducting and implementing
municipal planning. Laws 1965, c. 670, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, I966.
.Approved May 22, 1965.
Title of Act:
An Act relating to municipal planning
and development and providing for
zoning, official maps, subdivision regu-
lations and other official controls; re-
pealing Minnesota Statutes 1961, sec-
tions 4I2.221. subdivision 29; 462.01 to
462.11; 462.18 to 462.23; 465.21 to 465.25
and 471.26 to 471.33. Laws 1965, c. 670.
Law Review Commentaries
rand use controls. Jerome F. Fitz-
gerald, 24 Bench and Bar No. 2. p. 17
(Feb. 1967).
Zoning flexibility devices. April 1965,
49 Minn.Law Review 973.
Zoning: Minnesota supreme court
1971-1972. 1973, 57 Minn.Law Review
940.
Library references
Municipal Corporations «41.
C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 83,
84.
Index to Notes
In general 1
Review 2
1. In general
Zoning reclassification cannot be used
as a tool to depress the market value
of the property so as to defeat payment
of a just price when land is taken. San-
derson v. City of Willmar, 1968, 282
Minn. 1, 162 N.W.2d 494.
Mere public desire to improve public
condition is not enough to warrant
achieving the desire by use of zoning
power rather than eminent domain. Id.
Amendment of zoning ordinance con-
ditioned upon the successful annexation
of te lim-
its land
of the city wouas vade lid. e cOp.Atty.Gen.,
59-a-32. Oct. 8, 1970.
City could not enforce zoning ordi-
nance against school property where the
ordinance was in conflict with the law-
ful exercise of state control prescribed
by § 121.15, but the city could enforce
an ordinance against school property
which was not in conflict with the pro-
visions of the cited statute. Op.Atty.
Gen., 59-a-32, Sept. 25, 1969.
A press box constructed on a school
athletic field would not be a school
building within the meaning of § 121.15,
and would be subject to the zoning reg-
ulations of the municipality. Id.
Village zoning plan whereby endeavor
would be to preserve the 19th century
look to buildings within a small nonin-
dustrial village could be accomplished
by the adoption of a comprehensive mu-
nicipal plan pursuant to § 462.355. Op.
Atty.Gen., 477b-3, May 25, 1967.
School boards would be required to
advise a planning agency in those mu-
nicipalities which have a comprehen-
sive municipal plan of their plans to
acquire. dispose of or improve the school
district property. tut the planning
agency could not compel the school dis-
trict to comply with its, plans for com-
munity development. Op.Atty.Gen.,
161-b, Aug. 8, 1966.
2. Review
When a municipal governing body
acts under its delegated police powers
to adopt or amend a zoning ordinance,
it acts in a legislative capacity and the
scope of judicial review must necessarily
be narrow. Sun Oil Co. v. Village of
New Hope, 1974. 220 N.W.2d 256.
In order to challenge successfully a
municipal governing body's zoning de-
termination, proof must be submitted
to taking ors an h fther act on nine excess of tinal
the
powers delegated to the legislative body.
Id.
462.352 Definitions
Subdivision 1. For the purposes of sections 462.351 to 462.364 the terms
defined in this section have the meanings given them.
Subd. 2. "Municipality" means any city, including a city operating under
a home rule charter, and any town having the powers of statutory cities pur-
suant to section 368.01.
Subd. 3. "Planning agency" means the planning commission or the plan-
ning department of a municipality.
48
Subd. 4. "Platting authority" means the governing bod; _ other agency
responsible under statute or charter for the approval of plats of land within
the municipality or within its area of platting control.
Subd. 5. "Comprehensive municipal plan" means a compilation of policy
statements, goals, standards, and maps for guiding the physical, social and
economic development, both private and public, of the municipality and its
environs and may include, but is not limited to, the following: statements
of policies, goals, standards, a land use plan, a community facilities plan, a
transportation plan, and recommendations for plan execution. A comprehen-
sive plan represents the planning agency's recommendations for'the future
development of the community.
Subd. 6. "Land use plan" means a compilation of policy statements,
goals, standards, and maps, and action programs for guiding the future devel-
opment of private and public property. The term includes a plan designating
types of uses for the entire municipality as well as a specialized plan showing
specific areas or specific types of land uses, such as residential, commercial,
industrial, public or semi-public uses or any combination of such uses.
Subd. 7. "Transportation plan" means a compilation of policy statements,
goals, standards, maps and action programs for guiding the future develop-
ment of the various modes of transportation of the municipality and its
environs such as streets and highways, mass transit, railroads, air trans-
portation, trucking and water transportation, and includes a major thorough-
fare plan.
Subd. 8. "Community facilities plan" means a compilation of policy state-
ments, goals, standards, maps and action programs for guiding the future
development of the public or semi-public facilities of the municipality such
as recreational, educational and cultural facilities.
Subd- 9. "Capital improvement program" means an itemized program
setting forth the schedule and details of specific contemplated public improve-
ments by fiscal year, together with their estimated cost, the justification for
each improvement, the impact that such improvements will have on the cur-
rent operating expense of the municipality, and such other information on
capital improvements as may be pertinent.
Subd. 10. "Official map" means a map adopted in accordance with section
462.359 showing existing streets, proposed future streets and the area needed
for widening of existing streets of the municipality. An official map may
also show the location of existing and future public land 'and facilities within
the municipality. In counties in the metropolitan area as defined in Min-
nesota Statutes, Section 473B.02, Subdivision 1, official maps may for a period
of up to five years designate the boundaries of areas reserved for purposes of
soil conservation, water supply conservation, flood control and surface water
drainage and removal including appropriate regulations protecting such areas
against encroachment by buildings, other physical structures or facilities.
Subd. 11. "Governing body" in the ease of cities means the council by what-
ever name known, and in the case of a town, means the town board_
Laws1965, c. 650, § 2, eff, Jan. 1, 1966. Amended by Laws 1973, c. 123, art.
5, § 7; Laws 1974, e. 317, § 2.
1973 Amendment. Laws 1973, c. 123.
art. 5, § 7, was a general authority per-
mitting the consolidation of the terms
"villages" and "boroughs" into the
term "cities" or the substitution of the
term "statutory cites" for "villages"
and/or "boroughs."
1974 Amendment. Added the third
sentence of subd. 10 relating to metro-
politan area maps,
Cross References
Thcemptions to the subdivided land
sales act, see § 83.26.
Library references
Municipal Corporations p41.
C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 83,
84.
26 Mi1u:.S"74 .A.P-4
1 P
49
1. In general
If land cannot be used for residential
purposes as zoned, it may be unconsti-
tutional taking without due process' to
deny rezoning. Freeborn County v.
Claussen, 1972, 295 Minn- 96, 203 N.W-
2d 323.
School boards would be required to
advise a planning agency in those mu-
nicipalities which have a comprehen-
sive municipal plan of their plans to
acquire. dispose of or improve the
school district property. but the plan-
ning agency could not compel the school
district to comply with its plans for
community development Op.Atty.Gen..
161-b. Aug. 8, 1966.
-x 1..§4es Oc.10 PLANNING, ZONING
46 Authority to plan
Suudivfsion I. General authority. A. municipality may carry on com-
prehensive municipal planning activities for guiding the future develop-
ment and improvement of the municipality and may prepare, adopt and amend
a comprehensive municipal plan and implement such plan by ordinance and
other o.Tieial actions in accordance with the provisions of sections 462.351 to
Snloi. 2. Studies and reports. In exercising its powers under subdivision
1, a municipality may collect and analyze data, prepare maps, charts, tables,
and other illustrations and displays, and conduct necessary studies. A
municipality may publicize its purposes, suggestions, and findings on planning
matters, may distribute reports thereon, and may advise the public on the
planning matters within the scopes of its dugs and objectives.
Subd. 3. Appropriation and contracts. A municipality may appropriate
monies from any fund not dedicated to other purposes in order to finance its
planning activities. A municipality may receive and expend grants and gifts
for planning purposes and may enter into contracts with the federal and
state governments or with other public or private agencies in furtherance
of the planning activities authorized by sections 462.351 to 402.364. Laws
1965, c. 670, § 3, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.
Library references
Municipal Corporations C=41.
C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 83.
84.
1. Prior zoning ordinances
Where landowner owned lot which
was severed into two lots by sale, prior
Supreme Court decision established that
landowner had right to use first parcel
commercially under zoning ordinance,
and city changed zoning ordinance, and
thereafter district court rendered deci-
sion that landowner was still entitled to
use first parcel commercially, such deci-
sions did not establish any right to use
second parcel commercially even though
prior decisions were res judicata on
question of first lot. Olsen v. City of
Hopkins, 1970, 288 Minn. 25, 178 N.W.
2d 719.
Prior decision. based on repealed ordi-
nance, establishing landowner's right to
use part of lot commercially had no ef-
fect on question of whether second lot
could be used commercially under new
ordinance, and where new ordinance
was not attacked as invalid, and it
clearly set boundary which did not in-
clude landowner's lot, landowner was
not entitled to use property commercial-
ly under ordinance. Id.
462.354 Organization for planning
Subdivision i. Planning agency. A municipality may by charter or or-
dinance create a planning agency. A planning agency created by ordinance
may be abolished by two-thirds cote of aft the members of the governing
body. The planning agency shall be advisory, except as other powers and
duties are imposed on it by sections 462.351 to 462.364, by statute, by charter,
or by ordinance consistent with the municipal charter. The planning agency
may take the following alternative forms:
(1) It may consist of a planning commission, which may or may not include
municipal officials among its members. The planning commission may be
provided with staff which may be a division of the administrative structure
of the municipal government. The commission shall be advisory directly to the
governing body.
(2) It may consist of a planning department with a planning commission
advisory to it and shall function as a department advisory to the governing
body and the municipal administration, The planning department may be
provided with an executive director and other staff as in the case of other
municipal departments.
Subd. 2. Board of adjustments and appeals. The governing body of
any municipality adopting or having in effect a zoning ordinance or an official
map shall provide by ordinance for a board of appeals and adjustments. The
board shall have the powers set forth in section 462.357, subdivision 6 and
section 462.359, subdivision 4. Except as otherwise provided by charter, the
governing body may provide alternatively that there be a separate board of
appeals and adjustments or that the governing body or the planning commis-
sion or a committee of the planning commission serve as the hoard of appeals
and adjustments, and it may provide an appropriate name for the board.
The board may be given such other duties as the governing hody may direct.
PLANNING, ZONING§^`-62,:555
In any municipality where the council does not serve as _.e board, the
governing body may, except as otherwise provided by charter, provide that the
decisions of the board on matters within itsjurisdiction
are f intl. l and thsibiect
to judicial review or are final subject to appeal the-
of later judicial review or are advisors to the council. Hearings by the box""'
of appeals and adjustments shall be held within such time and upon suet
notice to interested parties as is provided in the ordinance establishing the
board. The board shall within a reasonable time make its order deciding
the matter and shall serve a copy of such the at r der
n the ipappellantrson or or
y agent or
petition-
er by mail. Any party may appear
attorney. Subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the governing
body, the board may adopt rules for the conduct of proceedings before it
Such rules may include provisions for the giving of oaths to witnesses and the
filing of written briefs by the parties. The board shall provide for a record of
nd
its proceedings which shall include the minutes of its meetings, gs,
itsifindings,
and the action taken on each matter heard by it, ding act as the board
In any municipality in which the planning agency does
notof adjustments and appeals, the board shall make no decision on an appeal or
petition until the planning agency, if there is one, or a representative author-
- ized by it has had reasonable opportunity, not to exceed 60 days, to review and
report to the board of adjustments and appeals upon the appeal or petition.
Laws 1965, e. 670, § 4, eff. Jan. 1, 1966; Subd. 2 amended by Laws 1967, c.
493, § 1, eff. play 17, 1967.
1967 Amendment. Correction bill. The powers of the board of appe la
Reference to § 462,357, sub& 6 was sub- and adjustments are set forth in §§ 462.-
5tituted for reference to ¢ 462.357, subd. 359. and 0son
5. intent ofubd. 2of this ecti
can be accomplished only by reference
to § 462.357, sub6. op' tty.Gen.. In 5
9a-
32 (Gr. #5),an.
opinion the Attorney General stated:
"A review of the Senate Journal dis-
closes that the original bill, introduced
in the Senate as S.F. ,#826, carried
the provisions now appearing es § 7
1462.3571, subd. 6, in § 7, subd. 5. A
(new) subd. 5, applicable only to cities
of the first class, was introduced before
the Committee of the Whole on'S y 12.
1965, at which time the previous subd.
5 was renumbered as subd. 6- Senate
Journal, page 1696. The Committee in-
advertently failed to correct the refer-
ence to (former) subd. 5, which occurs
in § 4 1462.3541, subd. 2-
' We conclude the intention of the leg-
islature was that § 4, subd. 2 relate to a
subdivision originally numbSectiered
4, 5s boa
Law Review Commentaries
land use controls. Jerome F. Fitz-
gerald. 24 Bench and Bar No. 2, p. 17
(Feb. 1967).
Library references
Municipal Corporations Co177.
C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 551 et
seq.
1. Construction and application
Proposed acquisition of real property
for interstate or state trunk highway
construction should be referred to the
planning agency created by h
muni-
cipality under this section prior to the
acquisition of the property. Op.Atty.
Gen., 63-b-24, Dec. 9, 1971.
A planning commission established by
a village zoning ordinance is not a plan-
ning agency within the meaning of subd.
1, so as to require a two-thirds vote of
the village council for its abolishment later renumbereu 'Theboard shall
and therefore an amendment to a village 2ns perth r
torebe interpreted to read
zoning ordinance passed by majority
vote would bee effective for this purpose. have the powers follows: forth in section 7.
Op.Atty.Gen., 110-A, Oct. 17. 1969- and section 9, subdivision s "
462.355 Preparation, adoption, and amendment et comprehensive munlclpah
plan
Subdivision I. Preparation and review. The planning agency shall pre-
pare the comprehensive municipal plan. In discharging this duty the plan-
ning agency shall consult with and coordinate the planning activities of
other departments and agencies of the municipality to insure conformity with
and to assist in the development of the comprehensive municipal plan. In
its planning activities the planning agency shall take due cognizance of the
planning activities of adjacent units of government and other affected public
agencies. The planning agency shall periodically review the plan and recom-
mend amendments whenever necessary.
Subd. 2. Procedure for plan adoption and amendment. The planning
agency may, unless otherwise provided by charter or ordinance consistent
with the municipal charter, adopt and amend from time to time a compre-
hensive Thc
municipal plan as its recommendation to the governing body.
plan may be prepared and adopted in sectios,eachsof ofwhieh the rmelates tota
major subject of the plan or to a major geographical
sn4
50
T}^-everning body may propose amendments to the comprehensive municipal
p+ y resolution submitted to the planning ageney. Before adopting the com-
prehensive municipal plan or any section or amendment of the plan, the
planning agency shall hold at least one public hearing thereon. A notice
of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published once in the
official newspaper of the municipality- at least ten days before the day of the
hearing. The proposed plan, section of the plan, or amendment shall be trans-
mitted to the governing body prior to the publication of the notice of hearing.
Adoption and amendment of the comprehensive municipal plan or of any
section thereof shall be by resolution adopted by a majority of all the members
of the planning commission.. A copy of the plan or of any section or amend-
ment thereof adopted by the planning agency shall be certified to the govern-
ing body of the municipality.
Subd. 3. Adoption by governing body. Unless otherwise provided by char-
ter, the governing body may by resolution of a majority of its members adopt
and amend the comprehensive plan or portion thereof so recommended as the
official municipal plan upon such notice and hearing as may be prescribed by
ordinance. Until so adopted by the governing body, the plan shall constitute
only the recommendation of the planning agency. Laws 1965, a 670, § 5,
eff. Jan. 1, 1966.
Library references
Municipal Corporations c2=:+41,
C.T84.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 83,
Supplementary Index to Notes
Amendment 2
Village zoning plan whereby endeavor
would be to preserve the 19th century
look to buildings within a small nonin-
dustrial village could be accomplished
by the adoption of a comprehensive mu-
nicipal plan pursuant to this section.
Op.Atty.Gen., 477b-3, May 25, 1967.
2. Amendment
4. Construction and applicationMunicipality may amend its zoning or -
Amendment to dinance in furtherance of public health,
plan which results in comprehensive tal destruction Hopkiins,safety n1970. welfare.d 288 Minn.l 25, 178 N.W.2d
or substantial diminution of value of 719.
property affected thereby without just Amend
compensation therefor constitutes a tak- meet the zoning ordinance coo-
ing of the property without due process. oftlanddlying utsidecthe scorporate lim-
Sanderson v. City of Willmar, 1968, 282 its of the city was valid. Op.Atty.Gen.,
Minn. 1, 162 N.W.2d 494.
59-s.-32, Oct. 8, 1970.
• 462.356 Procedure for plan effectuation: generally
Subdivision 1. Recommendations for plan execution. Upon the recom-
mendation by the planning ageney of the comprehensive municipal plan
or sections thereof, the planning agency shall study and propose to the
governing body reasonable and practicable means for putting the plan or
section of the plan into effect. Subject to the limitations of the following
sections, such means include, but are not limited to, zoning regulations, regu-
lations for the subdivision of land, an official map, a program for coordination
of the normal public improvements and services of the municipality, urban
renewal and a capital improvements program.
Subd. 2. Compliance with plan. After a comprehensive municipal plan
or section thereof has been recommended by the planning agency and a copy
filed with the governing body, no publicly owned interest in real property within
the municipality shall be acquired or disposed of, nor shall any capital im-
provement be authorized by the municipality or special district or agency there-
of or any other political subdivision having jurisdiction within the munici-
pality until after the planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition,
disposal, or capital improvement and reported in writing to the governing body
or other special district or agency or political subdivision concerned, its
findings as to compliance of the proposed acquisition, disposal or improvement
with the comprehensive municipal plan. Failure of the planning agency to
report on the proposal within 45 days after such a reference, or such other
period as may be designated by the governing body shall be deemed to have
satisfied the requirements of this subdivision. The governing body may, by
resolution adopted by two-thirds vote dispense with the requirements of this
subdivision when in its judgment it finds that the proposed acquisition or
52
PLANNING, ZONING 3 �2��•�v
disposal of real property or capital improvement has no rela ;hip to the
comprehensive municipal plan. Laws 1965, e. 670, § 6, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.
Library references
Municipal Corporations a41.
C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 83,
84.
1. In general
Concept, as embodied in resolution
adopting comprehensive zoning plan,
that approval of planned unit develop-
ment amends comprehensive plan to
extent that the plan is not otherwise in
conformity with it is not impermissible,
so long as procedures for securing a
permit for a planned unit development
fairly provide for airing the topic.
Chandler v. Kroiss, 1971, 291 Minn. 196,
190 N.W.2d 472.
Granting motion of city to reopen in
order to introduce additional evidence
relating to subsequent action of planning
commission approving acquisition of
land for bridges was not abuse of dis-
cretion, where ordinarily there would
not have been a trial on the merits of
taxpayer's action challenging construc-
tion of bridges until subsequent date
and where action taken was relevant to
determination of whether city had com-
plied with statutory requirements relat-
ing to planning commission review of
acquisition of property prior to author-
ization thereof. Lerner v. City of Min-
neapolis, 1969, 284 Minn. 46, 169 N.W.2d
380.
Purpose of this section is to provide
review' of overall municipal development
of planning commission, the authority
charged with responsibility of recom-
mending comprehensive land use plan
for the municipality. Id.
Where planning commission had rec-
ommended construction of bridges and
had instituted action on its own initia-
tive to amend city's land use plan to 161-b, Aug. 8, 1966.
provide for them, city, which referred
matter of acquisition of land required
for roadway connecting bridges to plan-
ning commission, and which approved
the acquisition during time hearing was
held in taxpayer's action to enjoin con-
struction of the bridges, complied with
requirements of statute that planning
agency, which was to be advisory to city
council, review acquisition and disposal
of property prior to authorization there-
of. Id.
Proposed acquisition of real property
for interstate or state trunk highway
construction should be referred to the
planning agency created by the munici-
pality under § 462.354 prior to the ac-
quisition of the property. Op.Atty.
Gen., 63-b-24, Dec. 9, 1971.
City could not enforce zoning ordi-
nance against school property where the
ordinance was in conflict with the law-
ful exercise of state control prescribed
by § 121.15, but the city could enforce
an ordinance against school property
which was not in conflict with the pro-
visions of the cited statute. Op.Atty.
Gen., 59-a-32, Sept. 25- 1969.
A. press box constructed on a school
athletic field would not be a school
building within the meaning of § 121.15.
and would be subject to the zoning reg-
ulations of the municipality. Id.
School boards would be required to
advise a planning agency in those mu-
nicipalities which have a comprehen-
sive municipal plan of their plans to
acquire, dispose of or improve the
school district property, but the plan-
ning agency could not compel the school
district to comely with its plans for
community development. Op.Atty.Gen.,
462.357 Procedure for plan effectuation; zoning
Subdivision I. Authority for zoning. For the purpose of promoting the
public health, safety, morals and general welfare, a municipality may by ordi-
nance regulate the Iocation, height, hulk, number of stories, size of buildings
and other structures, the percentage of lot which may be occupied, the size of
yards and other open spaces, the density and distribution of population, the
uses of buildings and structures for trade, industry, residence, recreation, pub-
lic activities, or other purposes, and the uses of land for trade, industry, resi-
dence, recreation, agriculture, forestry, soil conservation, water supply conser-
vation, conservation of shorelands, as defined in section I05.485, flood control
or other purposes, and may establish standards and procedures regulating
such uses. The regulations may divide the municipality into districts or
zones of suitable numbers, shape and area. The regulations shall be uniform
for each class or kind of buildings, structures or land and for each class or
kind of use throughout such district, but the regulations in one district may
differ from those in other districts. The ordinance embodying these regula-
tions shall be known as the Zoning Ordinance and shall consist of text and
maps. A city may by ordinance extend the application of its zoning regula-
tions to unincorporated territory located within two miles of its limits in any
direction, but not in a county or town which has adopted zoning regulations;
provided that where two or more noncontiguous municipalities have boundaries
less than four miles apart, each is authorized to control the zoning of land
on its side of a line equidistant between the two noncontiguous municipalities
unless a town or county in the affected area has adopted zoning regulations.
Any city may thereafter enforce such regulations in the area to the same ex-
tent as if such property were situated within its corporate limits, until the
county or town hoard adopts a comprehensive zoning regulation which includes
the area.
Subd. 2. General requirements. At any time after the adoption of a land
use plan for the municipality, the planning agency, for the purpose of carrying
53
•
§-462.357 PLANNING, ZONING
out the policies and goals of the land use plan, may prepare a proposed zoning
ordinance and submit it to the governing body with its recommendations for
adoption. Subject to the requirements of subdivisions 3, 4 and 5, the govern-
ing body may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a two-thirds vote of all
its members.
Subd. 3. Public hearings. No zoning ordinance or amendment thereto
shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the planning
agency or by the governing body. A notice of the time, place and purpose of
the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the municipality
at Ieast ten days prior to the day of the hearing. When an amendment in-
volves changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less a
similar notice shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing
to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly
within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates. For the
purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice
may use any appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of
owners. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which
the notice was sent shall be attested to by the responsible person and shall be
made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed no-
tice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not invali-
date the proceedings, provided a bona fide, attempt to comply with this subdi-
vision has been made.
Subd. 4. Amendments. An amendment• to a zoning ordinance may be
Initiated by the governing body, the planning agency, or by petition of affected
property owners as defined in the zoning ordinance. An amendment not
initiated by the planning agency shall be referred to the planning agency,
if there is one, for study and report and may not be acted upon by the
governing body until it has received the recommendation of the planning
agency on the proposed amendment or until 60 days have elapsed from the
date of reference of the amendment without a report by the planning agency.
Subd. 5. Amendment; certain cities of the first class. The provisions of
this subdivision apply to cities of the first class. In such cities amendments
to a zoning ordinance shall be made in conformance with this section but
only after there shall have been filed in the office of the city clerk a written
consent of the owners of two-thirds of the several descriptions of real estate
situate within 100 feet of the total contiguous descriptions of real estate held
. by the same owner or any party purchasing any such contiguous property
within one year preceding the request, and after the affirmative vote in favor
thereof by a majority of the members of the governing body of any such city.
The governing body of such city may, by a two-thirds vote of its members,
after hearing, adopt a new zoning ordinance without such written consent
whenever the planning commission or planning board of such city shall have
made a survey of the whole area of the city or of an area of not less than 40
acres, within which the new ordinance or the amendments or alterations of
the existing ordinance would take effect when adopted, and shall have consid-
ered whether the number of descriptions of real estate affected by such
changes and alterations renders the obtaining of such written consent imprac-
tical, and such planning commission or planning board shall report in writing
as to whether in its opinion the proposals of the governing body in any case
are reasonably related to the overall needs of the conununity, to existing land
use, or to a plan for future land use, and shall have conducted a public hear-
ing on such proposed ordinance, changes or alterations, of which hearing pub-
lished notice shall have been given in a daily newspaper of general circula-
tion at least once each week for three successive weeks prior to such hearing,
which notice shall state the time, place and purpose of such hearing, and
shall have reported to the governing body of the city its findings and recom-
mendations in writing.
Subd. 6. Appeals, and adjustments. Appeals to the board of appeals and
adjustments may be taken by any affected person upon compliance with any
reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance. The board of ap-
PLANNING, ZONING § 62.357
Note 1
peals and adjustments has the following powers with respect to the zoning
(1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in
ordinance:
any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative
officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance.
(2) To bear requests for variances from the literal provisions of the ordi-
nance in instances where their strict enforcement would cause under undue hardship
because of circumstances unique to the individual property
ra-
tion, and to grant such variances only hen i intentoof Crthated that such ae-
Lions will be in keeping with the spirit as nce. The board of appeals and adjustments or theh governing
i g body
permitted the
case may
be,
may not permit as a variance any use riot's land is located.
ordi-
nance for property in the zone where the affected pe rmil as a to a ed.
The board or governing body as the ease may be, may pe
ce
the temporary use of a one family dwelling as a two f2 ilcyond dwelling.
tions in the
board or governing body as the ease may be may rties.
granting of variances to insure compliance and to protect adjacent prope
Laws 1969, e. 670, § 7, eff. Jan_ 1, 1966. Amended
b1y Laws
c. 379, , 4,259, 1, eff.
May 1, 7L3ws 539, c. Haws 973, c. 7; Laws
§§ 1, 2.
1973 ; Laws 1973, c. 539, § 1;
1969 Amendment. Added the last two ten- Validity afaordinances 2
sentences i subd. 1 intoing to un ncor- Variance 45
sion e zoningregulations
po1973 Arend.1973.i975, Amendments. Laws authority
y 1e3-
art i5,n § 7, was a general a of the terms
Pm-
"vitingthe consolidation of tiintoe the
"villages" and "boroughs"
term 'cities" or the substitution illages"
e
term "statutory cities"
audios "b73oughs.', included -within the
purposes
s for
or zoning, Laws
1973.c. "conservation of
fn
4ands, defined in section 105.e
485,85," and added subd. 8 delineating the
extent of that authority.
Laws 1973, c. 539. inserted the third
sentence of subd. 6(2)-
Taws 1973. c. 559, increased area in
which notice must be sent to owners
property from 200 to 350 feet from the
property to which the amendment re-
lates in subd. 3, and in subd. 5 substi-
tuted "total contiguous descriptions of
real estate held by the same owner or
any party purchasing any contiguous
e
properwithin
" for"real estatepreceding affected"gym
subd. 5.
Cross References
Extent of municipal authority relat-
ing to standards. se
shoreland ev33o105-485. beyond
Zoning and subdivision regulation
within orderly annexation areas, see §
414.068.
Law Review Commentaries
Land use controls. Jerome F. Fitz-
gerald. 24 tench and Bar No- 2, p. 17
(Feb. 1967).
Minnesota's Flood Plain Management
cStguidance
land
evie
con-
trols. 1971,5Mi n.LawReview 1163.
Zoning: Minnesota supreme court
1971-1972. 1973. 57 Minn. Law Review
940.
Library references
Municipal Corporations @:=601.1.
C.J.S. Municipai Corporations §§ 224.
225. 46, 81 et seq., 201 et
C.J.S. Zoning §§ 5.
seq.
Supplementary index to Notes
In general 3
Referendum 4
Review 5
Rezoning 4.7
/z. Validity
This section and ordinance requiring
consent to rezoning by orders of two-
thirds of descriptions of real
estate
situated within 100 feet of property
sought to be rezoned did not constitute
unconstitutional delegtoation of legisla-
O'Brienuthority v. ity of Saint' Pau1,r 1970.
285 Minn. 378, 173 N.W.2d 462.
1. Construction and application
Refusal to grant property owners a
conditional use permit to construct a
gasoline service station on property in
an area zoned for industrial use was ar-
bitrary where, inter alia. the area waas
zoned for industrial purposes.
the
were two. gasoline service stations di-
rectly across the street. city planter re-
vealed that he would hapen no
hex taiion
in acquiescing use was
that owners' nonconforming
discontinued, concern for health
a nd
safety of those residing on the
was couched only in general terms, and
Where evidence supported finding that
city council'srm apparent
was totendotive then form-
fus-
ing the perm
ton u19. Enright v. City of N.W2d
ton, 1973. 295 Minn 186, 203
396.
Where city council is the final author-
ity as to whether or not a and ditional
use permit will be granted.
council has no discretion to deny the
permit if the party seeking it meets all
the standards prescribed in the ordi-
nance, refusal to grant a permit in such
circumstances Is arbitrary as a natter
of law, and mandamus will lie to compel
the council to grant the permit.
Where governing body of municipality
presented no evidence to sustain its .
finding that numberwhich of descriptions coun-
cil area
real estate affected• rendered obtaining
oil sought to rezone, tactical.
of consent from owners have acted
council could be held to
without jurisdiction in adopting ordi-
nance purporting to rezone such area.
LaCourse v. City of St. Paul, 19TE, 294
Minn. 335. 200 N.W.2d 905.
This section permitting cities of first
class to amend zoning ordinance with-
out written
real estate within 100 two-thirds
of
Ct:
a a9.363.00 PLANNING, ZONING
N^%-a 1
rt tate affected if number of de-
sc ons of real estate affected renders
obtaining of such n-ritten consent im-
practical requires council not only to
consider number of descriptions but to
base its determination on persuasive
probative evidence and same is true
with regard to city zoning code permit-
ting amendment without such written
consent after determination that the
number of descriptions affected by
changes render obtaining a written con-
sent impractical. Id.
Finding of impracticality under this
section permitting city of first class to
amend zoning ordinance without written
consent of owners of two-thirds of real
estate within 100 feet of real estate af-
fected if number of descriptions of real
estate affected renders obtaining of
' such written consent impractical and
under city zoning code to same effect
must be based on number of owners in-
volved and not simply on difficulty of
securing consent from particular own-
ers. Id.
Where zoning ordinance permitted re-
zoning for planned unit development
by means of special -use permit. land-
owner, which sought to develop entire
property, was not required to apply
for variance rather than special -use
permit, notwithstanding that multiple
dwellings were not a use permitted in
residential zone under zoning ordi-
nances. Chandler v, Kroiss, 1971, 291
Minn. 196. 190 N.W.2d 472,
Where area immediately surrounding
realty of applicant to rezone four lots
from two-family residence district to
residential -business district was devot-
ed almost entirely to single-family
dwellings. and city council wished to
preserve, for the present, the residen-
tial character of the neighborhood, city
council did not act unreasonably, ar-
bitrarily, or capriciously in denying ap-
plication to rezone the four lots to
permit a residential -business use,
though only two other properties in
one -mile strip were zoned as restric-
tively as four lots of applicant. and
value of his lots would be greatly en-
hanced if rezoned to permit residential -
business use. Iielber v, City of St.
Louis Park, 1971, 289 Minn. 456, 185
N.W.2d 526.
Even though landowner was not enti-
tled to use property for commercial pur-
poses on basis that frontage was less
than that required for residential prop-
erty and that he had sold land so that
property had less frontage, he could ap-
ply for variance or special waiver under
other provisions of zoning ordinance.
Olsen v. City of Hopkins, 1970, 288 Minn-
25, 178 N.W.2d 719.
Statute enabling municipalities to es-
tablish standards and procedures regu-
lating uses of land for trade and indus-
try implicitly confers power upon mu-
nicipalities to provide for special -use
permits, Zylka v. City of Crystal, 1969,
283 Minn. 192, 167 N lV.2d 45.
Enabling statutes and city special -use
ordinance did not require that either
planning commission or city council, in
acting upon an application for special -
use permit. accompany its decision by
findings of fact specifying reason or
reasons supporting it. Id.
Where no standards are provided. de-
cision of governing body on application
for special -use permit should be accom-
panied by findings of fact specifying
reasoning on which decision was based.
Id.
Where applicant established that nei-
ther governing body preserved any rec-
ord of hearing before it. made any find-
ings of fact or recorded any reasons for
Its action denying special -use permit,
prima facie case of arbitrariness was
established Id.
Provision of proposed zoning ordi-
nance which would give city first re-
fusal if landowners should wish to sell
would deny due process and would vio-
late prohibition against damaging or
taking private property for public use
without compensation. Sanderson v.
City of Willmar, 1963, 282 Minn. 1, 162
N.W.2d 494.
While no statute expressly or specific-
ally authorizes a municipality to enact
an amortization zoning ordinance re-
quiring removal of pre-existing noncon-
forming billboards from exclusively resi-
dential districts before stated date, such
poster must necessarily be implied to
effectuate grant of powers that author-
ize municipalities to enact ordinances
which promote general welfare of com-
munity, and which authorize municipal-
ities to create residential districts pur-
suant to comprehensive municipal plan.
Naegete Outdoor Advertising Co. of
Minn. v. Village of Minnetonka, 1968,
281 Minn. 492, 162 N.W.2d 206.
Mere fact that adoption of zoning or-
dinance reflects desire to achieve aes-
thetic ends should not in -validate an oth-
erwise valid ordinance. Id.
Zoning ordinance, which was enacted
by village pursuant to its police power,
which was part of comprehensive mu-
nicipal plan, which prohibited construc-
tion of all commercial enterprises, in-
cluding billboards, in residential dis-
tricts and which required removal of all
pre-existing billboards within a three-
year period was not so arbitrary, unrea-
sonable, or unrelated to the general wel-
fare of the community as to be uncon-
stitutional by its terms. Id.
Where restrictive ordinance that re-
quired removal of billboards at end of
three-year grace period was constitu-
tional on its face. there must have been
taking from plaintiff of some valuable
property interest without payment of
just compensation to render ordinance
unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff.
Id.
Even where reasonableness of zoning
ordinance is debatable, or where there
are conflicting opinions as to desirabil-
ity of restrictions it imposes, it is not
function of courts to interfere with leg-
islative discretion on such issues. Id.
Three-year amortization period of
zoning ordinance requiring billboard re-
moval within three years of enactment
was reasonable and not unconstitutional
on its face for failure to compensate for
removal when value of billboards would
either be extinguished before or at
end of grace period, or would equal in
value their increased worth, by virtue
of monopoly, enjoyed during statutory
period. Id.
A condominium apartment unit con-
stitutes a "description" of real estate
for purposes of the consent provision of
this section. Op.Atty.Gen. 59a-32 (Grp.
1), Dec. 18, 1973.
A cooperative apartment unit does not
constitute a "description" of real estate
for purposes of the consent provision of
this section. Id.
A county may amend its zoning ordi-
nance so that it does not apply to un-
incorporated areas within two miles of
the boundaries of a village and the vil-
lage may then extend the application of
its zoning ordinance to such areas pur-
suant to this section. Op.Atty.Gen..
469a-18. Sept 4. 1973.
Affected property owner of the city
of Minneapolis may petition under this
section for the amendment of a city
zoning ordinance relating to require-
ments as to yards and other open
spaces without complying with the re -
PLANNING, ZONING § r 62.357
Note 4.5
quirements of subd. 5 of this section sonableness and freedom from arbitrari-
relative to the filing aof nd the written
c city plant ness or 4 provision in flan zoning ordinance
of property owners,granting of cendi-
ning commission would not be Obli- which authorizes the d7i-
gated to institute a survey and other tionai use permits by majority vote of
procedures relative to areas of not less the council is valid. Op.Atty.Gen.,
than 40 acres prescribed under subd. 5. B-34. March 20. 1973.
Op.Atty.Gen., 59-a-32. Dec. 31, 1910. A zoning ordinance may validly be
Subdivision 4 of this section applies major-
ity vote ofotheguire council in the ger rann ting of
to the city of Minneapolis. Id.
A. planning commission established by conditional use permits. Id.
Amendment of oning
is not a
a villagenagency within theemean meaning of ditl ned upon the zsuccessfordinance annexation
planning § 462.354. subd. 1, so as to require a of land lying outside the corporate bin -
two -thirds vote of the village council for its of the city was valid. Op.Atty.Gen..
its abolishment and therefore an amend- 59-a-32, Oct. 8, 1970.
ment to a village zoning ordinance pass- 3. In general
ed by a majority vote would be effec- Sustaining a denial of a special use
tive for this purpose. Op.Atty.Gen., permit based on reasons not articu12trola' O
110-A, Oct. 17, 1969. by the city council is error.
City councii's amendment to a zoning Inc Minn. .City
2, of 211 Brooklyn
35&ark. 1973,
ordinance rezoning certain property
from a "residential" to a "multiple resi- Denial of application for special use
deuce" classification is an administra- permit to erect gasoline station which
tive matter which is not subject to the was compatible -with area zoned com-
referendum provisions of the city char- mercial, which conformed to require -
ter. Op.Atty.Gen., 59a„2, Oct. 7, 1968. incurs of city, which was compatible
The powers of the board of appeals with area zoned commercial. which con -
and adjustments are set forth in § 462.- formed
adjacent
chi ecru aand consistent
with
an subd. 4,a and 46 section.,subd.subd. 6, endanger public health" safety or gen-
be o intent of § by 2, can eral welfare of community was arbi-
46 accomplished,subd. only At .n..reference5 to § tray. Id.
(6 r. # subd. 1 Op6. In this
pinion Limitation of the number of one
e. Attorney Jan. en, al s. In this opinion type of business or, use in a particular
the theeal stated: area does not bear a sufficient relao-
"A review of Senate Journal dis- tionship to public health. Y
r
closes that the original bill, introduced general welfare et community to justify
in the Senate as S.F. n826, carried the denial of a special use permit. Id.
the provisions, now appearing 8S § A municipality's power to regulate
(new[462.357], subd. 6, in § 7, subd. 5. A land use by zoning exists by virtue of
(new) subd. 5, applicable only to cities authority delegatedf to
Duluth the
7i tavt9
of the first class, was introduced before Denney v. City
the Committee of the Whole on May 12, Minn. 22. 202 N 4V.2d 892.
1965, at which time the previous subd. Governing body of a municipality acts
5 was renumbered as subd. 6.•r Se�nane in a legislative and not an administra-
rice capacity when by ordinance, as re-
quired by its zoning code. it amends the
boundaries or land use classifications of
its comprehensive zoning plan. ld.
Where a municipality in the exercise
of delegated authority embarks upon a
policy of zoning for the purpose Of regu-
lating and restricting land use and the
construction of buildings within a fixed
area, it is exercising legislative power.
Id.
Journal, page 1696. The Co.._-- ref-
erence failed to correct
the
h ef-
erence to (former) subd. 5, which
in § 4 [462.3543, subd. 2.
"We conclude the intention of the leg-
islature was that § 4, subd. 2 relate to
a subdivision originally numbered 5 and
later renumbered 6. Section 4. subd. 2
should therefore be interpreted to read
in part as follows: 'The board shall
have the powers set forth in section 7,
subdivision 6 and section 9, subdivision
2. Validity of ordinances
' Neither zoning ordinance which per-
mitted village council to grant or deny
special use permit in any zoning district
and to impose conditions it considered
necessary to protect public health,
safety, and -welfareh nor ordinance whin];
related to planned unit developments _5 Variance
and which stated conditions under } This riancon does not, by implication,
prohibit the granting of nonuse vari-
froich developments
from requirementsnss might be excluoee of municipal code ances such as those of area, height, set-
ensity, and parking require -
were unconstitutionally vague and9i 91 back. dif the granting thereof is in
precise. Chandler v. Kroiss, ments,
Minn. 196, 190 d 472. keeping with the spirit and intent of
Where propertyty owner has reduced his the ordinance and it refusal to grant a
property so that it does not meet mini- variance would cause undue hardship.
mum frontage requirements of zoning Merriam Park Community Council_ Inc.
ordinance for residential property, he is c• McDonough, 1973, 297 Minn. 285, 210
not deprived of equal protection of law C bV 2d 416.
by refusal. to allow him to use property dispute justified
for commercial purposOlsen vz City determination
thatn if variances were
of 25o719. 1970, 283 Minn.S25, 178 not granted the property owner would
kC2d 719.
When safety.reasonablyne ls,related to
wel- ' circumstances ublic hardship
nethreflective of co of die
health" zoning
morals, oe g
tar a za vali ordinances are police pow- ; where setback requirement was unique
as a valid exercise of the llmar, pow' to the tract, as compared to usual er.set-
282 Sanderson 1, 162 v. City Willmar, 1968, back requirements. where off-street
Minn.. 1, lnN.W.2desare
subject parkingrequirement was amended one
Zoning ordinances co oalitto theaear ater owners application for vari-
usual legal and constitutional limiters which undue delay
polic and requirements including
affecting other ances were made,
police measures, including those of rea- was not the fault of the owner. and
4. Referendum
Since city council was under a duty to
amend the boundaries of single-family
residential zone by means of an ordi-
nance, and since such act was legisla-
tive
in nature. the amending ordinance
was subject to referendum provisions of
1972,c29 5 Min. Denney, 02 � 1G 2d of Duluth,
r-e
56
_' 462357 PLANNING, ZONING
to 4.5
-sere general state of obsolescence of
existing structures on the tract could
reasonably have been considered by city
council which granted variances as
unique to the subject tract. Id.
4.7 Rezoning
Even though there may be a signifi-
cant change in the character of the
neighborhood of property for which re-
zoning is requested, such change in it-
self does not compel a rezoning absent
probative evidence that no reasonable
use can be made of the property in its
current zoning classification. Sun Oil
Co. v. Village of New Hope, 1974. 220
N.W.2d 256.
Mere physical proximity between ex-
isting and proposed land uses does not
of itself merit a rezoning of the sub-
ject property. Id.
Change in plans of city for intersec-
tion of limited access freeway and city
street, where property was located for
which the oil company had requested a
rezoning to permit erection of a gaso-
line service station. from no interchange
to a diamond interchange, resulting in
greater traffic flow. did not compel a
- rezoning from limited business to gener-
al business as the oil company offered
no evidence to show that it could not
snake reasonable use of the property un-
der the permitted uses of the limited
business classification. Id.
Village council's denial of oil com-
pany's petition for rezoning of oil com-
pany's land to permit erection of a
service station thereon on the ground
that a service station was not the best
use of the land and was not compatible
with the councils comprehensive zon-
ing ordinance did not. without evidence
to the contrary, constitute arbitrary or
capricious action on the part of the
village council. Id.
Where village council's denial of oil
company's petition to rezone its tract of
land from limited business to general
business to allow erection of a gasoline
service station was based upon a legis-
lative determination to perpetuate the
council's preexisting comprehensive zon-
ing ordinance which was not proven in-
valid nor shown to deny petitioner a
reasonable use of its land. the village
council should not have been ordered
to rezone the tract. Id.
5. Review
Where reasonableness of zoning ordi-
nance is debatable or where opinions
differ as to desirability of restriction it
imposes, courts are not to interfere
with legislative discretion. Freeborn
County v. Claussen, 1972. 295 Minn.
96, 203 N. W.2d 323.
462.3513 Procedure for plan effectuation: subdivision regulations
Subdivision 1- Authority to regulate. To provide for orderly, economic,
and safe development of land and urban services and facilities, and to
promote the public health safety, morals and general welfare, a municipality
may adopt subdivision regulations which include minimum physical standards
and design requirements as to such urban services and facilities, and proce-
dures for plat approval, including a procedure for appeals from actions of
the platting authority. Subdivision regulations shall be adopted by ordinance
when the governing body is the platting authority and by resolution when the
platting authority is an agency other than the governing body. A municipality
may by resolution extend the application of its subdivision regulations to un-
incorporated territory located within two miles of its limits in any direction
but not in a town which has adopted subdivision regulations; provided that
where two or more noncontiguous municipalities have boundaries less than
four miles apart, each is authorized to control the subdivision of land equi- -
distant from its boundaries within this area.
Subd. 2. Terms of regulations. Subdivision regulations shall require that
a proposed subdivision plat shall be in conformity with the official map if
such exist. In establishing requirements for the location and width of
streets, the municipality shall take into consideration anticipated traffic
needs and the prospective character of the development and make any reason-
able requirements therefor. As a condition to the approval of any subdivision
plat of lands to which the regulations apply, subdivision regulations may pre-
scribe requirements concerning the extent and manner in which streets shall
be graded and improved, and electric and gas distribution lines or piping, wa-
ter, sewer, or other facilities shall be installed. The regulations may provide,
or authorize the governing body or other platting authority to provide, that,
in lieu of the completion of such work before the final approval of the plat,
the governing body or platting authority may accept or require- a contract se-
cured by a cash deposit, certified check, or a bond in an amount and with
surety and conditions satisfactory to it, to assure the municipality that such
improvements and utilities will be actually constructed and installed ac-
cording to the specifications approved by the governing body or platting
authority as expressed in the contract; and the municipality may enforce
such contracts by appropriate legal and equitable remedies. The subdi-
vision regulations may require that in appropriate plots of subdivisions to be
developed for residential, commercial, industrial or other uses, or as a
planned development which includes residential, commercial and industrial
PLANNING, ZONING s 462.358
rises, or any combination thereof, that a reasonable portion of each proposed
subdivision be dedicated to the public for public use as parks, playgrounds,
public open space, or storm water holding areas or ponds, or that the subdivi-
der contribute an equivalent amount in cash based on the fair market value
of the undeveloped land, as defined by the regulations, provided that cash
payments received under such regulations shall be placed in a special fund by
the municipality and used only for the acquisition of land for parks, play-
grounds, public open spaee and storm water holding areas or ponds, develop-
ment of existing park and playground sites, public open space and storm wa-
ter holding areas or ponds, and debt retirement in connection with land pre-
viously acquired for such public purposes. The subdivision regulations, in
setting forth the reasonable portion of each proposed subdivision to be dedi-
cated to the public for public use as provided above, may take into considera-
tion the open space, park, recreational or common areas and facilities which
the subdivider has provided for the exclusive use of the residents of the sub-
division.
A. municipality may, through subdivision regulations, prohibit or restrict
- development for purposes of soil and water conservation. Such soil and
water conservation regulations may call for site development plans with
provisions for the control of drainage, erosion, and siltation.
Subd. 3. Plat approval. After a municipality adopts subdivision regula-
tions, copies of the regulations shall be filed with the county register of deeds
as provided in sections 462,351 to 462.364. Thereafter, no subdivision plat
for land within the area to which the regulations are applicable shall be
filed or accepted for filing unless it is accompanied by Certified copy of
the resolution approving it. Before a subdivision plat is approved, it shall
'be reviewed by the platting 'authority as to its conformity to subdivision
regulations. The platting authority may provide that proposed plats and
subdivision developments be referred to the planning agency for review
and recommendation. Unless otherwise provided by law or charter, prior
to the approval of a plat by the platting authority, a public hearing shall
be held thereon after notice of the time and place thereof has been pub-
lished once in the official newspaper at least ten days before the day of
the hearing. At the hearing all persons interested in the plat shall be
heard and the platting authority may thereafter approve or disapprove the
plat but failure of the platting authority to act on the application within n
60 days is deemed approval. The grounds for any refusal to approve
plat shall be set forth in the proceedings of the platting authority and re-
ported to the applicant. After approval a plat may be 'filed or recorded as
otherwise provided by law.
Subd. 4. Restrictions on filing and recording conveyances. In a munici-
pality in which subdivision regulations are in force and have been filed or
recorded as provided in this section, no conveyance of Iand to which the regu-
lations are applicable shall be filed or recorded, if the land is described in
the conveyance by metes and bounds or by reference to an unapproved regis-
tered land survey made after April 21, 1961 or to an unapproved plat made
after such regulations become effective. The foregoing provision does not
apply to a conveyance if the land described:
(1) was a separate parcel of record April 1, 1945 or the date of adoption of
subdivision regulations under Laws 1945, Chapter 287,1 whichever is the later,
or of the adoption of subdivision regulations pursuant to a home rule char-
ter, or -
(2) was the subject of a written agreement to convey entered into prior to'
such time,
(3) was a separate parcel of not less than two and one-half acres in area
and 150 feet in width on January 1, 1966 or is a single parcel of land of not
less than five acres and having a width of not less than 300 feet.
In any case in which compliance with the foregoing restrictions will create
an unnecessary hardship and failure to comply does not interfere with the
purpose of the subdivision regulations, the platting authority may waive such
compliance by adoption of a resolution to that effect and the conveyance may
FR
S 462,358 PLANNING, ZONING
-n be fled or recorded. Any owner or agent of the owner of land who con-
veys a lot or parcel in violation of the provisions of this subdivision shall for-
feit and pay to the municipality a penalty of not less than $100 for each lot
or parcel so conveyed. A municipality may enjoin such conveyance or may
recover such penalty by a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction.
Subd. 5. Permits. Except as otherwise provided by this section all elec-
tric and gas distribution lines or piping, roadways, curbs, walks and other
similar improvements shall be constructed only on a street, alley or other
public way or easement which is designated on an approved plat, or properly
indicated on the official map of the municipality, or which has otherwise been
approved by the governing body. When a municipality has adopted an official
map, no permit for the erection of any building shall be issued unless the build-
ing is to be located upon a parcel of land abutting on a street or highway
which has been designated upon an approved glat or on the official snap or
which has been otherwise approved by the governing body, and unless the
buildings conform to the established building line. This limitation on issu-
ing permits shall not apply to planned developments approved by the govern-
ing body pursuant to its zoning ordinance. No permit shall be issued for the
construction of a building on any lot or parcel conveyed in violation of the
provisions of this section.
Subd. 6. Variances. Subdivision regulations may provide for a procedure
for varying the regulations as they apply to specific properties where an un-
usual hardship on the land exists but variances may be granted only upon
the specific grounds set forth in the regulations.
Subd. 7. Vacation. The governing body of a municipality may vacate any
publicly owned utility easement or boulevard reserve or any portion thereof,
which are not being used for sewer, drainage, electric, telegraph, telephone,
gas and steam purposes or for boulevard reserve purposes, in the same man-
ner as vacation proceedings are conducted for streets, alleys and other public
ways under a home rule charter or other provisions of law.
A boulevard reserve means an easement established adjacent to a dedicated
street for the purpose of establishing open space adjacent to the street and
,which area is designated on the recorded plat as "boulevard reserve".
Subd. 8. Plat approval under other caws. Nothing in this section is to be
construed as a limitation on the authority of municipalities which have not
adopted subdivision regulations to approve plats under any other provision of
law.
Laws 1965, c. 670, § 8, eff. Jan. 1, 1966. Amended by Laws 1971 c. 842, § 1,
eff. June 5, 1971; Laws 1973, c. 67, § 1; Laws 1973, c. 176, § 1.
t See former §§ 471.28-471.31 and 471.323.
1971 Amendment. Rewrote the fifth 36 acres. contribute an equivalent
sentence of subd. 2 which formerly amount in cash based on the undevel-
read: aped land value, as defined by the regu-
The subdivision regulations may re- lations, provided that cash payments re-
quire that in appropriate plots of sub- ceived under such regulations shall be
divisions to be developed for residential placed in a special fund by the mu -
uses that a reasonable portion of each nicipality and used only for the acqui-
proposed subdivision be dedicated to the sition of land for parks and play -
public for public use as parks. and play- grounds. development of existing park
grounds, or that the subdivider at his and playground sites, and debt retire -
option contribute an equivalent amount ment in connection with land previously
in cash as defined by the reg-ulations. acquired for parks and playgrounds.
provided that cash payments received In residential subdivisions of less than
under such regulations shall be placed 30 acres, the subdivision regulations
in a special fund by the municipality may provide that the subdivider, at the
and used only for the acquisition of municipality's option, in lieu of the
land for parks and playgrounds." dedication of land for public use, con -
Added the last two sentences to subd. tribute an equivalent amount in cash
2. based on the undeveloped land value as
1973 Amendments. Laws I973. a 176, defined by the regulations, for use as
rewrote the fifth sentence and deleted above provided?'
the former sixth sentence of subd. 2 Laws 1973. c. 67 added the paragraph
which read: of subd. 2 allowing the prohibition or
The subdivision regulations may re- restriction of developments for pur-
quire that in appropriate plots of sub- poses of soil and water conservation.
divisions to be developed for residential Library references
uses that a reasonable portion of each Municipal Corporations em41-43, 621,
proposed subdivision be dedicated to the 690.
public for public use as parks, and C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 83.
playgrounds, or that the subdivider at 84, 167-175.
his option in subdivisions in excess of C.J.S. Zoning §§ 219-249, 1740.
PLANNING, ZONING § 462.359
3, of this section. 0, .y.Gen., 63b-
1, In general lication of its 24, Jan. 31. 1968.
If a o regulations,guthe application rove- A law or charter which did not pro-
refor
subdivision apvalincluding p
sur?s otPlut apprpursuantterritory to this - precedenDe hover noticeld not
subd. 3
ke
section cated it inunincorporatedmilf
limits of
other -
when the towntwo
in which such tt territory wise iprovided- u lause.nder reId.
"unless
lies has not adopted the subdivision reg- regulations adopted by
aons but the cowould unty the has, the platting body city ofL fourth class pursuant tot formeap-
§; 4TL26-471.33, which extended the ap-
authoritytherdesignated agencyofithebc ty pileation of the regulations for one mile
and the county's authority in this re- beyond the city limits remained in effect
following the repeal of the §§ 47 26-
g tort' 15lq be superseded.Op.tato the 559a-be
23 Dec..n question. Op. 4tty.Gen., ati e3 andcouldaction of ra-:dtown by pthe
32, D1. 1aT2. ula-
A city may, pursuant to this section adoption of its own subdivision 29,
rxtendegula application of its d erritiry [ions. Op.Atty.Gen., 59a-32.
regulations to unincorporated territory 1967-
of'Municipality which had accepted deeds
located within two miles uch to its y Bess to certain lands without the formalities
when town in subdivision is on to sectionsations 505.01 et seq. or statu-
has not adoptedrequired by § pursuant to an ordi-
but county has, pursuant to tort' dedication
505.13 to 3ted s, such regulations.sections 503.09. to nance drafted in the nature of the
50The adopted sixty-day
pecId. authorization of Subd. 2, of this section
The sf tyi period in which in relating to the acceptance of land for
subd. 3 of this Acton within which a avoidd use as parks and playgrounds in con -
automatic must act in order n tnection with the approval of a subdi-
crutfn f theeva7 wouldbegin at the vision plat, could not sell its interest
63-b-25.conclusion Jan. hearing.69Op.Atty.Gen., in the land since the fee had as a
Inthe nof
matter of law, even though not so
In absence of time
rBthe re- - designated in the deeds. been reserved
lion of a period of time after approval in the dedicators, leaving the city with
c
within
of hl h theatith for plat must hold an easement for playground or park
within warin . authority a
publ
u uses. Op.AttY•Gen.. 59a-40, April
issueec hearing, notice t hearing should 1 rD
within 0 t. reasonable time d 14, 1bdi regulations adopted under
the receipt of the application, and could Subdivision
be compelled . an action in the nature the 19e5 MunicipalihPlanning Act need
only be filed with the register of deeds.
of mandamus. Id. or- and need not be recorded against in -
Subdivision regulationmaprovisited on for dividual parcels of property in a tract
hearingand which made no p 21, 19ed.
hearing ariagnoticelof hearing prior to indextGen., t59a-54. Oct odeeds. p
plat approval wring provisionsbe controlled bys the
notice and hearing of subd-
462.359 Procedure for plan effectuation; official maps
Subdivision I. Statement of purpose. Land that is needed for future
street purposes and as sites for other necessary public facilities and serv-
ices is frequently diverted to non-public uses which could have been locat-
ed on other lands without hardship or inconvenience to the owners. When
this happens, public uses of land may be denied or may be obtained later only
at prohibitive cost or at the expense of dislocating the owners and occupants
of the land. Identification on an official neap of land needed for future pub-
lic uses permits both the public and private property owners to adjust their
building plans equitably and conveniently before investments are made which
will make such adjustments difficult to accomplish.
Subd. 2. Adoption. After the planning agency has adopted a major thor-
oughfare plan and a community facilities plan, it may, for the purpose of
carrying out the polities of the major thoroughfare plan and community facil-
ities plan, prepare and recommend to the governing body a proposed official
map covering the entire municipality or any portion thereof. The governing
body may, after holding a public hearing, adopt and
c men the end the offs pal snap
- by ordinance. A notice of the time, place'and p Po
be published in the official newspaper of the municipality at least ten days
prior to the date of the hearing. The official map or maps shall be prepared
in sufficient detail to permit the establishment of the future acquisition lines
on the ground. In unplatted areas a minimum of a centerline survey shall
have been made prior to the preparation of the final draft of the official map.
The accuracy of the future acquisition lines shown on the official map shall
be attested to by a registered land surveyor.
After
adoptingadoption,
o a copce y of the
official map, or sections thereof with a copy
of theed shall be filed with the register of deeds as provided in sections 462.351 to
462.364. the Subd. 3. Effect. After an official map has been adopted and filed,
is-
suance of building permits by the municipality shall be subject to the provi-
sions of this section. Whenever any street or highway is widened or improved
61
g_443Z,50 PLANNING, ZONING -
.ny new street is opened, or interests in Iands for other public purpose:.
are acquired by the municipality, it is not required in such proceedings to pay
for any building or structure placed without a permit or in violation of con-
ditions of a permit within the limits of the mapped street or outside of any
building line that may have been established upon the existing street or with-
in any area thus identified for public purposes- The adoption of an official
map does not give the municipality any right, title, or interest in areas iden-
tified for public purposes thereon, but the adoption of the map does authorize
the municipality to acquire such interests without paying compensation for
buildings or structures erected in such areas without a permit or in violation
of the conditions of a permit.
Subd. 4. Appeals. If a permit for a building in such location is denied,
the board of appeals and adjustments shall have the power, upon appeal filed
with it by the owner of the land, to grant a permit for building in such loca-
tion in any ease in which the board finds, upon the evidence and the arguments
presented to it, (a) that the entire property of the appellant of which such
area identified for public purposes forms a part cannot yield a reasonable re-
turn to the owner unless such a permit is granted, and (b) that balancing the
interest of the municipality in preserving the integrity of the official map and
of the comprehensive municipal plan and the interest of the owner of the
property in the use of his property and in the benefits of ownership, the grant
of such permit is required by considerations of justice and equity. In addi-
tion to the notice of hearing required by section 462.354, subdivision 2, a notice
shall be published in the official newspaper once at least ten days before the
day of the hearing. If the board of appeals and adjustments authorizes the
issuance of a permit the governing body or other board or commission having
jurisdiction shall have six montbs from the date of the decision of the board
to institute proceedings to acquire such land or interest therein, and if no such
proceedings are started within that time, the officer responsible for issuing
building permits shall issue the permit if the application otherwise conforms
to local ordinances. The board shall specify the exact location, ground area,
height and other details as to the extent and character of the building for
which the permit is granted. Laws 1965, c. 670, § 9, eff, Jan. 1, 1966.
Library references
Municipal Corporations G-41, 42, 621,
650.
C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 83,
84. 1, 1658.
JZonin
C. .S. Zoning §§ 219-249.
I. Construction and application
Residential zoning ordinance may con-
stitutionally prohibit creation of non-
conforming uses but existing noncon-
forming uses must either be permitted
to remain or be eliminated by use of
eminent domain; preexisting noncon-
forming uses need not be allowed to ex-
pand or enlarge. Freeborn County v.
Claussen, 1972. 295 Minn. 96, 203 N.W.2d
323.
That defendant's brother conducted
similar nonconforming business on adja-
cent land and that enclosing within
building that which was formerly per-
formed in open would be aesthetically
beneficial did not overcome presumption
that legislative body acted reasonably
and in manner consistent with general
welfare in refusing to rezone to permit
construction of building to house
earth -moving equipment which had
been kept in open as nonconforming
use. Id.
If land cannot be used for residential
purposes as zoned, it may be unconsti-
tutional taking without due process to
deny rezoning. Id.
The powers of the board of appeals
and adjustments are set forth in § 462.-
357. subd. 6, and subd. 4 of this section,
and the intent of § 462.354, subd. 2, can
be accomplished only by reference to §
462.357, subd. 6. Op.Atty.Gen., 59a-32
(Gr. #5). Jan. 13, 1966. In this opinion
the Attorney General stated:
"A review of the Senate Journal dis-
closes that the original bill, introduced
in the Senate as S.F. #826, carried the
357] subd. 6, in§ 7. subd. 5. rovisions. now aearinas§A 7(new)
subd. 5, applicable only to cities of the
first class, was introduced before the
Committee of the Whole on May 12.
1965. at which time the previous subd.
5 was renumbered as subd. 6. Senate
Journal. page 1696. The Committee
inadvertently failed to correct the ref-
erence to (former) subd. a', which oc-
curs in § 4 [462.3541, subd. 2.
"We conclude the intention of the leg-
islature was that § 4. subd. 2 relate to a
subdivision originally numbered 5 and
later renumbered 6. Section 4. subd. 2
should therefore be interpreted to read
in part as follows: 'The board shall
have the powers set forth in section 7.
subdivision 6 and section 9, subdivision
462.36 Certified copies filed with register of deeds
Subdivision 1. Required documents. A certified copy of every ordinance,
resolution, map, or regulation adopted under the provisions of sections
PLANNING, ZONING § 462.362
462.358 and 462.359 and amendments thereto shall be filed -it the regis-
ter
r
ality
it is located.a counties Ordinances, resolutions,maps or reguiat o s fiI dpwith theopting rregis-
ter of deeds pursuant to this subdivision do not constitute encumbrances on
real property- authorities. A cops of a com-
Subd. 2. Filing with contiguous planning
prehensive plan adopted by a planning agency under the provisions of sections
462.351 to 463.364 shall be filed withthe governing body of each contiguousmunicipality and with the regional planning agency, if any, established to
is
serve the area in which the municipality Copies of located,
Subd. 3. Piat approval:resolutions approving subdivision
filing.
plats of land within a municipality, but contiguous to another municipality
shall be filed with the governing body of the contiguous municipality. Copies
of resolutions approving subdivision plats of land outside a municipalitybut
subject to its subdivision regulations shall be filed -with Laws 1965, e. 670, § 10, thef. clan if the town
in which the land is situated. _ 7 to general
Library references }S 42. 109-Subdivision regulations adopted under
Municipal Corporations oGnthe 1565 Municipal Planning Act need
Cis. Municipalipnal Corporations 5§ 83• only be filed with the register ofeeds.
84, 426. - and need not be recorded against
- in-
dividual parcels of property in a tract
Ate register of deeds, Op.
yGen-, of59aa 54, Oct, 1, 1966.
462.361 Judicial review person aggrieved by an ordi-
nance, 1. Review of action. Any P
rule, regulation, decision or order of a governing body or board of
adjustmentsesuchordinance, ud appels acn pd eision or order, nt to sections rev ewed by an2.351 to 6appro-
prla such drule,regulation,
priate remedy in the district court, subject to the provisions of this section.
Subd. 2. Exhaustion of remedies. In actions brought under this section, has
a
municipality may raise as a defense the fact
ethat
f p,heecureslaning as toy
him
not attempted to remedy his grievance by n
462.364, if the purpose
court underordinance
that remediesunder
for that such have not been exhaust
ed, it
shall require the complaining party to pursue those remedies unless it finds
that the use of such remedies would serve no useful purpose under the cir-
cumstances of the ease. Laws 1965, c. 670t§T11,1, s wJan.n. proof,966.
mu n be submitted to
Library references Administrative Law and Procedure establish either an unconstitutional tak-
ing or an action in excess of the powers
�}cseq. 121. delegated to the legislative body. Id.
Municippall Corporations G�41, 88 Zoning board's decision that ordinance
C.J.S. 8 et Municipal Corporations §§ did not allow property owners to
use
84, 428 et sefl- property for commercial purp review -
quasi -Judicial" and, therefore, of
C.J. and public Administrative Bodies able by certiorari. Olsen v. City
Procedure § 160 et Seq. 19908N.W.
Hopkins, 288 Minn.3Iinn, 25,
I. In general 2d 719.
Where trial court
(had d€cidedfithat
landowner had rig
ng
station, a commercial use. on property
and there was no appeal, issue was not
before Supreme Court on appeal of volv-
ing question of whether part
which was severed by sale could be used
commercially, anI and
trial court's decision
reswas
When a municipal governing body n powers acts
under its delegated police to
adopt or amend a zoning
it
acts in a legislative capacity and the
scope of judicial review must neces-
sarily be narrow.
S n0 011
NCo. v. v 256.
llage
of New Hope,
In order to challenge successfully a
municipal governing body's zoning de-
462.362 Enforcement and penalty
Arounieffiality
adoPted unday by er sectioninance s 462.351 ovide for e462.364ea dtpro�denor red rovision
penal-
ties for violation thereof. A municipality may also enforce any P
of sections 462.351 to 462.364 or of any ordinance adopted thereunder
by of man-
mpe-
damus, injunction, or any other appropriate
eff. Jan. rem 1966.
Law tent jurisdiction. Laws 1965, e. 670, §
Law Review Commentaries
Land use controls. Jerome F. Fitz-
geraidi7 . Feb. 1967, 24 Bench and Bar of
Minn.
57