Agenda Packets - 2009/10/26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Pale 2 of 3 59a-32 (Cr. Ref, 441h; 477b-34) Subd. 2. GENEkIAiJ R]EQUIR ME' NTS . Q At any time after the adoption of a land use plan for the municipality, the Planning agency, for the purpose of carrying 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. (b1 Subject to the requirements of subdivisions 3, 4 and 5 , the governing body may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a maajQr� vote of all its membersffhe adoption or amendment of any_Podijon of a zoning_ordinancc which cban&es all Qr P-art of the existing classificattaof a z_Qning dist?ict from residential tuber cc�mrircrcial or industnat reMir—es a two thirds m;aj0rity vote of all me�pbers of the overning bow (c) The land use plan must provide guidelines for the timing and development sequence of the and adoption of official controls to ensure planned, orderly , g redevelopment consistent with the land use plan. (Underlined material added by amendment.) Therefore, after the effective date of the 2001 amendment, there appears no remaining statutory authority for imposition of a twoAhirds voting requirement for municipal zoning enactments other than those clianging residential classification to commercial or industrial. Rather, a majority of the members of each city council is statutorily authorized to adopt or amend zoning ordinances. Second, the fact that the statutory language is permissive in nature does not authorize the city to impose conditions or restrictions at variance with those expressly provided by statute. Cf., MS Investment Co. v. County of Dakota, 494 N .W.2d 64 (Mimi. Ct. App. 1992) (County board did not have authority to impose limits on their own statutory jurisdiction to consider tax abatement applications). Nor may a council, by ordinance, impair or divest its successors' legislative power_ See, e.g: , Minneapolis Street Raihvay Co. contract surrender or ty of Minneapolis, police Minn, power) ; .Fianna v. Rath ye, 1 353 71 (Municipal corporation cannot, by N.W.2d 876 (Ia. 1969) (City zoning ordinance could not impair successors' authority to ainend) ; 4, McQuilUu, Municipal Corporations § 13 .03 . 15 (3rd Ed. ). Finally , it is our opinion that the statutory provision for enacting or amending zoning ordinances by a majority vote supercedes any contrary provision that might be found in a citys charter. pursuant to the Constitution,il ) the legislature has granted city residents substantial authority to adopt home-rule charters, to empower and direct the governance of their c ities and to provide for city legislation on matters of municipal concern. See Minn. Stat. § 410.07 (2000) State ex reZ Town of Lowell v. City e Crookston, 252 Minn. 526, 91 N.W.2d 81 (1958). That grant of power does not,. however, impair the ultimate power of the legislature to pre-empt local authority on matters it considers t Asetofmatters of concern. Id. , Lilly v. City of Minneapolis, 527 N.W.2d 107 (Minn.of se App. ) e provision followed rather than any conflicting local enactment Minn. Sta. § 462.351 specifically states: ctions 4623) 51 et seq. hould be followed, It is the purpose of sections 462.351 to 462 -364 aouniform municipalities, in ocedure, foiv adequately a single body of law, with the necessary powers conducting and implementing municipal planning• Furthermore, section 462 .352 defines the term municipality for purposes of sections 462 .351 to 462364 to mean, "any city, including a city operating under a home rule charter • • • " IVV-d 900/999 ' d 1VV-1 018B188Z19+ UPAEJ/ I ApBLUSA® WOAd Wgi Vp-1Z-idv