Laserfiche WebLink
Land Use and Zoning-Legal Review <br /> Planning Commission Meeting <br /> May 13,2003 <br /> Page 17 <br /> • validate the potential contract or conditional zoning. See City of <br /> Mahtomedi v. Spychalla,243 N.W.2d 31 (Minn., 1976);Housing and <br /> Redevelopment Authority for Lincoln County v.Jorgenson, 328 <br /> N.W.2d 740 (Minn., 1983). The Minnesota courts have not reversed <br /> or invalidated a local government zoning action by finding it an illegal <br /> contract or conditional zoning. Furthermore,the Attorney General <br /> has issued an opinion concluding that the amendment of a zoning <br /> ordinance conditioned upon the successful annexation of land lying <br /> outside the corporate limits of the city is valid. (Op.,A.G. 59-a-32, <br /> October 8, 1970). <br /> 2.Planned Unit Developments. Although Minnesota law does not <br /> expressly authorize Planned Unit Development ("PUD") <br /> Agreements,Minn. Stat. §462.3593 does authorize the approval of <br /> PUDs as conditional uses, and Minn. Stat. §462.358, subd. 2(a) and <br /> 3(c) authorize municipalities to enter into development agreements, <br /> including agreements which provide for "planned and staged <br /> development". The courts have also acknowledged the validity of <br /> PUDs as conditional uses or overlay zones, and there is little doubt <br /> PUDs are a valid planning tool in Minnesota. <br /> • GP:930289 vl <br /> III <br />