CC_Minutes_2004_0809 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Dennis Welsch August 9, 2004 Page 2 Other materials reviewed by this office deal with the chronological history of actions within Twin Lakes, and involve various actions taken by the council over several years period of time. We reviewed a resolution approved an amendment to the comprehensive plan map designation for the Twin Lakes area from B (Business) and I (Industrial) to BP (Business Park). We have reviewed the Twin Lakes redevelopment area project Roseville comprehensive plan document, constituting the Twin Lakes Business Park master plan amendment to the comprehensive plan. We reviewed the Roseville City Code, in particular Section 1005.07 regarding mixed use Business Park Districts. We also reviewed a number of Minnesota statutes and cases. With the above in mind, you asked the following: ~UESTI41®T 1. By changing a supplement such as the site specific master plan, is the city actually changing the comprehensive plan? 2. Is there a difference between the council vote necessary for an amendment to the comprehensive plan and a supplement or appendix to the Twin Lakes Master plan? I)ISCUSSI®N A comprehensive municipal plan is a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards and maps for guiding the physical, social and economic development of a municipality. It may include, but is not limited to, statements of policies, goals, standards; a land use plan; a community facilities plan; a transportation plan; and a recommendation for plan execution. A comprehensive plan merely represents the planning agency's recommendation for the future development of the community. See Minn. Stat. § 462.352, subd. 5. Under Minn. Stat. § 462.355, subd. 3, to either adopt or amend a comprehensive plan there must be a resolution passed by atwo-thirds vote of all of the members of the governing body. In the case of Roseville, a municipality with a five person council, meeting this requirement meets a vote of four out of five of the members of the city council. Generally speaking, a comprehensive plan has no regulatory effect. Minnesota, like a majority of jurisdictions, treats a comprehensive plan as advisory, notwithstanding statutory or ordinance provisions that require that zoning ordinances or zoning decisions be "consistent with" or "in accordance with" a comprehensive plan. See, ~, PPL v. Chisago Count Board of Commissioners, 656 N.W.2d 567 (Minn. App. 2003). There are a number of cases that have examined comprehensive plans in a number of different circumstances and under a number of different fact patterns. Out of those cases comes the concept that comprehensive plans are