Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Other bv this office deal the <br />.; <br /> <br />within Twin Lakes, and involve various actions taken by the council over several years period <br />of time. We reviewed a resolution approved an amendment to the comprehensive plan map <br />designation for the Twin Lakes area from B (Business) and I (Industrial) to BP (Business <br />Park). We have reviewed the Twin Lakes redevelopment area project RoseviHe <br />comprehensive plan document, constituting the Twin Lakes Business Park master plan <br />amendment to the comprehensive plan. We reviewed the RoseviHe City Code, in particular <br />Section 1005.07 regarding mixed use Business Park Districts. We also reviewed a number of <br />Minnesota statutes and cases. <br /> <br /> <br />With the above in mind, you asked the following: <br /> <br />QUESTION <br /> <br />1. By changing a supplement such as the site specific master plan, is the city actually <br />changing the comprehensive plan? <br /> <br />2. Is there a difference between the council vote necessary for an amendment to the <br />comprehensive plan and a supplement or appendix to the Twin Lakes Master plan? <br /> <br />DISCUSSION <br /> <br />A comprehensive municipal plan is a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards <br />and maps for guiding the physical, social and economic development of a municipality. It may <br />include, but is not limited to, statements of policies, goals, standards; a land use plan; a <br />community facilities plan; a transportation plan; and a recommendation for plan execution. A <br />comprehensive plan mer~epresents the planning agency's recommendation for the futJlre <br />~~munity. See Minn. Stat.94b2~352, subd:Tunder Minn. Stat. <br />~ 462.355, subd. 3, to either adopt or amend a comprehensive plan there must be a resolution <br />passed by a two-thirds vote of all of the members of the governing body. In the case of <br />~,___ 1t <br />RoseviHe, a municipality with a five person council, meeting this requirement meets a vote of <br />out of five of the members of the city council. <br /> <br />Generally speaking, a comprehensive plan has no regulatory effect. Minnesota, like a <br />majority of jurisdictions, treats a comprehensive plan as advisory, notwithstanding statutory or <br />ordinance provisions that require that zoning ordinances or zoning decisions be "consistent <br />with" or "in accordance with" a comprehensive plan. See, e.g., PPL v. Chisago County Board <br />of Commissioners, 656 N.W.2d 567 (Minn. App. 2003). There are a number of cases that have <br />examined comprehensive plans in a number of different circumstances and under a number of <br />different fact patterns. Out of those cases comes the concept that comprehensive plans are <br />