2004_1025_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

October 14, 2004 Page 2 attorneys who extensively practice in the area of land use, might have different opinions. I think that � because of the nature of the comprehensive plan, how it fits in with the general scheme of a land use �� development and control, and the scant nature of definitive law in interpreting a comprehensive plan, that it is easy to overlook the nuances of the cases examining a comprehensive plan and its effect. I was aware of all of the citations that were set forth in the e-mail that I received from Council Member Ihlan on October 8 when I rendered the August 9 opinion. We have reviewed the law, as well as numerous cases on this point. In addition, and as my letter of August 9 stated, I reviewed the resolution that approved an amendment to the comprehensive plan map designation for the Twin Lakes area. I reviewed the Twin Lakes redevelopment area project comprehensive plan document. I reviewed the Roseville City Code, in particular Section 1005.07 regarding mixed use business park districts. I confirmed that the area that would involve the Twin Lakes development is designated as Business Park (BP) under the Roseville Comprehensive Plan. And I kept in mind Minnesota law as I made this review. In this case, a number of people seem to be suggesting that the development as being proposed would be "inconsistent" with the comprehensive plan. It was my considered opinion in August, and it is still my opinion today, that such an argument is wrong. The development as I understand it is not at all inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The fact that a comprehensive plan may have some details, and may discuss, big box retail and whether a big box retail is "recommended as part of the development does not mean that the inclusion of big box retail is inconsistent with the plan. One needs to keep in mind that comprehensive plans are � guides only. In fact, they are meant to serve as general guides in setting standards in future development. See some of the cases that were cited in my August 9 opinion. What I see in this case is particular words or phrases being focused upon to the exclusion of others, in an attempt to make an argument that something is "consistent" or "inconsistent" with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is a thick document, multi page, with many different provisions thereto. The portion that deals with the Twin Lakes Business Park master plan is many pages long. When I review these documents, it appears to me that the proposed development is entirely consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the comprehensive plan. It is consistent with the renewal strategy set forth therein. Thus I do not, in my opinion, see an inconsistency that requires some amendment to the comprehensive plan. The B6 Business Park District within the City Code is fairly broad in nature, with no specific definitions setting forth how much of a particular area can be devoted to the various mixed uses allowed within such a district. I therefore believe it would be legally improper to conclude that the proposed development is inconsistent with the B6 Business Park designation. It is important to keep in mind the existing law within which a statutory scheme exists when individuals assert that the City Council must take some particular course of action, or must not take another course of action. As noted in cases cited in the August 9 opinion, and as is evidenced fiom examining numerous other cases examining claims about comprehensive plans, they are in fact mere guides. A number of court opinions indicate concern over the use of mandatory language in a comprehensive plan. These cases show that courts look to the primary thrust of the plan versus this �