Agenda - Council - 02/09/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I 4275545 P.05 referring to existing comprehensive plans, but rather to the comprehensive plan updates which were also required to be completed by December 31, 1998. The !_~uguage of the statutes is quite unequivocal. I have supplied emphasis below to demonstrate the logic of the correct interpretation. Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473.858 states, in part: "If the comprehensive municipal plan is in conflict with the zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance shall be brought into conformance with the plan by local government units in conjunction wtth the review, and if necessary, amendment of the comprehensive plan required under section 473.864, subdivision 2." This latter statute reads, in part: "Decennial Review. By December 31, I998, and at least once every ten years thereafter, each local government-unit shall review, and if necessary, amend its entire comprehensive plan .... Such review...and amendment shall ensure, that as provided in section 473.865, the...official controls of each local government unit are not in conflict with its comprehensive plan." The key phrase in the former statute are the words "...in conjunction with .... the amendment ..... required under section 473.864, xubdivision 2." The amendment required under 473.864(2) is in fact the amendment now being considered by the City, not the amendment made in 1995. Clearly, the legislature, by mandating the updating of all comprehensive plans by December 31, 1998, also intended to mandate that zoning ordinances be compliant with the updatedplctn, not the former plan. It would be illo~cal to presume that the legislature would require updated plans by a date certain, and at the same t/me require zoning ordinances to be made compliant with the old plan, thereby creating automatic discrepancies and violations where future land uses under the new plan did not conform to the land uses designated under the old plan. The most recent version of the proposed new comprehensive plan categorizes the 75 acre tract ha question as an urban transitional category. The text of the plan clearly establishes criteria for such land uses, and the language tracks closely with the most recent City Charter amendment relating to lot sizes and densities. There is no ordinance in place implementing these criteria. The zoning category now sought for the 75 acre tract ha question is dearly incompatible with the proposed land use classification as propounded in the current draft of the comprehensive plan update. For the City to now change that zoning class/fication to comply with the current plan, would in fact be violative of the legislative mandate that zoning ordinances be made compliant with the new plans. I also wish to point out another key legal point to consider. Even if one were to agree with the Legal Opinion, its premise remains that cities are absolutely required to amend their zoning ordinmaces to comply with their comprehensive plans. This is contrary to case law on the subject. In the case of R.A. Putnam & Associates, Inc. vs. City of