1997 Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

'... e e Mr. Ryan Schroeder April 3, 1997 Page 3 Minnesota Statutes, section 473.858, subd. 3 specifies that a comprehensive plan must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council "following approval by the planning commission of the unit and after consideration but before final approval by the governing body of the unit. If Approval of the planning commission occurred on November 4, 1993. The city council's action of November 9, 1993, constituted consideration of the matter but not final approval. Minnesota Statutes, 473.175, subd. 2 allows the Metropolitan Council 120 days (now 60 days in the case of changes to the municipal urban services area) following receipt of a comprehensive plan from a local government unit before the Council must return a statement concerning its comments and decision regarding that matter. Because of the limited time period given to the Metropolitan Council to act, the Council's policy has been not to start the clock until an application is deemed completed. That did not occur in the case of the Ramsey comprehensive plan amendment until October 17, 1994, well after approval by the Ramsey planning commission. The fact that the initial submission of material to the Metropolitan Council in connection with the comprehensive plan amendment occurred on October 20, 1993, does not materially change this sequence of events. Upon completion of its review of a comprehensive plan amendment, the Metropolitan Council issues a statement, which is the Metropolitan Council's opinion regarding the compliance of the comprehensive plan, if amended, with its systems plan. . In Ramsey's case, as often happens, the Metropolitan Council's statement was positive but contained conditions. Essentially, the Metropolitan Council approved the comprehensive plan amendment, subject to the city's compliance with certain conditions. The Metropolitan Council has such power pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 473.175, subd. 1. In the same statute, subdivision 2 prohibits local government units from putting into place any comprehensive plan until the city has made the necessary modifications. Minnesota Statutes, section 473.866 gives a city 60 days in which to contest a decision by the Metropolitan Council to require modification of a plan amendment, i.e., to challenge the conditions. Ramsey failed to take any action to contest the Metropolitan Council's action. Instead, by letter dated February 21, 1995, Ramsey indicated to the Metropolitan Council its assent to the terms of the Council's approval. A question has been raised about the meaning of city council resolution 95-01-018, adopted on January 10, 1995. The resolution does not explicitly state that it is an approval of the comprehensive plan amendment. However, the resolution specifically commits the city to efforts to comply with the terms of the Metropolitan Council's expected approval. The resolution was accompanied in the council packet with a copy of relevant parts of the report and recommendation from the Metropolitan Council's community development committee. As the minutes of the January 10, 1995, meeting make clear, the discussion at the council meeting centered around the matters the city would need to address in order to satisfy the conditions imposed by the Metropolitan Council. The resolution was adopted by all five members of the city council. In light of this context, it is difficult to read resolution 95-01-018 as anything short of adoption of the city's comprehensive plan amendment. RHB1l9807 RA125-50