Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 473.858 (2026)

Comprehensive Plans; Local Governmental Units

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.No conflicting zoning, fiscal device, official control.

Within nine months following the receipt of a metropolitan system statement for an amendment to a metropolitan system plan and within three years following the receipt of a metropolitan system statement issued in conjunction with the decennial review required under section 473.864, subdivision 2, every local governmental unit shall have reviewed and, if necessary, amended its comprehensive plan in accordance with sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 and the applicable planning statute and shall have submitted the plan to the Metropolitan Council for review pursuant to section 473.175. The provisions of sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 shall supersede the provisions of the applicable planning statute wherever a conflict may exist. 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 with the review and, if necessary, amendment of its comprehensive plan required under section 473.864, subdivision 2. A local government unit shall not adopt any fiscal device or official control which is in conflict with its comprehensive plan, including any amendments to the plan, or which permits activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans, as defined by section 473.852, subdivision 8. The comprehensive plan shall provide guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption of official controls to ensure planned, orderly, and staged development and redevelopment consistent with the comprehensive plan. For purposes of this section, a fiscal device or official control shall not be considered to be in conflict with a local government unit's comprehensive plan or to permit an activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans if such fiscal device or official control is adopted to ensure the planned, orderly, and staged development of urbanization or redevelopment areas designated in the comprehensive plan pursuant to section 473.859, subdivision 5.

Subd. 2.Adjacent review, comment.

Local governmental units shall submit their proposed plans to adjacent governmental units, affected special districts lying in whole or in part within the metropolitan area, and affected school districts for review and comment at least six months prior to submission of the plan to the council and shall submit copies to them on the submission of the plan to the council. For minor plan amendments, the council may prescribe a shorter review and comment period, or may waive the review and comment period if the minor plan amendments involve lands that are not contiguous to other local governmental units.

Subd. 3.When to council.

The plans shall be submitted to the council following recommendation by the planning agency of the unit and after consideration but before final approval by the governing body of the unit.

Subd. 4.Status of old, new programs, plans, controls.

Comprehensive plans, capital improvement programs, sewer policy plans and official controls of local governmental units adopted prior to the requirements of sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 shall remain in force and effect until amended, repealed or superseded by plans or controls adopted pursuant to sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871. Existing comprehensive plans, capital improvement programs, sewer policy plans, and official controls may be amended and new capital improvement programs and official controls may be prepared and adopted prior to the submission to the council of comprehensive plans required by sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 58× “However, because we conclude that there is a conflict between the city's comprehensive plan and the city's zoning ordinance that has not been reconciled as required by Minn.Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1 (2004), we remand to the district court to issue an order directing the city to…”

RDNT, LLC v. City of Bloomington, 861 N.W.2d 71 (Minn. 2015). · cites it 8× “Minn.Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1; see also Minn.”

City of Lake Elmo v. Metro. Council, 685 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2004). · cites it 4× “In February 2002, the City of Lake Elmo, appellant, submitted its completed comprehensive plan to the Council, respondent, for review as required by Minn.Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1 (2002). Lake Elmo’s comprehensive plan proposed to restrict future development and maintain the…”

All. for Metro. Stability v. Metro. Council, 671 N.W.2d 905 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 473.858, subd. 3. The Council may require modifications of the comprehensive plan when the plan does not conform to the Council’s “metropolitan system plans.”

Concept Props., LLP v. City of Minnetrista, 694 N.W.2d 804 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “See Minn. Stat. § 473.858 , subd. 1 (2004) (requiring city to submit completed comprehensive plan to Metropolitan Council for review).”

Hay v. City of Andover, 436 N.W.2d 800 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “Following the issuance of Hay’s special use permit, Andover adopted a comprehensive plan as required by the Metropolitan Council pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 473.858. This plan was adopted by Andover in 1980.”

BBY INVESTORS v. City of Maplewood, 467 N.W.2d 631 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “BBY argues, however, that application of Minn.Stat. §§ 473.858, subd. 1 and 462.357, subd.”

Chase v. City of Minneapolis, 401 N.W.2d 408 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “More specifically, however, Minn.Stat. § 473.858, subd. 1 (1986) provides “[i]f the comprehensive municipal plan is in conflict with the zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance supersedes the plan.”

Formanek v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 332 (Ct. Cl. 1992). “Minn.Stat. § 473.858 (1986). 2. Site Access.”

City of Lake Elmo v. Metro. Council, 674 N.W.2d 191 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “Minn. Stat. § 473.858 , subd. 1 (2002). The city plan is implemented by adoption of zoning ordinances and zoning ordinances may not conflict with the city plan.”

State of Minnesota by Smart Growth Minneapolis, a Minnesota nonprofit Corp. v. City of ..., 7 N.W.3d 418 (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “2d at 587 (quoting Minn. Stat. § 473.858 , subd. 1 (2020)). “[T]he comprehensive plan constitutes the primary land use control for cities” and zoning and other regulations must be brought into conformity with the comprehensive plan.”

Freundshuh v. City of Blaine, 385 N.W.2d 6 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “See Minn.Stat. § 473.858 (1984). Subsequently, the city adopted a new comprehensive zoning code for use in conjunction with the plan.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.