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

Home

I I Mr. Ryan Schroeder Apri~ n, 1997 Page 2 As is clear from these specific statutary requirements, there is a detailed procedure that must be followed by cities in order to amend a zoning ordinance, including the rezoning of property. There is no mechanism for property m be re-zoned automatically. Unless the above procedures have been followed, none of the property that was added to the municipal urban services area in Ramsey as a result of the 1995 comprehensive plan amendment has been re'zoned. In addition to being contrary to statutory procedures, the concept of automatic re2x)ning is incompatible with other legal principles. Inclusion of property within the municipal urban services area simply means that the property is within the sewered portion of the community. Most cities have several urban zoning districts, often including more than one urban residential district. A decision must be made by the city council regarding in which of the urban districts the subject property should be placed. This discretion cannot be exercised if the property is automatically rezone& In addition, M'mnesota Statutes, section 473.858, subd. I authorizes cities to provide for "planned, orderly, and staged development of urbaniT~tion or redevelopment areas". This implies the ability to rezone property over a period of time to reflect staged growth Objectives, which policy would be fi-ustmted by automatic rezordng. Although we believe strongly that there has been no. automatic rezoning of property in Ramsey as a result of the 1995 comprehensive plan amendment, the city is required to bring im official controls and fiscal devices, defined to include various economic development mechani.~m.~ into compliance with its amended plan. Minnesota Statutes, section 473.852, subd. 9 defines "official controls" to mean laud-use related matters, including zoning ordinances, subdivision controls, sanitary codes, and building codes. For many years, state law specified that when there existed a conflict between the comprehensive plan _and the zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance prevailed. In 1995, the legislature mended Mirm. esota Statutes, section 473.858, subd. I to read in part as follows: "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, subd. 2." Under the referenced section 473.864, subd. 2, the 1995 legislature established a procedure for cities to review the consistency of their comprehensive plans and official controls. By no later than ~ber 31, 1998, ail dries are required to review and, if necessary, amend their comprehensive plans and official controls~ By that date, cities wil/ have to review these documents and report to the Metropolitan Council ekher that they are in compliance, or submit arnendmts. Amendments to official controls must be submitmt but for purposes of information only. Minnesota Stature_s, section 473.865, subd. 3 requires that any official control in conflict with the comprehensive plan must be brought into compliance with the plan. The statute, adopted in 1976, gives cities nine months to amend their official controls after adoption of an amendment to its comprehensive plan. This statme was in effect when the Rarnsey comprehensive plan RRBI~04O0