Agenda - Council - 04/08/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Ryan $chroedcr Apr~ 4, ~ P~¢ 2 As is clear from these specific statutory requirements, there is a detailed procedure that must be followed by cites in order to amend a zoning ordinance, including thc re~.oning of property. There is no mechanism for prolxa-ty to be rezoned 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 re. zoning is incompatible with other legal principles. I. ncInsion 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, Minnesota Statutes, section 473.858, subd. I authorizes cities to provide for "planned, orderly, and staged development of urbanization or redevelopment areas". This implies the ability to rezone prolxzxty over a period of time to reflect staged growth Objectives, which policy would be frustrated by automatic rezoning. Although we believe strongly that there has been no automatic re. zoning of property in Ra~ as a result of the 1995 comprehensive plan amendment, the city is required to bring ieq official controls and fiscal devices, defined to include various economic development mechani.wn~ into compliance with its amended plan. Minnesota Statutes, section 473.852, subd. 9 defines "official controls" to mean land-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, r_he legislature amended Minnesota Statutes, section 473.858, sub& 1 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 I995 legislature established a procedure for cities to review the consistency of their comprehensive plans and officiaI controls. By no Iater than December 31, 1998, all cities are requixed to review and, ff necessary, amend thek comprehensive plans and official controls. By that date, cities will have to review these documents and report to the Metropolitan Council either that they are in compliance, or submit amendments. Amendments to official controls must be submitted but for purposes of information only. Minnesota Statutes, section 473.865, subd. 3 requires that any official corm'oI 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 statute was in effect when the Ramsey coml:rrehensive plan RHB120400 PJ~125-SO