Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2012

Home

ZoningAcross Boundaries: Annexation, joint Planning Boards, and the Challenges of Cooperative Planning By Suzanne Sutro Rhees, AICP Jurisdictional boundaries, whether they separate cities and townships, villages and towns, or cities and counties, can present seemingly intractable problems for planners and planning officials. Creating plans and ordinances that serve the interests of both the urban and rural sides of the boundary can be a daunting task when their goals seem to be at cross purposes. Typically, cities seek room to expand, as well as efficient extension of municipal utilities in the future. Therefore, they prefer that the land surrounding them be reserved for agricultural orvery low - density development. Rural juris- dictions such as townships or counties, on the other hand, may seekto increase theirtax bases by promoting corrimercial or industrial development adjacent to the city. The prospect of residential development on the city's out- skirts may also attract developers and buyers, combining easy access to the city's amenities and services with the lower taxes of the rural jurisdiction. Such conflicts seem ubiquitous and permanent in many regions, regardless of the pace of urban development. Of course, it makes a big difference where the boundaries are located. In some states, primarily in the Sun Belt, cities are, to use au- thor David Rusk's term, elastic —able to expand into rural areas as the need dictates. More often, however, city boundaries are highly constrained by adjacent jurisdictions, whether thes.e are other cities, villages, townships, or counties with planning and zoning authority. In most cases, annexation is the means by which cities expand their boundaries. Annexation is inherently controversial — one jurisdiction ends up taking land from another—making it particularly difficult to approach in a cooperative manner. Ac- cord o League of Minnesota Cities' cording t the L a t its g g an "Annexation Handbook for Minnesota Cities, Annexa d f N1in ton questions u stions p osesome of the most difficult technics and facing an olio problems f t munici - policy g pal officials. Annexations present such dif- ficulties because sound, realistic facts and estimates regarding the financial and ser- vice implications of a proposed annexation are necessary. Annexation involves impor- tant policy questions relating to the welfare of the entire urban community, including both the city and surrounding land," This article explores various methods used by neighboring jurisdictions to work cooperatively across boundaries, including orderly annexation agreements and joint planning boards, extraterritorial subdivision controls, and shadow or "ghost" platting. MINNESOTA: ORDERLY ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS AND JOINT PLANNING BOARDS One technique that has achieved some suc- cess in Minnesota is orderly annexation: an agreement between a city and township or a city and a county as to the timing and extent of annexation. The former Minnesota Planning Agency (now defunct) described the advantages of the process in a 1 995 paper: Orderly annexation lets the city and township address annexation more cooperatively and give more thought to the needs of the broader area. It encour- ages joint planning for the area where annexations are expected and helps in timing annexations to coincide with new development and the need for city ser- vices. The process is intended to avoid piecemeal annexations while giving local governments more time to prepare for future annexations and to direct growth in a more orderly fashion. n Regents of the University of Minnesota. Used with the permission of the Metropolitan Design Center. ,•• gees often the site o flan -use i E 1a1:° :Clto` =o : o ` L a ..�. "h ... fN North t r n densit : resi.dential- de: en rub : ".. development la. an recreational land while direct ree ci r t n e fi ne ZONINGPRACTICE 1.12 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION jpage 2