Agenda - Council - 10/13/1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I M E T R OP 0 I. I T A N C 0 U N C I L Suite 300 Metro SqUare Building, St. Paul, Minnesota 5510 M E M 0 R A N D U M September 4, 1981 TO: Physical Development Committee FROM: Comprehensive Planning Division (Bob Mazanec, Tom Caswell) SUBJECT: Status of Plan Reviews Over 51 percent of the plan reviews are now complete. As of August 15, all but 18 local units of government had at least submitted their comprehensive plans for Council review, l"ne attached chart, Status of Comprehensive Plans, gives a complete accounting of plan reviews. The category of "pre-review pending" means that a local unit has not yet satisfied one or more of the procedural requirments established by law; usually the unsatisfied requirement involves -not having circulated the plan to adjacent units six months before submittal to the Council. Based on the most recent information available, the Physical Development Committee's workload will peak in early 1982 (see attached chart, Anticipated Activities of Comprehensive Plans). The number of plan reviews coming before the Committee will average over five per month. In addition, the Committee will be receiving review report.s on required modifications, local plan amend- ments, and local amendments in response to advisory recommendations. These estimates are quite reliable:through 1981, but are less so for early 1982. Two situations require Council attention at this time. One is what to do about plan reviews that have been suspended for unusually long periods of time with little or .no visible progress. The other is what to do about local governments which have not yet submitted plans. The Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) authorizes the Council to adopt guidelines for accomplishing the purposes of the Act (MSA 473.854). Suspended Plan Reviews .The Council's Plan Review Guidelines provide that a plan review may be sus- pended if the plan does not address all of the plan elements required by the MLPA. This is based on the statutory provision that plans must be in at least such detail as is needed to determine consistency with or effects on metropoli- tan system plans. Suspensions are effectuated by administrative action of the Chairman of the Council. The Guide]ines further provide that suspensions may be appealed to the Land Use Advisory Con~nittee for a final determination. Approximately 75 reviews have been or are currently suspended, and none have been appealed. One problem that arises is that neither the Guidelines nor the law establish how long a suspension may last. Most suspensions are lifted in a matter of weeks as soon as new information is received. As can be seen from the attached table listing the status of suspended plans, several local §overnments have had their reviews suspended for substantial periods of time. In these situations what typically happens is that tentative deadlines are set between Council and local staffs and then routinely missed. The principal reviewer from Council