11/05/86 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

questions and were requested to enclose any issues papers, legal opinions, or other pertinent materials dealing with the consistency issue. The survey is attached (See Appendix A.) Of 196 surveys sent out, 123 (63 percent) were returned by the deadline. Four of the 123 surveys were not usable due to incomplete information. Of the respondents, 81 percent were cities, 14 percent were townships, and 5 percent were counties. Survey Findings Knowledge of the 1985 amendment to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA) is fairly widespread among local communities--74 percent of the respondents were aware of the legislation prior to the survey. Those respondents not familiar with the legislation were usually from smaller towns in the rural areas of the region. Almost all communities have officially adopted a comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance (98 percent and 97 percent, respectively.) Most of the communities who do not have an officially adopted zoning ordinance use another Jurisdiction's zoning ordinance. In all cases in this survey, this means a township using county zoning. Also, one county (Hennepin) does not have its own zoning ordinance, but does have a comprehensive plan. Communities were asked to indicate when their comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances were adopted, with the intent of getting an idea of which came first. Knowing which came first is important for the consistency issue, since the MLPA implies that the comprehensive plan should be prepared and adopted first. According to the survey responses, 73 percent of the communities adopted their zoning ordinance before their comprehensive plan. This is to be expected, since there was no comprehensive plan requirement in the Metropolitan Area until the MLPA was adopted in 1976. The following table illustrates the percentage of communities adopting plans and ordinances within specified timeframes. Comprehensive Plan Zoning Ordinance Before 1970 0% 19% 1970-1975 4 24 1976-1980 24 .15 1981-1986 72 42 The next question dealt with whether the zoning ordinance was consistent (i.e. not in conflict) with the comprehensive plan at the time either the zoning ordinance or comprehensive plan was first adopted. Fifty-three percent of the respondents indicated yes; 47 percent indicated no. For those communities answering no, 68 percent did not correct the inconsistencies at that time. This is an interesting situation against which to gauge further inconsistency-- close to 50 percent of the communities that responded began their planning and zoning efforts with a conflict between the two. One problem with the MLPA is that although it prohibits official controls which are in conflict-with a community's comprehensive plan, it requires a community to amend a conflicting official control only where the conflict occurs as a result of an amendment to the comprehensive plan. Reconciliation of a conflict with a zoning ordinance existing long before the city adopted a comprehensive plan is only implied in the MLPA. This is probably the situation for many of the communities that indicated there was an initial conflict between their zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan.