11/05/86 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Question 5 attempted to understand the status of a community's comprehensive plan--whether it has been amended since its adoption, what types of changes were made, what prompted them, and whether they created an inconsistency with the zoning ordinance. Sixty-two percent of the respondents indicated that their comprehensive plans had been amended. The most common types of changes were minor revisions to the text and changes in the land use plan map, with a slightly greater frequency of map changes (including MUSA line adjustments). Other types of changes included the preparation of new plan chapters; update of existing plan chapters; new street alignments; updated population, housing and employment forecasts; and total rewrites. The reasons for comprehensive plan amendments can be grouped into four major categories: o development pressure 63% o update, city initiative 22% o Metropolitan Council requirements 8% (e.g. urban service area, sewer capacity) o reconcile inconsistency with zoning ordinance 7% Fifty-eight percent of the respondents felt that changes in the comprehensive plan created an inconsistency with their zoning ordinance. Of these respondents, sixty percent then amended the zoning ordinance so that the two were consistent; 40 percent did not. Question 6 attempted to understand the status of a community's zoning ordinance, asking for the same information as Question 5. It appears that more local zoning ordinances have been amended than local comprehensive plans; 79 percent of the respondents said that their zoning ordinances had been amended. Responses regarding the types of changes made to the zoning ordinance were fairly evenly divided between text and map changes, with text changes being cited a bit more frequently. Responses as to what prompted amendments to the zoning ordinance fell into five general categories: o development pressure/property owner requests 51% o outdated language, uses/clarification of language 23% o city initiative (e.g. enforcement problems, 16% reflection of new city goals) o maintain consistency with comprehensive plan 6% o response to legislative requirements, 4% Metropolitan Council A slight majority (53%) of the respondents felt that changes in the zoning ordinance never created an inconsistency with their comprehensive plans. Of the 47 percent who felt that zoning ordinance amendments did create an inconsistency, 29 percent said that it "rarely" happened, 17 percent said that it "sometimes" happened, and one percent said that it "frequently" happened. These statistics suggest that either the types of changes being made in the zoning ordinance do not necessitate changes in local comprehensive plans or the communities amend their zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan at the same time where the amended zoning ordinance would be in conflict with th~ comprehensive plan.