Laserfiche WebLink
The survey revealed several strategies local governments in the Metropolitan <br />Area use to deal with inconsistency between a community's zoning ordinance and <br />comprehensive plan. A few examples are highlighted below. <br /> <br />The communities of Maple Grove, Rosemount, Eden Prairie and Apple Valley use <br />the "holding zone" concept. In Maple Grove, all vacant land is zoned <br />"Agriculture" until development is proposed for a particular parcel. At the <br />time of development, either the parcel is zoned consistent with the <br />comprehensive plan or the comprehensive plan is amended where the rezoning <br />would be inconsistent with the plan. According to the city's community <br />development director, the use of an agricultural zone as a holding zone has <br />not caused any problems and is accepted by the development community. <br /> <br />Rosemount also uses the Agricultural zoning classification as a holding zone. <br />Doing so creates a certain amount of inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, <br />but this is not considered a problem. In Rosemount, the majority of <br />undeveloped land is agricultural; zoning all land according to the <br />comprehensive plan would create many nonconforming uses. Rosemount's <br />perspective is that in a community where agricultural land use is predominant, <br />an Agricultural holding zone is logical. In the city's eyes, there will always <br />be an inconsistency between planning and zoning, but the city will not risk <br />down-zoning for plan consistency. <br /> <br />Eden Prairie zones virtually all vacant parcels "Rural" until there is a <br />request for change in zoning consistent with the comprehensive plan. If the <br />new zoning district being proposed is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Guide <br />Plan, a Guide Plan amendment must either be Justified or the zoning is denied. <br /> <br />In Apple Valley, undeveloped areas retain Agricultural zoning until a <br />development proposal is made consistent with the comprehensive plan and the <br />utilities extension schedule. In this way, the comprehensive plan is used to <br />Justify the "highest and best use" of land. <br /> <br />Three communities responding to the survey (Mounds View, Corcoran and Apple <br />Valley) utilize a more direct approach towards consistency. Mounds View has a <br />consistency policy stated directly in its zoning ordinance. While it is not a <br />mandate or requirement for consistency, it is significant that linking the <br />zoning ordinance with the comprehensive plan is stated outright as a policy in <br />the zoning ordinance. Chapter 40.01 (C) states: <br /> <br />"Subd. C Relation to Comprehensive Municipal Plan. It is the policy of the <br />City of Mounds View that the enactment, amendment and administration of <br />this Code be accomplished with due consideration for the recommendations <br />contained in the Comprehensive Municipal .Plan as developed and amended from <br />time to time by the Planning Commission of the City. The Council <br />recognizes the Comprehensive Municipal Plan as the Planning Commission's <br />recommendations for responsibility to regulate land use and development in <br />accordance with the policies and purpose herein set forth." <br /> <br />Corcoran has a similar statement in its zoning ordinance. Again, the City <br />Council recognizes the comprehensive plan as the guiding policy for the <br />regulation of land use and development. <br /> <br />At the time its comprehensive plan was prepared, the city of Apple Valley <br />identified five specific cases of inconsistency between zoning and land use <br /> <br /> <br />