Comp Plan 1978-1980 FILE #2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

November 1980, No. 11 LOCAL PLAN AMENDMENT GUIDELINES: A PERSPECTIVE ON THE ISSUES Editor's Note: The Council's work on developing local plan amendment guidelines has generated a great deal of discussion and debate during the past six months. Due to this interest, seven people who have actively participated in the guidelines process have been asked to voice their opinions on the matter. The individuals represent a range of interests throughout the Metropolitan Area. To provide an historical perspective, Council staff has summarized the process and the major guideline alternatives below. LOCAL PLAN AMENDMENT GUIDELINES: BACKGROUND During the past six months, the Council has been working on guidelines it would use to review amend- ments to comprehensive plans that cities, towns and coun ties have prepared in response to the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The law presently provides that "any amendment to a plan or program subsequent to the Council's review (of the original plan or program) shall be submitted to and acted upon by the Council in the same manner as the original plan or program." If plan amendments were to follow the same pro- cedure as the original plan, it would mean that each plan amendment would have to be submitted to adjacent and affected jurisdictions at least six months prior to submission to the Council, and then submitted to the Council. The Council would have 120 days to review the amendment and issue a written statement of its findings prior to local adoption of the amend- ment. The Council's review findings would include the following: 1. Comments on the apparent consistency of plan amendments with adopted chapters of the Metropolitan Development Guide. Comments on the compatibility of plan amend- ments with the plans of adjacent and affected jurisdictions. Determination of conformity with metropolitan systems plans (airports, transportation, sewers, parks and open space). The Council may require a local governmental unit to modify a plan amendment which may have a sub- stantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from the above metropolitan systems plans. The Council's general objective for plan amendment guidelines is to set up a speedy review process, com- pared with the review process for the original plans, yet comply with the statutory requirement that plan amendments be adopted "in the same manner" as the original plans. Several alternative ways to accomplish this objective have been examined during the past six months. The initial idea in developing plan amendment review guidelines was based on certain "thresholds" which defined plan amendments required to be submitted for Council review. The review process by adjacent jurisdictions was to be shortened from six months to 30 days. A public hearing on this alternative was held on July 31, 1980. The response at the hearing was that the thresholds would not effectively screen out major plan amendments from minor ones. There was considerable concern about the length of the review process and also a request that the process be streamlined so only major amendments with potential metropolitan system impact would be reviewed. During the months following the hearing, Council staff met frequently with an ad hoc committee of local planners to develop a more workable approach. Frustration with the thresholds prompted many of the planners to suggest that this approach be dropped, that all amendments be submitted for review, and that efforts be concentrated on an expedited review process. The planners also recommended the develop- ment of a "plan amendment worksheet" to provide a common format for transmitting amendments to the Council. The worksheet would help speed the review process and provide the local unit with the opportunity to evaluate and state its findings on the impact of the change on metropolitan systems. When Council staff described the above approach to the Council's Physical Development Committee, the committee expressed concern about requiring all amendments to be submitted prior to adoption. It asked staff to develop some alternatives to this approach. The staff returned to the committee with three alternatives. Alternative I consisted of the one suggested by the planners: all amendments to local comprehensive plans would be submitted to the Council for review prior to local adoption. This approach would eliminate the problem of defining thresholds, and would also keep the Council informed of all plan changes. Current plan information is important because the Council uses the plans as a basis to review and rank grant applications. 1