Comp Plan 1978-1980 FILE #2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

While there will always be lgray areas, it appears that use of the worksheet sh d allow cities to more confidently decide if an amendment is of metropoli- tan significance or not. Those which may have an impact would be reviewed within 60 to 90 days. Thus, it would seem that ali three concerns mentioned originally are addressed. First, many (if not most) amendments would not have to undergo a lengthy review process by Metropolitan Council. Second the time span has been reduced. Third, a community can be fairly certain that the end result of the process will be a legitimate amendment. RICHARD BLOOM, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING CITY OF MINNETONKA Tile Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976, as passed by the Legislature, requires all local units of govern- ment to prepare and adopt comprehensive plans. A major requirement of this act is that each plan must address four regional public systems in addition to other local facilities which guide community develop- mcnt and redevelopment. Another part of the law mandates that after formal review of the comprehen- sive plan by the Metropolitan Council all subsequent cl~anges be submitted and reviewed in a manner identical to that of the original plan (a nine-month process). From a planning perspective, the concept of submit- ting ci~anges in an adopted comprehensive plan for review is good. Not only does this process provide an opportunity to evaluate significant local changes in a regional context, but it also allows for a coordinated effort among different units of government. All too often a community may make a decision which is logical from their own perspective. However, when evaluated in a greater context, certain segments of our society may be excluded or other impacts not considered. The procedure outlined in the Act for future changes to a comprehensive plan may, however, constitute a significant impediment due to the length of time required and the bureaucratic red tape. This may result in an inflexible approach to comprehensive planning which would defeat the purpose served by this process. From Minnetonka's perspective, another procedure needs to be introduced which provides for local flexibility but also follows the intent of the Land Planning Act. An alternative procedure that may prove to balance local issues and regional concerns is a process that would from the onset identify the magnitude of the change to the comprehensive plan and streamline the review period. Changes to the local plan which may affect the regional systems should require a longer review period by the Metro- politan Council since these changes may create region-wide impacts. A second procedure must also be introduced for those changes to a local plan which do not affect a metropolitan system but are of regional concern such as housing or environmental policies. These changes should be commented upon by the Metropolitan Council so that a community may be aware of possible 3 conflicts with policies or efforts as well as potential effects on adjacent communities. It is our feeling that these procedures could occur within a shorter period of time. The Metropolitan Council, in an effort to secure local input, created a committee to work with their staff regarding the amendment procedures. The City of Minnetonka commends the Council and staff for their cooperation. JEFF CONNELL, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DAKOTA COUNTY As a county planning agency, our office has responsi- bility for planning county facilities and programs, as well as providing planning assistance to 13 separate urban townships and six small rural cities. The county has very limited land use authority, but assists rural jurisdictions, upon request, with land use and other planning matters. Consequently, the proposel plan amendment procedure affects Dakota County in two areas: 1) the impact of county facility plans on metropolitan systems and 2) indirectly, the impact of local land use decisions on metropolitan systems. From both the county and rural area perspective, the most appropriate approach is to submit only those plan amendments to the Metropolitan Council that may have an impact on metropolitan systems. In terms of any county plan amendments, they would mostly be limited to park and transportation facility plans, such as a change in the functional classification of a county road. The county itself has no authority over sewer facilities or airports. These decisions are, in Dakota County, primarily local decisions. It may be desirable from the Council's standpoint to review and comment on amendments to all elements of the comprehensive plan, but it is not necessary to require the submittal of these amendments to the Council. While it would be in a community's or county's best interest to ensure that any amendments of their plan are compatible with regional plans for purposes of receiving positive A-95 review on projects requiring non-local funds, this is a responsibility that local jurisdictions should accept on their own initiative, and need not be a requirement of the Metropolitan Council The review of amendments to only "system-related" elements would provide the Council with information on possible changes directly affecting metropolitan systems. This process would not, however, provide the Council with the opportunity to review the indirect effects that land use plan changes may have on metropolitan systems. For example, the Council may deny a proposed amendment to a township's sewer element that would allow extension of local sewer service to a portion of the township that officials want to see developed at a higher density. However, a land use change that would significantly increase residential density to a point where there may be a need for a sewer service in the future may not, in this case, be reviewed by the Council. In both cases, metropolitan systems may be affected. The question arises: What is reviewable, and what is not? A "worksheet," as has been proposed, would not be the complete answer. Realizing that "thresholds" are