Comp Plan 1978-1980 FILE #2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

also not the answer, there is a n or some basic guidelines, to be used in conjunction with a work- sheet, that a community can follow to determine if a proposed amendment has "metropolitan significance.'~ For example, a township may change its plan from a density of one unit per 40 acres to two units per 40 acres, resulting in no impact on metropolitan systems. On the other hand, 40 acres of a developing commu- ~ nity may be changed from open-space to commercial, which could have an impact on the regional road network. In the latter case, the Council should have review authority. In the former, it should not. In developing a plan amendment review procedure, two major points must be kept in mind. 1) The ultimate responsibility for a community's actions should lie with the community. The Metropolitan Council must begin to realize that local communities can accept that responsiblity. 2) The Metropolitan Council has the legal authority to review impacts on metropolitan systems only. It must be determined what a "significant impact" is through established guidelines that communities can use to assist in deter- mining the significance of a proposed amendment. MICIlELLE FOSTER RAUENHORST CORPORATION Comprehensive plauning in the Twin Cities is con- tinuing to evolve as the Metropolitan Council, in consulta~.ion with local area planners, considers how to deal with future amendments to local comprehensive plans. As a representative of one private development company, active in several communities throughout the Metropolitan Area, the key question appears to be how to best balance the legitimate planning and coordination objectives of the Metropolitan Council with the equally legitimate desire for autonomy by local officials and with the need for a clear, timely and predictable process for the private development community. These objectives do not bare to conflict. '. · The original guidelines, the subject of a public heating in July, were very inclusive and broad in scope. Since that time, three alternative methods for handling plan amendments have been explored. The discussion of these options has helped to clarify the issues, the interests involved, and the direction to take for solutions. The most recent recommendation by the Physical Development Committee to require Metropolitan Council review of only "system impact" amendments and to require submittal of other amendments for informational purposes appears to be headed in the right direction. Those development decisions of primarily local impact would continue to be made solely by local governments. They would not be delayed by a new step in the already complex development process. Only those plan amendments which would affect metropolitan systems would appropriately be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council. The actual mechanism for implementing this approach is still being developed. There are at least three criteria which such a mechanism should meet. 4 First, it should predictable how local plan changes will be interpreted and which plan amendments will require Metropolitan Council review. Since many plans have been tailored to the unique characteristics and politics of a given community, it may be difficult for a developer to predict how plan changes will be treated by any community and by the Metropolitan Council. This is particularly import- ant for developers who work in many different communities and could make doing business more difficult. Second, those plan changes which must be reviewed by the Metropolitan Council should be processed in a timely manner. This does not mean it should be "easy" to change comprehensive plans, only that issues surrounding such changes should be resolved within a minimum period of time. Third, the emphasis in developing this mechanism should be placed on minimizing the complexity of this new process. While no review process may be burdensome in and of itself, it should be viewed as yet another part of an already complex regulatory system affecting new development. If these criteria can be met, then the objectives of the Metropolitan Council, local planners and officials, and private developers can be achieved. DEAN JOHNSON, PLANNING DIRECTOR CITY OF ROSEMOUNT Our initial reaction to the original plan amendment guidelines was one of despair. The guidelines presented the basis for a substantial extension of metropolitan authority. It has been a major public relations effort to meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and assure local officials and residents that local identity and autonomy can be preserved. To receive a public hearing document which revealed that virtually "any change" in the comprehensive plan:could require a 120-day review by the Council was the last straw. Local housekeeping chores had suddenly become an administrative nightmare. Our immediate position was that only amendments which could potentially affect metropolitan systems should be subject to review by the Council. This is consistent with the purpose of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act. The Gouneil dearly has the responsi- bility to review local comprehensive plans to determine their consistency with metropolitan system plans. Our recommendations for changing the guidelines could be put into three broad categories: limit reviews to system impacts; shorten the review process; and establish reasonable standards or thresholds that would dearly indicate when the review would be triggered. If implemented, the revised guidelines could eliminate costly delays and substantially reduce paperwork requirements of local units of government. While Rosemount and other developing communities may have philosophical objections to metropolitan intervention, the administrative requirements resulting from the proposed guidelines became the issue at hand. We did not necessarily object to informing the