Comp Plan 1978-1980 FILE #2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

amendment procedure for local comprehensive plans. Local officials also believe that the Alterna- ,tive 3 approach is entirely consistent with legislative intent with respect to protecting the metropolitan systems from adverse impacts as delineated by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA). Local officials do not oppose the idea that the local plans should be in conformance with the four metropolitan systems. In fact, that was the basic thrust behind the MLPA, and that proposal was supported by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. I believe most of the comprehensive plans prepared to date are consistent with the MLPA. In fact, a good share of the plans contain a level of detail which goes far beyond the basic requirements and are intended to be a useful, dynamic blueprint for local officials to guide a city's future. Therein lies part of the problem. By exceeding the requirements of the MLPA with .- this degree of detail, some cities have put them- selves in a box unless a reasonable plan amendment procedure is adopted. If a city has such a detailed plan, any change in a land use, density, capital improvement program, etc. could be construed as a plan amendment under either Alternative 1 or 2. That situation is not acceptabIe to local officials for three major reasons: 1. Either Alternaive I or 2 would involve the Metropolitan Council in local zoning decisions which is clearly not the intent of the MLPA. 2. Tim Metropolitan Council would not have sufficient staff to process that quantity of amendments. 3. Development costs could increase because of the time delays in getting even minor changes approved. An amendment procedure, it seems to me, to be acceptable to local units and to the Metropolitan Council, must address several concerns including: 1. Protection for metropolitan systems. 2. Timeliness in amendment processing. 3. Preservation of autonomy for local decision making. 4. Current local plan status for use by the Metro- politan Council in A-95 reviews. 5. Confidence for developers that a plan change is not likely to be challenged in court. After a careful analysis of Alternative 3, local officials believe that, with some modifications, this alternative can address the concerns of both the Metropolitan Council and local officials. It is my fear that if an acceptable procedure is not developed, some cities will prepare very general comprehensive plans which wilI satisfy the requirements of the MLPA but which will not be very useful to the city itself. It is far, far better to develop an amendment procedure that is fair and reasonable for all parties! 6 300 Metro Square Building 7th and Robert St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 NRo LLOYD SCENELLE ADNINISTRATOR CITY CF RAESEY J5~53 N~TF'EN BLVD N~ ANOKA NN 55303 Bulk Rate U.S. Postage PAID Mpis.. Minn. Permit No. 1610~