Minutes - Planning Commission - 12/03/1998 - Public Hearing @ 7:40

Home

Mr. Ryan $chroeder April 4, Pa e 2 As is clear from these specific statmmy requirements, there is a detailed procedure that must be followed by cities in order to amend a zoning ordinance, including the rezoning of property. There is no mechanism for propmW to be rezoned automatically. Unless the above procedures have been followed, none of the property that was added to the municipal urban services area in Ramsey as a result of the 1995 comprehensive plan amendment has been re'zoned. In addition to being contrary to statutory procedures, the concept of automatic rezoning is incompatible with other legal principles. Inclusion of property within the municipal urban services area simply means that the property is within the sewered portion of the community. Most cities have several urban zoning districts, often including more than one urban residential district. A decision must be made by the city council regarding in which of the urban di.m'icts the subject property should be placed. This discretion cannot be exercised ff the property is automatically rezonexl. In addition, Minnesota Statutes, section 473.858, subd. 1 authorizes cities to provide for "planned, orderly, and staged development of urbarfiz~tion or redevelopment arms". This implies the ability to rezone property over a period of time to reflect staged growth Objectives, which policy would be frustrated by automatic rezoning. Although we believe strongly that there has been no. automatic re. zoning of property in Ramsey as a result of the 1995 comprehensive plan amendment, the city is required to bring its official controls and fiscal devices, defined to include various economic development mechanism~ into compliance with its amended plan. Minnesota Statutes, section 473.852, subd. 9 defines "official controls" to rne,~ land-use related matters, including zoning ordinances, subdivision controls, sanitary codes, and building codes. For many years, state law specified that when there existed a conflict between the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance prevailed. In 1995, the legislature amended Minnesota S .tg. tares, section 473.858, sulxl. I to read in part as follows: "If the comprehensive municipal plan is in conflict with the zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance shall be brought into conformance with the plan by local government units in conjunction with the review and, ff necessary, amendment of its comprehensive plan required under section 473.864, subd. 2." Under the referenced section 473.864, subd. 2, the 1995 legislature established a procedure for cities to review the consistency of their comprehensive plans and official controls. By no later than December 31, 1998, all dries are required to review and, ff necessary, amend thek comprehensive plans and official conu-ols. By that date, cities will have to review these documents and report to the Mea'opolitan Council either that they are in compliance, or submit amend~ts. Amendments to official controls must be submitted but for purposes of information only. Minnesota Stamps., section 473.865, subd. 3 requires that any official control in conflict with the comprehensive plan must be brought into compliance with the plan. The statute., adopted in 1976, gives cities nine months to amend their official conu'ols after adoption of an amendment to its comprehensive plan. This stature was in effect when the Ramsey comprehensive plan RHBI~0400 1'J~125-50