Minnesota's Metropolitan Planning Act required metropolitan area cities, counties, and towns to revise their Comprehensive Plans in accord with Metropolitan Council System Plans, by December 31, 1998. The goal is to bring these local controls, often cobbled together over years of local decision-making, into a truly "metropolitan" plan for growth and change. As expected, the revisions are stretching local government resources. Almost every locality will ask for deadline extensions; many municipalities will not submit their new Plans to the Met Council until summer, 1999.
The Met Council will then review every plan, and either approve it or return it to the community for changes. Some municipalities do not share the Met Council's ideas about growth, transforming this review process into a negotiation. Finally, even if the review process goes smoothly, for now, the Met Council is relying on current staff to handle the vastly increased workload. The Metro Planning Act makes no allowance for the sudden influx of new plans, the widespread extensions and late filings, or the strain on Met Council staff tasked with review. These raise several questions for landowners: What law controls while a city's plan is in review? How long will it take? Who reviews plans, and how can landowners stay well informed as plans undergo revision?
The Twilight Zone?
Under the Metro Planning Act, Comprehensive Plans and zoning codes remain in effect until superseded by new plans and codes. However, existing plans and zoning can be revised anytime prior to final approval of the new plans.
To counteract this tendency for landowners to rush into action "under the wire," many local governments have enacted moratorium ordinances limiting or curtailing certain uses or designated areas. Most moratoria include a waiver process, allowing a project to go forward, but adding another level of approvals, and another set of standards for a development proposal to meet.
What is the Process?
Cities must share plans with adjacent communities. This review is designed to avoid boundary or corridor conflict. When conflicts do occur, the Met Council will act as mediator suggesting solutions rather than dictating changes.
After submission, the Met Council seeks to return a plan, either approved or with changes, within 60 days. Some local planners may not agree with Met Council changes; again the Met Council expects to negotiate decisions, providing landowners with another opportunity to impact decisions.
After plan approval, local zoning must conform to the new plan. However, zoning amendments may not be enacted for up to nine months. Given this framework, it is important that land owners know exactly where their city is in the review process. Time spent applying for rezoning approval might be better spent working toward favorable land use classification under the Comp Plan. The window between now and new zoning can mean a delay, or a head start on competitors.
In that window, Minnesota law requires that zoning controls conform with local plans. This requirement provides land owners with leverage to hasten change to a more favorable designation under the new plan. However, it can also be a rationale for a local government to adapt a development moratorium.
Who Reviews Plans?
The Met Council's permanent staff is too small to review the "bulge" of new Plans to be submitted in spring 1999. Council staff will prioritize, and engage outside help. They prioritize by focusing on key plans in high-growth communities. Eighty-five percent of the growth is projected to occur in 50 cities; 50 percent is projected to occur in just 16 cities. While every plan will receive adequate review, these explosive-growth areas are especially important and are certain to receive priority. Besides prioritizing, the Met Council may hire outside consultants to assist with review.
Land owners who stay ahead of the review process will gain an edge over competitors because they will either affect land use changes or have early notice of such changes. Until the new plans are adopted, old plans remain in effect; however, local governments will certainly use new plans to guide decisions. In the meantime, projects may face a development moratorium; while this may add another approval process, it does not close the door on a project.