The URL can be used to link to this page

6.0. SR 05-13-1996ITEM 6. ity of iver FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Mayor & City Council Pat Klaers, City Admi~ May 13, 1996 Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission The Planning Commission discussed joint meeting topics at a recent workshop. Please see the attached material from City Planner Steve Ach regarding these discussion items. The first order of business to discuss at this joint meeting is the limited appraisal summary report for sewer and water trunk assessments to the east Elk River area. This summary report was ordered by the City Council and was prepared by Peter J. Patchin and Associates, Inc. This report reviews and evaluates the financial benefits of extending trunk utilities to the eastern part of the city. This extension area is part of the newly defined eastern urban service district. The figures in this report will help the City Council determine how economically feasible a public improvement project is and at what scale or scope the project can be undertaken. Whether or not a project proceeds depends a lot upon what properties are in the Green Acres classification and which (and when) property owners petition for the trunk public improvements. Attached for your review is this limited appraisal as prepared by Joe Maco and Jason Messener from Peter J. Patchin and Associates, Inc. If deemed appropriate, the City Council may want to schedule a public hearing to receive public input on this project. This public hearing, if so decided by the City Council, could start the 429 public improvement assessment process. s:council/jntpcmtg 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 ITEM 6. '~.ty of TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Planning Commission Steven B. Ach, City Planner~:~(__ May 13, 1996 Joint Meeting Background The City Council and Planning Commission had the opportunity to meet on February 19, 1996, to discuss specifically one issue relating to development of residential, commercial and industrial property within the urban service district prior to city water and sewer. Since that entire meeting was dedicated to discussing this one issue, there was no opportunity for the Planning Commission to present additional topics which they have identified as issues they would hke to discuss with the City Council. At Monday night's meeting, the Planning Commission would hke to discuss with the City Council the following items: Master plan for downtown · Update of performance standards for highway commercial · Cable TV (poor visual reception broadcast on Channel 12) · Status of transportation and park plan · Trails and sidewalks within developments · Available industrial areas within the urban service area Also included in this packet are memos from Tom Dillon and Bob Minton, both who attended the national planning conference this past April. I'm sure both Bob and Tom would be happy to share their experience at this conference if the Council has any questions. Attachments · Minutes from the City Council and Planning Commission joint meeting on March 6, 1995 · Elk River Planning Commission Rules and Procedures as adopted February, 1996 · Minutes from the Planning Commission's annual meeting of 1/13/96 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 55330 · (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 Joint Meeting Issues May 13, 1996 · Memo from Bob Minton regarding national planning conference · Memo from Tom Dillon regarding national planning conference Page 2 Rules and Procedures Each year the Planning Commission reviews their rules and procedures and approves them as their operating guidelines. These rules and procedures are not adopted as a requirement of the City Code, rather, are followed by the Planning Commission as guidelines and protocol. 1996 Goa~ The Planning Commission has once again established a set of goals for 1996. This year, six goals were established by the Commission at their annual meeting and are as follows: Complete the final portion of the comprehensive plan and begin implementation as a whole, including rezoning and ordinance amendment changes. o Continue to pursue public relation activities by making available at public meetings, a set of the protocol and the procedures for public meetings from the Elk River Planning Commission Rules and Procedures. Meet with both the City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission in a workshop format, for the purpose of reviewing joint goals and objectives. Obtain a prioritized list from our joint meeting with the City Council, of items and issues to review. The list should include the retail sale of firearms and C-3 zoning issues previously set as a 1995 goal. Participate in the planning and execution of the 1996 regional planning conference. 6. Continue to promote commissioner training. In addition to the above mentioned goals, the Commission also makes every attempt to meet on a monthly basis in a workshop format to discuss various topics. Some of the topics for 1996 include the following: Develop meeting questions for the Mayor and City Councilmembers to be addressed in the joint meeting. Topics should include the taping quality of cable broadcast of public meetings. s:\councfl\05-13jm.doc Joint Meeting Issues May 13, 1996 Page 3 2. Review the issue of wetlands and the current legal policy for the same. Develop topics to be addressed at the joint meeting with the Park and Recreation Commission. 4. Plan a mobile workshop. 5. Address the topic of downtown. 6. Address the topic of zoning along east Highway 10. One of the items I am rather excited about is to arrange a mobile workshop with the Planning Commission to visually inspect various projects throughout the city that have gone through the review process. Furthermore, the mobile workshop may include visits to other communities to experience first hand various planning issues that are discussed with projects proposed in Elk River. Master Plan for Downtown The Planning Commission is anxious to begin discussing the issues relating to the downtown. Bob Minton recently attended a historic preservation workshop in Stillwater to draw upon the experiences Stillwater had in planning their downtown. As I have mentioned before, this master plan for downtown will cover a broad spectrum of issues which the Planning Commission may have some involvement. Update of Performance Standards for Highway Commercial Over the past six to eight months, it has been mentioned at both the Steering Committee and the Planning Commission a relative concern regarding the highway commercial standards along east Highway 10, and for that matter, other commercial areas within the city. The Planning Commission has discussed at workshops earher this year this particular issue and would hke to continue to review the city's performance standards to ensure a positive appearance of commercial businesses along the city's main corridors (Highway 10 and Highway 169). Cable TV The Planning Commission has brought to my attention the poor quality of the cable broadcast of the Planning Commission and City Council meetings on Channel 12. I am not sure for the reason of this poor quality, however, it is an issue the Planning Commission would like to have explored further. s:\council\05-13jm.doc Joint Meeting Issues May 13, 1996 Page 4 Status of Transportation and Park Plan Although the comprehensive plan has been adopted with the exception of the transportation and park plan, the Planning Commission would like to discuss with the Council the status of these two elements, which, when adopted, will be made part of the overall comprehensive plan. Trails and Sidewalks This particular issue has come up numerous times with the Park and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council. Last week, the Park and Recreation Commission discussed with the City Council this particular issue and the Planning Commission would like to also be involved in discussion ff the particular item. Industrial Areas within the Urban Service District One of the issues that was highlighted during the update of the comprehensive plan was to target areas within the City for industrial development. The Planning Commission has also expressed a concern and sees the industrial component as an important land use to balance not only the city's economic stability but its land use composition. I think this issue of identifying available industrial land will be an ongoing matter, however, it may need some attention at Monday night's meeting. Development within the Urban Service Area Prior to Water and Sewer As an update for the City Council, this item was tabled indefinitely by the Planning Commission at their April 23rd public hearing meeting. The Planning Commission discussed this issue and felt that the issue was important enough to discuss further at either at the Planning Commission workshops or at a special meeting with the City Council. I support the Planning Commission's recommendation on this matter, and would encourage the City Council to examine this issue further before changing the current growth management strategy. The Planning Commission looks forward to meeting with the City Council at Monday night's meeting to discuss the issues outlined in this memo. These meetings are very helpful for the Planning Commission to gain some direction and develop consensus with the City Council on emerging issues in Elk River. s :\council\05-13jm.doc MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL HELD AT THE ELK RIVER CITY HALL -TRAINING ROOM MONDAY, MARCH 6, 1995 Members Present: Members Absent: Staff Present: Also Present: Mayor Duitsman, Councilmembers Dietz, Scheel, Holmgren, and Farber None Pat Klaers, City Administrator; Steve Ach, City Planner; Bruce West, Fire Chief and Sandra Thackeray, City Clerk Planning Commission Members Vicki Sullivan, Tom Dillon, Judy Thompson, Louise Kuester, Bob Minton, and Chris Kreger .Call Meetinq To Order Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the regular meeting of the Elk River City Council was called to order at 6:35 p.m., by Mayor Duitsman. Consider March 6, 1995, City Council A,qenda COUNCILMEMBER DIETZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE MARCH 6, 1995, CITY COUNCIL AGENDA. COUNCILMEMBER SCHEEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Consider Consent Aqendn Councilmember Scheel requested that Item 7.9. be removed from the consent agenda. COUNCILMEMBER SCHEEL MOVED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM 7.9, AS FOLLOWS: 7.6. 7.7. 7.8. 8.4. 8.,5. CONSIDER 2/20/95 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -- APPROVED INITIATE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS ZERO LOT LINE ISSUES IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS -- APPROVED INITIATE AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO DEFINE RECYCLING CENTERS -- APPROVED ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 95-3, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 900.24, PARKING AND LOADING, OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER CODE OF ORDINANCES, CASE NO. OA 94-4 -- APPROVED PAY ESTIMATE #8 TO GRIDOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,759 FOR WORK ON THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT INTERIM IMPROVEMENT - - APPROVED PAY ESTIMATE #8 TO KU~ CONTRACTORS IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,350 FOR WORK COMPLETED ON THE LIBRARY EXPANSION PROJECT -- APPROVED RESOLUTION 95-12, A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING PASSAGE OF THE MINNESOTA EMERGING COMMUNICATION SERVICES ACT OF 1995 -- APPROVED Elk River City Council Minutes March 6, 1995 9. CHECK REGISTER -- APPROVED Page 2 COUNCIl. MEMBER DIETZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED 5-0. Joint Meetincl of the City Council and Plonninq Commission City Planner Steve Ach distributed a timing schedule for the completion of the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion was held regarding the current status of the Comprehensive Plan and the steps involved to finalize the document. Councilmember Scheel indicated her concern regarding the 10 acre minimum lot size. She stated that there was o resident present with a concern regarding the timing of the Comprehensive Plan in relation to the moratorium on the ten acre minimum lot size. She stated that if the Comprehensive Plan were not completed until July 4, this would put the individual a year behind in his development of his property. She indicated she would like to see something done on the issue prior to July 4. Mayor Duitsman indicated that this item will be debated in detail by the Steering Committee. He indicated he did not feel the decision should be made by the Planning Commission prior to having input from the Steering Committee. Discussion was held between the Council and Planning Commission os to the method in which the public should be informed and notified of public hearings regarding the Comprehensive Plan. It was suggested that the June newsletter be comprised of information regarding the Comprehensive Plan. The City Council reviewed the Planning Commisslon's rules and procedures. Discussion was held regarding the procedure to follow when one of the Commissioners has a conflict of interest. It was indicated that a final decision should be made by the City Attorney regarding this issue. Mayor Duitsman stated that there are certain issues that come before the City Council that require a decision and it may be more appropriate to have the Planning Commission review the issue prior to Council making a decision. He indicated that the City Council makes the decision without consulting the Planning Commission due to timing of the issue. Planning Commission goals for 1995 were discussed. Mayor Duitsman stated that parking in the downtown area is an important issue for the Planning Commission to review. Discussion was held regarding the City Council reviewing the Comprehensive Plan following Steering Committee meetings. Councilmember Dietz indicated that he would like to see the Planning Commission representative speak up more often at the City Council meetings. Topics for upcoming Planning Commission workshops were discussed. Councilmember Scheel indicated she had a concern regarding the home occupation ordinance. Elk River City Council Minutes March 6, 1995 Page 3 Councilmember Dietz indicated his concern regarding the provision in the ordinance for the size of accessory structures. Bob Minton indicated that accessory buildings in R la zoning should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. City Planner Steve Ach questioned whether the City Council would like to see the Planning Commission become the Board of Adjustments. He indicated that he has briefly reviewed this issue with the City Attorney. He further stated that he felt it could save time for many of the applicants and for the City Council if the Planning Commission were the Board of Adjustments. Mayor Duitsman suggested that a memo be presented to the City Council at a future meeting rogarding this issue. The City Council recessed at 7:37 p.m. and reconvened at 7:45 p.m. in the Council Chambers. 6. Open Mike 7.1. A resident affected by the moratorium on the 10 acre minimum lot size indicated his concern and opposition to the 10 acre minimum lot size. Consider Reqc'est by City of Elk River for an Administrative Subdivision, Public Hearinq, Case No. AS 95-1 City Planner Steve Ach indicated that the City of Elk River is requesting an administrative subdivision to divide a parcel of land to accommodate the ice arena complex. He stated that the administrative subdivision involves carving out an approximate three acre parcel of land from the Senior High school complex to accommodate the existing and new ice arena. The City Planner indicated that the primary purpose of the administrative subdivision is to allow the City to purchase the property from the School District. Steve Ach reviewed the staff repod regarding this request. The issues discussed in the staff report included parking, access to the property, and utility easements. Mayor Duitsman opened the public hearing. There being no one for or against the matter, Mayor Duitsman closed the public hearing. COUNCILMEMBER DIETZ MOVED TO APPROVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF ELK RIVER CREATING APPROXIMATELY A THREE ACRE PARCEL TO ACCOMMODATE THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED ICE ARENA ALONG WITH THE ASSOCIATED PARKING WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: AN APPROVED CROSS ACCESS/CROSS PARKING AGREEMENT BE ACCEPTED BY BOTH PARTIES. AN APPROPRIATE SIZE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT BE GRANTED THROUGH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH WILL ALLOW THE EXTENSION OF THE WATER LINE. A TEN FOOT DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT BE GRANTED FOR THE ELECTRICAL SERVICE FROM SCHOOL STREET TO THE ICE ARENA. ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION · RU LES AN D PROCEDURES Planning Commission Rules and Procedures Page 2 3/15/96 Article I. Introduction: ................................................................................................... 3 Section 1. Purpose ...................................................................................................... 3 Section 2. Application of Rules and Procedures ......................................................... 3 Article II. Offices and Duties: ........................................................................................ 3 Section 1. Offices Designation ................................................................................... 3 Section 2. Recording of Meetings ............................................................................... 3 Section 3. Duties and Offices ..................................................................................... 3 Article III. Term Limits: ................................................................................................. 4 Article IV. Meetings and Hearings: ................................................................................ 4 Section 1. Notice ........................................................................................................ 4 Section 2. Meetings ..................................................................................................... 5 Section 3. Workshops ................................................................................................. 5 Section 4. Meeting Records ........................................................................................ 5 Section 5. Meeting Arrangements ............................................................................... 5 5.1 Date .................................................................................................................. 5 5.2 Location ........................................................................................................... 5 5.3 Additional Meetings ......................................................................................... 6 Section 6. Parliamentary Procedure ............................................................................ 6 Section 7. Public Hearing Agenda .............................................................................. 6 Section 8. Procedure for Public Hearings ................................................................... 6 8.1 Procedure ......................................................................................................... 6 8.2 Protocol ............................................................................................................. 7 Section 9. Communications with Public and Applicant ............................................... 7 9.1 General ............................................................................................................. 7 9.2 Disclosures ........................................................................................................ 7 9.3 Exception ......................................................................................................... 7 Section 10. Deliberation ............................................................................................. 8 10.1 Voting ............................................................................................................ 8 10.2 Conflict of Interest .......................................................................................... 8 Section 11. Orientation for New Members ................................................................. 8 Article V. Education, Conference & Convention Policy: ................................................ 8 Article VI. Maintenance of Rules and Procedures: ......................................................... 9 Planning Commission Rules and Procedures Page 3 3/15/96 Article I. Introduction: Section 1. Purpose It is the intent of the Elk River Planning Commission to conduct its business and perform its responsibilities and duties in an orderly, efficient, fair and lawful manner. These rules and procedures are established for that purpose. Section 2. Application of Rules and Procedures Unless otherwise specifically indicated, these rules and procedures shall apply to the transaction and administration of all Planning Commission business and the conduct of all Planning Commission meetings and hearings. Article II. Offices and Duties' Section 1. Offices Designation The Commission at its first regular meeting in January of each year shall elect a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. Section 2. Recording of Meetings The City supplies a qualified staff member to perform all general corresponding and recording secretarial duties for the Planning Commission. In the absence of staff to perform recording the Vice-Chairperson shall record the activities which take place during the meetings. Section 3. Duties and Offices The duties and powers of the offices and the members of the Planning Commission shall be as follows: A. Chairperson 1. Preside at all meetings of the Commission. Planning Commission Rules and Procedures Page 4 3/15/96 2. Call special meetings of the Commission in accordance with the City Ordinance. 3. Sign documents of the Commission. 4. See that all actions of the Commission are properly taken. 5. Work with the City Staff to set monthly meeting agendas. B. Vice Chairperson During the absence, disability or disqualification of the Chairperson, the Vice Chairperson shall exercise or perform all the duties and be subject to all the responsibility of the chairperson. C. Commissioners 1. All commissioners shall be responsible for the collection, review and dissemination of facts regarding an issue before them. Facts shall be gathered in a manner consistent with Article IV Section 9 of these procedures. 2. All commissioners shall be familiar with City Code, the City Comprehensive Plan, and state law regarding the operation and duties of a planning commission. 3. At least one Planning Commissioner will be available at the City Council meetings, where Planning Commission items will be discussed, to answer questions and provide information relevant to Planning Commission decisions. 4. All Commissioners shall endeavor to be present at all Planning Commission meetings and hearings Article Iil. Term Limits: The City of Elk River Planning Commission recognizes that service on the Elk River Planning Commission is a civic duty. An individual commissioner shall be limited to serving 2 (Two) terms. Before being considered for another appointment to the Planning Commission, a former Planning Commissioner shall have spent no less than one three year term off the commission. Article IV. Meetings and Hearings: Section 1. Notice Planning Commission Rules and Procedures Page 5 3/15/96 Notices of all meetings and hearings of the Planning Commission shall be made in accordance with all statutory and ordinance notification requirements. Section 2. Meetings 1. All meetings of the Elk River Planning Commission shall be open to the public. 2. The Planning Commission shall attempt to obtain at least one joint meeting with the City Council annually. 3. The Planning Commission shall attempt to obtain at least one joint meeting with the Park and Recreation Commission annually. Section 3. Workshops Workshops and other meetings whose sole purpose is for general information and/or educational purposes will be open to the public. Public testimony may or may not be allowed. Section 4. Meeting Records All tapes, minutes, evidence, exhibits, correspondence, maps, plats etc. shall be made a part of the record, become the property of the City of Elk River and be maintained as a permanent record in the City offices. These records shall be available to the public during normal business hours at the City Hall. Section 5. Meeting Arrangements 5.1 Date The Planning Commission shall meet regularly on the fourth Tuesday of each month. Other meeting dates shall be selected by the commission at their regular meetings or called and set by the Chairperson when necessary or requested by staff, in accordance with Section 5.3. All Commissioners will be provided with a minimum of three days notice. Planning Commission Rules and Procedures Page 6 3/15/96 5.2 Location City Staff and Chairperson shall select a meeting location that will suit the anticipated needs of the meeting and which shall be accessible to all. Most meetings will take place at the City Hall. 5.3 Additional Meetings The Chairperson may call for a special meeting at any time. Notice of the time and place shall be communicated to the members and publicly noticed at least three (3) days prior to the meeting. Section 6. Parliamentary Procedure Meetings of the Elk River Planning Commission shall be conducted using Robert's Rules of Order, as most recently revised. Section 7. Public Hearing Agenda The City Staff and the Planning Commission Chair set the agenda for the public hearings. The agenda may be amended by a majority vote of the Commission. Section 8. Procedure for Public Hearings 8.1 Procedure 1. The City staff will furnish the Commission with all pertinent information concerning the request. The Chairperson will open the public hearing. The applicant and/or the representative will explain the request. Those who wish to may provide testimony. The applicant will then have an opportunity to answer questions. After closing a hearing the Commissioners may continue to question applicants or other constituents who have testified. Planning Commission Rules and Procedures Page 7 3/28/96 8.2 Protocol 1. Everyone who wishes to give testimony will be allowed to do so. 2. All Statements or questions should be directed to the chair. 3. Be as factual as possible. 4. Refrain from repeating what has already been stated, and do not involve personalities. 5. Each person offering testimony or asking questions will need to give his or her name and address to the recorder. 6. The Planning Commission reserves the right to question any speaker. 7. The City Staff shall be permitted to ask questions to clarify motions or items brought out at the hearing. 8. Written testimony may be received. 9. While all deliberations are open to the public no additional testimony may be offered after the close of the public hearing. Section 9. Communications with Public and Applicant 9.1 General The Commission shall comply with the requirement of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. Prior to public hearing or Commission deliberation, no Commissioner member shall lobby the merits of a pending case with staff, applicant, other commission members or the general public. 9.2 Disclosures If a commission member is contacted or discusses a pending case outside of a planning commission meeting, the member shall disclose during the public hearing the facts relating to such communication. 9.3 Exception Nothing in this section shall preclude the general information communication by Commission members relating to the general conduct of a meeting or hearing, or forbid staff or members from discussing with Commission members any upcoming meetings so Planning Commission Rules and Procedures Page 8 3/28/96 long as the facts or merits of the meeting are not discussed and the requirements of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law are followed. Section 10. Deliberation 10.1 Voting A majority of the commission members entitled to vote shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. 10.2 Conflict of Interest The Commission members shall comply with the City Conflict of Interest Ordinance. Any member of the Planning Commission who shall feel that he or she may appear to have, or in fact has a conflict of interest on any matter that is on the Planning Commission agenda shall voluntarily excuse himself/herself, vacate their seat and refrain from discussing and voting on said items as a Planning Commissioner. Section 11. Orientation for New Members To assist new members in learning their responsibilities and to develop their understanding of the planning process as quickly as possible, they will be required to: · Review procedures with City Staff. · Review Planning Commission's Orientation Outline. Article V. Education, Conference & Convention Policy: The City Council and Planning Commission of Elk River recognize and accept the concept that the acquisition and maintenance of a body of knowledge and skills is necessary and desirable to perform the job of the Planning Commission. Further, both groups encourage and highly recommend periodic attendance at various educational opportunities, conferences and conventions. The following is the policy of the Elk River Planning Commission as it relates to city funded educational meetings, conferences and conventions. 1. All education and training is subject to availability of funds. Planning Commission Rules and Procedures Page 9 3/28/96 Attendance at educational meetings, conferences and conventions is voluntary. Planning Commission members are encouraged to attend educational meetings, conferences and conventions. Involvement in relevant professional organizations such as the MPA or MnAPA membership, office-holding, or committee work is intended to be considered educational. Planning Commission members are encouraged to participate in their budget process and request allocations for education purposes. In the event of budget constraints, the acquisition of skills and knowledge through educational meetings, conferences and conventions shall have precedence of the maintenance of same. That two members may attend a National Planning Conference yearly. There are no limits on the number of members or on the number of times a member may attend a State Planning Annual Conference. Planning Commissioners are encouraged to report on their educational experiences to other commissioners. Attendance at a State Conference is recommended prior to attending a National Conference. 10. No member may attend an additional National Conference until all members who are eligible and desire to attend a first conference have done so. Article VI. Maintenance of Rules and Procedures: Review rules and procedures annually and update as needed. Dated: January 23, 1990 Revised: January 18, 1992 February 1, 1994 January 30, 1995 January 13, 1996 a:\pcrules.doc ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER PLANNING COMMISSION HELD AT ELK RIVER CITY HALL SATURDAY, JANUARY 13, 1996 Members Present: Chair Kuester, Commissioners Minton, ThomDson, Tacheny, Sullivan-Slocum, Dillon and Anderson Members Absent: None Staff Present: Steven B. Ach, City Planner Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the meeting of the Elk River Planning Commission was called to order at 8:30 a.m. by Chair Kuester. The agenda was reviewed and approved by consensus. By a unanimous vote, Commissioner Dillon was elected Chair and Commissioner Thompson was elected Vice Chair. The Planning Commission reviewed the rules and procedures and made the following changes: Article II, Section 3, C 1. Ail Commissioners shall be responsible for the collection, review and dissemination of facts regarding an issue before them. Facts shall be gathered in a manner consistent with Article IV, Section 9 of these procedures. 4. Ail Commissioners shall endeavor to be present at all Planning Commission meetings and hearings. Article IV, Section 5 5.2 City Staff and the Chairperson shall select a meeting location that will suit the anticipated needs of the meeting, and which shall be accessible to all. Most meetings will take place at the City Hall. 5.4 (Delete this section) Section 6 Meetings of the Elk River Planning Commission shall be conducted using Robert's Rules of Order, as most recently revised. Section 9 9.2 If a Commissioner member is contacted or discusses a pending case outside of a Planning Commission meeting, the member shall disclose during the public hearing the facts relating to such communication. Section 11 (Delete this whole section) Section 12 (Renumber to Section 11.) Article V 2. Attendance at educational meetings, conferences and conventions is.voluntary. Planning Commission members are encouraged to attend educational meetings, conferences and conventions. 9. Attendance at a State Conference is recommended before attending a National Conference. 1995 goals and objectives were discussed, and 1996 goals and workshop topics were set. 1995 goals met were as follows: 1. Comprehensive Plan has been nearly completed. 2. Goals for public communications were met, including the addition of meeting packets the meeting agendas which are made available for the public during a public meeting for reference, the use of a telephone comment line to collect public opinion regarding the Comprehensive Plan updating, and attendance of Commissioner Kreger at Park and Recreation Commission meetings. 3. Commissioners Thompson and Dillon attended the National Conference. 4. Commissioners Kuester, Minton, Thompson and Sullivan-Slocum attended the State Conference. 5. Commissioners Kuester, Minton, Thompson, Kreger and Sullivan- Slocum attended the Regional Planning Conference. 6. Annual joint meetings were held with both the City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission. 1995 goals not met were: Review of ordinances for firearms (though firearms were addressed as home occupations) and C-3 zoning. The following 1996 goals were set: 1. Complete the final portion of the Comprehensive Plan and begin implementation as a whole, including rezoning and ordinance amendment changes. 2. Continue to pursue public relation activities by making available at public meetings, a set of the protocol and procedures for public meetings from the Elk River Planning Commission Rules & Procedures. 3. Meet with both the City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission in a workshop format, for the purpose of reviewing joint goals and objectives. 4. Obtain a prioritized list from our joint meeting with the City Council, of items they wish us to review. The list should include the retail sale of firearms and C-3 zoning issues previously set as a 1995 goal. 5. Participate in the planning and execution of the 1996 Regional Planning Conference. 6. Continue to promote Commissioner training. The following are 1996 planned workshop topics: 1. Develop meeting questions for the Mayor and City Council members to be addressed in our annual joint meeting with them. Topics to include the taping quality of cable broadcasts of public meetings. 2. Review the issue of wetlands and the current legal policy for same. 3. Develop topics to be addressed at our joint meeting with the Park and Recreation Commission. 4. Plan a mobile workshop. 5. Address the topic of Downtown. 6. Address the topic of zoning along east Highway 10. The Draft Transportation Plan was February 15, 1996 was set as a regarding it. reviewed by Terry Maurer and date for the public hearing Commissioner Minton moved to adjourn and Commissioner Sullivan- Slocum seconded. The motion was carried. The meeting adjourned at 12:00 noon. Respectfully submitted, Commissioner Thompson Vice Chair The Elk River Planning Commission The Elk River City Council FROM: Bob Minton DATE: April 21, 1996 SUBJECT: The 1996 APA Conference The National Planning Conference, presented by the American Planning Association, is always a huge affair. This year, the participants numbered about 3800, and they came from all over the U. S. and twelve foreign countries, including China, The Fiji Islands and Australia. Locally, I met participants from Bloomington, Coon Rapids, St. Cloud, Minneapolis, Cambridge and Duluth. A Walt Disney Hotel may not be the most ideal place for a conference of this kind. The Dolphin was certainly grand, with very adequate meeting rooms and sound systems. The architecture and all the decor were playful, and evoked that sense of fun and fantasy, right down to the small signs in front of the building promising that if you park there, "your car will magically disappear. ~ On the other hand, the facility is out in the country, near Epcot, and nothing is within walking distance. Without a car, participants were captive to in-house businesses, and especially to their restaurants with exorbitant prices and poor service. What we needed was some good fast food competition right around the corner. ~OME TIDBITS In the meetings arranged for planning commissioners and elected officials, a lot of attention was devoted to being on the losing side of some very expensive lawsuits in an increasingly litigious society, especially in two areas, takings and procedure. A. Takings The risk in takings was presented as being somewhat overblown. An Action Guide on this subject was prepared by an APA Task Force and presented at the conference, and is attached to this memo. In general, if the government is promoting a clear benefit, and if there is a clear connection (rational nexus) between the benefit and your action, you are probably on vex3' safe ground. Mostly, it is a matter of common sense and fairness. Of local interest, a legal challenge won by the City of Woodbury, MN established that a temporary moratorium does not constitute a taking, and this decision has been cited in court decisions in at least fifteen other states. B. Procedure. Procedure, on the other hand, is the basis for an increasing number of lawsuits, and there is no doubt that this trend will continue in the future. One reason is that the judgments include the payment of the winning attorneys' fees, and attorneys can be very creative in submitting their bills. Most of the legal action is based on a civil rights law passed in the last century (42 USC 1983) which guarantees the right to a fair hearing. (Rodney King's successful Federal prosecution was based on this law.) Procedure includes several elements. 1. ExPane Contacts. This is the legal term for all contacts outside the official hearing on an application. States vary considerably in the treatment of these contacts. A number of states absolutely prohibit all ex pane contacts, period. Other states recognize that in small communities, it is very difficult to avoid conversations about upcoming issues. Most states require that any contacts, and the conversations, be disclosed at the planning commission meeting. Some commissions have a regular item on the agenda for disclosing contacts. In a State of Washington court decision, it was determined that an ex pane contact violated the civil rights of an applicant, and so the number of contacts in that state has decreased dramatically. According to one speaker at the conference, this will be an increasingly sensitive issue over the next five years in land use decisions, and will probably also affect elected officials who have a perceived duty to listen to constituents. For the Elk River Planning Commission, it may be important to have a section on ex pane contacts in our Rules and Procedures. I would suggest that when these contacts are made, it is extremely important that no opinion on the part of the commissioner be expressed, either verbally or non-verbally, that the contact be invited to give his or her testimony at a public hearing, either orally or in writing, where all the commissioners can receive the same information, and that the contact be disclosed at the planning commission meeting. 2. Notice. It was recommended that at each meeting, we have a Certificate of Notice from the staff, certifying that all the proper procedures for notice were carried out, and that this be approved. Our minutes usually begin with "Pursuant to due call and notice thereof..." and the minutes are approved at the following meeting. This may be similar to approving a Certificate of Notice, but then there is a question about the role of minutes. 3. Minutes. Minutes as such are being regarded as less and less significant, and certainly less and less official. It is recognized that minutes are an interpretation of the person taking the minutes, and for any legal action, a transcription of the audio tapes will be called for. It may be more honest to label the minutes differently, such as a summary of actions or a report for the City Council, and state that the complete record are on audio tape. 4. Findings. In a 1991 case, a Board of County Commissioners denied a permit for a senior day care center, and stated that such a facility was neither needed or wanted in their county. The severity of the court judgment drew national attention to the case. The importance of findings and basing a decision on the public record, has always been strongly emphasized. Now there is an indication that the courts are less and less amused at decisions that are arbitrary and capricious, and not based on findings. 5. Insurance. Most governmental entities have insurance for errors and omissions, but it may be important to obtain in writing from the insurance carrier, assurance that the policy covers violations of civil fights. At the beginning of March, a community in Virginia sponsored a meeting for visioning for the future. One member of the community came in with two hand guns and a shotgun, and told the person running the meeting that if he mentioned the word "vision," he and others would be wiped out. Fortunately, a Sheriffs deputy came quickly and was able to handle the situation. There is, however, an increasing concern over mentally deranged people with guns. Many larger communities have a uniformed and armed officer at all meetings, and several of the smaller communities have a "panic button" to summon help from the police when needed. Many larger communities expressed some total dissatisfaction with their local coverage of planning commission meetings in the press. This is mostly the case in cities with daily newspapers. They complain that reporters assigned to planning commission meetings are the most inexperienced, and the night editors who write the headlines and condense the copy are unknowledgable. Worst of all, when they try to give background information, they find that many young reporters have what is called the "Woodward and Bernstien" syndrome. They are much more intent on exposing corruption than in understanding what goes on at a meeting. The State of Oregon is evidently highly organized. One city manager complained to be about their myriad of regulations about their plans, their ordinances and their urban service areas. Every time a zoning ordinance is changed, for example, even if it only a change in setbacks, some forms have to be filled out, and it has to be approved by a state office, which can take a few months. According to this manager, it was a good idea gone wild. On the other hand, the state has mandated some procedures for inventorying and preserving historic buildings, and this has been the catalyst for the economic rejuvenation of some downtowns. Lot sizes in that state (and in many other locations) are typically much snaller than here. Their residential zones are R-5, R-7 and R-10 for minimum sizes of 5,000, 6,000 and 10,000 square feet respectively. In the agricultural zones, though, there are some huge minimum lot sizes of 640 acres. One complete morning session was devoted to the costs of urban sprawl. The session included a great deal of valuable information, but like the Southeast Michigan COG piece in our packet, it was more about the costs to a metropolitan area when suburbs develop. One of the presenters was a professor from Rutgers University, and he told me afterwards that he would try to send me information on studies comparing the urban costs of small and large lots in outlying areas. Avoiding and Responding to Takings Challenges: an Action Guide for Planners by Eric Damian Kelly Ann Louise Strong Daniel R. Mandelker The best protection against takings challenges is (1) a sound, up to date plan that establishes the links between proposed land use restrictions and public policy goals, (2) implemented by regulations that carry out the plan with the least feasible impediment to private land use, both (3) set in a procedural framework that assures prompt, open decision making. This article provides an action guide for planners to use in implementing these concepts and in responding to legislative interest in the takings issue. The lead paragraph in each section of this article is an abstract of a full section in a longer paper, which has been provided to chapter presidents,a Topic: Property Rights--Freedom and Its Externalities Property exists in the context of a larger society, a society that includes many citizens, and many other pieces of property. Federal, state and local governments have long regulated the use and development of land for the protection of the larger society, including the owners and occupants of neighboring land. Thus, the notion of regulation of property is fundamental to the concept of private property and is one elemem of the same social contract that creates the notion of private ownership of land. Action Checklist ~/ Educate your community and its leaders on the responsibilities that go with property rights. ] This is a brief summary of an article and a paper prepared by APA's Properly Rights Task Force of Eric Damian Kelly, Daniel R. Mandelker, and Ann Louise Strong. The paper, entitled "Good Planning, Consistent Regulation, and Fair Decision-Making: A Prescription For Avoiding T 'akings Challenges," has been provided to chapter presidents and is available from the Washington office of APA. The article will appear in the Winter 1996 issue of Journal of the American Planning Association, under the title "The Longer View: Property Rights and Takings." If not already in place, establish a procedure for review of pwposed public works expenditures and proposed public acquisition or disposition of properly/'or conl'ormity with the relevant plan or plans. If not already in place, establish a procedure for periodic audit of plans and plan implementation so that the public will be aware of progress made, difficulties encountered, and changes deemed desirable. Topic: The Decision-Making Process A careful distinction between legislative and quasi-judicial land use decisions can help avoid taking claims. Action Checklist ~,' Be certain that you understand whether rezoning decisions in your state are truly legislative, and thus highly-discretionary decisions, or whether they are quasi-judicial decisions, subject to stringent procedural and substantive requirements. ~" When in doubt, the quasi-judicial process is always a safe one to follow. That involves: 1. Notice to affected parties 2. A/'air hearing be/ore an impartial tribunal 3. A decision based on the record at the hearing, something that is best documented through careful "findings of fact." v' Review your state statutes to determine if they provide for quasi-judicial hearings when land use decisions are limited to individual property owners and/or specific parcels. If not, draft legislation that will assure fair notice and hearing, findings of fact, and establishment of a record before an impartial tribunal. Work to assure passage of this legislation. It will provide a safety valve when actions may have onerous consequences on a few. Topic: Procedural Remedies Frustration with the uncertainties of litigation against local government is one of the factors motivating those seeking monetary damages. The system of variances, conditional uses and other procedures/'or administrative relief is outmoded. Delay in decision making also occurs, and applicants for land use approvals can be so frustrated in attempting to obtain relief that they may conclude that their only hope is Topic: Substantive Fairness: Protecting Reasonable Expectations Changed rules lead to much of today's land-use litigation, particularly when the changes in rules adversely affect a project begun under the old rules. The common law concept of vested fights as it has evolved in most of the states is inadequate to address today's complex developments. Legislatively expanding the concept of vested fights would resolve many significant disputes without significant public expenditures. Action Checklist ~ The principle of vested rights needs to be expanded by state legislatures to protect landowners who have made substantial invesnnents in reliance on regulations that were subsequently revised against their planned use of property. Topic: Substantive Fairness: Achieving Rough Proportionality Impact fees are an appropriate and probably essential part of an exactions program that imposes burdens on property owners that are "roughly proportional" to the impacts of a proposed project, a relationship required by a recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. ~' Negotiated exaction processes rarely achieve "rough proportionality." ~' Exactions based on the location of a property (such as requiring dectication of a fight-of-way for a new throughway from everyone who owns land along it) are much less likely to achieve rough proportionality than exactions based on the impacts of proposed development. ~/ Impact fees are one way of achieving public reimbursement for the costs of new development. As the Supreme Court has emphasized, their imposition must bear a "rough proportionality" to the costs of the development. Topic: Substantive Fairness: A voiding TaKings through Regulatory Flexibility The purpose of monetary remedies is to compensate the landowner for a loss. In some cases, more flexible regulations can eliminate or substantially mitigate a loss, thus avoiding or minimizing the damages and any resulting payment. and to suggest actions for APA chapters facing the takings challenges in their communities and in their own state legislatures. About the Authors Daniel R. Mandelker, AICP, is Stamper Professor of Law at Washington University, SL Louis, Missouri. Ann Louise Strong, AICP, is Emeritus Professor of City and Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Eric Darnian Kelly, AICP, is Dean of the College of Architecture and Planning at Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana. All three have backgrounds in planning and law and have written extensively about the takings issue. Profs. Strong and Mandelker first published articles dealing with this important issue nearly forty yearn ago. The three served as members of an ad hoc Property Rights Task Force appointed by APA leadership to develop this action paper to supplement APA's adopted Policy Guide on the takings issue. To: Elk River Planning Commission From: Tom Dillon Date: April 30, 1996 Re: 1996 APA National Planning Conference, April 13 - 17, 1996 The following are a few notes on the classes that I attended: Rezoning Downtown; Denver had no zoning laws regarding height limits, floor area ratios, no minimum requirement on parking, no design review controls nor did they have any site plan review requirements until the city council adopted these new ordinances into effect in 1986, they were not implemented until 1993 and 1994. Downtown Denver now has design standards for street facades up to 80' above street elevation, they have also taken this a step further and set standards for "skyscrapers" that they shall not totally prohibit sunlight onto the downtown mall area, they have devised some ratios to set limits on the shadows that can be cast. Denver has also come up with a set of design standards that if followed to the letter, would not require staffreview and could be approved in as little as 15 days. Planning Commission and NIMB Y's fNot In Mv Back Yardi' The emphasis on this is three-fold: Community involvement Developer involvement City Council Support To Overcome NIMBY's -- Do better up-front planning. The city's comprehensive plan should be up-to- date and followed. You must have a solid foundation. Finding of Facts must be done before making decisions and city staff must be utilized to get the information that is needed for planning commission. Zoning_for Communi_tv Residences (Group Homes_)' Zoning for group homes is very much different than that of institutions. The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 states that discrimination includes a refusal to make reasonable accommodations in the rules, policies .......... when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. Zoning with a definition of family that limits unrelated persons living together (5 for instance) (enacted in the 1960's to keep out communes) can regulate the size of a disabled group home provided they have spacing requirements and licenses. These can be provided if the group home wants to be over your limit. If they still want to locate closer or be larger than allowed, they can apply for a special use permit and then the burden of proof is on them. Key factors for determining validity of zoning provision for community residences: 1: Is the proposed zoning restriction intended to achieve a legitimate government purpose? 2: Does the proposed zoning restriction actually achieve the preferred legitimate government purpose? Tom Dillon. Notes to Planning Commission. continued April 30. 1996 Page 3: Is the proposed zoning restriction the least drastic means necessary to achieve that legitimate government purpose. Emere_ency Management in Communi~ Planning: Emergency management and planners must work together. There are four areas or emergency management: 1: Mitigate: Any action taken to permanently eliminate of reduce the long-term vulnerability to human life and property from hazards. 2: Prepare: Action taken in advance of an emergency to develop operational capabilities and facilitate an effective response. 3: Respond: Actions taken immediately before, during, or after an emergency to save lives and minimize property loss. 4: Recovery: Activity to return vital life support systems to minimum standards and long-term activities designed to return to normal. As planners, we could be starting at any of the above and revolving around the loop. There are three "C's" of emergency management planning: Communicate Coordinate Cooperate Parliamenta~_ Procedures_for Comtnissiottcr$; David Allor, Professor at School of Planning, was the speaker at this seminar. It was very informative. Professor Allor discussed in great detail all of the motions and actions as I have listed on the attached article that he wrote for the Planning Commissioners Journal. Fall 1995 (See appendix "a"). A few highlights from his discussion:, - Robert's Rules has no provisions for public hearings. - Audio tapes should be saved thru judicial appeal. - Public hearings should be opened and closed with a motion, second, and vote. - Voting should be done by random roll call. - Applicant may not contract your vote. You should not negotiate with applicant after the public hearing is closed. - To declare a conflict of interest, Professor Allot feels you must leave the council chambers. Our Town - Planning Commission Meeting: I was a participant in a mock planning commission meeting that was quite real-life. It was interesting and informative to see how the planning commission meeting should go. (The City of Elk River rates pretty high compared to some communities.) Tom Dillon. Notes to Planning Commission. continued April 30. 1996 Page They used a lot of new technology that I would like to see implemented in Elk River. They used scanners to add items (buildings, signs, etc.) to the pictures that they presented to give the planning commission more insight and better understanding as to how the affected change might look. The affected property should also have a sign posted prior to public hearing. Another good idea that they used was to have the rules posted on the back of the agenda to let the public audience know what is expected of them. (See appendix "b"). Practical Guide to Si_tm Control: This workshop was full of information. I have attached a copy of handout material. (See appendix "c"). What is the problem? Be specific. What is practical and feasible to regulate? Is there "Political Will" to empower staffto enforce? What signs do you want to exempt? What signs do you want to prohibit? What signs do you want to regulate? If you grant a variance on signs, you set a standard (Stay away from variances). You should have different ordinances for the following, as they each have their own problems: 1: On-sight 2: Off-sight You may have different sign regulations by zoning districts. You should ignore all contents of message on "off-sight" signs and you should eliminate discretion. FEATURE The Commission Will Come to Order: ':{'~.$;'part of my work, I often observe planning commission meetings. I appreciate the consci- entious efforts of members to examine com- plex aspects of specific issues under the principles of the comprehensive plan, adopted public policy, and development regulation. This is a difficult enough task in itself: yet, under our system of government these processes of deliberation and decision must comply with estal~lished procedures. To structure their efforts, many plan- ning commissions have adopted, and come to rely upon, Robert's Rules of Order. in one or another edition· I doubt, however, that many commissions have either a clear understanding of parliamentary procedure or the ability to effectively apply Robert's Rules. In this short article, I want to summa- rize the essential features of parliamentary procedure, and review some of the prob- lems planning boards face in using Robert's Rules. The "Model Outline of Motions for Planning Commissions," which follows this article, seeks to adapt Robert's Rules to better meet the particular needs of today~ plan- ning and zoning boards. The Model Out- line of Motions represents a simpler and, I hope. more understandable set of proce- dural rules to guide a planning or zoning board's deliberative processes -- and. of equal importance, promote public under- standing of commission deliberations. 1. Win' I--I~v~ RULES OF PROCEDURE? I am aware that many planning com- mJ.ssioners will read this discussion and the Outline with little enthnsiasm, if not with real dread. Permit me to argue three reasons for understanding and applying parliamen- mD' procedures. First, failure to adopt and follow formal, fair, and coherent procedures erodes public confidence in planning. Where planning is an optional power of local government, such an erosion of cornS- · denee could endanger phnnmg altogether. COMMENTARY ON ADAPTING THE RULES OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONS, ZONING BOARDS (ST BOARDS OF ADJUSTMENT by David J. Allot Even where planning is a mandated power of local government, public participation could be reduced to a paralyzing conflict over proper procedure. Second, failure to consistently apply procedures could result in a deprivation of individual rights and damage to individual interests. Third and finally, failure to consistently apply proce- dures would invite litigation against the local unit of government. These considerations do reflect certain basic pnnciples of self-government. First, as Henry Roberts notes is "the right of the deliberate majority to decide" m which is immediately coupled to the second, the right of the minority to secure "considered judgment after a full and fair 'working through' of the issues involved." (Robert's Rules [1915] 1971). Moreover, such proce- dures assure that all members of the body are treated equally, and that all are free to participate fully in the discussion. common law concepts of reasonableness, non-arbitrariness, and non-capriciousness. Perhaps, the best-advice-on-the-balance- between discipline and reasonableness comes from Henry Robert Nmself: Know about parliamentary law, but do,.. not try to show off your knowledge. Never be technical, or more strict than is absolutely necessary for the good of t~ meeting. Use your judgment; the as.Kmbly may be of such a nature through its ignorance of parliamen. tar), usages and peage, fi~ disposition, that a strict enforcement of rules, instead of assist- ing. would greatly hinder business; but in la~ge assemblies, where there/s much work to be done. and especially where there is liability to trouble, the only safe course is to require a strict observance to the rules. Robert's Rules (1915 ecfition) 2. PROnLE~S Wrm Roster's Rtr~_s 'The. prededing quotation, ,while con~: mining valuable advice, also reflects the ,first of three weaknesses within Robert's Rules. The text, now more than a century-old, is not written in a manner coherent to speak- ers accustomed to the contemporary use of the English language. The complexity of the language undermines the ability to under- stand and apply the procedure. More seri- ously, misunderstandings of the language of parliamentary procedure aggravate suspi- cion of deception or manipulation within debate. Again, dual raqui .rements must be addressed: parliamentan/procedure must be comprehensible as contemporary lan- guage but be sufficiendy disciplined to ful- fill the requirements of The second weakne~ is la~aly histori- cal. In the early years of. its ~depandence, the United States of ~,me~ca felt a strong need to give discipline' ~-the processes of self-government. Thom~'jeffamon~ Mom- al of Pari~t,,ry ~ O801) sought to Parliamentary procedure seeks to pm- guide the conduct of~'national con~. vide [or.both efficient and effective deci- Both Luther S. CU-~..'lO(Manual o.~.,...~. ,i~ sion-making and both open and full debate mental_, PracUce._(~a_n. d I-I¢~i~,~. o.f t~, es. T~.ey are closely allied to constitu- Roberts Rules of.O~'_"~i~'~6) uonat requu'ements of due rocess and to - ' · ........ ~-:-- ' v" '~.~" ' SI O N ER.S ,J~O'U:R.N.A L :/.'N~U:M:BE~"~'~.i':,' ~~~, voluntary associations. Yet, many manuals focus upon large legislative bodies, where contending interests, perhaps politically- partisan interests, reinforce a "win-lose" rather than 'argument-fo-consensus- con- ception of decision-making. The rigidity of certain procedures impairs the collaborauve exploration of alternatives. Two examples are important. First. par- liamentary procedure disallows discussfon of an issue in the absence ora motion: how- ever, if a motion is made. the subsequent discussion is constrained to that motion. Many deliberative bodies employ the option of 'Recessing into a Committee of the Whole" to enable broader discussion. This is impracticable on a regular basis and often confuses the public. Second. small deliberative bodies (those of three to five members) may do well to delete the requirement for a "Second" to motions. It would be unfortunate for an otherwise good motion to 'die for lack of Second." In both cases, the ultimate decision should be based upon the quality of the deliberation. not technical considerations of motion- making. The third weakness of Robert's Rules relates to the application of parliamentary rules to the special nature of planning and zoning boards. Unlike the large, elected or self-constituting assemblies considered by Henry Robert, the work of planning is guid- ed by deliberative bodies which are small, appointed in staggered terms of office, and obligated to conform to provisions of state statute and/or municipal charter. In general, the work of planning com- missions and zoning boards are taken to be quasi-legislative; their actions are most fre- quently recommendations to a legislative body, rather than definitive actions (except, in those states where a planning commis- sion makes final decision on plat approvals). Where a board of adjustment hears requests for variance or appeals of administrative interpretation, its actions are taken to be quasi-judicial and are final texcept as they may be appealed to the court). These peculiarities were not envi- sioned by Robert. Four other issues also merit discussion: First, planning commissions, zoning boards, and boards of adjustment often must act within fixed time frames -- for example, within thirty days to make recom- mendation or decision. As a result, motions to "Object to Consideration," "Lay on the Table." or "Postpone indefinitely' are large- ty inappropriate. Second, and similarly, a motion to "Reconsider' is very difficult to employ ',,'iflnn limited time periods, and taking into a-count notice requirements. Third. since the votes of commission and board members should a~ways be taken by roll call, the motion for the 'Division of the Assembly" is unnecessary. Fourth. public heanngs -- so common to the planning commission deliberative process ~ are not directly addressed in Robert's Rules. Robert~ proViSions for "Occa- sional or Mass Meetings" offer little direc- tion. For Robert, deliberative bodies did not directly hear the testimony of interested parties. While such information could be introduced through committee report, reg- ular deliberative sessions permitted only commission or board members to speak. In consequence, deliberative bodies in plan- ning need to adopt a number of procedures to facilitate the orderly participation of the public. Such motions as 'Open (or Recess into) Public Hearing", 'Accept (written materials) for the Public Record", 'Close the Public Hearing", and 'Close the Public Record" are essential features of due process for planning-related decision-making. 3. SOME FINAL OBSERVATIONS, I wish to conclude these comments on a very serious note. Each commission or board member is under an obligation to know the relevant statutes and codes, char- ter provisions, and by-laws. If a question of law or procedure arises, it should -- if at all .PL~A.N N I N G possible -- be referred to and answered by legal counsel and settled prior to the meet- ing. Recurrent questions to legal counsel on matters of procedure within a meeting cast doubt upon both the dedication and pre- paredness of commission or board mem- bers. Formal procedures can offer little support to proper planning unless they are clearly understood, consistently applied, and broadly-accepted as both fair and effective. I hope you will read through the "Model Outline of Motions" set out on the following pages. It is designed to make it easier for planning and zoning boards to operate in a manner that is fair and understandable, both to the members themselves and to the public. I WiSh to express my appreciation to the many planning commission, zoning board, and board of adjustment members with whom I have worked to clarify decision- making procedures. Many of the comments in both the above essay and the outline on the following pages have been taken from notes made at local, state or national train- ing sessions sponsored by the American Planning Association. I also wish to thank Professor Robert E. Manley, University of Cincinnati, and partner in the law firm of Manley, Burke, Fischer, Lipton and Cook, Cincinnati, Ohio, for his constructive criti- cism of the draft versions of this work David J. Allot is Professor. School of Planning, and Fel- low, Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution, Univer- sity of Cincinnati. He is the author of 'Keeping Things in Order:. Phanning Commission By-Laws,' and 'Outline of Articles of By-Laws for a Planning Commis~on,' in l.tm~ #14 of the Planning Commissioners Journal. Allot has also ~ritttm The Planning Commissioners Guide: Processes for Reasoning Together (available fwm the APA Book- s~or~), and is a member of the . _.A!rm. ir. an lnstitute of . Certified Planners and the 5oda'y of Prvfesstonals in COMMISSION. ERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 20 / FA LL,'I 9~9~-'~ ..... "'~'~.' ..__ Model Outline of Motions fo anninn . . r PI_...... Commissions and Zoning Boards by David J. Allot 1. CALL TO ORDER NS I ND INA I NV Action of the chairperson to bring the members, staff, and audience into order. 2. CALL FOR QUORUM NS I ND INA I NV Acuon of the chairperson, with confirmation by the secre- tar3'., that the commtssion may conduct official business. 3. CALL TO FOLLOW THE AGENDA NS I ND INA I NV Action of the chairperson to proceed with the agenda as pub- Itsbed. so that persons attending and possibly wishing to testify may know the order of issues to be heard and decided. 4. Motion to AMEND THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA SIDIAIV For very specific reasons, other than those of inconvenience or unpreparedness, a commission member may move to alter the order but not the content of the agenda. 5. Motion to FIX THE TIME TO ADJOURN SINDIAI¥ Once the order of the agenda has been decided, a planning commission ts under an obliga- tion to estimate how much of its work it can reasonably and responsibly conclude within a single meeting. Where a public heanng is required, the chaiq~er- son can impose reasonable but equitable time constraints upon public testimony. 6. Motion to APPROVE THE MINUTES NSINDIAIV Action to approve the minutes of a previous meeting. The mtn- utes are amendable to improve clarity, accuracy, and complete- ness, but not to re-open debate on a previously decided agenda item. PLA N N I N G. C The following outlirte modifies, withdraws, and inserts motions into the order provided within Robert's Rules of Order (Revised 1971 and Newly ReVved 1990). However, the motions are not presented in order of precedence, but in the order in which they are most likely to appear within the meeting of a commission or board. In this outline, a single public heanng is heard ~qthin a deliberative meeting. BorroWing from Jon I_ Ericson~ Notes and Comments on Robert's Rules (1991). each motion is coded in four categories: requires Second (S), or not is Debatable (D), or not (ND), is Amendable (A), ornot (NA), and requires Vote (v), or not (NV). A simple majority is required, unless otherwise noted. Immediately below the motion and its codes is a brief explana- tion of the motion~ use and relevance. 7. Motion to RECONSIDER 5IDINAJV A procedural mouon, used where a commission member in the majority on a previously decided uem w~shes to have the commission reconsider its vote. The mouon ~s appropriate only where: ~ 1 ) crucml information, not available at the time of the initial vote. is now avmlable, or (2) there has been a substantial change of cm:umstances since the initial vote. Great care should be taken W~th respect to this motion so as to not violate notice requirements or time limitaUons on action. If the mouon for RECONSIDERATION is passed, the teem is re-presented in total, after which a new sub- stantive motion may be made. 8. Motion to RECESS INTO PUBLIC HEARING SINDINAIV To this point the commission is in regular deliberative meeting, it now may RECESS INTO PUB- LIC HEARING in order to take ' public testimony on a specific agenda item. During a public hearing, a commission member may not make substantive motions. 9. Motion to ACCEPT FOR THE RECORD SINDINAIV A procedural motion to officially incorporate an application, agency report, consulrant~ report, letter, petition, or other Wnnen or V~Sual matenah into the public record. 10. Motion to CLOSE THE PUBLIC RECORD SINDINAIV If the planning commission wishes to proceed with debate on the item. it must close the public record. Both the record of written and visual materiaLs and the oral testimony form the basis of con- stderation and decision. Where the commission ts to deliberate the case at a future meeting, it may leave the public record open for a specific period of time, usually two business days, to receive any additional written materials. 11. Motion to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SINDINAIV A procedural motion made when all public testimony has concluded; the planning commis- sion has now returned to dellbera- tive meeting, OMMISSIONERS JOURNAL / NUMBER 20 12. CALL TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION NS I ND INA I NV After broad discussion and deliberation among the members of the planning commission, the chairperson may invite, but may not make, a motion. 13. Motion to CLOSE DEUBERATION SINDINAIV A procedural motion to test whether the planning commis- sion is ready to move from delib- eration to decision. For smaller ' commissions, the CALL TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION (see #12) would be sufficient to move the commission toward substan- tive motion. 14. Motion to APPROVe, APPROVE 'vVITH CONDITIONS, or converse motion to DISAPPROVE SIDIAIV A substantive motion (often called the MAIN motion): tt may take one of two forms: (1) a definitive action, or (2) a recom- mendation. Requires recitation of reasons in support of the motion: both thc Mover and Seconder must concur in the reasons and tn the conditions, ff such are attached. A tie vote constitutes defeat of the motion. When a motion to DLSAPPROVE ts defeated, a converse motion should be made to secure APPROVAL or APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS. 15. Motion to AMFND the Prt~ous Motion SIDIAIV Amending motions may be either procedural or substantive. When a motion has been moved and seconded and ts witl'tLn the period of deba-., it is subject to substitution, alteration or perfec- tion. When an amendment ts seen as "friendly,' that is, compat- ible with the previous motion by lh~ initial_ l~o~r and seconder, the amemimmt may be incorpo- =~,..='_ , .... '~--'~.;.'~-"~ .... '.. -. .! rated directly into the previous mohon by verbal assent: where the amending motion is seen as · 'unfriendly,' it must b~ debated and decided first. All motions to AMEND the prexaous motion must be decided pnor to delibera- tion and vote on the MAIN motion {see #14). 16. Motion to RECESS SINDIAI¥ A procedural motion to permit a very, brief suspension of public heanng or deliberative meeting to facilitate commission opemuons or for the comfort of the public. Plan- ning commission members should avoid contact W~th interested par- ues dunng recess. 17. Motion to DEFER TO SPECIFIC TIME SIDIAI¥ Where testimony on a public hearing or deliberation by the commission on an agenda item cannot be concluded Wnthin a sin- gle session, a motion to DEFER TO A SPECIFIC TIME, that is, the immediately next meeting, is appropriate. The deferred nero becomes the first item in the suc- ceeding agenda. Care must be taken to not violate notice or #me limitation requirements (as with #7, Motion to RECONSIDER). 18. Motion to EXTEND THE TIME TO ADJOURN SINDIAIV Having already fixed the time of adjournment (see #5, Motion to FIX TIME TO ADJOURN), the commission may nevertheless "...extend such time. but by a two- thirds vote. 19. Motion to ADJOURN SINDINAIV While a motion to ADJOURN is always appropriate, planning commissions are obligated to expedite items on the meeting agenda. A Motion to ADJOURN is best used when all agenda items have been decided or remaining items have been DEFERRED TO SPECIFIC TIME (see #17). PLANNING C An additional num- ber of motions are neces- sary to facilitate the internal operations of the commission or acknowl- edge rights of its mem- bers. The following motions have no order of precedence. 20. Motion to ADOPT or the converse motion to REJECT SIDIAIV Action lo incorporate, alter, or chromate p-,hcies which guide the decision-making of the com- mission or board. Polic~ adoption requires only a voting majority; adopuon ol. or amendment to. by-laws rcqmres a two-thirds vote. IEditor's ,',lo~c: For more on by- laws. sec David Allor's 'Keeping Things In O~dcr: Planning Commis- sion/3.v-Laws, in PCJ #14]. 21. Motion to REFER TO COMMITTEE SIDIAI¥ Some larger planning com- missions have provision in their by-laws allowing referral of spe- cific issues to smaller committees for deliberation anc( subsequent recommendation back to the full commission. This does not dele- gate power to the committee to decide the issue. 22. Motion to DIVIDE A MOTION SINDIAIV Where a motion has been both moved and seconded and is under deliberation, but where that motion is considered as com- plex. Any member of the com- mission may seek to divide the motion, thereby permitting inde- l~ndent votes on specific issues. Care must be taken not to divide a motion in such a manner as to subsequently make contradictory decisions among the features of the divided motion. 23. Action to WITHDRAW A MOTION NS I ND INA I V Where the Mover finds that an initial motion is flawed, inap- propriate, or premature, the Mover may seek to W~thdraw the motion in whole. This action is not permissible if the otig~nal motion is either subject to an amending motion or has been amended. 24. Motion to SUSPEND THE RULES SIDIAI¥ Where. in extraordinary, con- ditions, established rules would hinder rather than promote effec- tive deliberation, specific rules may be suspended for specific time within a meeting -- the rea- sons for such suspension should be entered into the minutes of the meeting. Any suspenaon of rules requires a two-thirds vote. Great care must be taken under a sus- pension of rules to avoid the appearance (or the fact) of unfair- ness. No rule may be suspended which is otherwise required by laW. 25. Action to RULE OUT OF ORDER NS I ND INA I NV To assure the orderly progress of a meeting or hearing, the chair- person may rule individuah -- whether members of the commis- sion, staff, or the public -- out of order where: (1) comments are irrelevant to the item under dis- cussion. (2) comments have already been made, (3) the speci- fied period of time in which to speak has expired, or (4) com- ments are disruptive to the order of the meeting. 26. Instruction to DISREGARD NS I ND INA I NV To assure the objectivity of the heatings and meetings, thc chair- person may instruct the members to DISREGARD comments md/or written or vi_~ual materials that ave inllammatory or prejudicial. Such comments, however, ar~ retained OMMISSIONER5 JOURNAL / NUMBER 20 in any recordings or transcribed minutes of the meeting, and in the public record. 27. Motion to APPEAL THE RULING OF THE CHAIR SIDINAI¥ A right of members of a com- mission to challenge the action of a chairperson, so as to ensure that proper procedures are followed, not to impede deliberation and decision. 28. A POINT OF ORDER NS I ND INA ] NY A right of members of a com- mission to request that the chair- person follow proper order. The intent is to assure proper progress of deliberation, not to contest action of the chairperson (as in #27 Motion to APPEAL THE RULING OF THE CHAIR). The point of order seeks to address an immediate concern, not debate . . larger procedural issues. Repeated use of A POINT OF ORDER to delay or frustrate dec,ion i~ inap- propnare and damages the conti- nuity of deliberation. 29. A POINT OF INFORMATION NS ] ND ]NA ] NY A tight of members of a com- mission to request the specific inclusion or clarification of mat- ters of fact from the chail'person. 30. A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE NS I ND INA I NV A right of any member of the commLssion to e. xpress matters of serious concern. For example, if a member of the comm~on is aware of a conflict of intva~st in a specific ca.s~, that member should at the time that the case is brought forward on the agenda, tame A POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE, declare that a conflict of interest exist.s, and withdraw from all fur,her participation on that case. As a SlX. ciai note: I encourage that a member, having declared a conflict of intezest, Imvt the dmmber until that cas~ has been decided. ~ OUR PLANNI[NG COMMISSION Rules of Procedure Agenda - The Agenda shall contain the Items to be considered by the Planning Commission at their meetings on the last Friday of each month in the Council Chambers of the Town Hall at 2:30 PM. The deadline for placing items on the Agenda shall be the close of business on the Friday 14 days before each meeting. Reading of Minutes - Unless a reading of the Minutes of a Planning Commission meeting is requested by a Commission member, such Minutes may be approved without a reading if the Secretary has previously furnished each member with a copy. Commission Members Addressing the Full Commission - No member shall interrupt anyone who is speaking, except to call him/her to order or for explanation. Non-Commission Members Addressing the Board - Any person who is not a member of the Commission may speak to the Commission with permission of the Chair and shall address the Chair. Each person, after stating his/her name and address, may make comments which are relevant to the subject matter at hand and which are limited to three (3) minutes, unless additional time is granted in advance by the Chair. Procedures for a Public Hearing - A staff member will present each application, summarizing the information that is available for the hearing. Those in attendance who are in favor of the request, including the applicant, will then be given an opportunity to present information in support of the application. Next, the opponents of the request will be given a chance to present their facts and reasons for opposing the application. The Commission members will then discuss the request and vote on the issue. Recording of Votes - All votes of the Commission shall be done publicly and by show of hands, and shall be recorded in the Minutes. 'SIGN CONTROL TWO CATEGORIES OF SIGNS On-Premise -advertises place where the sign is located Off-Premise (billboards) 1. Freestanding 2. Wall 3. Roof 4. Projecting TYPES OF SUPPORT 1. By zone 2. By type of message METHODS OF CONTROL C-2, A-l, etc. (commercial message; non~ ~ f~5~ commercial message) ~ 3. By characteristics height a) b) area - square feet c) spacing - distance to other signs d) lighting e) movement 4. By special use permit 5. Encourage or require non-conforming signs to conform to ordinance a) amortize b) limit repair OUTLINE: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO SIGN CONTROL Define the sign problems, '. a) Categorize according to type of structural support for the sign. 1) Building signs, i.e., signs attached to building walls, roofs, windows, canopies, awning, etc. The structural characteristic of such signs is that a building, fence or other structure having an independent reason for its existence also serves as the support for the sign. 2) Freestanding signs - signs which stand free from buildings and fences: e.go portable signs, pole signs, tethered balloons, flag poles. b) Categorize according to the type of message displayed on the sign. 1) On-premise signs. 2) Off-premise signs. 3) Other references to the content of the sign message raise possible First Amendment questions, so it is better to avoid other regulatory references to sign content. c) Sign problems include clutter, driver distraction, blocking of competing signs, off-premise signs competing with on-premise signs and impairing the improvement and development of property to higher and better uses. -1- The law: What you can and cannot do and what to guard against. a) Statutory restrictions of state and federal statutes. b) Constitutional restrictions. Intended audience: a) Elected officials, planners, government attorneys, citizens. b) For any person who finds "Street Graphics and The Law" to be too much to absorb but who needs to start somewhere. Model ordinance: Outline. a) Statement of purpose - community's purpose. b) Types of controls (area, height, spacing, illumina- tion, zoning). c) Zoning ordinance v. separate sign ordinance. Politics: a) Get to know your local government legislators. b) Which government staff to use. c) Developing and accumulating evidence of sign problems. d) Contacts with advertisers and general public. e) "Sign committees." f) Advisory groups, planning commissions, homeowner associations, business associations. g) State and federal legislators. h) Differences between on-premise advertisers and off- premise advertisers. -2- i) Press and TV. Enforcement. a) Permits for new signs. 1) Permit/registration of old signs· 2) Fee structure. b) Nonconforming signs. 1) Retain or remove. c) Enforcement officials. -3- PRACTICAL GUIDE TO SIGN CONTROL - Legal Aspects and Pitfalls Leqal Pitfall No. 1: First Amendment violations.in the on- premise regulations can provide billboard (off-premise) companies a basis for challenging the parts of the off-premise ordinance that they wish to invalidate. Solution No. 1: Quarantine. Isolate the pn-premise regulations from the off-premise regulations by having two separate ordinances, one for on premise, one for off premise, each able to stand alone with its own definitions, procedures, restrictions, etc. Leaal Pitfall No. 2: Discretion abused, with insufficient facts to sustain denial of a discretionary permit. Solution No. 2: Remove discretion from the sign ordinances by adopting objective criteria for granting and denying sign permits. Typically the sign permit will be a building permit. Create clear, unambiguous, easily determined, objective requirements so that the average building official can process the permit as easily as processing a permit for a conventional structure covered by the Uniform Building Code. Corollary to No. 2: Either do not allow variances at all or govern the variances by criteria, such as a set percentage. Example: 1000' spacing distance, if varied by 10%, results in a minimum spacing distance of no less than 900' (not 899.9999) (Note, in some jurisdictions variances of requirements are sometimes allowed by "special use permits" or "conditional use permits" Again, either do not allow requirements to be modified or else limit the modifications to a fixed amount. ',.0 ~eqal Pitfall No. 3: Non-comprehensive definitions. Solution No. 3: Do not try to create exemptions in your definition of "sign" or in the definitions of particular types of signs. Instead make definitions so broad as to be all-inclusive: include everything; then explicably list those types that are to be exempted. Comment: Next to First Amendment violations, faulty definitions are the next major cause of the local government losing in court. ~eqal Pitfall No. 4: Making reference to the message content of a sign. Solution No. 4: Have two separate ordinances, to cover all conceivable signs, both on-premise and off-premise; then make the sign builder choose which ordinance he wants to govern his proposed sign. Then apply the chosen ordinance. Comment: This may result in some off-premise messages on some on-premise signs, but that will not create a problem if the on-premise regulations are sufficiently restrictive as to size, number and height of signs. Leqal Pitfall No. 5: Attempting to limit or prohibit the repair or replacement of damaged non-conforming signs without having specific criteria in the ordinance. Solution No. 5: Set criteria in terms of a fixed percentage 2 that is "reasonable". For example, prevent repair if the cost of repair exceeds 50% of the depreciated replacement cost of the damaged sign. .... Comment: Such a restriction takes advantage of mother nature, drunk drivers and other forces which attack non- conforming signs. Old age is a very effective tool in eliminating non-conforming signs. .~eqal Pitfall No 6: Fast removal of exDensive non- conforming signs. Solution No. 6: A long amortization period, long enough to create a strong argument that the sign owner has had a reasonable opportunity to recover the investment. Comment: An amortization period may be more trouble than it is worth. There are other methods of eliminating or downsizing. non-conforming signs. Some methods might be sufficient for your community, in terms of elapsed time and in the desired aesthetic goals. Leqal Pitfall No. 7: Non existent or inadequate "findings of fact" by the local government. Solution No. 7: Explicably state in the ordinance all the reasons you can think of for regulating signs. Without these, the court often has a difficult if not impossible time sustaining a particularly restrictive regulation. Brevity is not a virtue when it comes to stating the purpose and findings. Leqal Pitfall No. 8: Relying on the federal or state "Highway Beautification" Acts. 3 Solution No. 8: Determine your Dwn community standards and adopt these standards as your local laws. Comment: As a result'of small but remarkably ei~fective changes in the federal law obtained by the sign industry, the act has essentially become a billboard protection and proliferation act. The federal act does not and most state acts do not preempt local laws, as a general rule. The leverage against, local sign laws is a financial one, in effect a .~.hreat of loss of highway .... construction funds, or in the case of a few state laws, requiring payment of cash compensation instead of amortization of existing non-conforming billboards. Leqal Pitfall No. 8: Last but not least; failing to involve your municipal lawyer early in the process. Comment: Sign control does not have to be complicated, but it can be a futile attempt if certain basic legal principles are not followed. Your local government lawyer should be able to assure you that you are operating within the traditional legislative powers of the state, and should be able to avoid conflicts with federal and state constitutions. If the lawyer feels insecure, at least the lawyer can seek help from other lawyers who have been through some sign-control experiences. There is no such thing as a dumb question; don't be afraid to ask. There are people out there who will generally be happy to assist you. 4