HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-8-89 PZMThe Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City
Council. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings
and make recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes
all final decisions on these matters.
Lake Elmo Ordinances require that certain documents and
information be included in applications. The Planning Commission may
postpone consideration of an application that is incomplete and may
for other reasons postpone final action on an application.
For each item, the Commission will receive reports prepared
by the City Staff, open the hearing to the public, and discuss and act
on the application. If you are aware of information that hasn't been
discussed, please fill out a "Request to Appear Before the Planning
Commission" slip; or, if you came late, raise your hand to be
recognized. Comments that are pertinent are appreciated.
AGENDA
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 8, 1989
7:30 p.m. MEETING CONVENES
1.. AGENDA
2. MINUTES: APRIL 24, 1989
3. ROAD WIDTHS GUIDELINES
4. OLD VILLAGE HISTORICAL DISTRICT
5. METROPOLITAN SYSTEM STATEMENT AMENDMENTS
6. 1989 WORK PLAN - Chairman Enes
7. OTHER
8. ADJOURN
1
APPROVED
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINNUTES
APRIL 24, 1989
Chairman Enes called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:34 p.m.
in the City Council chambers. Present: Enes, DeLapp, Bucheck, Stevens,
Kunde, Dave Johnson, Dick Johnson, Conlin, and City Administrator
Morrison. Absent: Johnston, Haacice, John.
1. AGENDA
Add: If by 10:00 p.m.,
agenda. If this is not
agenda. 10A. Procedure
with time permitting, add Road Widths to the
possible, Road Widths will be added to the next PZ
for Distribution of Minutes by Steve DeLapp.
M/S/P Dick Johnson/Kunde - to approve the April 24, 1989 Planning
Commission agenda as amended. (Motion carried 8-0).
2. MINUTES: April 10, 1989
In regard to Page 2, 5th paragraph, Ann Bucheck requested insertion of the
statement made by Councilman Graves where he had flipflopped on the issue
and now wanted Residential Estates Zoning in the Comp Plan. Graves had.
stated the PZ did what the City Council directed them to do, but he had
the right to change his mind from what he voted on.
Ed Stevens commented that it was not feasible to correct another's
statement without their consent.
Steve DeLapp requested insertion of words "alternative RE" Future Land use
Map on Page 2, 9th paragraph.
Page 3, Minutes: March 27, 1989: request the wording "The PZ asked Steve
DeLapp to submit in writing a procedure for distributing official meeting
minutes.
Page 4, 1st paragraph, Add: representing the Sunburrow Homeowners
Assoc., asked for support in opposing the Oakdale Comp Plan Amendment....
Add: Mr. Garofalo advised the Commission that the City of Oakdale has
changed....
Page 4, 4th paragraph, A o Garofalo stated they have a petition,
signed by all but two d W residents that were out of town, ....
Page 4. MN Pipeline CO.: It was not that the PZ thought this an unworthy
item to address, but the PZ just received the MN Pipleline Company's
20-page document at 10:00 p.m. and did not have time to review it.
M/S/P DeLapp/Stevens
Minutes as amended.
3. PUBLIC HEARING:
Chairman Enes opened
Council Chambers.
- to approve the April 10, 1989 Planning Commission
(Motion carried 8-0).
LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION - Apostolic Bible Church
up the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m. in the City
Mr. Jeff Roos explained the Apostolic Bible Church has applied for a Large
Lot Subdivision to divide a 38 acre parcel into 3 lots each exceeding 10
acres (Lot 1-12.7 acres, Lot 2-12.4 acres and Lot 3-11.5 acres).
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1989 PAGE 2
Previously, they had provided a plan showing how Lots 2 and 3 could be
divided into 2.5 acre lots if the area is ever approved for 2.5 acres.
In Larry Bohrer's review, which Mr. Roos and the PZ just received at the
meeting, Bohrer pointed out that these lots, especially the Church lot
should have perc tests and soil borings performed to know if septic
systems can be constructed before approval is given. Mr. Roos responded
that he would have the soil borings and pert tests performed on these
three proposed lots.
Mr. Roos indicated they have provided a pond on Lot 1 to accommodate all
additional runoff that would be generated by the construction of the
street and by the church site. Bohrer indicated the site does naturally
drain to the NE, and they (Church) do not intend to put any additional
drainage in that direction than what naturally flows right now.
There was no one to speak for or against the application.
Chairman Enes closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Commission member DeLapp and Bucheck suggested this application be tabled
because they had just received Larry Bohrer's recommendations. The PZ
should not take any action unti soil borings and perc tests have been
performed and the information is provided to the PZ.
M/S/ DeLapp/Bucheck - to table the Large Lot Subdivision by the Apostolic
Church until the PZ has soil borings and perc test info on the three lots
proposed and can provide a reasonable configuration given the nature of
the soils.
Mr. Roos stated that he would provide the requested soil
tests that were requested by the City Engineer, but felt
redundant action because this testing will occur, again,
building permit process.
borings and perc
this was a
during the
in his letter,
Steve DeLapp decided tape s is motion based on the assumption thatA
the City Engineer was as 1-h-'
ity Council approval of the Preliminary
Plan for the proposed church low Lot 1. The only question before the PZ,
DeLapp stated, is whether the4configuration and the road correspond3to our
City ordinances as they exist.
DeLapp/Bucheck withdrew their motion on the basis that it has three 10
acre lots that are accessible to a road and it meets the zoning district
requirements as they exist.
M/S/P DeLapp/Dave Johnson - to recommend City Council approval for the
Large Lot Subdivision requested by the Apostolic Bible Church based on the
plan has 3 - 10 acre lots that are accessible to a road and the plan meets
the Rural Residential Zoning District requirements as they exist. (Motion
carried 8-0).
3. PUBLIC HEARING: LARGE LOT SUBDIVISION, Robert, Dorothy & Steve
Ziertman
Mr. & Mrs. Robert Ziertman have submitted a sketch plan in accordance with
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 24, 1989 PAGE 3
Section 401.260 B.2. of the City Code for a subdivision of a 10.1 acre lot
on Keats Avenue. The lot is properly zoned Rural Residential.
Chairman Enes opened up the Public Hearing at 8:12 p.m. in the City
Council chambers.
There was no one to speak for or against the application.
Chairman Enes closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m.
The Commission indicated the application required no variances, but the
applicant should have a survey prepared showing the right-of-way for Keats
Avenue at 33 feet. The applicant responded that both brother and sister
were having their surveys completed together in order to save on the cost.
M/S/P Stevens/DeLapp - to recommend approval by the City Council for a
Large Lot Subdivision requested by Robert and Dorothy Ziertman based on
the following Findings of Fact: (1) The lot is properly zoned Rural
Residential, (2) The applicant should have a Certificate of Survey
prepared and show 33 feet of right-of-way for Keats Avenue and (3) The lot
width exceeds the minimum 300 feet required by the Code and the ratio of
length to width is less than the 4:1 maximum required by the Code.
(Motion carried 8-0).
5. SITE PLAN REVIEW: STATE BANK OF LAKE ELMO
John Culligan, Project Manager, stated his firm of Borman Associates, have
been working on the plan for the Lake Elmo Bank since August. A sketch
was provided for the Commission's review.
The site is developed to be accessed off of 39th Street for both main
parking areas and the 5-lane Drive Thru. The main entrance to the site is
parking into the bank, occuring approx. 7.60' from the intersection
accessing in thru the parking lot which has parking available for 40
stalls. A secondary parking lot is provided primarily for employee
parking which has 23 stalls. In addition to this the Drive Thru area
would accommodate approx. 36 cars stacked up within 6 lanes. Basically,
they could accommodate 106 parking stalls.
The bank building is made up of nature products, basically, a brick
building with a series of layers of rock base block and bands of brick on
every other course. A pyramidal sky light is planned for the main
entrance of the bank to provide natural lighting. In terms of lighting
they will be uplighting the main skylights along with downlights at the
main entrance canopy, the drive thru canopy and the back entrance to the
building. The site lighting is an energy efficient 400 watt shoebox light
fixture on light poles that are 25' high. This lighting wouldbe adequate
for the needs of the bank and not provide a glare on the highway.
According to their calculations, it appears the bank will be at 42%
impervious surface which is under. the City's requirement of 45% maximum
impervious surface requirement.
The landscape plan was provided which the applicant felt went beyond what
the City required.
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1989 PAGE 4
The septic system has been designed and there is sufficient area for a
primary and an alternate drainfield.
They are proposing an illuminated sign at the corner of 39th and
Stillwater highway. This will be a pedestal sign approx. 8' high, 12'
wide, 10' above grade to the bottom of the sign. There will be street
numbers on the buildings, a smaller sign identifying the Lake Elmo Bank
and some directional signs. DeLapp reminded the applicants of our sign
ordinance which requires signs be lit only during business hours.
Dick Johnson asked if they require fill to raise the building because he
had a concern this fill might block any drainage easement. The applicant
responded they would bring in fill for the building and most of the
drainage that would take place is going to be handled through the roadway
system.
They anticipate starting construction the second or third week in June
with 9-10 months planned for construction of the building.
Ann Bucheck asked if the City, MnDOT and the Bank have discussed the
amount of traffic that will be stopping there on a Friday night. The
applicant's understanding is a left turn lane will be provided.
Steve DeLapp complimented the applicant on the effort they have made to
meet the City ordinances. If the parking lot is designed for more than 25
cars there should be internal landscaping in an area equal to 10% of the
required parking area, depending on how you interpret the parking
ordinances, it looked to Steve the applicants were trying very hard to
meet the intent of the ordinance.
M/S/P DeLapp/Dave Johnson - to recommend approval by the City Council of
the site plan for the State Bank of Lake Elmo with a probable variance
granted for the interior landscaping on the one parking lot that is over
25 cars and grant a variance for the number of parking spaces required
because the PZ would prefer preserving green space rather than tacking on
parking if it is not needed for the sake of having parking. (Motion
carried 8-0) . and b_eca,..e .of the, provision for _additional parking in the
Drive -Up window lanes. (Amended)
6. PETITION FOR CONCURRENT DETACHMNT/ANNEXATION: Sunburrow Subdivision
Ed Stevens and Steve DeLapp presented for the Commission's review a draft
resolution for the City of Lake Elmo regarding the proposed annexation of
certain properties in Section 8 of Oakdale.
Steve DeLapp had called for a representative from Sunburrow to be present
at the meeting, but due to time limitations, no one could come.
M/S/P Stevens/Bucheck - to recommend approval by the City Council of the
presented resolution for the City of Lake Elmo regarding the proposed
annexation of certain properties in Section 8 of Oakdale.
Dave Johsonn referred to Resolution 89-20 approved by our City Council in
regard to Section 32/33 annexation where the City Council went on record
of opposing the method of detachment/annexation as a legitimate means of
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 24, 1989 PAGE 5
resolving differences over philosophies. Dave felt by asking our Council
to approve this resolution is asking them to state we encourage you to
seek annexation to this City because we will accept your land.
Steve DeLapp: We are saying we will accept them if so orderd by the
Municipal Board. We are not actively seeking somebody. This is much
different than what Dave is saying. This is a very serious thing for the
people that live in the Tri-Lakes, we have to provide all the parks and
everything else --major regional implications for us. This is not the kind
of thing we would sluff off and ignore. It is important to note there are
26 families, who actually live there, who felt they have been very badly
treated by their City and have asked to come into our City as a defense
against being imposed on by the impositionof a sewer system. If the
people are not brought into Lake Elmo, they will be forced in about two
years to hook up to the sewer systems in Oakdale and instantly have their
properties rezoned to 1/3 acre lots.
Ann Bucheck: What happens to the water in Lake Olson and the environment,
which happens to belong to the City of Lake Elmo, if this development does
come in.
Ed Stevens: We should consider Dave's point because it is valid. We are
saying the PZ sympathizes with the Sunburrow residents, but we don't
particularly sympathize with. the ones in Section 32; that is why we would
like to accept one and reject the other. Basically, it is a group of
people that are dissatisfied with what is going to happen or has happened
in their City and the like what is going on in the other City --to him this
is quite similar.
Ann Bucheck: Ann felt Dave brought up a good point. Inone breath, we
are saying we don't agree with you, but we feel sorry for you and are
willing to accept you.
Dick Johnson questioned the 3rd WHEREAS in the Resolution stating: every
resident in this area has signed the petition. It was confusing to him as
to what are we asking to be annexed. DeLapp answered this is everybody
that livesin that area signed the petition. We are willing to accept the
property of the people that have signed the petition, that have applied
for their land to go to Lake Elmo.
M/S/P Bucheck/Stevens - to amend the motion to delete, in the NOW BE IT
RESOLVED paragraph, wording "supports the petitioners from the City of
Oakdale and" will accept the petitioners ....(Motion carried 5 3: DeLapp,
Dave Johnson, Dicic Johnson).
Administrator Morrison explained that the City received notice today that
the Met Council approved Olson Lake Estates in accordance with their
recommendation of their community development. DeLapp responded, "the
Council approved sewer, not Olson Lake Estates based on a false statement.
They would be providing a temporary lift station on Olson Lake Trail, that
the City of Oakdale presented. You show me how that is a temporary lift
station, and I will show you how the Met Council was deceived.
Morrison advised the PZ that the City Council is asking from the PZ to
look at the land use impact, as you see it, to the community of Lake Elmo.
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES APRIL 24, 1989 PAGE 6
Do you find it acceptable to incorporate this area within the City of Lake
Elmo?
Morrison asked about the third paragraph in the resolution as to the area
covered. Being that this had not been checked by staff, she would prefer
if accepted by the PZ, indicate it emcompasses only those persons who have
signed the petition. DeLapp and Stevens accepted added wording "resident
petitioners".
M/S/P DeLapp/Stevens - to recommend approval by the City Council of the
Resolution for the City of Lake Elmo regarding the proposed annexation of
certian properties in Section 8 of Oakdale and to delete in the NOW IT BE
RESOLVED paragraph, wording "supports the petitioners from the City of
Oakdale and" and add the word petitioners . (See Resolution). (Motion
carried 8-1: Dave Johnson: Opposed to this because this goes directly into
contradiction with the CC stating opposition to annexation as a means of
resolving intercity differences of philosophy.)
7. CITY COUNCIL REQUEST R-1 DISTRICTS
The Council directed the PZ to review, on a city-wide basis, appropriate
future R-1 placement, and within that a review inclusion and consideration
of The Forest as an R-1 site and to include review of the Packard Park 3rd
Addition, for consequent amendment of the Comp Plan and return with their
recommendation for the April 4th Council Meeting.
The Council felt the action that the PZ took at their April 10th meeting,
did not correspond with the Council's request. At the CC meeting of April
18th, they returned the matter to the Planning Commission and were advised
to look at the entire City for future R-1 areas, not just these two
proposals.
Ed Stevens presented a draft motionfor approval by the PZ. Steve DeLapp
explained the reason for the motion was based on this telephone poll where
7 out Of 10 members would like to have R--1 restricted to Section 32 and
the alternate map for RE adopted as the Future Land Use Map. Some of the
PZ members had presented their recommendations in writing.
M/S/F DeLapp/Bucheck - to support future R-1 Zoning for The Forest,
Section 32 and part of Section 33. (Motion failed 3-4-1: Jebbra, Kunde,
Enes, Conlin, Abstain: Dick Johnson). Johnson
The Commission discussed confirming their motion from their previous
meeting.
Dick Johnson indicated he would compromise on additional R-1 Zoning in the
City, however, until they are addressed and voted upon, the City should
not consider R--1 zoning furrher.
M/S/P DeLapp/Dick Johnson - to recommend support for future R-1 zoning
areas: The Forest (Morton Engstrom), Packard Park 3rd Addition (G.
Peltier), and Section 32 and Part of Section 33. (Motion carried 5-3:
Kunde: See written report, Buchheck: see list of reasons, Dave Johnson:
Packard Park 3rd Addn. should be rezoned to R-1 because it is contiguous
to R-1 zoning where The Forest would be considered spotzoning).
LAKE ELMO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 24, 1989 PAGE 7
8. DISCUSSED PROPOSED RULES FOR PZ MEETINGS: Ed Stevens
Ed Stevens stated in his wKitten submittal to the P7. g
"Because of the disorder whichhas prevailed during PAL meetings, Id Steven:
proposed a set of rules as referenced. Discussion followed and the
following motion was made.
M/S/P Dave Johnson/Dick Johnson - to accept Item #3 and Item #8, as
presented by Ed Stevens, as a working arrangement for the PZ. (Motion
carried 8-0).
Steve DeLapp presented a set of Procedures as referenced and asked the
help of the City Staff on Items #1-#8, excluding #6.
9. DISTRIBUTION OF METROPOLITAN SYSTEMS STATEMENT AMENDMENTS
The City has received the 1989 Metropolitan System (annual) Statement of
changes in the system policy plans. Copies are being made for the CC and
PZ.
10. OTHER
Steve DeLapp presented a proposal to the PZ for distribution of official
meeting minutes.
M/S/P Dick Johnson/Kunde - to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at
10:50 p.m. (Motion carried 8-0).
1
1989 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN
1. Review all applications in accordance to the Comprehensive Plan,
comment and make recommendations to the City Council.
2. Complete the revision of the Comprehensive Plan and update
Ordinances to relate to the Plan.
3. Consider local responses to State of MN proposed revisions to
Shoreland Management regulations.
4. Residential Estates Zoning
a. Definition and Length of cul-de-sacs.
b. Road Design
c. Creation of a volunteer, City Forester Position
5. Review of Highway Business Zoning on I-94.
6. Building height limitation --Eliminate the exception which allows
broadcast transmission towers.
7. Stronger restrictions for accessory structures in the R1 Zone --
the size and number of parcels of less than 5 acres. Definition
of garage and storage accessory structures. Size and number of
accessory structures in RR Zone on parcels of 20 acres or more.
(Check amended ordinances).
8. Conditions or possible restrictions on residential subdivisions
where large accessory structures exist.
9. Meet with the county and adjacent community planners to discuss
common issues on an "as -needed" basis.
10. Future Road Plan (ties in with road design).
11. Retention of wildlife habitat and wetland areas --adequacy of
wetland overlay district.
12. Recommend to the City Council a committee be established,
of PZ members, business owners, and interested residents
(5-7 members) to study an Historic Building/Architectural
Overlay District in the Old Village Area.
13. Adopt an ordinance for utility (pipeline and power lines)
in the City's Subdivision and platting regulations.
14. Sign Ordinance
15. Review sideyard setbacks relative to lot size.
comprising
Design
setbacks
16. Amend the Subdivision Ordinances (Section 400-14, 400-15)
requesting the signatures on the Certificate for approval by
the Chairman and Secretary of the Planning Commission.
City Council Request: Study of R1 district. ITEM 7
April 24 ,1980
On February 27, 1989 P&Z reviewed a proposal
entitled 'City of Lake Elmo Residential Estate
Proposal.'
'The Forest' (Engstrom PUD) should be accepted
temporarily as a variance, because it is in fact
RE, and, after adoption of the above proposal,
will be in the RE zone.
The map after page 14 of the above mentioned
proposal shows aread recommended for RR, RE, and R-1.
P)Z recommended acceptance of that 'stank proposal,
including the trap, thereby complying with the
request for a 'city-wide analysis'.
(
0 -,sec � cci, V-
ujy,64- i re_ 0 cure) resc_
C aNc.(y`n
eL-kkne-
Cat— .c `"-\\
tee_ cta ri+
nicrc eSS Nay lA\C)
are ape by 05+
N. -vonc —al; etc 2ECt `* Vl �`4
0 \MASe./ kO a.'Art0
cxy5e4-- p� Q �j (_ rt� raA;:o \]ov,l a��r
(yj�1Vltr} v e Tkro e r C!l :pp 0,0 e cc�
U C9.d r.s"n
Lon i \Rause Ao
\ns se 7_ 5 cAckv,.
act — we- Q ca no�
A,\ovc c , L r is t-w&ot cry,-,„, at_
11 in \ ba use_ �t�\�__
4
4
4
MEMO
TO: Lake Elmo Planning Commission
FROM: Steve DeLapp
SUBJECT: Official Meeting Minutes Proposal
Date: April 23, 1989
At our last meeting I mode a recommendation that we not distribute mark-
ups of our "Draft" minutes es our "Approved" minutes. I was asked to state
this in writing.
The "APPROVED" Minutes are just that --the minutes approved by the PC as
stating what is said at our meetings. Erroneous "DRAFT" information is not
part of the "approved" minutes and should not be distributed as such. it is
however important that the Commission Members be able to be able to tell
where corrections have been made by the Recording Secretary.
I suggest the following:
1. Distribute "clean" approved minutes of our meetings to the Council, the
Public and ourselves.
2. Have the Recording Secretary draw a vertical line or put a dot in the
mar -gin beside any item receiving a correction. --This is how the Uniform
building Code, among others, alerts readers to a Code change from gear to
year.
As a point of interest, I called two neighboring cities to see what they do
and was told that both only distribute the "APPROVED" version of their
Council and P.C. minutes. indeed there is no basis to do otherwise.
Memo
TO: Lake Elmo Planning Commission
FROM: Steve DeLapp
SUBJECT: Ed Stevens Proposed PC Procedural Rules
Item No. 8, April 24, 1989 Meeting
Ed Stevens is concerned about the method of operation of the Planning Com-
mission. His comments address the symptoms of his concern, but only touch
on the problem. I would like to summarize his complaints, discuss why they
have appeared, and make some suggestions on achieving a solution.
Complaints:
1. Some of us talk longer than necessary to make a point.
2. Some of us are repetitious in making a point.
3. Some of us carry on side conversations to try and circumvent general
discussion that is not of interest to us.
4. We often have a frustratingly difficult time arriving at some decisions
when the Ordinances and Comp. Plan indicate an "obvious" answer.
5. Our motions are unclear to ourselves and those in the room.
Surficial reasons for lack of "business -like" behavior:
1. We do not start discussions with a clear understanding of what we are
trying to accomplish.
2. We have greatly differing levels of experience and understanding of the
Current Ordinances and the operating Comprehensive Plan.
3. We have significant absenteeism. r4.We are often unable to determine basic facts because of a lack of
ailable information and misunderstanding of City Ordinances and of the
gnificance of the Comp. Pin.
57 We are often hampered by inadequate advanced preparation of discussion
topics by Members.
Sucroested walls to address 10 concerns:
1. Get packets in the mail by Wednesday preceeding the meeting. We
have had several reports of Members not receiving packets until the evening
of the meeting. Saturday night and Sunday are clearly insufficient for
Members to put together ideas that may be the basis for a consensus.
Members who are away for the weekend will not -even see the packets until
Members V who are V [1 Vy for 111 T\
Sunday night.
2. Provide the Engineers comments while there is time to read them and
evaluate them. If there are no Engineers comments on a topic, ask
that the topic be put before the Commission and immediately
tabled --we normally have a number of weeks before a report to the Council
is required.
3. Include in our packets a suggested plan of attack for each item
in the proposed agenda. Include reasons based on the Ordinances and the
Comp. Plan on various approaches to an issue. Include two suggested
motions for each item --one recommending approval perhaps with
modifications and one opposing --both should have preliminary findings of
fact. (We have numerous cases where the Ordinances are inconsistent and
language in the Comp. Plan contradicts itself, making decisions less than
cut and dried).
4. Have the City Attorney and City Engineer present for discussion
of difficult issues and several times a year to be available for general
consultation.
5. Have the PC meet on a more regular basis with the City Council
to discuss zoning and Comprehensive Plan issues.
6. Require a higher level of attendance by Members.
7. The City Staff should initiate meetings of the sub -committees
such as the Historical District Sub -committee to help the PC be continually
fed with new ideas for the Comp Plan and Ordinances.
5. Let everyone concerned know that the Lake Elmo Planning Commission
will never be a rubber stamp like those in most other Minnesota cities. Lake
Elmo is not just any other Metropolitan City run by a dynasty building staff
fed by outside developers. Our City is run by the voters, for the voters and
of the voters. The Planning Commission is a grass -roots body of
residents whose chief concern is maintaining and improving the
quality of life for all the residents. We would not be appointed if the
Council thought we hmd any other foremost interest. '
1
,e3 J_S Tell o >J J o
LNG
yri (3uG{-{'tT1L
g 6-/a
S RNcr 17 6-Prop
2 t rA-
/hG K✓' cr
d2 Clc
n ('.74,-( s aKr-'5Jb."-/
vP1 f' Jo I-} M
13
rr7
vt-
:=SL.b r
4c) 0c scar UL-
e'S Tvu cr yZ i - -" -t , 3 . 1r- uJcr47d
S f c(P1 G cc_ ri
Lc/k1! S fYJC2 dF (r- Z 1- ! LY
F61/ f -c. fM 131 r T`[ �ih(zjL o 1-0,J.-7
`1
sc'Zr, 31--
slm vz psi. C Li", - c Ycf• o v f
inf 5 7 Poe-ro 6 5���
1,4eiz-(1e k/nF o P Socn'-c W E ST ) h e-re e. S
NcA-LF ac Hpge_Tat Gzgsfr 2A-Ea Sec__N
RULES PROPOSED FOR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS
The disorder which has prvailed during P&Z meetings has
resulted in much delay and confusion. P&Z can not accomp-
lish its task until order and a business -like atmosphere
are established. To this end I propose adoption of the
following rules.
1) The chair shall appoint a time keeper, equipped with
a stop watch. I can supply a stop watch.
2) No person shall speak unless recognized by the chair.
3) Anyone speaking without having been recognized by
the chair shall be declared out of order by the chair.
If that person continues to speak, the chair shall imme-
diately declare a two minute recess, thereby witholding
from the record anything said during those two minutes.
4) When the time keeper announces the end of the two mi-
nute recess, the chair shall call the meeting to order,
to resume business as before. Any subsequent failure to
maintain order shall result in repeating the procedure
of rule 3) .
5) The chair shall use rule 3) for other failures to
maintain order, for example private oonverstions between
two or more persons, whenever such failure tends, in his
judgement, to disturb order.
I
6) Each person recognized by the chair shall have 60
seconds for speaking. The end of the 60 second period
shall be announced by the time keeper. If the speaker
wishes to speak longer, he/she shall say 'I ask for
additional time', without explaining why additional time
is needed. The chair shall ask immediately 'should the
speaker be given additional time?' A vote shall be taken
at once, without prior discussion. If a majority votes
yes, the speaker shall be given an additional two minutes,
at the expiration of which the procedure may be repeated.
7) When the speaker is giving a report, or askes or is
asked to make statements which obviously will take more
the 60 seconds, the chair shall ask the speaker how much -
time he/she requires, and then in his/her sole discretion
assign a time which need not be identical with the time
requested.
8) Passing of all motions shall be tentative, unless the
entire text is in writing. The maker of a passed motion,
or a unanimously acceptable volunteer, shall immediately
writem out the motion in aisx legible form, and re -submit it
at once to the oommitsion for a final vote. At this point
it may be passed or rejected, regardless of the prior vote.
9) In all other respects Roberts Rules of Order, Revised
shall prevail.
The above rules are offered for discussion. Details might
be changed, for example the 60 seconds of Rule 6). I rea-
lize that these are dictatorial rules. In a group of people
who exorcize self discipline, such rules would not be
needed, but the current Planning and Zoning commission
is not such a disciplined group.
Edward JV Stevens
Member of P&Z