3 Planning Commission RoleInf nnation, Rt, ou and Tip W d fn9 with
/ p int d and Elected OffiOal -- Carolyn Braun-
Planning Director, City of Anoka
THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE GOVERNING BODY:
MISUNDERSTANDING OF ROLES
The misunderstanding of roles is one of the most common barriers to a
positive relationship between governing bodies and planning commissions.
The governing body has the responsibility of appointing the members of the
planning commission. It is the governing body's job to create a capable
planning commission with a balance of expertise and experience. After that,
the governing body needs to let the planning commission do its job.
The planning commission and governing body have two distinctly different
jobs. Members of the governing body are elected policy makers who are
responsive to the public whom they represent. Planning Commission
members, on the other hand, are not policy makers. They are appointed to
work within the ordinances adopted by the governing body. They work with
already established policy and do not change the policy or make a decision
on a specific request based on policy. It is the planning commission's role to
apply the ordinance. If the planning commission is concerned about the
impact of applying a given ordinance, it is their role to recommend changes
to the governing body. It is not their role to base a decision on what they
would like the ordinance to say. Even in rewriting an ordinance or developing
a new ordinance, the planning commission functions as a technical consultant
and the goveming body is still the policy maker.
2000 UPPER MIDWEST REGIONAL PLANNING ¢OKFEi~ENC:E
UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFERENCE IN DECISION-MAKING
Technical vs. Political Decision Making
Planning Commissions and Governing Boards maY reach different decisions
on the same request. Why does this happen? Both bodies have the same goal
of acting in the public interest. Then why the difference?
Planning Commissions base their recommendations on interpretation of the
code as it relates to a specific request. This approach is essentially regulatory
compliance blended with policy interpretation. At the Governing Board
meeting, however, broader socio-economic and cultural issues are blended
with policy. So, when a governing board reverses a planning commission
recommendation, it is often due to the expanded scope of "compatibility,"
"quality of life," and other overriding considerations of similar nature.
Planning Commissions often measure and make planning decisions based on
whether the decision will create the best outcome in relation to the ordinance
standards. For example, the Planning Commission will work to reduce a
variance to the least amount possible. The Governing Body, however, may
look at who receiVes the most benefit and whether the variance -- regardless
of the actual mount -- impacts others. As a result, decisions from the
Governing Body may be more responsive to existing voters.
Planning Commissions also evaluate requests based on a comprehensive
approach, using the comprehensive plan as a guide. Governing bodies,
however, prefer a more incremental approach that analyzes only the request
at hand. The incremental approach has less political risk.
Finally, Planning Commissions are more likely to be receptive to technical
presentations. Governing bodies are often more effected by presentations
with an emphasis on public sentiment, such as a strong emotional
presentation opposing a project.
2000 IIPPER 141DWEST REGIONAL PLANNING CONFERENCE
EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION
Given the difference in roles and methods of decision making, it is important
to have effective and appropriate communication. The governing body needs
a way to provide collective guidance to the planning commission and there
needs to be a way for the planning commission to share the background and
process that leads to a recommendation to the governing body.
STEPS THAT CAN ENHANCE COMMUNICATION
1. Hold a yearly workshop to review and agree on roles, to discuss common
community goals, and to establish the general work agenda for the year.
TIP: Allow enough workshop time before major issues so that recommendations
can be fully understood and questions answered before the political debate.
TIP: Agree on ground roles for joint meetings, public statements and informal
workshops which include mutual respect.
TIP: Facilitated joint workshops may be helpful on issues that have created or
have the potential to create difficulties between the two groups.
TIP: Ordinance and plan development processes should include community
input early in the process to reduce the likelihood of conflict in the approval
process.
2. Produce a regular update to the governing body that reports on issues of
mutual interest.
BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS
Building bridges through effective advocacy.
In anY community, there are steps that can be taken to make sure planning
commission aims and policies are clear to the elected body, with the long-
2000 UPPER 141DWELT REGIONAL PLANKING CONFERENCE
range goal of mutual understanding and support.
Attend your governing body's meeting when an appeal of one of your
decisions is being considered.
While it may not be pleasant to hear the discussion of those who disagree
with you, you will be able to experience the feeling of the elected officials
and the public on speci, fic issues. If the planning commission decision is
overturned, the planning commission may want to informally revisit the issue
to determine why and if a different approach is warranted.
Be acquainted with the political platforms of the members of the
governing body.
If planning is not important to an elected official, you may want to arrange a
visit to explain your position and the positive results planning has on your
community - and also listen to the elected official's contrary ideas.
Do not rely entirely on staff to convey your message.
In most cases, reliance on your professional staff is a satisfactory way to
carry out the planning commission's objectives. However, there may be times
when the planning commissions feelings are best expressed by a planning
commission member (often the chairperson).
Suggest a retreat or informal workshop among planning commission
members and elected officials to try to come to consensus on a common
vision, goals and objectives. Even if the best you can do is agree to disagree,
you will have heard each other and learned something.
The relationship between the elected official and appointed boards should
always be cordial, even in the heat of battle. You can do a great deal to
make it so.
Excerpted in great part from "Working Effectively with Elected Officials," by
Elaine Cogan, PCJ, Fall 1995.
t2000LlPPER 141DWEST REGiOHAI. PLANNING CONFERENCE
A PLANNING COMMISSIONER'S CREED'
Source: Planning and Zoning Administration in Utah
Second Edition, 1989
Center for Public Affairs and Administration
University of Utah
As a member o£ the Planning Commission who is vitally interested in
building and main'taining a viable community in which to live, work, and play, I hereby resolve to:
· Support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of
the State of Utah.
· Uphold the laws of the United States of America and those of the State of Utah.
· Concern myself with the advancement of the pubic interest in all matters that come before
· Place the competence and effectiveness of service to the public above all i~terests of persons,
factions or parties.
· Endeavor, through diligent attendance, to represent the best interest of the community as a
whole as I have been appointed to do.
· Seek to assimilate all pertinent information on matters before the Planning Commission prior
to committing myself to an irrevocable judgement or decision.
· Prepare myself for all items scheduled for presentation to the Planning Commission.
· Strive to provide fiscallv sound policies, matching expenditures to funds budgeted.
· Not make available to any one citizen any services, tangible or intangible, that are not equally
available under the law to any other citizen.
· Abstain from participation in a decision of the Planning Commission and/or the governing
body in which I have a conflict of interest.
· Avoid unilateral action that does not comply with existing policy of the Planning
Commission.
· Work with professional staff of the Planning Commission and other persons to achieve the
most desirable results with regard to the planning or zoning process and established
community development policies.
· Refuse personal gifts in every instance where I have reason to believe the gift would not have
been extended to me except for my official position, where I have reason to believe the giver's
interests are likely to be affected by my official actions, or where the gift is or may reasonably
be considered to be designed to influence my official actions.
· Conduct myself in my contacts with other persons and groups in a manner keeping the
trust and dignity in my position as a servant of the people and of my community. I shall
further take care to guard not only the factual principles but also the appearance of
justice and integrity.
ETHICS & THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Independent and Informed
4~agine that your commission
h'-a's a member who regularly
attends meetings unprePared.
(For some of you, this may not be much
of a stretch to imagine.) As a result, the
member displays little depth of thought
on matters before the planning commis-
sion. He may appear to always "rubber
stamp" the position of staff, or repeatedly
ask questions that have n6 bearing on
the application or were addressed in
the information provided. Obviously, this
is not an independent and informed
commissioner.
But is there an obligation for plan-
ning commissioners to exercise indepen-
dent and informed judgment in review-
ing matters? The answer is yes.
A central function of a planning com-
mission is to provide an objective, and
independent, voice on matters relating to
a community's long-term development.
This is especially important since local
governing bodies are (quite naturally)
more sensitive to public opinion and the
demands of various special interests.
Planning historian Larry Gerckens
has noted that "it is worth recalling that
citizen planning commissioners were put
in that position not to execute adminis-
trative chores for city council, but to pro-
vide insights into the problems and
potential of the community, and to pro-
vide leadership in the solution of prob-
lems before they arise" (from
"Community Leadership & the Cincin-
nati Planning Commission," PCJ #18,
Spring 1995). Moreover~ the American
Planning Association's "Statement of
Ethical Principles in Planning" includes
the following: "Planning process partici-
pants should exercise fair, honest and
independent judgment in their roles as
decision makers and advisors" (emphasis
added).
What are some of the basics to ensur-
ing that you, as a commissioner, are
by C. Gregory Dale, AICP
xvell-informed, and capable of exercising
independent judgment?
First, be sure to open your meeting
packet before the meeting! OK, maybe
that is too basic, but ~nany commission-
ers have cringed to hear the sound of a
fellow board member tearing the enve-
lope open at the meeting.
BOTH COMMISSION AND
STAFF SHOULD RECOGNIZE
THE OBLIGATION OF THE
COMMISSION TO ACT IN
AN INDEPENDENT
MANNER.
If you have a professional staff you
should obviously review the staff report
carefull): If not, then you should review
the application itself. Also, there is no
substitute for viewing the subject site
and the surrounding area. Revie~ving
previous staff reports or minutes may
help provide you with some historic per-
spective on the application at hand. It is
also helpful to review the zoning code
and comprehensive plan provisions that
are relevant to a particular request.
Do not confuse independent judg-
ment with personal bias. The compre-
hensive plan and the regulations that
implement that plan represent the poli-
cies and laws that you are bound to
uphold, regardless of your own personal
biases.
Can one do too much to prepare?
Always remember that your decision
must ultimately be based upon evidence
in the public record. Many commission-
ers, in their well-placed enthusiasm to be
as prepared as possible, engage in inde-
pendent investigation that involves dis-
cussing pending cases before the
commission with interested parties to
that application. Such ex parte contacts
are improper and should be avoided
(see my column, "Ex-Parte Contacts" in
PCJ #2, Jan/Feb. 1992).
Another aspect of this issue has to do
with the relationship between the com-
mission and staff. Professional planning
staff have the training and ability to
provide the commission ~vitl:t valuable
information and insights. Many commis-
sions actually request that staff provide
a recommendation for action.
Planning commissions should take
full advantage of staff expertise in mak-
ing decisions. However, both commis-
sion and staff should recognize the
obligation of the commission to act in an
independent manner. Remember also
that staff's analysis usually occurs prior
to the public having the opportunity to
testify. The commission may very well
hear testimony that leads to a conclusion
or interpretation different from that
which staff has articulated.
It can take time and effort for com-
missioners to be well-informed about
matters before them, and be capable of
exercising independent judgment. But it
is an investment that must be made. ·
C. Gregory Dale is a
Principal with the plan-
ning and zoning firm of
McBride Dale Clarion in
Cincinnati, .Ohio. Dale
manages planning projects
and conducts training for
planning officials th~vugh-
out thc cotmtry.
A collection of all of Greg Dale's "Ethics
& the Planning Commission" columns
is now available. Contact the PCJ office
or order from the PlannersWeb at:
www. planners~veb.com
PLANNING COMMI
SS1ONERS jOURNAL
/ NUMB
ER 36
/ FALL 1999
RECIPE FOR FAIRNESS
In saying "yes" to appointments to serve as planning commissioners, we accept positions
of public trust and the responsibility of helping to guide our communities and counties into
the future. To be effective we must conduct ourselves in a manner that develops and
maintains the public's respect for and understanding of the job we do and the public
process we serve.
The key to respect is acting with fundamental fairness to all involved in the process and
to all who may be affected by any decisions that arise from the process: citizens (now and
future), applicants and their representatives, professional staff, other commission
members, and the elected body.
Looking back over my 16 years as a planning commissioner, I recognize that each of the
above groups has its own expectations of "what's fair". What seems fair and reasonable
to some seems entirely "unfair" to others. Therefore, the preparation and adoption of
specific policies and procedures that incorporate a "Recipe for Fairness" is essential to the
well-being of a planning commission and to its dispatch of duties.
"Recipe for Fairness"
Into the
ELEMENTS OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
Fold in the
AICP/APA ETHICAL PRINCIPALS IN PLANNING
Mix well with
Understanding, tolerance, and vision,
And serve with
Competence, integrity, and consistency.
An understanding of the key ingredients is critical to fairness.
Elements of "procedural due process": The "due process clause" found in the 5"' and 14"'
amendments to the U. S. Constitution mandates requirements of procedure for bodies
making land use decisions to effectuate reason and fairness in the public process and to
ensure that applicable decisions and laws are not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
At a minimum we must provide:
· adequate notice and full disclosure of information,
· unbiased decision-makers,
· absence of ex parte contact in any quasi-judicial issue,
· opportunity to be heard and to present evidence,
· record of the proceedings,
· written decision based on the record and supported by findings of fact.
Elements of the AICP/APA Ethical Principles in Planning: These principles bind
professional planners to ethical standards of practice. It is additionally important that'
planning commissioners subscribe to the same ethical standards.
· Serve the public interest;
· Recognize the rights of citizens to participate in the process;
· Give full, clear, and accurate information;
· Expand choice and opportunity;
· Make information available to the public;
· Protect the integrity of the natural environment and heritage of the
built environment;
· Pay atteption to the inter-relatedness of decisions;
· Achieve high standards of proficiency and integrity;
· Disclose personal interest and define it broadly;
· Abstain from participation when you have a personal interest;
· Seek no gifts or favors;
· Not participate as an advisor, decision-maker, or advocate when
when you have preViously been an advocate;
· Serve as an advocate when the client's objectives are consistent
with the public interest;
· Not use or disclose confidential information;
· Not misrepresent facts;
· Not participate unless prepared;
· Respect the rights of all persons.
The elements of due process and the ethical principles of planning blend together
smoothly to provide elemental fairness when diligently and consistently followed. Mixing
those elements with understanding, tolerance and vision leads me to the following
thoughts with regard to specific "audiences".
To the public:
· We represent not only those who have come to participate in a meeting but also
those who did not come, and those who will be our citizens in the future. The
Supreme Court of Washington (in the 1972 decision in Buell v. City of Bremerton)
adds that members of commissions must be "capable of hearing the weak voices
as well as the strong".
· In decision-making, we must respect and preserve the legacy of the past and be
responsive to the needs of the present as we prepare for the future to assure
opportunities for success and fulfillment for all.
· In our hearings and meetings, we should be respectful and attentive to all who wish
to participate. For many, it is a first experience with our public process. If we put
ourselves in the shoes of those on the other side of the hearing room, would we
feel welcomed? Would the meeting space be large enough with good sound and
lighting? Would all case materials be set out for public review and would meeting
procedures be clearly explained? Would visual aids (overheads, etc) be used and
would all testimony be handled fairly with time and attention to all? Would issues
be clearly defined and questions be carefully addressed? Would action taken be
explained as well as the next step in the process? Would we feel our input was
.~ :appreciated and considered and would we look forward to participating in the
process in the future?
To the applicants:
· Come to each meeting prepared, having studied the applications, staff reports,
. ..... other documentation, applicable ordinances, 'plans and policies, and the sites.
· ~ Keep an open mind avoiding determination until all documentation has been
reviewed and all testimony and discussion has been heard in public session.
- Do not use continuance as a delaying tactic when a decision may be difficult or
unpopular.
To ti~'e professional staff:
· Review all reports in the "meeting packet" as quickly as possible after receipt. If
you have questions or need more information, let staff know immediately. Do not
"bushwhack" your staff by waiting until the meeting to ask for information that may
not be available "on the spot".
· Treat the professional staff (including consultant planners) with decorum,
respecting the professional code of ethics by which they are bound.
To other commission members:
· Be respectful to each other and to differing opinions.
· Seek training and education opportunities to ensure a 'better grasp of the
responsibilities.
· Attempt to clarify all issues -- not everyone on the commission has the same level
of experience. Never think a question is "too dumb" to ask.
To the elected body:
· Send clear recommendations substantiated by "findings of fact" in a timely manner.
· Periodically meet with the elected body to discuss community planning priorities,
goals, and policies and to embrace a shared planning attitude for the community.
· Recognize that they serve a voting constituency, as well as the general public, and
are likely to respond to "public pressure" in a politically expedient manner.
in closing, remember that each individual involved in the planning process brings a
different perspective to the issues and that in FAIRNESS all perspectives deserve
consideration as we work to prepare for the future.
Carol Lynne Swayne
Planning Commission Chair, City of Bellevue, Nebraska
APA Board of Director-at-Large
Note: Written for and reprinted from "The Western Planner"; Vol 21, No 3; April/May 2000
Planning Project Ideas
Wednesday, May 17, 2000
The following items were discussed at the joint City Council / Planning Commission meeting on Monday, May 15th. Should we
direct staffto take action on any of these items? Set priorities? And if so, does it make sense to check-offwith the City Council
before staff dedicates any time to these projects?
Intent: To encourage high quality commercial and~iandustrial buildings.
Action: Direct staffto set materials standards and basic architectural rules (e.g., no long expanses of uninterrupted walls allowed).
Should standards apply to certain zoning or to specific areas (e.g., downtown only or Hwy. 5 corridor or ??).
Priority: Already in the works. Very high priority. We need these standards in place now. When will recommendations be presented
to the Planning Commission?
Village on the Ponds' Pond
Intent: To beautifi/an ugly eyesore in a prominent downtown location.
Action: Direct staffto explore options to encourage clean-up of the Village Pond.
Encourage Compliance
Intent: To ensure a fair playing field and to enhance the beauty of Chanhassen, businesses and residents must comply with city
ordinances, conditions of use, development agreements, etc.
Examples: Giant Panda's painted windows
Mike Ramsey's rooftop HVAC (no screening)
Filly's peeling paint
Village on the Ponds' weeds
Village on the Ponds' pond
Pillsbury parking lot lighting needs updating (a condition of approval for their latest building addition)
New buildings with lighting that is not at a 90° cut-off (ordinance)
Action: Direct staffto review the enforcement process and brainstorm on ways to encourage compliance.
Encourage Quality Builders
Intent: To encourage a greater variety of quality contractors and developers to work in Chanhassen.
Problem: Many quality builders refuse to do work here because of difficulties with the inspections department.
Action: Direct staffto review current process, interview developers, sub-contractors, building owners, home owners, and make
recommendations.
Lighting by Example
Intent: The city should lead by example in good lighting.
Action: Direct staff to inventory city lighting and make recommendations for change. Include priorities and costs.
Variance Exemption for Older Homes
Intent: To encourage maintenance and improvements to older residential structures in Chanhassen.
Action: Direct staffto review proposed ordinance (attached) and present options.
Proactive Development
Intent: To be proactive in determining how we want key sites to develop.
Action: Direct staffto brainstorm on strategies to encourage certain development for specific areas (e.g., corporate campus on Hwy.
5 & 41 not warehouse). Make list of special sites, recommendations for development, and strategies to make them happen.
OTHER IDEAS
Flag Lots
Intent: To encourage good placement of homes on flag lots.
Problem: A front door is 10 ft. offthe back property line of a neighboring house in the Creekside development.
Action: Direct staff to review ordinance and present options.
ORDINANCE IDEA
Intent:
To encourage maintenance and improvements to older structures in Chanhassen.
Ordinance for Non-Conforming Structures Built Prior to 1972:
If the original foundation footprint is used, improvements do NOT require a setback
variance (even if entire foundation needs to be replaced).
If the improvement involves adding an additional story to an existing structure,
a setback variance is NOT required as long as ...
A. The expansion does not encroach further into the setback.
B. The expansion is in proportion to other structures on property.
C. The expansion blends with pre-existing neighborhood standards,
without departing downward.
D. Neighbor's agree.
If the foundation needs to be expanded to rebuild an existing structure to today's size
standards for similar structures, a setback variance is NOT required as long as...
A. The expansion does not encroach further into the setback.
B. The expansion is in proportion to other structures on property.
C. The expansion blends with pre-existing neighborhood standards,
without departing downward.
D. Neighbor's agree.
The Planning Director determines whether the above requirements are met (decisions may be
appealed to the Planning Commission).
1