Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUntitled Decision standards for estimates found in its comprehensive plan are reasonable with respect to an identified arbitration, continued urban growth area, the arbitration panel may order approval of the city plan. If the order is to approve the community-based comprehensive plan, the order shall contain notice directing the county to approve the city plan within ten days of receipt of the arbitration order. The city shall, thereafter, adopt the plan. If the order is to deny the plan, the arbitration order shall state the reasons for the denial in the order and transmit the order to the city, county, and the office of strategic and long-range planning [Minnesota Planning]. The city shall within 30 days of receipt of the order amend its plan and resubmit the plan to the county for review and approval under this subdivision. The county shall not unreasonably withhold approval of the plan if the resubmitted city plan is in keeping with the arbitration panel's order. Funding for community-based planntng (Article 1) Provides state money Section 11 appropriates funding for community-based planning: for community-based Office of Strategic and Long-Range Planning [Minnesota Planning] planning $165,000 the first year and$165,000 the second year are for community-based planning and the advisory council on community-based planning. $375,000 the second year is for planning grants to counties,joint planning districts that include at least one county, or to a county and one or more municipalities within the county,when they submit a joint planning application to prepare community-based plans. A county receiving a grant may provide funding to municipalities within the county for purposes of the grant.The office [Minnesota Planning] shall give priority for grants to joint planning districts or joint applications from a county and one or more municipalities. This appropriation is available until June 30, 2000. $375,000 the second year is for technology grants to counties,or joint planning districts that include at least one county, that elect to prepare community-based plans.This appropriation is available until June 30, 2000. $350,000 the first year is to make a grant to a joint powers board, if one is established by the counties of Benton, Sherburne, and Stearns, and the cities of St. Cloud,Waite Park, Sartell,St.Joseph,and Sauk Rapids, for the purposes of joint planning under this act. Other cities and towns within the counties may elect to participate in the joint planning district.The director may make the grant once the joint powers board has been formed and a copy of the joint powers agreement has been received by the director. Members of the joint powers board may delegate their authority to adopt official controls to the joint powers board. $150,000 the first year is to make three grants to additional counties or joint powers boards selected to participate in the community-based planning pilot project.A county that receives a grant from this appropriation may provide funding to municipalities within the county for purposes relating to the grant. 16 Minnesota Planning enforcement, street improvements and maintenance, administrative services, and recreational facilities and the impact of the proposed action on the delivery of said services; (8) existing or potential environmental problems and whether the proposed action is likely to improve or resolve these problems; (9) plans and programs by the municipality for providing needed governmental services to the subject area; (10) an analysis of the fiscal impact on the municipality, the subject area, and adjacent units of local government, including net tax capacity and the present bonded indebtedness, and the local tax rates of the county, school district, and township; (11)relationship and effect of the proposed action on affected and adjacent school districts and communities; (12) adequacy of town government to deliver services to the subject area; (13) analysis of whether necessary governmental services can best be provided through the proposed action or another type of boundary adjustment;and (14) if only a part of a township is annexed,the ability of the remainder of the township to continue or the feasibility of it being incorporated separately or being annexed to another municipality.Any party to the proceeding may present evidence and testimony on any of the above factors at the hearing on the matter. Subdivision 6. Decision The arbitrators, after a hearing on the matter, shall make a decision regarding the dispute within 60 days and transmit an order to the parties and the office of strategic and long-range planning [Minnesota Planning] or the municipal board. Unless appealed by an aggrieved party within 30 days of receipt of the arbitration panel's order by the municipal board, the municipal board shall execute an order in accordance with the arbitration panel's order and shall cause copies of the same to be mailed to all parties entitled to mailed notice,the secretary of state,the department of revenue,the state demographer, individual property owners if initiated in that manner, the affected county auditor, and any other party of record.The affected county auditor shall record the order against the affected property. Sets decision Section 4 adds Minnesota Statutes 572A.03 standards for Arbitration Panel Decision Standards arbitration Subdivision 1.Decision standards The arbitration panel, based upon the factors in section 572A.02,subdivision 5,shall decide the matter based upon the decision standards in subdivisions 2-6. [Note: subdivisions 3-6 cover municipal incorporations, annexations and consolidations, and are omitted here.] Subdivision 2. Comprehensive land use planning For comprehensive land use planning disputes under section 462.3535, if a community-based comprehensive plan addresses the goals of section 4A.08 and the arbitrators find that the city's projected Law Sets the Stage for Community-Based Planning 15 Arbitrating disputes, address of the selected arbitrator. The fees and expenses of the third arbitrator shall be continued shared equally by the parties. The third appointed arbitrator shall act as chair of the arbitration panel and shall conduct the proceedings. If the district court selects the third arbitrator, the date required for first hearing the matter may be extended an additional 15 days. Subdivision 3. Hearing Except as otherwise provided,within 60 days, the matter must be brought on for hearing in accordance with section 572.12. The bureau of mediation services shall provide for the proceedings to occur in the county in which the majority of the affected property is located. Subdivision 4. Contracts; information The arbitration panel shall have authority to contract with regional,state, county, or local planning commissions or to hire expert consultants to provide specialized information and assistance.Any member of the panel conducting or participating in any hearing shall have the power to administer oaths and affirmations, to issue subpoenas,to compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses, and the production of papers,books,and documents.Any costs related to this subdivision shall be shared equally by the parties. Subdivision 5. Decision factors In comprehensive planning disputes, the arbitration panel shall consider the goals stated in section 4A.08 and the following factors in making a decision. In all other disputes brought under this section, the arbitration panel shall consider the following factors in making a decision: (1) present population and number of households, past population,and projected population growth of the subject area and adjacent units of local government; (2) quantity of land within the subject area and adjacent units of local government; and natural terrain including recognizable physical features, general topography,major watersheds,soil conditions,and such natural features as rivers, lakes and major bluffs; (3) degree of contiguity of the boundaries between the municipality and the subject area; (4) present pattern of physical development,planning, and intended land uses in the subject area and the municipality including residential, industrial,commercial, agricultural, and institutional land uses and the impact of the proposed action on those land uses; (5) the present transportation network and potential transportation issues, including proposed highway development; (6) land use controls and planning presently being utilized in the municipality and the subject area, including comprehensive plans for development in the area and plans and policies of the metropolitan council, and whether there are inconsistencies between proposed development and existing land use controls and the reasons therefore; (7) existing levels of governmental services being provided in the municipality and the subject area, including water and sewer service, fire rating and protection, law 14 Minnesota Planning approval of a community- based comprehensive land use plan, an aggrieved party may file a written request for mediation, as provided in subdivision 2,with the bureau of mediation services at any time prior to a final action on a community-based comprehensive plan or within 30 days of a final action on a community-based comprehensive plan. Subdivision 2. Mediation Within ten days of receiving a request for mediation in subdivision 1, the bureau of mediation services shall provide written notice of the request for mediation to the parties and provide a list of neutrals experienced in land use planning or local government issues obtained from the supreme court,Minnesota municipal board, bureau of mediation services,Minnesota state bar association, Hennepin county bar association,office of dispute resolution,and others.Within 30 days thereafter,the affected parties shall select a mediator from the list of neutrals or someone else acceptable to the parties and submit to mediation for a period of 30 days facilitated by the bureau.If the dispute remains unresolved after the close of the 30-day mediation period,the bureau shall prepare a report of its recommendations and transmit the report within 30 days to the parties.Within 60 days after the date of issuance of the mediator's report,the dispute shall be submitted to binding arbitration as provided in this chapter.The mediator's report submitted to the parties is informational only and is not admissible in arbitration. Arbitrating disputes Section 3 adds Minnesota Statutes 572A.02 Arbitration Subdivision 1. Submittal to binding arbitration If a dispute remains unresolved after the close of mediation, the dispute shall be submitted to binding arbitration within 60 days of issuance of the mediation report pursuant to the terms of this section and the Uniform Arbitration Act,sections 572.08- 572.30,except the period may be extended for an additional 15 days as provided in this section. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of the Uniform Arbitration Act and this section, this section controls. Subdivision 2. Appointment of panel (a)The parties shall each appoint one qualified arbitrator within 30 days of issuance of the mediation report. If a party does not appoint an arbitrator within 30 days, the bureau of mediation services shall appoint a qualified arbitrator from the list of neutrals under sections 572A.01, subdivision 2, and 572A.015, subdivision 2, or someone else for the party.The parties shall notify the bureau prior to the close of the 30-day appointment period of the name and address of their respective appointed arbitrator.Each party is responsible for the fees and expenses for the arbitrator it selects. (b)After appointment of the two arbitrators to the arbitration panel by the parties,or by the bureau should one or both of the parties fail to act, the two appointed arbitrators shall appoint a third arbitrator who must be learned in the law,within 15 days of the close of the initial 30-day arbitrator appointment period. If the arbitrators cannot agree on the selection of the third arbitrator within 15 days, the arbitrators shall jointly submit a request to the district court of the county in which the disputed area is located in accordance with the selection procedures established in section 572.10.Within 15 days of receipt of an application by the district court, the district court shall select a neutral arbitrator and notify the parties and the bureau of mediation services of the name and Law Sets the Stagefor Community-Based Planning 13 Plan content, within the county. The land outside an urban growth area must be zoned as permanent continued rural or agricultural land, or other appropriate land use, and must be maintained at density levels consistent with those uses. The plan must also identify the density at which the municipality wishes to develop. Subdivision 4. Existing plans If the county has a previously adopted plan, the county board or joint powers board shall review, update, and submit to the office of strategic and long-range planning[Minnesota Planning] a revised plan and official controls meeting the requirements of this section, including the community-based comprehensive municipal plan for each municipality or town in the county, if any,within 24 months of the county's or district's selection as a pilot project. Stresses coordination Section 19 Coordination with adjacent counties Before submitting the community-based comprehensive plan to the office of strategic and • long-range planning [Minnesota Planning], the county or joint powers board shall coordinate its plan with adjacent counties. The adjacent counties shall review and submit written comments on the proposed plan to the board within 60 days of receiving the plan. Section 20 Coordination with metropolitan council A county or joint planning district adjacent to the metropolitan area shall coordinate its plan with the metropolitan council, in relation to the council's development guide.The county or joint planning district shall not submit its plan to the office of strategic and long-range planning[Minnesota Planning] until the metropolitan council has had 60 days for review and comment on the plan. Section 21 Limitation on plan amendment The county or joint powers board shall not amend its plan for an area inside an urban growth area that is outside a municipality's jurisdiction without the municipality's approval. Community-based planning dispute resolution (Article 6) Mediating disputes Section 1 adds Minnesota Statutes 572A.01 Comprehensive Planning Disputes; Mediation Subdivision 1. Filing In the event of a dispute between a county and the office of strategic and long-range planning [Minnesota Planning] under section 394.232 or a county and a city under section 462.3535, regarding the development, content,or • 12 Minnesota Planning Subdivision 5.Administration The office of strategic and long-range planning [Minnesota Planning], with assistance from other state agencies and the metropolitan council as needed, shall provide administrative and staff assistance to the advisory council. The attorney general shall provide advice on legal issues to the advisory council. Subdivision 6. Expenses The office of strategic and long-range planning [Minnesota Planning] shall compensate members of the advisory council.Members shall receive per diem and expenses as provided by Minnesota Statutes,section 15.059, subdivision 3. Subdivision 7. Expiration This section expires June 30, 1998. Community-based planning pilot projects (Article 4) Calls for pilot projects Section 16 Pilot Projects Established The office of strategic and long-range planning [Minnesota Planning] shall establish community-based comprehensive land use planning pilot projects as specified in sections 17 to 21. Requires state review Section 17 of pilot project plans Plan submittal; review A county or joint planning district participating in a pilot project must prepare a community-based comprehensive plan as specified in Minnesota Statutes,section 394.232.The county or joint powers board must submit the plan to the office of strategic and long-range planning [Minnesota Planning] within 24 months of the county's or district's selection as a pilot project. The office shall review each plan to determine if it is consistent with the community-based planning goals in Minnesota Statutes,section 4A.08.The office shall complete its review and comment as specified in Minnesota Statutes,section 394.232,subdivision 5. Defines plan content Section 18 Plan Content Subdivision 1.Goals The plan must address the community-based planning goals in Minnesota Statutes,section 4A.08. Subdivision 2.Municipal and town plan incorporation The plan must incorporate the community-based comprehensive plan of each municipality and town in the county. Incorporation of a municipal or town plan is sufficient if the county or joint powers board adopts a resolution approving and incorporating by reference the plan or any subsequent amendments to the plan. Subdivision 3. Urban growth areas The plan must identify,establish,and address urban growth areas, as defined in Minnesota Statutes,section 462.352,subdivision 18, Law Sets the Stage for Community-Based Planning 11 Advisory council, (9) describe the tools and strategies that a county, city, or town may use to achieve the continued goals, including, but not limited to, densities, urban growth areas, purchase or transfer of development rights programs, public investment surcharges, transit and transit-oriented development, and zoning and other official controls; (10) recommend the time frame in which the community-based plans must be completed; (11) consider the need for ongoing stewardship and oversight of sustainable development initiatives and the community-based planning process; (12) review and recommend changes to the community-based planning framework established in this act; and (13) make other recommendations to implement community-based planning as the advisory council determines would be necessary or helpful in achieving the goals. Subdivision 3. Membership The advisory council consists of 18 voting members who serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority as follows: (1) two members of the majority caucus of the house of representatives appointed by the speaker, and two members of the minority caucus appointed by the minority leader; (2) four members of the senate appointed by the subcommittee on committees of the committee on rules and administration of the senate, two of whom shall be members of the minority caucus; (3) the director, or the director's designee,of the office of strategic and long-range planning [Minnesota Planning]; (4) three public members, at least one of whom must be knowledgeable about and have experience in local government issues or planning, appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives; (5) three public members, at least one of whom must be knowledgeable about and have experience in local government issues or planning, appointed by the subcommittee on committees of the committee on rules and administration of the senate; and (6) three public members, at least one of whom must be knowledgeable about and have experience in local government issues or planning, appointed by the governor.The commissioners,or their designees,of the departments of natural resources, agriculture, transportation, and trade and economic development, and the chair,or the chair's designee,of the metropolitan council shall serve as ex-officio members.The advisory council may form an executive committee to facilitate the work of the council. Subdivision 4. First meeting; chair The director of the office of strategic and long-range planning [Minnesota Planning], or the director's designee, shall convene the first meeting of the advisory council.At its first meeting, the advisory council shall select from among its members a person to serve as chair. 10 Minnesota Planning Requires revisions to Section 12 adds Minnesota Statutes 473.1455 Metropolitan Metropolitan Development Guide Goals Development Guide The metropolitan council shall amend the metropolitan development guide, as necessary, to reflect and implement the community-based planning goals in section 4A.08. The office of strategic and long-range planning [Minnesota Planning] shall review and comment on the metropolitan development guide.The council may not approve local comprehensive plans or plan amendments after July 1, 1999, until the metropolitan council has received and considered the comments of the office of strategic and long-range planning [Minnesota Planning]. Section 12 applies in the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington. Creates advisory Section 13 creates: council Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning Subdivision 1.Establishment; purpose An advisory council on community-based planning is established to provide a forum for discussion and development of the framework for community-based planning and the incentives and tools to implement the plans. Subdivision 2.Duties The advisory council shall propose legislation for the 1998 legislative session relating to the framework to implement community-based planning. The advisory council shall: (1) develop a model process to involve citizens in community-based planning from the beginning of the planning process; (2) hold meetings statewide to solicit advice and information on how to implement community-based planning; (3) develop specific, measurable criteria by which plans will be reviewed for consistency with the goals in Minnesota Statutes,section 4A.08,and commented on by the office of strategic and long-range planning [Minnesota Planning]; (4) recommend a procedure for review and comment on community-based plans; (5) recommend a process for coordination of plans among local jurisdictions; (6) recommend an alternative dispute resolution method for citizens and local governments to use to challenge proposed plans or the implementation of plans; (7) recommend incentives to encourage state agencies to implement the goals of community-based planning; (8) recommend incentives for local governments to develop community-based plans, including for example,assistance with computerized geographic information systems, builders' remedies and density bonuses, and revised permitting processes; Law Sets the Stage for Community-Based Planning 9 Municipal planning Subdivision 8. County approval (a) If a city plans for growth beyond its current process, continued boundaries, the city's proposed community-based comprehensive municipal plan and proposed urban growth area must be reviewed and approved by the county before the plan is incorporated into the county's plan. The county may review and provide comments on any orderly annexation agreement during the same period of review of a comprehensive plan. (b) Upon receipt by the county of a community-based comprehensive plan submitted by a city for review and approval under this subdivision, the county shall,within 60 days of receipt of a city plan, review and approve the plan in accordance with this subdivision. The county shall review and approve the city plan if it is consistent with the goals stated in section 4A.08. (c) In the event the county does not approve the plan, the county shall submit its comments to the city within 60 days. The city may, thereafter, amend the plan and resubmit the plan to the county. The county shall have an additional 60 days to review and approve a resubmitted plan. In the event the county and city are unable to come to agreement, either party may initiate the dispute resolution process contained in chapter 572A.Within 30 days of receiving notice that the other party has initiated dispute resolution, the city or county shall send notice of its intent to enter dispute resolution. If the city refuses to enter the dispute resolution process, it must refund any grant received from the county for community-based planning activities. Subdivision 9. Plan adoption The municipality shall adopt and implement the community-based comprehensive municipal plan after the office of strategic and long-range planning [Minnesota Planning] has reviewed and commented on the county's plan that incorporates the municipality's plan.The municipality shall thereafter,where it deems appropriate, incorporate any comments made by the office into its plan and adopt the plan. Subdivision 10. No mandamus proceeding A mandamus proceeding may not be instituted against a municipality under this section to require the municipality to conform its community-based comprehensive plan to be consistent with the community-based planning goals in section 4A.08. Ties zoning to Section 11 amends Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 462.357, subdivision 2,to read: community-based Subdivision 2.General requirements At any time after the adoption of a land use plans plan for the municipality, the planning agency, for the purpose of carrying out the policies and goals of the land use plan, may prepare a proposed zoning ordinance and submit it to the governing body with its recommendations for adoption. Subject to the requirements of subdivisions 3,4 and 5, the governing body may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by a two-thirds vote of all its members. The plan must provide guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption of official controls to ensure planned,orderly, and staged development and redevelopment consistent with the plan. 8 Minnesota Planning annexation agreement affecting unincorporated areas located within an identified or proposed urban growth area be renegotiated, the renegotiated plan shall be consistent with this section. (b)After a city's community-based comprehensive plan is approved under this section, the orderly annexation agreement shall be filed with the municipal board or its successor agency.Thereafter, the city may orderly annex the part or parts of the designated unincorporated area according to the sequencing plan and conditions contained in the negotiated orderly annexation agreement by submitting a resolution to the municipal board or its successor agency.The resolution shall specify the legal description of the area designated pursuant to the staging plan contained in the agreement, a map showing the new boundary and its relation to the existing city boundary, a description of and schedule for extending municipal services to the area, and a determination that all applicable conditions in the agreement have been satisfied.Within 30 days of receipt of the resolution, the municipal board or its successor shall review the resolution and if it finds that the terms and conditions of the orderly annexation agreement have been met, shall order the annexation.The boundary adjustment shall become effective upon issuance of an order by the municipal board or its successor.The municipal board or its successor shall cause copies of the boundary adjustment order to be mailed to the secretary of state, department of revenue,state demographer,and the department of transportation. No further proceedings under chapter 414 or 572A shall be required to accomplish the boundary adjustment.This section provides the sole method for annexing unincorporated land within an urban growth area, unless the parties agree otherwise. (c) If a community-based comprehensive plan is updated, the parties shall renegotiate the orderly annexation agreement as needed to incorporate the adjustments and shall refile the agreement with the municipal board or its successor. Subdivision 6. Review by adjacent municipalities; conflict resolution Before a community-based comprehensive municipal plan is incorporated into the county's plan under section 394.232,subdivision 3,a municipality's community-based comprehensive municipal plan must be coordinated with adjacent municipalities within the county.As soon as practical after the development of a community-based comprehensive municipal plan, the municipality shall provide a copy of the draft plan to adjacent municipalities within the county for review and comment.An adjacent municipality has 30 days after receipt to review the plan and submit written comments. Subdivision 7.County review (a) If a city does not plan for growth beyond its current boundaries,the city shall submit its community-based comprehensive municipal plan to the county for review and comment.A county has 60 days after receipt to review the plan and submit written comments to the city. The city may amend its plan based upon the county's comments. (b) If a town prepares a community-based comprehensive plan,it shall submit the plan to the county for review and comment.As provided in section 394.33, the town plan may not be inconsistent with or less restrictive than the county plan.A county has 60 days after receipt to review the plan and submit written comments to the town.The town may amend its plan based on the county's comment. Law Sets the Stagefor Community-Based Planning 7 Outlines municipal Section 10 adds Minnesota Statutes 462.3535 planning process Community-Based Planning Subdivision 1. General Each municipality is encouraged to prepare and implement a community-based comprehensive municipal plan.A community-based comprehensive municipal plan is a comprehensive plan that is consistent with the goals of community-based planning in section 4A.08. Subdivision 2.Coordination A municipality that prepares a community-based comprehensive municipal plan shall coordinate its plan with the plans, if any, of the county and the municipality's neighbors both in order to prevent the plan from having an adverse impact on other jurisdictions and to complement the plans of other jurisdictions. The municipality shall prepare its plan to be incorporated into the county's community-based comprehensive plan, if the county is preparing or has prepared one,and shall otherwise assist and cooperate with the county in its community-based planning. Subdivision 3.Joint planning Under the joint exercise of powers provisions in section 471.59, a municipality may establish a joint planning district with other municipalities or counties that are geographically contiguous, to adopt a single community-based comprehensive plan for the district.A municipality may delegate its authority to adopt official controls under sections 462.351 to 462.364, to the board of the joint planning district. Subdivision 4.Cities; urban growth areas (a)The community-based comprehensive municipal plan for a statutory or home rule charter city,and official controls to implement the plan, must at a minimum, address any urban growth area identified in a county plan and may establish an urban growth area for the urbanized and urbanizing area.The city plan must establish a staged process for boundary adjustment to include the urbanized or urbanizing area within corporate limits as the urban growth area is developed and provided municipal services. (b)Within the urban growth area, the plan must provide for the staged provision of urban services, including, but not limited to,water,wastewater collection and treatment, and transportation. Subdivision 5. Urban growth area boundary adjustment process (a)After an urban growth area has been identified in a county or city plan, a city shall negotiate, as part of the comprehensive planning process and in coordination with the county, an orderly annexation agreement with the townships containing the affected unincorporated areas located within the identified urban growth area. The agreement shall contain a boundary adjustment staging plan that establishes a sequencing plan over the subsequent 20-year period for the orderly growth of the city based on its reasonably anticipated development pattern and ability to extend municipal services into designated unincorporated areas located within the identified urban growth area. The city shall include the staging plan agreed upon in the orderly annexation agreement in its comprehensive plan. Upon agreement by the city and town, prior adopted orderly annexation agreements may be included as part of the boundary adjustment plan and comprehensive plan without regard to whether the prior adopted agreement is consistent with this section. 'When either the city or town requests that an existing orderly 6 Minnesota Planning Subdivision 6. Plan update The county board, or the board of the joint planning district, shall review and update the community-based comprehensive plan periodically, but at least every ten years, and submit the updated plan to the office of strategic and long-range planning [Minnesota Planning] for review and comment. Subdivision 7. No mandamus proceeding A mandamus proceeding may not be instituted against a county under this section to require the county to conform its community-based comprehensive plan to be consistent with the community-based planning goals in section 4A.08. Subdivision 8. Planning authority Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or limit a county's authority to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan and official controls under this chapter. Requires official Section 6 amends Minnesota Statutes 1996,section 394.24, subdivision 1,to read: controls for Subdivision 1.Adopted by ordinance Official controls which shall further the follow-through purpose and objectives of the comprehensive plan and parts thereof shall be adopted by ordinance.The comprehensive plan must provide guidelines for the timing and sequence of the adoption of official controls to ensure planned,orderly, and staged development and redevelopment consistent with the comprehensive plan. Defines Section 7 amends Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 462.352, subdivision 5,to read: "comprehensive Subdivision 5.Comprehensive municipal plan "Comprehensive municipal plan" municipal plan" means a compilation of policy statements, goals,standards,and maps for guiding the physical,social and economic development, both private and public,of the municipality and its environs, including air space and subsurface areas necessary for mined underground space development pursuant to sections 469.135 to 469.141, and may include, but is not limited to, the following:statements of policies,goals,standards,a land use plan, including proposed densities for development, a community facilities plan,a transportation plan, and recommendations for plan execution.A comprehensive plan represents the planning agency's recommendations for the future development of the community. Defines "land use Section 8 amends Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 462.352, subdivision 6, to read: plan" Subdivision 6. Land use plan "Land use plan" means a compilation of policy statements,goals, standards,and maps,and action programs for guiding the future development of private and public property.The term includes a plan designating types of uses for the entire municipality as well as a specialized plan showing specific areas or specific types of land uses,such as residential,commercial, industrial,public or semipublic uses or any combination of such uses.A land use plan may also include the proposed densities for development. Defines"urban Section 9 amends Minnesota Statutes 1996, section 462.352, by adding a subdivision growth area" to read: Subdivision 18. Urban growth area "Urban growth area" means the identified area around an urban area within which there is a sufficient supply of developable land for at least a prospective 20-year period,based on demographic forecasts and the time reasonably required to effectively provide municipal services to the identified area. Law Sets the Stage for Community-Based Planning 5 County planning local government units, and local citizens to actively participate in the development of the process, continued plan.An agency that is invited to participate in the development of a local plan but declines to do so and fails to participate or to provide written comments during the plan development process waives the right during the office's review and comment period to submit comments, except for comments concerning consistency of the plan with laws and rules administered by the agency. In determining the merit of the agency comment, the office shall consider the involvement of the agency in the development of the plan. Subdivision 3. Coordination A county that prepares a community-based comprehensive plan shall coordinate its plan with the plans of its neighbors and its constituent municipalities and towns in order both to prevent its plan from having an adverse impact on other jurisdictions and to complement plans of other jurisdictions.The county's community-based comprehensive plan must incorporate the community-based comprehensive plan of any municipality or town in the county prepared in accordance with section 462.3535.A county may incorporate a municipal or town community-based comprehensive plan by reference. Subdivision 4.Joint planning Under the joint exercise of powers provisions in section 471.59, a county may establish a joint planning district with other counties, municipalities, and towns, that are geographically contiguous, to adopt a single community-based comprehensive plan for the district.The county may delegate its authority to adopt official controls under this chapter, to the board of the joint planning district. Subdivision 5. Review and comment (a) The county or joint planning district shall submit its community-based comprehensive plan to the office of strategic and long-range planning [Minnesota Planning] for review.The plan is deemed approved 60 days after submittal to the office, unless the office disagrees with the plan as provided in paragraph(c). (b)The office may not disapprove a community-based comprehensive plan if the office determines that the plan meets the requirements of this section. (c) If the office disagrees with a community-based comprehensive plan or any elements of the plan, the office shall notify the county or district in writing of the plan deficiencies and suggested changes. Upon receipt of the office's written comments, the county or district has 60 days to revise the community-based comprehensive plan and resubmit it to the office for reconsideration. (d) If the county or district refuses to revise the plan or the office disagrees with the revised plan, the office shall within 60 days notify the county or district that it wishes to initiate the dispute resolution process in chapter 572A. (e) Within 30 days of notice from the office, the county or joint planning district shall notify the office of its intent to enter the dispute resolution process. If the county or district refuses to enter the dispute resolution process, the county or district shall refund any state grant received for community-based planning activities through the office. 4 Minnesota Planning Public education —To support research and public education on a community's and the state's finite capacity to accommodate growth, and the need for planning and resource management that will sustain growth; and Sustainable development —To provide a better quality of life for all residents while maintaining nature's ability to function over time by minimizing waste, preventing pollution, promoting efficiency, and developing local resources to revitalize the local economy. Provides for state Section 2 adds Minnesota Statutes 4A.09 assistance Technical Assistance The office [Minnesota Planning] shall provide local governments technical and financial assistance in preparing their comprehensive plans to meet the community-based planning goals in section 4A.08. Requires state review Section 3 adds Minnesota Statutes 4A.10 of community-based Plan Review and Comment plans The office [Minnesota Planning] shall review and comment on community-based comprehensive plans prepared by counties,including the community-based comprehensive plans of municipalities and towns that are incorporated into a county's plan, as required in section 394.232,subdivision 3. Confirms county Section 4 amends Minnesota Statutes 1996,section 394.23,to read: authority to do Comprehensive Plan planning The board [of county commissioners] has the power and authority to prepare and adopt by ordinance, a comprehensive plan.A comprehensive plan or plans when adopted by ordinance must be the basis for official controls adopted under the provisions of sections 394.21 to 394.37. Outlines county Section 5 adds Minnesota Statutes 394.232 planning process Community-Based Planning Subdivision 1. General Each county is encouraged to prepare and implement a community-based comprehensive plan.A community-based comprehensive plan is a comprehensive plan that is consistent with the goals of community-based planning in section 4A.08. Subdivision 2. Notice and Participation Notice must be given at the beginning of the community-based comprehensive planning process to the office of strategic and long-range planning [Minnesota Planning], the department of natural resources, the department of agriculture,the department of trade and economic development,the board of soil and water resources,the pollution control agency; the department of transportation, Law Sets the Stage for Community-Based Planning 3 Community-based planning act (Article 4) Sets statewide goals Section 1 adds Minnesota Statutes 4A.08 Community-Based Planning Goals The goals of community-based planning are: Citizen participation —To develop a community-based planning process with broad citizen participation in order to build local capacity to plan for sustainable development and to benefit from the insights,knowledge,and support of local residents.The process must include at least one citizen from each affected unit of local government; Cooperation —To promote cooperation among communities to work towards the most efficient,planned,and cost-effective delivery of government services by,among other means, facilitating cooperative agreements among adjacent communities and to coordinate planning to ensure compatibility of one community's development with development of neighboring communities; Economic development —To create sustainable economic development strategies and provide economic opportunities throughout the state that will achieve a balanced distribution of growth statewide; Conservation —To protect,preserve, and enhance the state's resources, including agricultural land,forests,surface water and groundwater,recreation and open space,scenic areas, and significant historic and archaeological sites; Livable community design —To strengthen communities by following the principles of livable community design in development and redevelopment,including integration of all income and age groups, mixed land uses and compact development, affordable and life-cycle housing, green spaces, access to public transit, bicycle and pedestrian ways,and enhanced aesthetics and beauty in public spaces; Housing —To provide and preserve an adequate supply of affordable and life-cycle housing throughout the state; Transportation —To focus on the movement of people and goods, rather than on the movement of automobiles, in transportation planning, and to maximize the efficient use of the transportation infrastructure by increasing the availability and use of appropriate public transit throughout the state through land-use planning and design that makes public transit economically viable and desirable; Land-use planning —To establish a community-based framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to land use; Public investments —To account for the full environmental, social, and economic costs of new development, including infrastructure costs such as transportation,sewers and wastewater treatment,water,schools, recreation, and open space, and plan the funding mechanisms necessary to cover the costs of the infrastructure; 2 Minnesota Planning , ,.,.; ,‘ , r ,,, 19 i 1 . 0 COMMUNITY - BASED PLANNING IN MINNE "OTA` Law sets the e sta g for community-basedlannin p g n 1997,theI planning through its new Minnesota Common Ground Common Ground assists local governments with program. Minnesota community-based planning. Legislature and For more information, Planning will also review contact: Governor Arne H.Carlson community-based plans Deborah Pile (612)297-2375 for the first time set for consistency with the common.grounde Community-bused mnplan.state.mn.us planning act statewide goals for local 11 goals. Minnesota Planning is Page 2 government planning by The new law is contained charged with developing a long-range plan for the establishing voluntary in Articles 1,4 and 6 of state,stimulating public he Omnibus State participation in Minnesota's t Pilot projects community-based future and coordinating Department Bill— activities among state Page 11 planning. agencies,the Legislature Minnesota Laws 1997, and other units of Chapter 202. Funding is government. Dispute resolution Minnesota's new law covered by Article 1, Upon request,this Page 12 builds on the state's Section 11. document will be made sustainable development available in an alternate format,such as Braille,large Statefunding statutes. It sets 11 goals Not included here: print or audio tape.For TTY, for community-based Chapter 202 also made contact Minnesota Relay Page 16 tYaseP Service at(800)627-3529 planning, creates an changes to the municipal and ask for Minnesota advisory council to refine board and annexation Planning. program details,and procedures. These Minnesota Planning 658 Cedar St. funds pilot projects. include termination of St.Paul,MN 55155 the municipal board on (612)296-3985 Minnesota Planning will December 31, 1999, and www.mnplan.state.mn.us provide grants and transfer of its functions to September 1997 technical assistance for Minnesota Planning. community-based MINNESOTA PLANNING ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS Various organizations involved in the planning process have recognized the following as major issues to consider when developing a model for public participation: • One of the greatest challenges is to set up local mechanisms that allow for true participation and bring true influence to bear on policy formulation. • One of the biggest concerns from practicing planners and citizens who are considering involvement in the planning process is how planners view citizen participation. Too often, citizen participation is defined as any effort to collect input from community residents. Often, attempts to involve citizens occur mainly to satisfy legislative requirements for federal or state funding. Thus citizen participation has become trivialized, as simply a step in the planning process that must be completed to comply with federal and state regulations. • One of the primary implications for planning raises the question of what steps should be addressed to facilitate citizen participation. A constructive role would require the council andplanners to organize, inform, and instill confidence in the local citizenry. • . The model process should bring about situations in which local citizens demand power and actively seek control over decisions that affect their lives. The key is to put citizens in a consulting mode. Participation without some degree of power implies tokenism and inhibits efforts to develop consensus around key planning issues. • Questions to consider: • What elements are necessary for planning to be community-based? • Should a model process of citizen participation be in statute, rules, or guidelines? Why? • Should there be a measurement of outcomes to judge the success of citizen participation in planning? If so,what? Where should it be? • Should funding of citizen participation programs be a high priority? For the state? • . Model B: A planning commission and at least five committees will provide for more citizen input. Each committee should actively seek participation. The guidebook also suggest what groups and interests should be represented on the committees. Model C: A planning committee with at least five subcommittees. Similar to model B. In general,these models are structure oriented, and do not really address how the public should be significantly involved. Dayton, Ohio's Model Process Dayton's Priority Board system has received considerable national and even international attention as a model of citizen participation. The Priority Boards serve as the official voice of Dayton's neighborhoods. These boards press neighborhood concerns on City Hall,pass judgment on its plans for their communities and play an active role in the city's planning and budgeting process. Through the boards, Dayton residents are involved in policy decisions and other actions affecting their neighborhoods, including budget recommendations of new programs and capital projects, zoning decisions, liquor license renewals and activities at neighborhood parks. The Priority Boards: • Elect a chairperson. • Identify and prioritize needs, goals and objectives. • Identify,recommend and present the neighborhood view as to which public services should be cut and expanded. • Identify and advocate the assets of their neighborhood to community institutions. • Form partnerships with Neighborhood Development Corporations. • Provide the vehicle and opportunity for all citizens to become involved in government decision-making. • Provide the vehicle for disseminating information to neighborhoods. • Make recommendations to City Commission, City Administration, and other agencies. • New Jersey Cities and towns in New Jersey are required to hold a public hearing prior to master plan and ordinance changes. The state of New Jersey provides a guide and a list of suggested techniques as its model process for public participation. Two models of community participation in New Jersey: ■ Randolph Township used three steps in developing its master plan. 1) Nominal Group Technique 2) a public survey 3) Citizen Advisory Committees • Hunterdon County used various surveying strategies. They: • 1) surveyed local boards and interest groups. 2) surveyed the general public. 1111 3) compiled the results of the surveys and held regional meetings to discuss the results. 4) formed various advisory committees to look at the issues and problems identified. 5) worked with advisory committees to develop strategies and a consensus. The state of New Jersey also provides public participation tips. The three categories of there recommendations are: disseminating information,participation opportunities, and potential target groups and organizations. Georgia The state of Georgia requires cities and town to incorporate public participation in their planning process. Aside from two required hearings,other suggested ways to encourage public participation in Georgia include: workshops about planning and what planning is, use of the media, and public presentations to civic organizations. Georgia has three models that encourage public participation. Their descriptions however, do not clearly indicate how, aside from organizational structure, each model encourages public participation. Model A: A planning commission made up of citizens who work with local • organizations, get citizen input and develop the plan. • Washington The state of Washington's Growth Management Act requires"early and continuous" public participation in the planning process as required by law. The form of public participation that is taken is not dictated by law. Washington recommends processes, but officials do not believe that legislation is necessary to implement the recommendations. Their recommendations are intended to guide local governments in doing the best job possible. Local governments are allowed flexibility in meeting public participation requirements. However, state officials do believe that local governments may need technical assistance in order to implement many of these approaches. The legislature does assure that sufficient resources are provided to local government to enable them to have an effective public participation process. The state offers a brochure to towns, cities, and counties, which lists the following as elements of effective citizen participation: 1) Know your audience 2) Set clear objectives 3) Tools A through Z Advertisements Brochures Cable Reader Board Committees Community Calendar Display Field Trip Flyer • Focus Group Insert Interview Invitation Mailing List Media Relations Newsletter Open House Opinion Article Poster Polling Public Hearing Public Meeting Public Notice Public Service Announcement Reader Boards Research School Handout Slide Show Small Groups Speakers Bureau Talk Show Task Force Telephone Tree Thank You Notes Volunteer Project Video Windshield Survey Word of Mouth Workshops Youth Groups Zip Codes The brochure also gives a"Who, What, When, and How: Tips and Techniques for Public Participation" section that covers: • Working with Committees Seven Ways to be an Effective Chair Learn Facilitation Skills Identify the Obstacles Early On Conduct a Successful Meeting Learn About Empowerment Washington's Growth Management Services office also recognizes Oregon's Four Step Model process to be an effective means of citizen participation in the planning process. 11111 While Oregon's model lists"adequate support"of citizen participation by cities and towns as a goal,the interpretation of this requirement has not been flushed out. Without such interpretation, it is next to impossible to look back and determine if a city has "adequately supported" its Citizen Involvement Program. When there are funding problems at the local level,the Citizen Involvement Programs are among the first programs cut. Florida The state of Florida requires cities and town to incorporate public participation into their planning process. Requirements are contained in statutory language and rules. The state's plan encourages public participation at all levels, and it is from this that the rules are or were developed. Florida does not have a model process. They believe that no good model process exists. State officials found that communities were often requesting a corresponding"model" each time the laws or rules changed. Maryland Maryland requires cities and towns to incorporate public participation in their planning process. Cities and towns must hold a public hearing when adopting a comprehensive plan, or planning and zoning changes. It is,however,up to them how the additional public participation is to be carried out. Three different models are provided from the state of Maryland: 1) Calvert County Model: Tools used by the county include: • an opinion survey • reaching out to groups • slide show and cable TV • agency participation • following up by distributing a draft of plan to all households 2) Easton Planning and Visioning Process: This community's plan starts with the visioning process. Prior to the meetings, "big picture" issue information was sent out to facilitate discussion. At the first meeting with the public,the existing plan and visioning process is explained and logistics of town visioning meetings are formulated. Their model plan calls for visioning meetings to be continuously held bi-weekly until a plan is adopted. 3) Maryland uses Oregon's Four Step Model as one of its own model processes. 45 • $. CU >4 N > cd E O ti)it O o •� s, Uma N ,� .Q an .- 61 Cn 1.0 .� >4 'C 5 O +- .� to 3 0) .N Z ti .- > 'v 5 © .0 = a.) a)• u C a) nw " ' .r V C G o O - on 0 :�'. cn 0 ' 0 rii i caIDA � .d o cz n 0 0 ›"'' r.+ bA .b z � O > a • a - O c' a -- a 3 Cr O � > as v > • 6es O C D a . G O p s s • ypy a, y O D 0 O Ci) C .p O eD •� ++ lc% bA z Lca TZ osM "a0 ej DCS 6 ° oA ° to 6 • A � aa .B o. vO a . . a • APPROACHES OF OTHER STATES Oregon The state of Oregon requires cities and towns to incorporate pubic participation into their planning process. The Mandatory Planning Program requires a Citizen Involvement Program. Each jurisdiction must have a committee which works with officials and the public in developing citizen involvement. Citizen Involvement Programs are required by a combination of statutes and administrative rules. Oregon has a four step public involvement model. Each step focuses on a driving question, involves different planning activities, and results in specific products. While all four steps are recommended, a particular community may choose to follow only some of them or to undertake specific activities at different points in the process. The model allows for flexibility. The four steps in the Oregon model are: 1) Profile the Community: Characteristics of the local area are identified. • Driving question: "Where are we now?" • Planning activities: Research and data collection, compilation and analysis. • Products: Community profile, values statement. • 2) Analyze the Trends: The community determines where it is headed if and activities continue. current trends • Driving question: "Where are we going?" • Planning activities: Determination of current and projected trends, assessment of . their future impact. Creation of probable scenario through task forces, work groups, community meetings and brainstorming sessions. • Products: Trend statement,probable scenario 3) Create the Vision: Based on identified community values, a"preferred scenario"is developed to describe what the community might look like if new responses to identified trends are set into action. • Driving question: "Where do we want to be?" • Planning activities: Creation of a preferred scenario and final vision through task forces, work groups, community meetings, brainstorming session, or other means. • Product: Preferred scenario, vision statement. 4) Develop an Action Plan: Create an action plan that is specific as possible, including steps to be taken,assignment of responsibilities and timelines. • Driving question: "How do we get there?" • Planning activities: Identification of goals, strategies, actions, implementation agendas and priorities through task forces, work groups, or stakeholder meetings. • • Product: Action plan. published in the official newspaper of the county not less than ten days before the • meeting or public hearing required at which it is to be considered." • Goal number one of the Community-Based Planning Act requires citizen participation in the planning process. This goal states, "To develop a community-based planning process with broad citizen participation in order to build local capacity to plan for sustainable development and to benefit from the insights,knowledge, and support of local residents. The process must include at least one citizen from each affected unit of local government." • Section 5 Subdivision 2 of the Community-Based Planning Act also requires that some notice be given at the beginning of the community-based comprehensive planning process to local citizens to actively participate in the development of the plan. Examples from Two Minnesota Communities The communities of Morris and Waseca, Minnesota are two examples that have gone beyond what other communities have done and have initiated their own public participation processes. It was the local officials and planners in these communities that decided that they wanted to let the public take ownership in these plans. In Morris, MN,the public was involved throughout the entire planning process. They were involved in community visioning meetings, focus groups, feedback meetings, and responded to a questionnaire on future planning needs and priorities. The focus groups allowed citizens to participate and make recommendations on issues that concerned them. The public's comments were then considered in the drafting of the plan. There is however, disagreement as to whether or not the public's input was taken seriously. Some officials in Morris believe that the public involvement approaches were very effective. They got a lot of people involved and interesting in the planning process. But, other officials in Morris were not willing to consider or make use of the idea's that were generated out of the public participation process. An official in Morris stated, "In order to have effective and useful public participation, you must first involve a lot of citizens and then make use of and have the ability to incorporate those ideas into the plan. Morris was effective in drumming up interest and involvement,but ineffective in making use of the ideas and recommendations generated." In Waseca, MN,the public played an essential role in developing their comprehensive plan. Three public participation workshops and 11 focus group meetings drew 110 people to comment on the future of Waseca and provide input into the planning process. The planning committee also included a questionnaire in the January 1994 utility billings, for comment on future planning needs and priorities. There was a response rate of 15%to the questionnaires. • Citizen Involvement Advisory Council Duty: (1) develop a model process to involve citizens in community-based planning from the beginning of the planning process. PURPOSE OF CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT "Citizen involvement" is the participation in the planning process by people other than professional planners or government officials. It is citizens participating in the planning and decision-making that affects their community. Benefits of public participation include: • Citizens who are involved in the planning process become educated about planning and land use. This in turn creates an informed community,which leads to better planning. • Citizens who are involved in the planning process gain a sense of ownership to the • adopted plan. • Government gains a better understanding of citizens' motives,desires, and perceptions of problems and opportunities. • Government can better identify what citizens value in the community. • Citizen involvement is an important means of enforcing our community and land use laws. • It develops and enhances the level of communication between officials, agencies, and the public. MINNESOTA'S APPROACH Currently,the only elements of public participation in statute are notification of a public hearing when adopting a comprehensive plan or when planning/zoning changes occur and sections from the Community-Based Planning Act. • Minnesota Statutes 462 Subd. 3 on public hearings states, "No zoning ordinance or amendment thereto shall be adopted until a public hearing has been held thereon by the planning agency or by the governing body When an amendment involves changes in district boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice shall be mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and property situated wholly or partly within 350 feet of the property to which the amendment relates." • • Minnesota Statues 375.51 Subd.2 on publication of public hearings states, "No county ordinance shall be enacted unless a notice of the intention to enact it has been - COMMON LAND USE MYTHS . _ , r, -y • Myth 1: EVERYONE WANTS A$IG HOUSE ON A BIG LOT ,,-. w r' IN THE COUNTRY ( t �FkWRdSN1PQQ • The National Association of Home Builders' (NAHB) annual surveys have consistently found that what people want is the most house for.theirmoney in-a good neighborhood. Compact development is cheaper to build, thus a greater value to buy. Compact develop- ' ment cap also provide valuable neighborhood assets,'such as easy walks to parks and shops, good schools, sociable town centers, narrow streets, and protected openspace, all of which rank highly in recent housing consumer preference surveys. . ri4Large home / large lot development also ignores the facts of our changing population. _ Less than half of all American families today have children under 18 living at home, and of those that do,one third are single-parent families. Our aging population and shrinking fam- _ily sizes require different housing types ands different development patterns (e.g., for many • , elderly, the car is not a viable transportation option). Myth 2: HIGHER DENSITY MEANS MORE CRIME AND . 'y CONGESTED ROADS • Study after study confirms that there is no cause-and-effect relationship between housing ' density and crime rates.,Scholar Jane Jacobs makes excellent argumerrts for density,and for II) ` community designs that put more "eyes on the"street." -Accordingto the chief of police of • Portland,Oregon,community policing is made much easier with designs that include pedes- - , trian-friendly streets, a diversity of housing types and densities,and a diversity of people of different ages, incomes and cultures who get to know one another. Eimmil r A recent study showed that a doubling of density reduces the total number of vehicle miles driven in an area by' 20 to 30 percent. ,With added density and some mix of uses, more people can accommodate their daily needs without using cars or with fewer and shorter trips. In contrast, car ownership-patterns and driving habits in the suburbs dramatically increase the number of miles driven and trips taken. Furthermore,higher density makes mass transit more affordable and effective in an urban area. . • ri. , ,, Myth 3: SCATTERED, LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT PRESERVES RURAL CHARACTER . The'opposite is true:,Two- and three- acre lots, and even five- and 10- acre "farmettes" eat up traditional landscapes, ruin- countryvistas, and make natural, economically productive , v t uses in rural areas(such 1 as farming or timbering)-impossible to sustain. In a study completed . 1 by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in 1996, a conventional, low-density, "rural develop- ment" design consumed-twice as much open space as a more compact,clustered concept. • • . o - a y Myth 4: •PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREN'T NEEDED IN SMALL, STAGNANT OR SHRINKING CITIES AND COUNTIES Not true. Planning isn't just about controlling growth, it's about planning to grow smart. Stagnant or shrinking communities can use planning as a tool to bring citizens together to talk about what type of growth they want to attract, and what they are willing to do to attract it. A major goal of the Community- Based Planning Act is to redirect some growth from the fastest growing counties to rural communities throughout the state. To do that successfully, planning needs to happen at both ends. _ Myth 5: "MANAGING GROWTH" MEANS THAT THE STATE WILL TAKE OVER LOCAL GOVERNMENT POWERS Local governments must retain primary authority for making local land use decisions for reasons of accountability and local knowledge. But local planning can and should be guided by overarching state: growth objectives and requirements since the effects of local decisions,don't stop at the county line. Plan- ning under the Community-Based Planning Act is completely voluntary. If a community chooses to plan under the Act, the state provides•financial and technical assistance grants to complete a plan which is consistent with the statewide goals. • Myth 6 LOCAL ECONOMIES NEED THE TAX BASE THAT GROWTH MANAGEMENT WOULD DESTROY The tax base of local communities is terribly weakened by most forms of sprawl: This inefficient pattern of development is difficult and expensive to maintain with public services. Single-use,low-density growth usually costs communities much more than;it returns to local coffers; thus the local debt grows.The Cost • of Community Services Studies,recently completed in three Twin Cities suburbs,determined that in each city,the community was spending more ow-services for its residential areas than it .vas regaining in taxes. Implementation•of a good local growth management program increases predictability for the development " community and helps preserve the quality of life that makes a region attractive`to business and industry. • 1 F t 1 P 1 rr� rfr ' "Sr X11) -- r r r i. r r Tyr A rrr iipwIturrtnr • • , Myth 4: PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREN'T NEEDED IN SMALL, STAGNANT OR SHRINKING CITIESAND COUNTIES Not true. Planning isn't just about controlling growth, it's about planning to grow smart. Stagnant or shrinking communities can use planning as a tool to bring citizens together to talk about what type of growth they want to attract, and what they are willing to do to attract it. A major goal of the Community- Based Planning Act is to redirect some growth from the fastest growing counties to rural communities throughout the state. To do that successfully, planning needs to happen at both ends. Myth 5: "MANAGING GROWTH" MEANS THAT THE STATE WILL TAKE , OVER LOCAL GOVERNMENT POWERS . Local governments must retain primary authority for making local land use decisions for reasons of accountability and local knowledge. But local planning can,and should be guided by overarching state_, growth objectives and requirements since the effects of local decisions,don't stop at the county line. Plan- ning under the Community-Based Planning Act is completely voluntary. If a community chooses to plan ' under the Act, the state provides'financial and technical assistance grants to complete a plan which is consistent with the statewide goals; ' Myth 6: LOCAL ECONOMIES NEED THE TAX BASE THAT GROWTH , MANAGEMENT WOULD DESTROY The tax base of local communities is terribly weakened by most forms of sprawl. This inefficient,pattern of development is difficult and expensive to maintain with public services. Single-use,low-density growth usually costs communities much more than it returns to local coffers; thus the.local debt grows.The Cost of Community Services Studies,recently completed in three Twin Cities suburbs,determined that in each city,the community was spending more onservices for its residential areas than it Was regaining in taxes. Implementation of a good local growth management program increases predictability for the development community and helps preserve the quality of life that makes a region attractive to business and industry. ' rrr cr _ '. Amor r r. rri r aka • 1 • Myth 7: WE DON'T NEED PLANNING, BECAUSE THE FREE MARKET ENSURES THAT THE RIGHT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS The market for,housing hasn't been 'free"for at least 50 years. Since the late 1940s, federal and state governments have actively promoted suburban sprawl. Everything from tax policy to the overwhelming government support for highways over all other modes of transportation have supported sprawl. These public policies have encouraged home buyers to"buy new." At the same time,state and local policies,laws and plans have encouraged home builders to build on farms or forestland well outside of town,yet numer- ous visual preference surveys confirm that people actually prefer communities which more resemble pre- World War II towns. • ,ipt--2- II,11 •• � as. i" fR A\ • Myth 8: WE NEED GROWTH TO CREATE JOBS,AND PRESERVING THE ENVIRONMENT WILL HURT THE ECONOMY Good land use planning is about both maintaining strong, sustainable economies and protecting farmland • and the environment. Not only are these goals not incompatible, they are actually very closely related., A 1994 study by the non-profit Institute for Southern Studies found that states with the best environmental • records also offer the best job opportunities and climate for long-term economic development. Of the 12 states that rank highest on environmental scales nationwide, nine also rank among the top 12 states on - economic scales;including Minnesota. The bottom line is that managed growthis better for the environment, more cost-efficient for local governments and more profitable for developers. , Myth 4: ,PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREN'T NEEDED-IN SMALL, STAGNANT AOR SHRINKING CITIES AND COUNTIES Not true. Planning isn't just about controlling'growth, it's about planning to grow smart. Stagnant or " shrinking communities can use planning as a tool to bring citizens together to talk about what type of growth they want to attract, and what they are willing to do to attract it. A major goal of the Community Based Planning Act is to redirect some growth from the fastest growing counties to rural communities throughout the state. To do that successfully, planning needs to happen at both ends. Myth 5: '.'MANAGING GROWTH" MEANS THAT THE STATE WILL TAKE OVER LOCAL GOVERNMENT POWERS Local governments must retain,primary authority for making local land use decisions for reasons of - accountability and local knowledge. But local planning can sand should be guided by overarching state_ growth objectives and requirements since the effects of local decisions don't stop at the county line. Plan- ning under the Community-Based Planning Act is completely voluntary. If a community chooses to plan • under the Act, the state provides financial and technical assistance grants to complete a plan which is consistent with the statewide goals. ' Myth 6: LOCAL ECONOMIES NEED THE TAX BASE THAT GROWTH MANAGEMENT WOULD DESTROY The tax base of local communities is terribly weakened by most forms of sprawl. This inefficient pattern of development is difficult and expensive to maintain with public services. Single-use,low-density growth usually costs communities much more than it returns to local coffers; thus the local debt grows.The Cost of Community Services Studies,recently completed in three Twin Cities suburbs,determined that in each city,the community was spending more omservices for its residential areas than it was regaining in taxes. Implementation,of'a good local growth management program increases predictability for the development community and helps preserve the quality of life that makes a region attractive to business and industry. Cie 1 r r l r g rrrp Avow tan.) 6411 , r _� Tyr A HARDWARE /. • rfr • • • . • I ` Myth 7: WE DON'T NEED PLANNING, BECAUSE THE FREE MARKET ENSURES THAT THE RIGHT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS The market for,housing hasn't been 'free"for at least 50 years Since the late 1940s, federal and state governments have actively promoted suburban sprawl. Everything from tax policy to the overwhelming, government support for highways over all other modes of transportation have supported sprawl. These public policies have encouraged home buyers to"buy new." At the same time,state and local policies,laws and plans have encouraged home builders to build on farms or forestland well outside of town,yet numer- ous visual preference surveys confirm that people actually prefer communities which more resemble pre= World War II towns. • 11 , f t. Myth 8: WE NEED GROWTH TO CREATE JOBS,AND PRESERVING THE ENVIRONMENT WILL HURT THE ECONOMY. Good land use planning is about both maintaining strong,sustainable economies and protecting farmland • and the environment. Not.only are,these goals not incompatible, they are actually very closely related. • A 1994 study by the non-profit Institute for Southern Studies found that states with the best environmental • recordsalso lifer the best job opportunities and climate for long-term economic development. Of the 12 states that rank highest on environmental scales nationwide, nine also rank among the top 12 states on economic scales;including Minnesota. The bottom line is that managed growth is better for the environment, more cost-efficient for local governments and more profitable for developers. House Research Department Community-Based Planning Act August 1997 Page 9 Pilot Projects Before the advisory council has completed its work, four community-based planning pilot projects may be funded and may provide experience to inform the advisory council on what is needed to implement community-based planning. A total of$500,000 is appropriated for the pilot projects. One pilot project may be in the St. Cloud area if a joint powers agreement is entered into by the cities of St. Cloud, Waite Park, Sartell, St. Joseph, and Sauk Rapids, and the counties of Benton, Steams, and Sherburne. The St. Cloud area pilot project, if established, may receive $350,000 for community-based planning. The other three community-based planning pilot projects may be determined by Minnesota Planning.6 A county or joint planning district participating in a pilot project must prepare its community- based comprehensive plan within 24 months of the county's or district's selection as a pilot project. In addition to any other requirement of a community-based plan,the pilot project community- based plans must zone land outside an urban growth area as permanent rural or agricultural land, maintained at densities consistent with those uses. The plan must identify the density at which the municipality wishes to develop. The county or joint powers board must coordinate its plan with adjacent counties. The adjacent counties have 60 days to review and comment on the plan. A county adjacent to the metropolitan area must coordinate its plan with the Metropolitan Council, which has 60 days to review and comment on the plan. • This publication can be made available in alternative formats upon request. Please call(612)296-6753 (voice); or the Minnesota State Relay Service at 1-800-627-3529(TTY). 6 Laws 1997,art. 1, § 11,and art.4, §§ 16 to 21 Y House Research Department August 1997 Community-Based Planning Act Page 8 • Metropolitan Area: ► The Metropolitan Council must amend the metropolitan development guide to reflect and implement the community-based planning goals. (The metropolitan development guide consists of the Regional Blueprint and the various policy and systems plans adopted by the Council.) Minnesota Planning must review and comment on the amended metropolitan development guide. The Metropolitan Council may not approve local comprehensive plans or plan amendments after July 1, 1999,until the Council has received and considered the comments of Minnesota Planning. Changes to the metropolitan development guide may require local governments in the metropolitan area to amend their local comprehensive plans, whether or not they decide to prepare community-based plans. There are procedural and substantive questions not addressed in the Act,which is why the advisory council was established. For example, how will Minnesota Planning review a community-based plan and determine if it is consistent with the goals? Should cities and towns that decide to prepare a community-based plan give notice to any state agencies, adjacent local governments and constituent citizens? What does it mean to"coordinate"a plan with adjacent jurisdictions? Minnesota Planning may"disagree"with an element of a county's or district's plan. If the element is in the municipal plan that is incorporated into the county or district plan and the county or district has 60 days to revise its plan, does that make the county or district responsible for the municipal plan? The Act requires a city or town to adopt and implement its community-based plan after Minnesota Planning has approved the county or district plan in which the city's or town's plan is incorporated. Should counties and districts be expressly required to adopt and implement a plan once it is approved, as well? House Research Department August 1997 Community-Based Planning Act Page 7 • Municipalities (cities and towns): ► A city's community-based plan must describe the urban growth area for the urbanized and urbanizing area. An urban growth area is an area around an urban area within which there is sufficient supply of developable land for at least a 20-year period. ► A city with an urban growth area that extends beyond its jurisdiction,must have a boundary adjustment staging plan included in its community-based plan. The staging plan must be part of an orderly annexation agreement, negotiated with the affected townships and providing for annexation into the city of township land that is urbanized or urbanizing as the urban growth area is developed and municipal services are provided. Within the urban growth area, the plan must provide for the staged provision of urban services. ► A city that plans for growth beyond its current boundaries must submit its plan(which includes the boundary adjustment staging plan)to the county for review and approval before the plan is incorporated into the county plan. The county has 60 days and must approve the plan if it is consistent with the goals. The county may comment on the orderly annexation agreement. If the county does not approve the plan, it must submit written comments to the city. The county has 60 days to review the revised plan. If the city and county cannot agree on the city's plan, either may initiate the dispute resolution process and the other party has 30 days to agree to dispute resolution. If the city refuses dispute resolution, it must refund any grant for planning activities the city received from the county. ► A city that does not plan for growth beyond its current boundaries must submit its plan to the county for review and comment. ► A municipality must adopt and implement its plan after Minnesota Planning has reviewed and commented on the county plan that incorporates the municipality's plan. The municipality may incorporate any comments made by Minnesota Planning and then adopt the plan. ► As under prior law, a town plan may not be inconsistent with or less restrictive than the county plan. The county has 60 days to comment and the town may amend its plan based on the comments. House Research Department August 1997 Community-Based Planning Act Page 6 Other requirements of a community-based plan are specific to whether the plan is prepared by a county (or joint planning district) or by a municipality. Counties and Joint Planning Districts: ► A county or joint planning district that decides to prepare a community-based plan must give notice to the following agencies at the beginning of the planning process, inviting their participation: Minnesota Planning,the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Trade and Economic Development, the Board of Water and Soil Resources,the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Department of Transportation. The county or district must also give notice to and invite the participation of local units of government(presumably within the county), and local citizens. The Act states that agencies that fail to participate waive the right to submit comments during the review phase, except comments addressing the plan's consistency with the laws and rules administered by the agency. ► A county or district that elects to prepare a community-based plan must submit its plan to Minnesota Planning for review and comment. The plan is deemed approved after 60 days unless Minnesota Planning "disagrees"with it. Minnesota Planning cannot"disapprove" a plan if it meets the requirements of a community-based plan. Minnesota Planning must submit written comments to the county or district if it"disagrees"with a plan. The county or district has 60 days to revise and resubmit the plan. If the county or district refuses to revise the plan, or Minnesota Planning "disagrees"with the revision, Minnesota Planning has 60 days to initiate the dispute resolution process, also newly enacted in the 1997 session. The county or district has 30 days to notify Minnesota Planning whether it intends to enter dispute resolution. The county or district must refund any state grant for planning activities if it refuses to enter dispute resolution. ► The county dr joint powers board must review and update the community-based plan at least every 10 years and submit the updated plan to Minnesota Planning for review and comment. ► A county must incorporate the community-based plan of any city or town in the county. House Research Department August 1997 Community-Based Planning Act Page 5 Initial Framework General planning laws apply to community-based planning. The general planning enabling statutes in Minnesota Statutes chapters 366, 394, and 462, and the Metropolitan Land Planning Act in chapter 473, apply to community-based plans unless a provision of the Act conflicts with the general law. Financial assistance will be available to local governments. The 1997 Legislature appropriated$750,000 to Minnesota Planning, available beginning July 1, 1998 until June 30, 2000. One-half this amount is for planning grants to counties and joint planning districts. Counties may provide financial assistance to municipalities. One-half the amount is for technology grants.' There are common elements to community-based plans,whether prepared by counties, joint planning districts or municipalities. ► A community-based plan is a plan that is consistent with the goals. ► The plan must establish guidelines for the timing and sequence of adoption of official controls to ensure development consistent with the plan. (This provision applies to all comprehensive plans,whether or not community-based.) ► A county or municipality may establish a joint powers board for a joint planning district to adopt a single community-based plan for the district. Member local governments of the joint planning district may delegate to the joint powers board their authority to zone and adopt other official controls. ► A county or municipality engaged in community-based planning must coordinate its plan with its neighbors and with the municipalities in the county. ► No one may bring an action in court seeking to require a county or municipality to make its plan consistent with the goals. Notwithstanding this prohibition, a plan is not a "community-based plan"unless it is consistent with goals. 5 Laws 1997,ch.202,art. 1, § 11,effective July 1, 1997 House Research Department August 1997 Community-Based Planning Act Page 4 Duties The Act directs the advisory council to: ► Develop a model process to involve citizens in community-based planning from the beginning of the planning process ► Hold meetings statewide to solicit advice and information on how to implement community-based planning ► Develop specific, measurable criteria by which plans will be reviewed for consistency with the goals, and commented on by Minnesota Planning ► Recommend a procedure for review and comment on community-based plans ► Recommend a process for coordination of plans among local jurisdictions ► Recommend an alternative dispute resolution method for citizens and local governments to use to challenge proposed plans or the implementation of plans ► Recommend incentives to encourage state agencies to implement the goals of community-based planning ► Recommend incentives for local governments to develop community-based plans, including, for example, assistance with computerized geographic information systems, builders' remedies and density bonuses, and revised permitting processes ► Describe tools and strategies that a county, city, or town may use to achieve the goals, including,but not limited to, densities,urban growth areas,purchase or transfer of development rights programs,public investment surcharges,transit and transit-oriented development, and zoning and other official controls ► Recommend the time frame in which the community-based plans must be completed ► Consider the need for ongoing stewardship and oversight of sustainable development initiatives and the community-based planning process ► Review and recommend changes to the community-based planning framework established in the Act ► Make other recommendations to implement community-based planning as the advisory council determines would be necessary or helpful in achieving the goals House Research Department August 1997 Community-Based Planning Act Page 3 Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning The Act also establishes an advisory council on community-based planning for discussion and development of a framework for community-based planning and to identify the tools and incentives to implement the plans.3 $330,000 is appropriated for the biennium for community- based planning and the advisory council.4 Membership The advisory council consists of 18 voting members: ► eight legislators (two state representatives appointed by the speaker of the House, and two appointed by the minority leader, and four senators appointed by the Senate subcommittee on committees,two of whom must be minority caucus members); ► nine public members, three each appointed by the House, Senate, and the Governor(each of these appointing authorities must appoint at least one person who is knowledgeable about and experienced in local government issues or planning); and ► the director, or the director's designee, of Minnesota Planning. The commissioners of the Departments of Natural Resources, Agriculture, Trade and Economic Development, and Transportation, or their designees, serve on the advisory council ex-officio, as does the chair, or the chair's designee, of the Metropolitan Council. The director of Minnesota Planning, or the director's designee, will convene the first meeting, and the advisory council will then select a chair from among its members at its first meeting. Minnesota Planning will provide administrative and staff assistance to the advisory council,with help from other state agencies and the Metropolitan Council as needed. The Attorney General is directed to provide legal advice. The advisory council sunsets on June 30, 1998. 3 Laws 1997,ch.202,art.4, § 13 4 Laws 1997,ch.202,art. 1, § 11,effective July 1, 1997 House Research Department August 1997 Community-Based Planning Act Page 2 Community-Based Planning Goals The Act established 11 goals of community-based planning. A community-based plan is a local comprehensive plan that is consistent with these goals. The goals are: "(1) Citizen participation. To develop a community-based planning process with broad citizen participation in order to build local capacity to plan for sustainable development and to benefit from the insights,knowledge,and support of local residents. The process must include at least one citizen from each affected unit of local government; (2) Cooperation. To promote cooperation among communities to work towards the most efficient, planned, and cost-effective delivery of government services by,among other means, facilitating cooperative agreements among adjacent communities and to coordinate planning to ensure compatibility of one community's development with development of neighboring communities; (3) Economic development. To create sustainable economic development strategies and provide economic opportunities throughout the state that will achieve a balanced distribution of growth statewide; (4) Conservation. To protect,preserve,and enhance the state's resources, including agricultural land, forests, surface water and groundwater,recreation and open space, scenic areas,and significant historic and archaeological sites; (5) Livable community design. To strengthen communities by following the principles of livable community design in development and redevelopment, including integration of all income and age groups,mixed land uses and compact development,affordable and life-cycle housing,green spaces, access to public transit,bicycle and pedestrian ways,and enhanced aesthetics and beauty in public spaces; (6) Housing. To provide and preserve an adequate supply of affordable and life-cycle housing throughout the state; (7) Transportation. To focus on the movement of people and goods,rather than on the movement of automobiles, in transportation planning,and to maximize the efficient use of the transportation infrastructure by increasing the availability and use of appropriate public transit throughout the state through land-use planning and design that makes public transit economically viable and desirable; (8) Land-use planning. To establish a community-based framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to land use; (9) Public investment. To account for the full environmental,social, and economic costs of new development, including infrastructure costs such as transportation, sewers and wastewater treatment, water, schools,recreation,and open space,and plan the funding mechanisms necessary to cover the costs of the infrastructure; (10) Public education. To support research and public education on a community's and the state's finite capacity to accommodate growth,and the need for planning and resource management that will sustain growth; and (11) Sustainable development. To provide a better quality of life for all residents while maintaining nature's ability to function over time by minimizing waste,preventing pollution,promoting efficiency, and developing local resources to revitalize the local economy."2 2 Laws 1997,ch.202,art.4, § 1,to be codified at Minn. Stat. §4A.08 HOUSE RESEARCH August 1997 Dyson, Legislative Analyst Information Brief— Deborah A. g ve Y 296-8291 The Community-Based Planning Act The 1997 Legislature enacted the Community-Based Planning Act' to establish voluntary community-based planning statewide. The Act establishes 11 goals for community-based planning and an advisory council that is to make recommendations to the 1998 Legislature on how to implement community-based planning. This information brief lists the statutory goals of community-based planning and the duties of the advisory council, and briefly describes the Act's initial framework to implement community-based planning. The Community-Based Planning Act: • provides that community-based planning is voluntary, ► establishes 11 statutory goals for community-based planning, ► establishes an advisory council to flesh-out how community-based planning should be implemented, and • provides money for planning and technology grants to counties and joint planning districts that decide to prepare a community-based plan, and for the advisory council to do its work. ' Laws 1997,ch.202,art.4, §§ 1 to 13,effective May 31, 1997,portions to be codified in Minn.Stat.chs.4A, 394,462,and 473. Research Department . Minnesota House of Representatives . 600 State Office Building Advisory council <c I_ Randy Jorgenson Senator John Hottinger EX-officio a Co-chair 142 S.Riverfront Dr. vl u, Executive Director Mankato,MN 56002 z Southwest Regional (612)296-6153 Randy Halvorson z Development Commission Home:Mankato Assistant Director — 2524 Broadway Ave. Minnesota Department of 2 P.O.Box 265 RepresentativeTransportation Slayton,MN 56172 Bill Kuisle Transportation Research and z 631 County Road 8 S.W. Investment Management Senator Steve Morse Rochester,MN 55902 395 John Ireland BIvd. 0 Co-chair (507)282-5714 St.Paul,MN 55155 z 75 Constitution Ave. Home:Rochester (612)296-1615, z St.Paul,MN 55155 z (612)296-5649 Gary Laurent Ray Hitchcock Q Home:Dakota Laurent Builders,Inc. Assistant Commissioner J 100 S.Fuller St. Minnesota Department of a_ Representative Shakopee,MN 55379 Natural Resources o Bruce Anderson (612)455-6745 500 Lafayette Rd. LU3222 Aadland Ave.N.E. St.Paul,MN 55155 L.-) Buffalo Township,MN 55313 Alden Lind (612)296-5229 Q (612)682-1480 Duluth co Home: Buffalo Township (218)525-2692 Amy Janke Assistant to the Commissioner I— Caren Dewar Representative Minnesota Department of — Dewar and Associates,Inc. Dee Long Agriculture z 3138 Humboldt Ave S. 100 Constitution Ave. 90 W.Plato Blvd. Minneapolis,MN 55408 St.Paul,MN 55155 St.Paul,'MN 55155 2 (612)296-0171 (612)296-2880 2 Senator Steve Dille Home:Minneapolis o 69800 305th St. Curtis Johnson L.) Dassel,MN 55325 Representative Chair Home:Dassel Joe Opatz Metropolitan Council GI 100 Constitution Ave. 230 E.5th St. James Erkel St.Paul,MN 55155 St.Paul,MN 55101 2 The Nature Conservancy Home: St.Cloud (612)602-1453 2 1313 5th St.S.E. o Minneapolis,MN 55414 Senator Pat Pariseau Terry Kuhlman CC (612)331-0756 100 Constitution Ave. Executive Director,Public L7 Marcia Paul,MN 55155 Facilities Authority Marcia Farinacci (612)296-5252 Department of Trade and Z Deputy Director Home:Farmington Economic Development Minnesota Planning 121 7th Pl. 0 658 Cedar St. Christine Rice St.Paul,MN 55101 E St.Paul,MN 55155 9284 Duckwood Trail (612)296-4704 Woodbury,MN 55125 E Chris Hagelie 0 City Administrator Lee Ronning V City of St.Cloud Program Director 400 2nd St.S. Land Stewardship Project-- St. St.Cloud,MN 56301 1000 Friends of Minnesota (320)255-7201 2200 4th St.S. White Bear Lake,MN 55110 Ginny Harris (612)653-0618 1111 E. Kellogg Blvd.,#2512 St.Paul,MN 55101 (612)222-1659 s w Most counties saw recent job growth Minnesota's middle-aged population is growing fastest Change from 1990 to 1995 zy Under age 5 .6.1% 11111111 5 9 2.0% 10-14 17.0% 15-19 10.3% 20-24 -7.9% 25-29 17.0% 30-34 9.0% 35-39 14.1% 40-" 20.4% 45-49 28 9% Percent change 50_54 21.5% in number of 55-,,59 9.1% jobs from 1988 60- 3.6% EMI b''''''':— to 1993 65-69 -1.3% . I 70-74 3.8% -3.1 .7%t00% 7579 8.1% 80-84 9.8% El 0.1%t0 10.0% 85+ 12.0% &aim _awl • 10.1% 5.7%15% 15.1%to 55.7% Source:U.S.Census Bureau lh'''' '‘Illr ...:.:::A .."- itomett ommo:bEkt..." tA,.t mollrom( Source:U.S.Bureau of Economic Analysis r ; Some rural population turnaround was dramatic, In 12 sample turnaround counties, some was modest most had more manufacturing jobs Change 1990 to first quarter 1996 Otter Tail 143 1.74 Aitkin 0.96 Otter Tail 1,044 Itasca 0.72 Aitkin Brown X0.36 Itasca -381 Clearwater X0.32 Brown 345- Todd 0.23XClearwater X178 Sibley X0.20 Todd 170X Nobles X0.18 Sibley -5 Nobles 561 Pope X0.18 pope X198 Polk X0.17 Polk 478 Mahnomen X0.17 Mahnomen 771 Swift X0.16420 -420 Note:This chartshows the absolute ration of population gain 1990-1995 to Source:Minnesota Department of Economic Security,ES-202 data population loss 1980-1990 in 12 sample counties. Source:Office of the State Demographer at Minnesota Planning • More positive population trends in Peak population year. nonmetropolitan counties historical and p:!.!..::::::•:::.,..s.7.:...,."...:.‘........:.. . ::::04,i40.0., rojected ».ski '[<q Y�>'.Ill �'s E +bc�roXyS E Mb wr :-..,.',.(:. ......-.. ... W-1 iiii,:.:,:.,.,.::::iglii.illi.• . .III Population trends '411:141t:04 M in the 1990s s!.' Mlitiliiiii ...cmsv compared to the mi ` 111; 1980s I Census years MOD4tattgegl'3::aiiik, ❑ Losing more slowly ❑ 1940 or before ■ D Shift from loss to gain ■ 0 Growing faster u 1950 or 1960 Growing more slowly 1970 or 1980 IIIMllML41 Metropolitan county • 2020 erM m (not included) . 60.. nIr' ...04 liI"l"i"'''iM'''6.112.„.. g .M:'\‘4 TManff ■ Note:1990s data includes the years 1990-1995. Source:U.S.Census Bureau Source:Office of the State Demographer at Minnesota Planning s - Demographic factors in 12 •By 2020,the number of people age • Growth of the population age 85 and sample turnaround counties 65 and older will exceed the number of older will slow sharply between 2010 • In 10 of 12 counties,more people children under age 15. and 2020,then grow faster. moved in than moved out from 1990 to • By 2020,a number of counties, ■ By 2020,the age group 65 and older 1995. especially in western,southern and will make up a larger share of the •8 of 12 counties had more births northeastern Minnesota,will experience population. than deaths. periods of natural decrease(more ■ By 2020, people age 65 and older deaths than births). will outnumber children age 14 and •Statewide,births are falling and deaths are rising. Future growth will be II By 2030,more than one in every five younger. tied to migration trends. Minnesotans will be age 65 or older.In ■A greater share of Minnesota's . 1990,it was one in eight. children will belong to ethnic minorities. Minnesota's labor • By 2030,the ratio of working-age ■The labor force will grow more slowly adults(age 15 to 64)to retirement-age and will be older on average. force trends adults and children will be 1.5 to 1.In • Minnesota's labor force will grow 1990,it was 1.7 to 1. much more slowly than in the past. •The labor force will become Projected population change:1990 to 2020 noticeably older as the number of workers age 45 and older grows rapidly. •Women and ethnic minorities will be iritvonol.a.:410;14 more strongly represented in the state'sdU labor force. z.` •The fastest labor force growth will Marshall Koochlchirg'. occur in suburban areas around the 11;;;;"""gliIIMIeritill„„,„„„„„„„„„:.,i,„,i,ialligi iiiiiiiiiiiiiii; Twin Cities. •Many areas of Minnesota NigliiiiiatER . experience a decline in the size of their Norman rti 1 labor force. glitigiNiiiiiiiiiiiiMinli Ram fg.twoBecker .. b. Recent Minnesota job :..,,.."2. .4.i:ii,i,,,,,,::::::::::**wi*i*i: ,aiiiim.:4Exril M trendsgal k ' Statewide growth: • Faster growth than the national ` 15.5% average. IlaPil EWAN 3�ara-° Loss:-15%or more •Almost half of job growth was in reverse - _ ei9 S>terqurne : Erli,. .r14.::,..::::::<:a::::;,: . in service industries. Loss0%to-15% Slone swift �1rokR • Faster job growth outside the wrest A Growth:under 15.5% 7-county Twin Cities area. tenhexP !yq Caruae Growth:15.5%to 72% • Growth in manufacturing jobs,in Yellow Medicine s paknta contrast to national decline. sow 64 Aging in Minnesota �h • 4.•„:„.,.:0„F„,„„„„„„,,.... ...,�� Murray wood �€:...4MX:$40;? SOX, ,::::.:::::..::::::-::::::,.: t • By 2020,the median age of OM Jackson = Fare'aull Freeborn `'„ Minnesota will reach 40 years.In 1990, it was 32.5. Source:U.S.Census Bureau Minnesota's changing population Q A major benefit of local planning is Rural population o that it prepares a community to re- rebound in the 1990s Li' spond well to changes in the size, z location and characteristics of its Rural growth is diverse z population.This overview highlights • No single factor explains the some major trends that will affect Minnesota communities for decades population turnaround. z to come.These trends—which affect ■ In some counties,growth is due to virtually every community in some unique(probably unrepeatable)events. L way— demonstrate the need for • In others,growth comes from more zsound planning and suggest some diverse sources and is more likely to z specific issues that should be consid- continue. z ered during planning. Q ■Smaller towns and farm areas For more information about popula- continue to lose population. tion change in Minnesota, visit the o web site of the Office of the State Weak spots in rural growth N Demographer at Minnesota Planning, ■ Labor and housing shortages. Q www.mnplan.state.mn.us, or call the O° Demography Help Line at(612) 296- ■ Long and increasing commutes. >_ 2557. ■ Excessive dependence on a single ~ industry or employer. Counties in the future ■ Reliance on discretionary spending, 2 These are just a few of the changes such as recreation,vacation homes,and projected for Minnesota counties over snowmobiles. o the next 30 years. Population projec- ■Lower levels of natural increase,or tions by county are prepared once even natural decrease(more deaths every 10 years by the Office of the than births). G State Demographer at Minnesota 2 Planning. Based on the 1990 Census, Themes in a sample of Z these projections reflect trends that turnaround counties 0 occurred in Minnesota between 1980 ■ Manufacturing job growth I% and 1990. (9 counties). V By the year 2020: ■ Retirement(5 counties). Z ■The majority of Minnesota's counties 2 • Bedroom community(4 counties). 0 will have fewer people than in 1990. • "Hometown entrepreneurs" E ■A number of Minnesota's rural (4 counties). E counties will have experienced at least •Immigrants or ethnic diversity 0 40 consecutive years of population (3 counties). V decline. ■'Single industry or employer ■About 68 percent of Minnesotans (2 counties). willareas.live in the Minneapolis-St Paul, p•rison Group(2 cquarters,ounties).such as a college or Rochester,or St.Cloud metropolitan N., Goal: Transportation—To focus on the movement of people and goods, rather than on the movement of automobiles, in transportation planning, and to maximize the efficient use of the transportation infrastructure by increasing the availability and use of appropriate public transit throughout the state through land-use planning and design that makes public transit economically viable and desirable. Definitions: • Transportation infrastructure: Can include bike paths, railroads, airports, roads, bridges, bus stops, etc. • Public transit: Can include buses and trains, taxi and van services, or any other mode. Efforts to meet this goal could include: • Making sure people do not always need to drive to reach"community basics" such as grocery stores, schools and banks. • Creating pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. • Planning with walking,bicycling and transit in mind—not just driving. Goal: Conservation—To protect,preserve, and enhance the state's resources, including agricultural land, forests, surface water and groundwater, recreation and open space, scenic areas, and significant historic and archaeological sites. Efforts to meet this goal could include: • Inventorying resources in the community and working to protect them for future generations. • Tying together plans that are already required for natural resources. • Adopting agricultural land preservation ordinances, shoreland regulations, or a forest management plan. Goal: Sustainable Development—To provide a better quality of life for all residents while maintaining nature's ability to function over time by minimizing waste, preventing pollution, promoting efficiency, and developing local resources to revitalize the local economy. Definitions: • Sustainable development: Improves the process of economic and social well-being while protecting the natural environment. Goal: Land Use Planning—To establish a community-based framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to land use. Efforts to meet this goal could include: • Tying zoning changes, conditional uses, and variances to the priorities expressed by the public in the community-based plan. Efforts to meet this goal could include: • Considering the financial implications of land use decisions during plan development. • Capital improvement plans • Requiring new development to pay for itself through fees at the time of development. • Coordinating with school districts on the need for and placement of new schools. Goal: Livable Community Design—To strengthen communities by following the principles of livable community design in development and redevelopment, including integration of all income and age groups, mixed land uses and compact development, affordable and life-cycle housing, green spaces, access to public transit, bicycle and pedestrian ways, and enhanced aesthetics and beauty in public spaces. Definitions: • Livable community: A community with a high quality of life, or pleasant to live in. • Mixed land use: Development that mixes residential,commercial, office and light industrial uses, as appropriate. • Life-cycle housing: A diversity of housing options that allows community members in various stages of their lives—young families, single people, elders,empty nesters, and others—to live in the neighborhood. • Green spaces: Natural areas,parks, habitat preservation areas, and other spaces. Efforts to meet this goal could include: • Bringing everyday goods and services (corner groceries, daycares,doctors) and jobs within convenient proximity (walking distance) to homes. • Requiring land for parks in new developments. Goal: Housing—To provide and preserve an adequate supply of affordable and life-cycle housing throughout the state. Definitions: • Affordable housing: Often,housing is considered affordable for a household if the rent or mortgage payments (including taxes and insurance) are not more than 28 percent of the household's income. Housing affordability can encompass costs beyond purchase or rent prices, such as energy and transportation costs and property tax levels. Efforts to meet this goal could include: • Making sure that housing in the community is affordable for all residents and employees in a community. • Ensuring that zoning and official controls allow for affordable housing to be built. • Planning for housing that allows people to stay in their neighborhoods through their lives if they want. Goal: Public Education—To support research and public education on a community's and the state's finite capacity to accommodate growth, and the need for planning and resource management that will sustain growth. Definitions: • Finite Capacity: The level of use which can be accommodated and continued without damaging natural resources and community life. • Growth: Could refer to population,economic, or physical growth of a city's border. Efforts to meet this goal could include: • Forums • Workshops • School curricula • Study groups • Presentations at local government associations Goal: Sustainable Economic Development—To create sustainable economic development strategies and provide economic opportunities throughout the state that will achieve a balanced distribution of growth statewide. Definition: • Sustainable economic development: Economic development that results in quality development, efficient land use and good jobs while continuing to protect the community's natural and social environment. Efforts to meet this goal could include: • Reducing the amount of materials used to produce goods and services. • Reducing the amount of energy used to produce goods and services. • Enhancing the ability of materials to be recycled. Goal: Public Investments—To account for the full environmental, social, and economic costs of new development, including infrastructure costs such as transportation, sewers and wastewater treatment, water, schools, recreation, and open space, and plan the funding mechanisms necessary to cover the costs of the infrastructure. Definitions: • Public investment: The money spent by government for such public services as sewers, streets, parks,bridges, snow plowing, libraries, schools and so on. • Funding mechanisms: The way local governments raise money for public services, including grants, property taxes, fees and charges to developers or property owneres, special assessments and impact fees. MN PLANNING Community-Based Planning's 11 Goals Goal: Citizen Participation—To develop a community-based planning process with broad citizen participation in order to build local capacity to plan for sustainable development and to benefit from the insights, knowledge, and support of local residents. The process must include at least one citizen from each affected unit of local government. Definitions: • Citizen participation: Active involvement, not just reviewing or attending a public hearing, but laying out a vision for the community's future. • Sustainable development: Improves the process of economic and social well-being while protecting the natural environment. Efforts to meet this goal could include: • Visioning meetings • Focus groups • Neighborhood meetings • Response to surveys • Advisory committee member Goal: Cooperation—To promote cooperation among communities to work towards the most efficient, planned, and cost-effective delivery of government services by, among other means, facilitating cooperative agreements among adjacent communities and to coordinate planning to ensure compatibility of one community's development with development of neighboring communities. Definitions: • Cooperative agreements: A legal agreement between two or more units of government involving the purchase or provision of a service. Efforts to meet this goal could include: • Purchasing fire or police service from another level of government. • Cities and school districts sharing tennis courts and ball fields for school and community use. • Reviewing and commenting on draft comprehensive plans. • Developing joint transportation plans • Extending sewer and water services across borders. The council has 18 voting members: four state senators, four state representatives, nine private citizens and the deputy director of Minnesota Planning.Ex-officio members represent the departments of Natural Resources,Agriculture,Transportation, and Trade and Economic Development and the Metropolitan Council. Pilot projects pave the way Four pilot projects—one in the fast-growing St. Cloud area and three more to be announced in November 1997—will provide experience and information that other communities can use in developing their plans. Of special interest are the areas of public participation, coordination among governments, dispute resolution and the costs of preparing plans. State review of plans Minnesota Planning will review all community-based plans on behalf of the state. The advisory council is working out the criteria,but the review will cover: • consistency with the 11 statewide goals • coordination with neighboring communities • public involvement in creating the plan • steps and timing for implementing the plan • comment from other state agencies, including the departments of Natural Resources, Transportation,Agriculture, and Trade and Economic Development, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Board of Water and Soil Resources. How to get started The law is in place, and Common Ground encourages communities to begin the planning process whenever they are ready. Planning and technology grants become available for counties and joint planning districts beginning in July 1998. Contact Common Ground to receive more information when it becomes available. On the Internet, find the following information on Common Ground at www.mnplan.state.mn.us • Pilot projects • 11 statewide goals for community-based planning • Full text of the law that creates community-based planning • Advisory Council membership list MN Minnesota Planning is charged with developing a long-range plan for the state, stimulating public participation in PLANNING Minnesota's future and coordinating activities among state agencies,the 658 Cedar St. Legislature and other units of government. St. Paul, MN 55155 (612) 296-3985 Upon request,this document will be made www.mnplan.state.mn.us available in an alternate format,such as Braille, large print or audio tape.For TTY, Common Ground assists local governments contact Minnesota Relay Service at(800) with community-based planning. For more 627-3529 and ask for Minnesota Planning. information,call: (612) 296-6550 E-mail: common.ground@mnplan.state.mn.us November 1997 � Y Statewide goals for local planning The new law lays out 11 goals that define the framework for community-based plans. These goals address the long-term interests of the state in responding to growth and change.The goals cover the following topics: • Broad citizen participation in the planning process • Cooperation among neighboring communities • Economic development that links growth with environmental and community well-being • Conservation of natural resources and other state assets • Community design that uses "livable community" principles • Good, affordable housing for people at all stages of life throughout the state • Transportation that focuses on moving people and goods, not just automobiles • Land use decisions that are based on a publicly supported plan • Accounting for the full environmental,social and economic costs of new development • Increased public awareness of the need to carefully manage growth • Improving life for all community members today while preserving the ability of future generations to do the same Strong public voice in local planning The involvement of local residents is a major emphasis of community-based planning.The law calls for at least one citizen from each jurisdiction to be involved in creating the plan. In practice, Common Ground aims to help communities involve as many residents as possible in shaping their local plan. • Focus on managing growth The new law stresses the need to plan for growth. Different ways of handling growth have very different results for the environment, the cost of providing public services, and the character of a community. For example, a recent study estimated that building homes in areas without services such as schools, roads, and water and sewer systems could cost taxpayers four to five times as much as building in settled areas where these services already exist. Cooperation across boundaries Another feature of community-based planning is cooperation among neighboring cities, townships and counties.A regional approach allows local planning to effectively address issues that transcend local boundaries. It also may lead to more efficient delivery of public services in a wider area. Counties and joint planning districts must coordinate their plans with the plans of neighboring counties, cities and districts, including the Metropolitan Council for communities within the seven-county metropolitan area. Counties also must coordinate with the cities and towns within their borders. Likewise,cities and townships must coordinate their plans with the plans of their county and of neighboring communities. Advisory council helps shape the planning process The 1997 law created a Community-Based Planning Advisory Council.The council is to work out the details of the planning process, develop the criteria for state review of local plans, and recommend any needed changes to the law. An overview of community-basedIan p ning O A new local planning process called community-based planning makes the state a partner with local communities in addressing growth and other challenges. Minnesota's population grew rapidly in the first half of the 1990s—faster than in the previous two decades. The state grew by more than 1.1 percent (48,000 people) each year, adding the equivalent of a new Winona County or city of Edina.About 85 percent of this growth happened in cities. The corridor from St. Cloud to Rochester saw the most dramatic growth. Economic growth was even stronger than population growth in the first half of the decade. From 1990 to 1994, the number of jobs increased almost twice as fast as the population. This drew many people to Minnesota from other states, and there n are now more people moving into the state than moving out. LU Yet many of Minnesota's communities do not have up-to-date local plans to guide decisions about development, land use, transportation and environmental impact. Until 1997, state law provided little guidance for local plans—what they should cover, what approaches might best meet local and state needs, or how to deal with } regional issues that spill over local boundaries. Nor had the state provided funding in the past 15 years to help with local comprehensive planning. Responding to the challenges of growth, the 1997 Legislature passed and Governor Arne H. Carlson signed the Community-Based Planning Act.The act sets forth a o new framework that integrates sustainable development principles into local comprehensive plans. It provides financial and technical assistance for planning and creates an advisory council to help refine the framework. Minnesota Planning coordinates community-based planning 2 Common Ground is the name of the project through which Minnesota Planning, a state agency, will provide technical and financial assistance to local governments 0 preparing community-based plans. Common Ground will also review and comment on plans prepared by counties and joint planning districts, including the plans V prepared by cities and towns that are incorporated into those plans. Z Planning is voluntary 0 Minnesota communities can choose whether or not to take advantage of the new planning process and the state's offer of financial and technical support. Other incentives are also being considered by the Advisory Council on Community-Based Q Planning.Although participation is voluntary, once a plan is established, the local V governments must follow through on it. Future decisions and ordinances must be consistent with the plan. A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR YOUR COMMUNITY --- DO DO YOU KNOW EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW? Thursday, January 8; Saturday, January 24; or Thursday, February 26 9:00.a.m. — 4:00 p.m. These workshops will help citizen planners effectively design,conduct, and implement local comprehensive planning programs. Make sure your new or updated plan reflects what you want for your community! O Learn about the legal requirements and the many benefits of comprehensive planning, along with numerous resourcesto assist community planning efforts. Find out how to identify and prioritize local planning issues and how to design the process to successfully respond to these issues. , O Discover some effective techniques for facilitating and sustaining effective citizen participation. Examples ofmaterials and worksheets modeled after successful planning projects will be provided. 0 Separate Concurrent Session for Metro Communities(seven-county metropolitan area)covers Metropolitan Council's Regional - Growth Management Plan and the implications and requirements associated with location within each of the region's policy areas (core cities, first tier suburbs, developing communities, urban reserve, etc.) O Separate Session Concurrent for Greater Minnesota Communities shares information on the recently-appointed Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning and its efforts to promote community-based planning. GETTING STARTED Defining objectives and expectations for the,plan Issue identification, prioritization Matching resources with expectations Defining the"community" Why involve the public; alternative options for community participation Selecting a consultant 1, • Setting a budget and a schedule When to appoint a planning task force to augment the planning committee HOW TO CONDUCT AN EFFECTIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS • Inventory analysis—new computer applications, utilizing interns and volunteers to keep the cost down Incorporating community visioning into the planning process Developing meaningful(action-oriented)goals and policies Effective techniques for preparing and evaluating alternatives Timely and effective communication with constituents Conducting meetings that work,open houses, and hearings. HOW TO EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENT YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Issues/action steps/roles and responsibilities:A framework for implementation • What, more planning? Focus on issues shaping your future(redevelopment, housing, infrastructure,annexation) Understanding the financial implications of your plan Finding the financial resources for implementation Collaboration:working with the school district and other affected communities Linking the plan to your zoning ordinance and•other regulations Take Home: Sample implementation sections from a variety of plans,'examples of implementation tools, information on the financing of planned improvements and community improvement redevelopment programs CORE FACULTY Rusty Fifield, Financial Advisor, Ehlers and Associates Steve"Reckers, Planner, Minnesota Planning John Shardlow, President,Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc., Planning Consultant LOCATIONS Thursday,January 8 or Saturday,January 24,1998—Earle Brown Center, U of M St. Paul Campus, 1890 Buford Avenue,' St. Paul, MN 55108, (612)624-3275 Thursday, February 26, 1998. —Best Western Kelly Inn, Hwy. 23&4th Avenue South, St. Cloud, MN 56302, (320)253-0606 FEE $99 per person or.$85 per person for three or more people from same jurisdiction LL BEYOND THE BASICS Saturday, March 14, Saturday, April 25 or,Thursday, April-30, 1998 • 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Learn about preparing and using planning tools to deal with a wide variety of development problems, plus an in-depth review of , the planning process--from proper legal notice to development of sophisticated findings of fact. OVERVIEW OF LAND USE TOOLS Review the history of land use regulation ' -Source and Limitations of Authority to Plan and Zone —Fundamental Legal Principles, Balance Between the Police Power and Private Property Rights —Comprehensive Plan--Look at the plan elements in depth •Design for Community •Summary of Process • Review of Elements -Zoning-- Develop a complete understanding of the tools and standards of zoning •Official Zoning Map •Zoning Ordinance: Permitted,Accessory Uses, Standards, Variances--Standards for Approval, , Conditional Use Permits--Standards for Approval, Interim Use Permits •Rezonings —Subdivisions Regulations , -Advanced Zoning Applications-- Explore Innovative ways to guide land use development •Overlay Zoning • Interim Development Moratoriums • Performance Zoning • •Zoning for Community Aesthetics, Environmental Protection —Community Participation-- Learn how to improve community involvement ' •Planning Commission --Staggered Terms •Visioning •Task Forces, Planning Committees •Newsletters S •Attitudinal-Surveys •Open Houses •Issues Workshops • , SMALL GROUP SESSIONS APPLYING PLANNING'AND ZONING PRINCIPLES--Apply what you have learned through hands- , on activities • LEGAL ISSUES, EFFECTIVE PROCEDURES-- Examine the legal issues in depth —What Are Takings? =Applying the Principles -Living With the 60-Day Limit • SMALL GROUP SESSION--Apply what you have learned through hands-on activities —Hands-on simulations of actual planning and zoning dilemmas —Hot issues--Answers to your specific questions A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF MINNESOTA'S ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGRAM--Learn about your roles and responsibilities. • EAW, EIS,AUAR PRACTICAL ADVICE-- Discover effective shortcuts plus ways to avoid planning and enforcement pitfalls —Procedures Manual —Advice for Handling Controversial Hearings ' —Prototypical Planning Report .-Working Relationships -Sample Findings of Fact —How to Handle Conflicts QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION CORE FACULTY Karen Cole, Attorney, Kennedy& Graven John Shardlow, President, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc planning consultant LOCATIONS Saturday, March 14 and Saturday,April 25, 1998-- Earle Brown Center -- U of M St. Paul Campus, 1890 Buford Ave. •St. Paul, MN 55108•(612)624-3275 Thursday,April 30, 1998--Best Western Kelly Inn, Hwy 23 and 4th Ave. S., St. Cloud, MN 56301 •(320)253-0606 FEE $99 per person,or$85 per person for 3 or more people from the same jurisdiction. This course has been approved for 6.5 hours of continuing Real.Estate Education Credit • �:113' , :Aq paaosuods 30IAa3S JNINI`dal 1N3WNa3nOJ 1, 1 anisuaya,idwoo --0!d01. Alawll" a uo do 49)PoM MON d 6ulonpou I , i6uluue Id. ✓ �- *, a N(1WW0os % ; HnoA HOd NVld p 3AIS3H3adW00 d • P'� 866 L Tadd S�ISd8.3H10 3N • �. a `-',,,, — Jlat/nNdr S31(�lllSNl - 't , JNINNVIci 1d1WNV • o GI ;,'i : :s3amoN! ,,. d o - OISSIWWO� JNINN�d-Id �10� S1�dl3lAA0 a3103�13 aN`d Sa3N SdOHs�QOM ONINNYId3sn_ ONVI FIRST CLASS MAIL Government Training Service POSTAGE crwill 480 Cedar Street OS i.r U.S. POS Suite 401 St. Paul, MN Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 PermP ID 3137 Michael Robertson • Oak Park Heights City Hall 14168 57th Street North • Oak Park Heights, MN 55082-6409 These workshops s are for you. REGISTER TODAY; SPACE IS LIMITED! p HAVE WORKSHOP -- TRAVEL! * .. WILL'. `RAVEL!. Tl prdgram can Government Trainingadvisory c©mmisstoen rr1e be sresented f elected officior a diverse als,staff,and Service can customize the workshops in this advisory ory citizensi , other planning tapirs,especially for your community! •Costs Can be shared by two or off, You choose the topics,date,location, and supply the participants. more jurisdictions. We'll provide the faculty and materials. pp y p Call Vivian Hart(612)222-74f}9 to explore the Possibilities. Some possible in-house planning workshop topics include,but are not limited to: CONSIDERING A GOAL-SETTING •Updatied Four C©rr►prehensive Plan BUILDING SESSION FOR YOUROR TEAM Planned Unit Development GOVERNING BODY *Pla EnvironmentalliedUeltelO OR AN ADVISORY CQ •Housing Economic Development Tools' MMISSION? •The Art GIS can provide trained facilitators who have extensive experience •.Visionary Leadership working with local governments like ours! • I he Art of theheh Deal Tough Times Y We canproblem also solving, a process-allocate scarce gather ur es indut,to guide budget eci solving,to help re-ati strengthen resources and made decisions, or to More and more cities and counties are taking advantage of this con- help existing teams. ve re a d m effective way to make such ingeducationaldt age oftt s co Using professional, available to those invo wed in local planning„ ecobjectivehthese assistance cane even more beneficial when you are faced with these time's of reduced resources and tough ' :-OTHER BENEFITS: decisions. •The content can focus on your current issues Call Mary Sabatke 612 ` — — — - — — _ — )222-7409 for all the details. — - - - a a - -a a a a- a a .. - MO r r.a a a a a a a- a _`- r - a r - ' LAND USE PLANNING WORKSHOPS F#EGISTRATION FORM (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT) This form may be per workshop. licated.Please fill out one form Name You will r4 receive confirmation of your registration. Title Daytime Phone( ) How longFax Billing Address in Position Jurisdiction/Agency City/State/Zip Workshop Title O Enclosed is$ Workshop Date/Location ' Check# per person payable to Government Training Service Fee 0 Bill me(registration fee plus$8 billing charge). 0 Enclosed is$__per person for 3 or more people from same jurisdiction P.O.#�_ Check# Mail to: Registrar, Government Training Service, Suite 401, 480 Cedar Street, St. Paul,MN 55101 or fax to(612)223-5307 1 LAND USE PLANNING WORKSHOPS REGISTRATION FORM (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT) This form may be duplicated.Please fill out one form per worksho Name P• You will not receive confirmation of your registration. Title Daytime Phone( ) How long in position — Fax Billing Address �_ Jurisdiction/Agency City/State/Zip Workshop Title Workshop Date/Location Fee 0 Enclosed is$ Check# per person payable to Government Training Service �_ 0 Bill me(registration fee plus$8 billing charge). P.O.# 0 Enclosed is$ Check# —per person for 3 or more people from same jurisdiction Mail to: Registrar, Government Training Service, Suite 401,480 Cedar Street, AT LEAST 7 DAYS PRIOR TO WORKSHOP DATE!' MN 55101 or fax to(612)223-5307 ANNUAL PLANNING INSTITUTE: " THE BASICS . Thursday, February 19, Thursday, March 12 or Saturday, April 18, 1998 9:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. - Understanding the Nuts and Bolts of Planning,Zoning and Subdivision Regulation entals. For those new to land use planning and zoning or interested in a review of fundamentals. ALL ABOUT PLANNING -- Learn how to explain to others what you do in your planning role —The History --Why do we plan? • —_The Process --What can it do for and what unitare the tangible results? The Products --What's in a plan IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN -- Find out how to exercise your authority and responsibilities —The Zoning Ordinance and its relationship to an adopted plan • —Understanding Amendments„Conditional Use Permits and the Variance —Enforcement-- How and When The Subdivision Ordinance and its relationship to an adopted Plan KNOWING YOUR LEGAL LIMITS -- Explore ways to avoid expensive litigation —Understanding the Laws of Planning, Zoning and Subdivision -Avoiding Conflict of Interest —Ensuring "Due Process" -Conducting a proper Public Hearing and recording your Findings PARTICIPANTS IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING PROCESS -- Discover where you fit in The Elected Official —The Planning Commissioner - -The Applicant —The Planner —The Attorney —The Zoning Administrator —The Building Inspector —The Constituent —The Neighbor —The NIMBY THE SUCCESSFUL PLANNING COMMISSION -- Learn how to maximize your impact as a commissioner —Your responsibilities as a member —Your opportunities to influence the future -Learning the magic word --Cooperation _ PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT ... or at least better --Put what you've learned to work —Hands on simulations of actual planning and zoning dilemmas —Hot issues --Answers to your specific questions CORE FACULTY William Griffith, Attorney, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren • Robert Lockyear, Director of Planning and Public Affairs,Washington County LOCATIONS • ebrua 19 and Thursday, March 12, 1998 -- Earle Brown Center, U of M St. Paul Campus, Thursday, F rY 1890 Buford Ave.• St. Paul, MN 55108 • (612) 624-3275 23&4th Ave. Si, St. Cloud, MN 56301 Saturday,April 18, 1998 -- Best Western Kelly Inn, Hwy (320) 253-9606 FEEroved for $92 perp person or$80 per person for 3 dr more people from same jurisdiction.This course has been app six hours Of Continuing Real Estate Education credit. GENERAL INFORMAT We are pleased to once again offer workshops REGISTR ION designed especially for citizen planners. This year's ATION/CANCELLATION sessions provide opportunities for in-depth study Register at least 7 days prior to the workshop of current topics and hands-on application. using the forms in this brochure. date Participants will enhance their knowledge of various ed.) Fill out one form for each worksho • duplicate li areas of planning and, as a result, become better forms if needed. Yo (Space is limit- . p, p on'o equipped to make recommendations and decisions your registration, but welw�tnotify you if the session about about the communities in which they live. you requested is full. Fees will be refunded' a $15 service fee if the registration is cancelled 3 Program Features Include: *An accomplished faculty with extensive backgrounds registered workinparticipas nts is ma re the pbe made at anyttime. for in both planning and instruction Should inclement weather (or other circumstances *Presentations focusing on current issues and timely beyond our control) necessitate informationor .program cancellation � •Handy reference materials designed to make your announcements postponement, neWCCOt radio a notified via job easier, and other local radio *Practical workshops designed by a committee of stations. planning experts and local officials FEES If you would like to make your contribution to solving land use problemsldlieasak your and effeas lying Registration b fees for all workshops include a meal, refreshment breaks;and handoutoumaterials. See inside ble ... REGISTER TODAY! THESE PROGRAMS ARE for details about group discounts for three or more FOR YOU. participants attending. WHO SHOULD ATTEND? IMPORTANT: To qualify for the group discount, regis- Members of planning commissions, boards of adjust- trations must be mailed in the same envelope! rnent/appeals and governing bodies in Minnesota CO-SPONSORS cities, counties and townships. Also Valuable for mem- •Association of bers of other advisory commissions, housing and redevelopment os, staff (es, ully those with- • Metropolitan nMunicipalities •Humphre Institute Minnesota Public Counties out degrees in planning), real estate professionals Leap erof of Affairs and others working indareas related to specialized� 'League of Minnesota Cities workshop topics. •Minnesota Association of Townships *Minnesota Chapter, American Planning Association ATTENDANCE AT THESE WORKSHOPS *Minnesota Planning Association PROVIDES ADDITIONAL BENEFITS FOR CITY •Minnesota Planning ELECTED OFFICIALS! If you are enrolled in the League of Minnesota Cities FURTHER INFORMATION Contact Barb K Leadership Institute for Elected Officials (or want to vera r (Registration) or Vivian Hart ` be!), these courses count towards the 40 credits (Program) at Government Training Service (612) 222- required for Certification. Each Land Use Planning Workshop is worth 7 credits. The Certification 7409 or Minnesota Toll Free (800) 652-9719. Program was inaugurated in January, 1996. About Government Training Service (GTS) • Application forms are available by calling Cathy Dovidio at the League offices at (612) 281-1250. Call ;417�� Recipient of Organizational Support pf Sharon Klumpp at (612)'281-1203 with questions I Excellence TrainingTraining Award (American t about the Leadership Institute program. J Society for and Development) REAL ESTATE CREDITS GTS is a public organization whose mission is to pro- vide innoyeative, comprehensive, practical training and Participants of "Annual Planning Institutes" and consultir�� 'address the changing management "Beyond the Basics" can earn Continuing Real Estate leadership needs of policymakers, staff anappointed Education credits. officials in publicly-funded..organizations in Minnesota through educational services designed to enhance individual competency and through organizational ser- i vces designed to strengthen group effectiveness. <7D, qii(;) Printed on recycled paper COMMUNITY-BASED PLANNING PUBLIC MEETINGS Agenda Registration 15 minutes Welcome —Moderator 10 minutes Community-Based Planning Overview— Co-Chair 20 minutes Current Planning Activities —Local Officials 1 hour Discussion of Goals—Audience in Small Groups 1 hour Wrap Up Session—Moderator, Audience, Advisory Council Members • Small Group Reports • Open Microphone • Next Steps Adjourn Community-Based Planning Meetings Around the State Date Time City Location Oct. 28 1-4:30 p.m. Bemidji Bemidji State University, East Ballroom, 1500 Birchmont Drive or 6-9 p.m. Bemidji Bemidji State University, East Ballroom, 1500 Birchmont Drive Oct. 29 1-4:30 p.m. Crookston Northland Inn, Rooms 5 and 6, Highway 2, near the University of Minnesota-Crookston or 6-9 p.m. Crookston Northland Inn, Rooms 5 and 6, Highway 2, near the University of Minnesota-Crookston Oct. 30 1-4:30 p.m. Fergus Falls Ottertail Power Company, Community Room, 216 South Cascade Street or 6-9 p.m. Fergus Falls Fergus Falls Community College, Science 209, 1414 College Way Nov. 3 1-4:30 p.m. Brainerd Public Library, Large meeting room, 416 Fifth Street South or 6-9 p.m. Brainerd Holiday Inn, Room 3, 2115 South Sixth Street Nov. 5 1-4:30 p.m. Duluth Radisson Hotel, Forest Suites, 505 West Superior Street or 6-9 p.m. Duluth Radisson Hotel, Forest Suites, 505 West Superior Street Nov. 6 1-4:30 p.m. Hibbing Hibbing Community College, Central Campus,Teleconference room, Highway 169 (former Technical College building) or 6-9 p.m. Hibbing Hibbing Community College, Central Campus, Teleconference room, Highway 169 (former Technical College building) Nov. 10 1-4:30 p.m. Marshall Southwest State University, Student Center 263 1501 North State Street or 6-9 p.m. Marshall Southwest State University, Student Center 263 1501 North State Street Nov. 12 1-4:30 p.m. Mankato Mankato State University, Centennial Student Union, South Ballroom, Ellis Avenue or 6-9 p.m. Mankato Mankato State University, Centennial Student Union, South Ballroom, Ellis Avenue Nov. 13 1-4:30 p.m. Rochester Rochester Community and Technical College, Heintz Center 105, 1926 College View Drive SE or 6-9 p.m. Rochester University Center Rochester, Coffman Center 206, 851 30th Avenue SE Nov. 17 1-4:30 p.m. Bloomington Normandale Community College, McGraw Room 9700 France Avenue South or 6-9 p.m. Bloomington Normandale Community College, McGraw Room 9700 France Avenue South Nov. 18 1-4:30 p.m. White Bear Lake Century College, Room 1001, 3300 Century Avenue North or 6-9 p.m. White Bear Lake Century College, Room 1001, 3300 Century Avenue North Nov. 19 1-4:30 p.m. St. Cloud City Hall, Council Chambers, 400 Second Street South or 6-9 p.m. St. Cloud City Hall, Council Chambers, 400 Second Street South All meeting locations are accessible to people with disabilities. If you need sign language interpretation at a meeting, call TTY at(800) 627-3529 and ask for Minnesota Planning or call Minnesota Planning directly at(612)296-3985. Please call at least 3 business days before the meeting you plan to attend. Date: Location: Worksheet#1 How important is each of the 11 goals of community-based planning to you? Not Important Extremely Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 1: Citizen Participation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 2: Cooperation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 3: Economic Development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 4: Conservation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 5: Livable Community Design :1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 6: Housing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 7: Transportation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 8: Land-use Planning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 9: Public Investments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 10: Public Education 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 11: Sustainable Development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Date: Location: Worksheet#2 Goal Area: What should plan contain? *Please place a star by the most important items MN Date: PLANNING Location: Community-Based Planning Public Meeting Questionnaire 1. Minnesota's growing population and expanding ecomony are creating increased discussion about effects of development on the state's resources. Please tell me whether you are not concerned, somewhat concerned, or very concerned about effects of development on the state's: not concerned somewhat concerned very concerned Forests 1 2 3 Farmland 1 2 3 Open space 1 2 3 Lake shore areas 1 2 3 Small cities and towns 1 2 3 Other resources (please describe): How important are the`goals for community-based planning to you and your community? Why? iC„, " ga. ea 3. At a minimum, what should plans from communities across Minnesota cover with regard to these goals? 4. What incentives would'it take to get your-community involved in community-based planning and to remain involved?How about you personally? 5. Do you have any other comments you would like to offer on community-based planning or today's meeting? Date: Location: Worksheet#1 How important is each of the 11 goals of community-based planning to you? Not Important Extremely Important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 1: Citizen Participation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 2: Cooperation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 3: Economic Development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 4: Conservation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 5: Livable Community Design 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 6: Housing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 7: Transportation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 8: Land-use Planning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 9: Public Investments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 10: Public Education 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Goal 11: Sustainable Development 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Date: Location: Worksheet#2 Goal Area: What should plan contain? *Please place a star by the most important items MN Date: PLANNING Location: Community-Based Planning Public Meeting Questionnaire 1. Minnesota's growing population and expanding ecomony are creating increased discussion about effects of development on the state's resources. Please tell me whether you are not concerned, somewhat concerned, or very concerned about effects of development on the state's: not concerned somewhat concerned very concerned Forests 1 2 3 Farmland 1 2 3 Open space 1 2 3 Lake shore areas 1 2 3 Small cities and towns 1 2 3 Other resources (please describe): 2. How important are the goals for community-based planning to you and your community? Why? 3. At a minimum, what should plans from communities across Minnesota cover with regard to these goals? 4. What incentives would it take to get your community involved in community-based planning and to remain involved? How about you personally? 5. Do you have any other comments you would like to offer on community-based planning or today's meeting? Community-Based Planning Meetings Around the State Date Time City Location Oct. 28 1-4:30 p.m. Bemidji Bemidji State University, East Ballroom, 1500 Birchmont Drive or 6-9 p.m. Bemidji Bemidji State University, East Ballroom, 1500 Birchmont Drive Oct. 29 1-4:30 p.m. Crookston Northland Inn, Rooms 5 and 6, Highway 2, near the University of Minnesota-Crookston or 6-9 p.m. Crookston Northland Inn, Rooms 5 and 6, Highway 2, near the University of Minnesota-Crookston Oct. 30 1-4:30 p.m. Fergus Falls Ottertail Power Company, Community Room, 216 South Cascade Street or 6-9 p.m. Fergus Falls Fergus Falls Community College, Science 209, 1414 College Way Nov. 3 1-4:30 p.m. Brainerd Public Library, Large meeting room, 416 Fifth Street South or 6-9 p.m. Brainerd Holiday Inn, Room 3, 2115 South Sixth Street Nov. 5 1-4:30 p.m. Duluth Radisson Hotel, Forest Suites, 505 West Superior Street or 6-9 p.m. Duluth Radisson Hotel, Forest Suites, 505 West Superior Street Nov. 6 1-4:30 p.m. Hibbing Hibbing Community College, Central Campus,Teleconference room, Highway 169 (former Technical College building) or 6-9 p.m. Hibbing Hibbing Community College, Central Campus, Teleconference room, Highway 169 (former Technical College building) Nov. 10 1-4:30 p.m. Marshall Southwest State University, Student Center 263 1501 North State Street or 6-9 p.m. Marshall Southwest State University, Student Center 263 1501 North State Street Nov. 12 1-4:30 p.m. Mankato Mankato State University, Centennial Student Union, South Ballroom, Ellis Avenue or 6-9 p.m. Mankato Mankato State University, Centennial Student Union, South Ballroom, Ellis Avenue Nov. 13 1-4:30 p.m. Rochester Rochester Community and Technical College, Heintz Center 105, 1926 College View Drive SE or 6-9 p.m. Rochester University Center Rochester, Coffman Center 206, 851 30th Avenue SE Nov. 17 1-4:30 p.m. Bloomington Normandale Community College, McGraw Room 9700 France Avenue South or 6-9 p.m. Bloomington Normandale Community College, McGraw Room 9700 France Avenue South Nov. 18 1-4:30 p.m. White Bear Lake Century College, Room 1001, 3300 Century Avenue North or 6-9 p.m. White Bear Lake Century College, Room 1001, 3300 Century Avenue North Nov. 19 1-4:30 p.m. St. Cloud City Hall, Council Chambers, 400 Second Street South or 6-9 p.m. St. Cloud City Hall, Council Chambers, 400 Second Street South All meeting locations are accessible to people with disabilities. If you need sign language interpretation at a meeting, call TTY at(800) 627-3529 and ask for Minnesota Planning or call Minnesota Planning directly at(612)296-3985. Please call at least 3 business days before the meeting you plan to attend. MINNESOTA PLANNING News Release MNl Q �� Contact: Kathy Guthrie, 612-297-3273 kathy.guthrie@mnplan.state.mn.us JAN 3 01998 Minnesota Planning January 29, 1998 LOCAL PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS GO TO THE LEGISLATURE Minnesota Planning and the Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning today released the council's 30 recommendations for revising the new framework for local planning. The bill containing the recommendations was introduced in the Senate today, and will go to Senate and House committees in the coming weeks. Refining the Framework: Recommendations on Community-Based Planning is the final report of the advisory council, whose charge was to recommend improvements to the 1997 Community-Based Planning Act. This state law provides funding and guidance for voluntary local planning. After gathering public comment across the state last fall, the council released its preliminary recommendations in early January 1998. Today's final report incorporates public comments on that draft. In Refining the Framework, the council advises: • Clarifying several of the statewide goals for local planning, and adding a new goal to address property rights • Expanding the pilot projects to better test and refine the planning process • Continuing its own role and adding members to represent local government and northern Minnesota All legislative committee hearings are open to the public. The schedule of hearings is available on the Internet at www.leg.state.mn.us or by calling the Senate Information Office at 612-296-0504 and the House Information Office at 612-296-2146. To read the report or to find more information on community-based planning, see the Common Ground web site at www.mnplan.state.mn.us, or call the Common Ground staff at 612-296-6550. 658 Cedar St. Minnesota Planning is a state agency that develops long-range plans for the St.Paul,MN 55155 state, stimulates public participation in Minnesota's future and coordinates Telephone: activities among all levels of government. 612-296-3985 -end- Facsimile: 612-296-3698 Upon request, this information will be provided in an alternate format, such as Braille, large print or audio tape. For TTY, contact Minnesota Relay Service at 800-627-3529 and ask for Minnesota TTY: Planning. 800-627-3529 www.mnplan. state.mn.us Refining the Framework: Recommendations for Community-Based Planning Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning JANUARY 1998 r FIN PLANNING Minnesota Planning develops long-range plans for the state,stimulates public participation in Minnesota's future and coordinates activities among all levels of government.The Common Ground staff at Minnesota Planning coordinates community-based planning for the state and assists the Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning.The views expressed in this report to the Minnesota Legislature are those of the advisory council. Upon request,Refining the Framework: Recommendations for Community-Based Planning will be provided in an alternate format,such as Braille,large print or audio tape.For TTY,contact Minnesota Relay Service at 800-627-3529 and ask for Minnesota Planning. January 1998 For additional copies of this report or more information on community-based planning,contact: MINNESOTA PLANNING MN 658 Cedar St. St.Paul,MN 55155 612-296-3985 www.mnplan.state.mn.us Refining the Framework: Recommendations for Community-Based Planning 2 Summary 2 States 5 �t� foe P14 840A- izen involve Changes in the fram �� ��` x� • A $ , ��# �� RBaa 4� ��� ��% ���� i es fit' t r � 9 Review and comment procedure 9 Coordination among governments 88'*144 10 Dispute resolution 10 Time cif , Incentives for planning 12 Further study of incontiveS 12 More funding needed in 1998 Inside back cover Members of the advisory council ri8::14t,818 A p88. ee Summa • Further refining the review criteria Another feature of the Community- and the planning process itself Based Planning Act is stronger through pilot projects collaboration among neighboring Community-based planning is a new • Developing a resource center to communities and between local and statewide framework for voluntary coordinate technical assistance and state government.A cooperative local planning,established in 1997 by resources for community-based approach to planning makes sense because the issues extend beyond the the Minnesota Legislature.The new planning. borders of one community. framework integrates sustainable development principles into 11 In early January the advisory council Cooperation also may lead to more statewide goals for local planning. released its Public Review Draft: efficient delivery of public services in a Recommendations for Community- wider area. The Legislature also established an 18- Based Planning.This report was member Advisory Council on distributed to those who attended The act sets forth a new voluntary Community-Based Planning to further public meetings and other interested planning framework that integrates refine the new framework.The council people for review and comment.The sustainable development principles was asked to review the language and advisory council considered all into local comprehensive plans and content of the goals,identify criteria written comments and developed final provides financial and technical for state evaluation of local plans, recommendations to the Minnesota assistance for planning.The law lays further refine and develop the planning Legislature for the 1998 legislative out goals that address the long-term process,and recommend incentives for session and to Minnesota Planning for interest of the state in responding to community-based planning.The the administration of the law. growth and change. Common Ground staff at Minnesota Pilot projectspave the way the state agency that Refining the Framework: P 1 coordinates community-based Recommendations for Community- Four pilot projects in community- planning,assists the advisory council. Based Planning summarizes the based planning will provide practical council's recommendations. experience in applying the new The council hosted 24 public meetings framework,beginning in 1998. in 12 communities around the state in Three were selected through a grant fall 1997.Ideas and comments gathered at those meetings,together State Suppcwl application process in fall 1997: with suggestions from the council's Carlton County,Dodge County and a five working groups,form the basis for 10CaI planning tri-county area in western Minnesota consisting of Chippewa,Lac qui the council's recommendations to the Parse,and Big Stone counties.The Minnesota Legislature. Responding to the challenges of the fourth is in the St.Cloud area,which Highlights of the recommendations state's growth during the 1990s,the was chosen by the Legislature. include: 1997 Minnesota Legislature passed It includes Benton,Stearns,and and Governor Arne H.Carlson signed Sherburne counties.Twenty-five cities • Expanding advisory council the Community-Based Planning Act. and 13 townships will participate with membership to achieve better the counties in these pilot areas. geographic and local government Different ways of handling change representation,and extending the have very different results for the The Legislature appropriated council until Dec.31, 1999 environment,the cost of public services, $500,000 for the four pilots— • Refining the goals of community- and the character of a community.Many $350,000 for the St.Cloud area and based planning and adopting a new communities do not have up-to-date $50,000 for each of the remaining property g to guide decisions about three pilots.The goal of the pilot goal to addressrights plans transportation, projects is to gain a better • Amending the law to include a development,land use, understanding of how todevelop local four-step planning process for and environmental impact. community-based comprehensive communities includingpublic amici ation, • Adopting a set of five principles for Community-based planning gives plans, participation, citizen participation and three local residents a stronger voice than in coordination among governments, principles for cooperation among the past,by involving them resolving conflicts and determining governments,to be incorporated in a throughout the planning process. the cost of preparing local plans. planning guide Citizen involvement provides the • Using interim criteria for state momentum needed to follow through Minnesota Planning is currently review of plans and make the plan a reality. working with three of the pilots to 2 Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning develop joint powers agreements so July 1998.Minnesota Planning is the The law instructs the Advisory that they may conduct cooperative state agency that will provide support Council on Community-Based planning activities in their area.The for local planning and state review of Planning to propose changes to the St.Cloud Area Joint Powers Board completed plans. law for the 1998 legislative session has been meeting since November and to complete its remaining work by 1997.The next step is a grant Responsibilities of the June 30, 1998. agreement that will spell out what the advisory council state expects from the pilots and will The Minnesota Legislature and the The advisory council began work in establish a schedule for grant Governor appointed the advisory September 1997.To address its duties, payments.Once the grant agreement council in August 1997.The council the council established five working is signed,each pilot has two years to consists of 18 voting members—four groups to develop recommendations complete its community-based plan. state senators,four statefor the advisory council to consider. All four pilots should be up and representatives,nine private citizens Technical advisors from several state running by June 1998.Minnesota and the deputy director of Minnesota agencies and other interested parties Planning will work closely with each Planning.Five ex-officio members assisted the working groups.The of the pilots throughout their represent the departments of Natural working groups were organized by planning efforts. Resources,Agriculture, topic: Transportation,and Trade and Additional funding for planning and Economic Development,and the ■ citizen participation and technology grants will be available in Metropolitan Council. cooperation among governments ■ incentives for community-based planning Four pilot projects include eight counties,25 cities,13 townships • economic development and public investment 0 ■ livable communities,housing and transportation • conservation and sustainable development MI 1.11 Public meetings 111 The advisory council hosted 24 public meetings in 12 cities during October and November 1997 to solicit advice and insight that would help the council do its job.About 1,000 Minnesotans attended,including county,city and tow lnship officials, business people,private citizens and 111 I state employees. '13174 Carlton In each of the 12 cities,participants voiced unique local and regional concerns.These are summarized in Benton Directions for Community-Based i i ��� Planning,published by Minnesota Stearns Planning in December 1997. Big Stone Via` Sherburne Common themes about community- Lac qui Parle �� based planning also emerged, Chippewa , s . h,4 4� t...; including: dIPAk ■ Local planning is important iI1IUIaii ■`. .'U,._- U�, Local ownership of plans is crucial .■■.■: . • The goals and program must be flexible Refining the Framework:Recommendations for Community-Based Planning 3 • State guidance and assistance for preliminary recommendations.After local planning are desirable,but state public review and comment,the The 12 duties of the approval is viewed with concern council finalized its Advisory Council on • Citizen involvement is essential recommendations. Community-Based Planning: • Cooperation across local boundaries is necessary for success The recommendations include • Hold statewide meetings to • Membership of the advisory proposed changes to the legislation, solicit ideas and comments about council is not broad enough areas for further study,administrative community-based planning issues that need resolution,and The Advisory Council discussed the guidance for Minnesota Planning in • Consider ongoing oversight of public input and incorporated many of the administration of community- sustainable development initiatives the themes and ideas it heard into its based planning. and the community-based planning final recommendations. process The remainder of this report contains In December 1997,the advisory the recommendations,grouped by • Develop a model process for council considered the reports of its topic.Each recommendation is citizen involvement in community- five working groups and developed numbered. based planning • Review and recommend changes Public meetings around the state provided insight on local to the community-based planning planning priorities framework • Develop specific, measurable criteria for reviewing the plans for consistency with the statewide goals x • Recommend procedures for review 6 and comment on local plans !. • Recommend a process foro coordination of plans among local jurisdictions *Bemidji . . ■ Recommend alternative dispute resolution methods for citizens and local governments to use to Duluth challenge proposed plans or the implementation of plans o mai �r vd • Recommend a time frame for completing plans • Recommend incentives to t C encourage state agencies to implement the goals of community- White Bear� : based planning Blooing , " • Recommend incentives to encourage local governments to o �Ca, develop community-based plans s Mankato • • Identify tools and strategies for Roches local governments to use to achieve the statewide goals 4 Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning f RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR besa partrce of a formore comprehensivecommunity-based oin Citizen planning that would assist with Ong cooperation,geographic information oversight involvement nvolvement plane tems, data collection and other s. The law directs the advisory council The law directs the advisory council to consider the need for ongoing to develop a model process to involve RECOMMENDATIONS FOR stewardship and oversight of citizens in community-based sustainable development initiatives planning. Changes in the and the community-based planning Add principles for process. 3 citizen participation frameuvork Extend the council's The Community-Based 1 appointment Planning Act places great emphasis on The council recognizes that citizen participation as local plans are The law directs the advisory council community-based planning is a developed.The council decided not to to review and recommend changes to significant step for the state and that recommend a model process,but the community-based planning oversight of its development is instead to add a general statement to framework established in the act. critical.Because the advisory council the law stating the importance of early a Include process for was not appointed until August,it had and ongoing efforts to encourage creating5 localplans a very short time to complete its work. citizen participation throughout the The law local es that the The council also believes that valuable process. state will review plans for consistency information could be garnered from the pilot projects and is reluctant to The council further recommends that with the statewide goals of propose significant legislative changes five principles be incorporated in a community-based planning.It does without the benefit of this practical planning guide for community-based not,however,define a process that experience.To provide continuity in planning.The principles are intended communities should go through to the development of community-based to further define the citizen address the goals.The advisory planning,the council recommends participation goal and to assist local council recommends that the that the Legislature extend the governments in involving citizens: following four steps be added to the council's appointment through legislative framework and be used by Dec.31, 1999. IN Be early and continuous in efforts counties and planning districts in to involve citizens addressing the goals separately and Broaden representation ■ Be flexible,tailored to the specific collectively: 2 Members of the public have population and situation of the Establish a vision expressed strong concern community •about the lack of representation from • Provide opportunity to influence ■ Create an inventory and analysis of local government and northern decisions that affect one's life by the current situation Minnesota on the advisory council. proactively soliciting participation • Develop strategies for The council recommends that council ■ Be responsive to public input and accomplishing the vision membership be expanded to provide communicate the final decision ■ Determine how to monitor and three more voting members,including ■ Go beyond minimum legal measure success two elected officials from local requirements for public notification Refine and augment government and broader geographic goals Establish a resource 6 the 4 center on citizen The goals provide the basis for participation state review of plans.Each To assist local governments with the community must address these goals citizen participation process,the based on its local characteristics. advisory council also recommends Recognizing concerns for local that a citizen participation resource differences expressed at the statewide center be established.They meetings,the advisory council recommend that this resource center recommends some modifications to Refining the Framework:Recommendations for Community-Based Planning 5 Changes in the statewide goals of community-based planning Goal Original Recommended Citizen participation To develop a community-based planning [No change] process with broad citizen participation in order to build local capacity to plan for sustainable development and to benefit from the insights, knowledge,and support of local residents.The process must include at least one citizen from each affected unit of local government. Livable community To strengthen communities by following Community design—To strengthen design the principles of livable community design communities through development and in development and redevelopment, redevelopment design that including integration of all income and accommodates integration of all income age groups, mixed land uses and compact and age groups, mixed land uses and development,affordable and life-cycle compact development,affordable and housing,green spaces,access to public life-cycle housing,green spaces,access to transit, bicycle and pedestrian ways,and public transit, bicycle and pedestrian ways, enhanced aesthetics and beauty in public and enhanced aesthetics and beauty in spaces. public spaces. Conservation To protect, preserve,and enhance the To protect, preserve and enhance the state's resources, including agricultural state's resources, including agricultural land,forests,surface water,groundwater, land,forests, lakes, rivers,wetlands, recreation and open space,scenic areas, ground water, biological resources, energy and significant historic and archeological resources, mineral resources,other raw sites. materials and renewable resources, recreation and open space,scenic areas and significant historic and archeological sites. Cooperation To promote cooperation among [No change] communities to work toward the most efficient,planned,and cost-effective delivery of government services by,among other means,facilitating cooperative agreements among adjacent communities and to coordinate planning to ensure compatibility of one community's development with development of neighboring communities. Economic To create economic development To create economic development development strategies and provide economic strategies and provide economic opportunities throughout the state that opportunities that focus on local strengths will achieve a balanced distribution of throughout the state. growth statewide. Housing To provide and preserve an adequate To enable the development and supply of affordable and life cycle housing preservation of an adequate supply of throughout the state. affordable housing and life-cycle housing (appropriate for all age groups). Land use To establish a community-based [No change] framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to land use. 6 Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning Goal Original Recommended Property rights [Proposed new goal] Property rights—To ensure that in exercising its delegated authority of the state's power to protect the public health, welfare and safety,a community will seek to ensure that private property shall not be taken, destroyed or damaged for public use without just compensation. Public investment To account for the full environmental and Public costs and investment—To social and economic cost of new decrease the costs of public infrastructure development, including infrastructure and services through effective and costs such as transportation,sewers and efficient land use decisions.To take into wastewater treatment,water,schools, account the environmental,social and recreation and open space,and plan the economic costs of development, including funding mechanisms necessary to cover infrastructure costs such as transportation, the costs of the infrastructure. sewers and wastewater treatment,water, schools, recreation and open space.To plan the funding mechanisms necessary to cover the costs of the infrastructure. Public education To support research and public education To support research and public education on a community's and the state's finite on a community's finite capacity to capacity to accommodate growth,and the accommodate growth and the need for need for planning and resource planning and resource management that management that will sustain growth. will sustain growth. Sustainable To maintain a better quality of life for all development residents while maintainingnature's languageRlace with innesoe taiStatuenable Alopment in Minnesota Statute 4A.07, ability to function over time by which is]:To maintain or enhance minimizing waste, preventing pollution, economic opportunity and communitypromoting efficiency,and developing well-being while protecting and restoring local resources to revitalize the local the natural environment upon which economy. people and economies depend.To meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Transportation To focus on the movement of people and To provide a transportation system for the goods, rather than on the movement of movement of people,goods and automobiles, in transportation planning, information that maximizes the efficient and to maximize the efficient use of the use of the existing transportation transportation infrastructure by increasing infrastructure and integrates land use the availability and use of appropriate planning and appropriate transportation public transit throughout the state alternatives such as public transit, through land-use planning and design bikeways,walkways,telecommunication that makes public transit economically and other technology. viable and desirable. Refining the Framework:Recommendations for Community-Based Planning 7 Evaluatingcooperation the 11 statewide goals established in the goals of the act.However,no 10 among cop the law.These changes include adding specific criteria for evaluating The ng governments l a property rights goal,emphasizing consistency are provided in the act. recognizes thatadneighboring cost efficiency in government services,and making several goals The advisory council concluded that it governments must work together in easier to apply to all types of is too early to adopt specific criteria. order for community-based planning communities. The council's five working groups to succeed.The council recommends developed many options that could be a set of principles,interim criteria and The recommended changes in the used as either criteria for evaluating guidelines to achieve the cooperation goals are found on pages 6 and 7. plans or guidelines to help goal.The three principles should be communities as they prepare plans. incorporated in a planning guide and Direct funding to Based on these options and input from reflected in the law: 7 counties and joint the 24 public meetings around the planning districts state in fall 1997,the council ■ Make early,continuous and broad The act provides funding for counties recommends that Minnesota Planning efforts to i valve otherve tfe jurisdictions and joint planning districts electing to use one basic interim criterion: P prepare community-based plans.No general adherence to the community- • Coordinate implementation of the funding is provided directly to cities based planning framework.Other plan among jurisdictions and townships.The advisory council interim criteria are listed below. The interim criteria to be used by believes that cities and townships g preparing community-based plans Evaluatln citizen Minnesota Planning in evaluating cooperation are: should be encouraged to work in 9 participation p concert with the county.Given the The advisory council views limited funding available,the advisory citizen participation as the key to ■ Was a good-faith effort made to council recommends that funding community-based planning,but involve officials of other jurisdictions, remain targeted to counties or joint cannot yet identify a set of criteria to including sovereign tribes? planning districts.Counties or joint evaluate consistency with the goal. •rWereioncommentcs onsts d lans of other planning districts can distribute grant Citizen participation should be jure ? money to cities or townships,if integrated into every step of planning. ■ Was sufficient effort made to secure cooperation in delivering cost- desired. The council recommends the effective services and coordinating . following approach to developing regulatory standards? criteria for citizen participation: The council recommends the RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ■ Ask communities participating in following approach for further the pilot projects to use the five refining criteria for evaluating Criteria for principles of citizen participation cooperation: state review recommended in this report to develop a process for participation and to • Ask communities participating in develop criteria for evaluating the pilot projects to develop a The law directs the advisory council consistency with the citizen cooperation plan addressing the three principles and the interim criteria to develop specific,measurable participation goal ■ Ask communities to set measures criteria by which plans will be ■ Ask the communities to set reviewed by Minnesota Planning for measures for evaluating the success of for coopealuating ation plane success of the consistency with the goals of the process community-based planning. • Minnesota Planning should use • Minnesota Planning should use these criteria and measures to evaluate these criteria and measures to evaluate Uscitizen participation cooperation 8 e interim p p approach ■ Minnesota Planning should work • Minnesota Planning should work The law requires that counties with the pilot projects and other with the pilot projects and other and joint planning districts send their communities to recommend changes and er ui communities tos recotthe clend changes community-based plans to Minnesota to the criteria a Planning.Minnesota Planning will review the plans for consistency with 8 Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning Use interim criteria Planning to complete its review and RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 11 for other goals for the county or joint planning Each working group identified district to complete any revisions. Coordination a series of items that each community should consider in preparing their Address all written among plan.The advisory council believes 12 comments these suggestions are appropriate for a The advisory council governments guidance document to assist recommends that Minnesota Planning communities in planning,but too be required to acknowledge,in expansive to be used as criteria for writing,all comments or objections The law directs the advisory council state review.For the remaining goals, that were submitted in writing to to recommend a process for the advisory council recommends the Minnesota Planning during the coordination of plans among local following approach for developing comment period. jurisdictions. criteria: Minnesota Planning should respond to It is apparent that the intent of the • Rephrase the goals as questions to comments that are of state concern, Legislature,through passage of the be used as interim criteria by and refer comments of local interest to Community-Based Planning Act,was Minnesota Planning in evaluating the respective county or joint planning to improve coordination among community-based plans district for their response.State-level governments as they conduct • The review by Minnesota Planning concerns include determining if the comprehensive planning.A goal of should focus on whether the plan plan is consistent with state goals for the new law is to promote cooperation adequately considers and addresses community-based planning,and among communities to work towards each goal issues of state interest and jurisdiction the most efficient and cost-effective • Minnesota Planning should work such as highways,wetlands and parks. delivery of government services.This with the pilot projects and other may be accomplished by,among other communities to recommend The advisory council recommends means,cooperative agreements refinements to the interim criteria that if cities and townships develop among adjacent communities and community-based plans,they may coordination of planning to ensure request review and comment by compatibility of development in Minnesota Planning. neighboring communities. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR Refine the review and Notifying state agencies Review and 13 comment process 14 Minnesota Planning should At this time,the advisory notify state and regional commentcouncil recommends no further agencies when a county or joint changes to the review and comment planning district has decided to procedure process.Minnesota Planning should undertake community-based planning. work with the pilot projects and other This would revise the current early community-based planning language that requires a county to The law directs the advisory council projects to refine the process. notify selected state agencies of the to recommend a procedure for review Minnesota Planning should also county's intent to undertake and comment on community-based explore necessary changes to the community-based planning. plans. review and comment process with input from counties,cities and Notifying local Currently,the law establishes a formal townships,state agencies and the 15 governments procedure for submitting a plan to public.Minnesota Planning should The county should remain Minnesota Planning.It provides a report these findings to the advisory responsible for notifying all local policy for notice and participation of council for possible changes for the units of government.The advisory all interested or affected parties and 1999 legislative session. council recommends clarifying the determines how and when comments law regarding notice to local and objections must be filed.The law governments to include all general also sets time limits for Minnesota and special purpose units of government within or adjacent to the county or planning district.This Refining the Framework:Recommendations for Community-Based Planning 9 would include watershed districts, RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR school districts and other special- purpose districts,as well as townships Dispute Time limit and cities. resolution 16 Expand the list The law directs the advisory council for notification to recommend the time frame in The following organizations The law directs the advisory council which the community-based plans should be added to the list of those to recommend an alternative dispute must be completed. who must receive notice from resolution method for citizens and Minnesota Planning when a local governments to use to challenge Keep the two-year limit community-based planning project proposed plans or how the plans are 20 The law requires that pilot begins: implemented. projects complete their community-based plans within two • State Historic Preservation Office The Community-Based Planning Act years.The advisory council believes • Department of Health emphasizes citizen participation and this is a reasonable starting point and • Office of Environmental Assistance cooperation among governments to should be further evaluated through • Housing Finance Agency ensure that potential conflicts are the pilot projects to determine whether • the appropriate Regional addressed as local plans are a requirement should be added to Development Commission or developed.The intent appears to be the law. Metropolitan Council(for counties that parties resolve disputes before within or adjacent to the seven-county plans are submitted to a county or to metropolitan area) Minnesota Planning for review.The law does provide a dispute resolution RECOMMENDATIONS FOR Provide state agency process for addressing disagreements 17 plans to communities between a city and county or between Incentives The Community-Based a county or planning district and Planning Act should be amended to Minnesota Planning.This same for planning require state agencies that are notified process can be used for annexation by Minnesota Planning to provide disputes.No process is provided for applicable state agency plans to citizens to challenge plans,or for The law directs the advisory council communities beginning the addressing conflicts in implementing to recommend incentives to encourage community-based planning process. plans(beyond annexation). local governments and state agencies to implement the goals of community- Refine the Monitor the need based planning,and to identify tools 18 coordination process 19 for changes and strategies that a county,city,or based on experience The advisory council suggests town may use to achieve the goals. Minnesota Planning should work with no change to the alternative dispute the four current pilot projects,and resolution process,but recommends The advisory council recognizes that other projects to be named after July that Minnesota Planning work with financial and technical incentives are 1998,to refine the process for the four pilot projects,and other necessary for community-based coordination among governmental projects to be named after July 1998, planning.During the public meetings bodies.Minnesota Planning should to refine the process.No completed held in fall 1997,people across the also seek comment from the public plans are anticipated until late 1999 or state expressed the need for assistance and affected parties about necessary early 2000.Minnesota Planning in such areas as gaining citizen changes to the coordination process. should also monitor the need for participation,developing geographic Minnesota Planning should report changes in the alternative dispute information,beginning the planning these findings to the advisory council resolution process,seeking input from process and collecting data. for possible changes for the 1999 or the Municipal Board,Bureau of 2000 legislative session. Mediation Services,local Many local governments also cited governmental units,state agencies and technical assistance as their most the public.Minnesota Planning should pressing need in moving forward with report its findings to the advisory planning.Needs range from information council for possible recommendations on basic planning principles to hands-on for the 1999 or 2000 legislative instruction in the use of geographic session. information systems. 10 Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning Assess the need Increase funding for ongoing support and recommend an 21 for future funding 23 citizen involvement appropriate state role in funding The Legislature should Recognizing the importance of implementation of community-based appropriate more money for citizen involvement and the lack of plans. incentives for local governments and clear models for achieving it,the state agencies.The advisory council advisory council recommends that Create a planning believes that the$750,000 allocated additional money be allocated for the 26 guide for local governments for the 1999 1999 fiscal year for programs and Minnesota Planning should fiscal year is inadequate.In addition, materials to strengthen citizen prepare a manual for community- money is needed for Minnesota involvement.This could include based planning,including guidelines Planning and other agencies to grants to local governments to for the content of plans.The guide provide technical assistance to local develop local citizen involvement should draw on materials prepared by governments.The council programs and materials,and grants to the advisory council's working groups recommends that Minnesota Planning statewide organizations or agencies to and should include input from the prepare a report projecting the cost to develop model programs and pilot projects and other agencies. local governments and state agencies materials.Money also should be of community-based planning.The provided to Minnesota Planning toDevelop a planning report should be submitted to the establish a citizen participation 27 resource center council by June 1998 for inclusion in resource center,as part of an overall Minnesota Planning should the 2000-2001 biennial budget. resource center for community-based establish a community-based planning planning. resource center to provide technical Use current funding to assistance and coordinate assistance 22 expand pilot program Develop grant from other agenciesand organizations. The current 1999 fiscal year 24 distribution and cost- The center must complement and appropriation,slated for planning sharing requirements draw on existing technical assistance grants and technology grants,should The law does not specify how to efforts and expertise. be used largely to help determine the select grant recipients and determine real costs of preparing a community- the amount of funding for them.In The center should include resources based plan.A portion of the planning addition,no local matching funds are on citizen participation,community grants should be used to fund two or required.The advisory council wants design and other planning related three additional pilot projects to ensure that communities receive materials.It also should include beginning in July 1998.Technology adequate money for planning,that technical materials and resource lists grants should be made available to cooperative efforts are encouraged to assist local communities in finding these new pilots,as well as to the and that communities with special or collecting data,analyzing data and pilots selected in 1997. needs receive additional assistance. preparing ordinances. Technology grants should cover Minnesota Planning should develop Through the resource center, geographic information systems and possible funding methods,which Minnesota Planning should provide other technology needs.Grants for could include match requirements, training and information on geographic information systems could bonuses,and selection criteria,for geographic information systems and be used for data collection,staff advisory council consideration. develop a statewide inventory and training,software and hardware. Options could include a base grant directory of geographic information Other technology grants could cover amount,cost sharing,hardship grants resources,which could be Internet- telecommunications and Internet based on total cost of planning or based.Minnesota Planning also needs,data development and visual technology in relation to the total should work to strengthen the tools(such as drawings or computer budget of the local government,and a visibility and activities of the simulation).Planning and technology cooperation bonus for joint planning Governor's Council on Geographic grants should continue to be districts. Information to encourage state agency distributed to joint planning districts coordination. and counties. Provide grants for 25 implementation Many communities have expressed the need for help in implementing their plans.The advisory council and Minnesota Planning should examine the need for Refining the Framework:Recommendations for Community-Based Planning 11 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR Consider tying grants More funding 29 and loans to plans Further study Giving local governments with needed in community-based plans priority for 998 of incentives state grants,loans and other discretionary spending would be a financial incentive to participate in Additional studies are needed to planning.Minnesota Planning and the The 1997 law provided funding for further define incentives for council should study and identify community-based planning through community-based planning.Most of specific agency appropriations, June 30, 1999.The advisory council these could be pursued by Minnesota funding programs and discretionary recommends several new initiatives Planning,the advisory council,and a spending authority that could be used and studies for 1998 and 1999,and new planning cabinet made up of state for this purpose.This should be also recommends that the council agencies that have local planning completed by October 1998. itself be extended for another year and authority and responsibility. a half to provide further policy Develop other tools direction and guidance for the act. Explore public 30 and strategies Recognizing that current funding is investment surcharges More work is needed,drawing inadequate to follow through with 28 The advisory council intends on the pilot projects,the public,and these recommendations,the advisory to establish a working group with other affected parties,to develop other council has directed Minnesota representation from local tools and strategies to achieve the Planning to develop a cost estimate governments,property developers and goals of the Community-Based for the recommended activities.The builders from across the state to Planning Act.Some possibilities estimate should include: explore allowing local governments include: with approved community-based • Planning resource center,including plans to adopt local ordinances ■ Streamlining or waiving the permit citizen participation resources imposing public investment process for governments with ■ Planning manual surcharges,or impact fees.This community-based plans ■ Continuation of the advisory working group should assist the ■ Consolidating state planning council advisory council in drafting enabling requirements into community-based ■ Additional Minnesota Planning legislation for public investment plans staffing or consultant services surcharges,for consideration by the ■ Helping governments integrate Legislature in 1999. existing state-required plans into The cost estimate will be used to community-based plans request a supplemental appropriation ■ Expedited project review from from the 1998 Minnesota Legislature. state regulatory authorities 12 Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning Members of the advisory council Randy Jorgenson Representative Dee Long Co-chair Home:Minneapolis Southwest Regional Development Commission Representative Joe Opatz Slayton Home: St.Cloud Senator Steve Morse Senator Pat Pariseau Co-chair Home:Farmington Home:Dakota Christine Rice Representative Bruce Anderson Woodbury Buffalo Township Lee Ronning Caren Dewar Land Stewardship Project Dewar and Associates,Inc. 1,000 Friends of Minnesota Minneapolis White Bear Lake Senator Steve Dille Home:Dassel Ex-officio members James Erkel Randy Halvorson The Nature Conservancy Assistant Director Minneapolis Minnesota Department of Transportation Marcia Farinacci Deputy Director Ray Hitchcock Minnesota Planning Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Department of Natural Chris Hagelie Resources City Administrator St.Cloud Amy Janke Assistant to the Commissioner Ginny Harris Minnesota Department of Agriculture St.Paul Curtis Johnson Senator John Hottinger Chair,Metropolitan Council Home:Mankato Terry Kuhlman Representative Bill Kuisle Executive Director,Public Facilities Home:Rochester Authority Minnesota Department of Trade and Gary Laurent Economic Development Laurent Builders,Inc. Shakopee Alden Und Duluth Public Review Draft : Com111unityBased Planning Recommendations Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning JANUARY 1998 MN PLANNING Minnesota Planning develops long-range plans for the state,stimulates public participation in Minnesota's future and coordinates activities among all levels of government.The Common Ground staff at Minnesota Planning coordinates community-based planning for the state and assists the Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning.Opinions expressed in this document are those of the advisory council. Upon request,Public Review Draft: Community-Based Planning Recommendations will be provided in an alternate format,such as Braille,large print or audio tape.For TTY,contact Minnesota Relay Service at 800-627-3529 and ask for Minnesota Planning. January 1998 For additional copies of this report or more information on community-based planning,contact: MINNESOTA PLANNING MN 658 Cedar St. St.Paul,MN 55155 612-296-3985 www.mnplan.state.mn.us Public Review Draft: Community-Based Planning Recommendations 1 Summary •,.•`. .•, ,. 1 State supports to ala• , E _�, 2 Ong.,.. a i s$, 3 £�,'.; Yc ,n 3 a volvement I'6 1 '. t 3 -., in the 45a ; . Kix 4 � d 1 �I , Criteria for state review' V` 7 Review and comment procedure ammer sow 7 Coordination among governments 8 Dispute tesolu io ...40,,N,,a,,,,„,„„,,,,,,,,,,,,..- t �, ¢ ime lima Ilif•passadompot ngdammou8 3:fncenbvesf ir+ . 10 Further study of incentives 10 More funding needed in 1998 pear i::\3ty' 100 <,; Inside back cover: Members of the advisory council Summary principles for cooperation among governments ■ Using interim criteria for state Community-based planning is a new review of plans statewide framework for voluntary ■ Further refining the review criteria local planning,established in 1997 by and the planning process itself the Minnesota Legislature.The new through pilot projects framework integrates sustainable development principles into 11 Public Review Draft: statewide goals for local planning. Recommendations for Community- Based Planning summarizes the The Legislature also established an council's work and preliminary 18-member Advisory Council on recommendations.This draft is Community-Based Planning to further intended for public review and refine the new framework.The comment.The advisory council will council was asked to review the take all comments into consideration language and content of the goals, in making its final recommendations identify criteria for state evaluation of to the Minnesota Legislature during local plans,further refine and develop the 1998 legislative session. the planning process,and recommend incentives for community-based Comments can be submitted to planning.The Common Ground staff Minnesota Planning by Jan. 16, 1998, at Minnesota Planning,the state on the enclosed mail-in form,by agency that coordinates community- writing to Minnesota Planning, based planning,assists the advisory 658 Cedar St.,St.Paul,MN 55155, council. or by e-mail at common.ground@ mnplan.state.mn.us The council hosted 24 public meetings in 12 communities around the state in fall 1997.Ideas and comments gathered at those meetings, State supports together with suggestions from the council's five working groups,form local planning the basis for the council's recommendations to the Minnesota Legislature. Responding to the challenges of the state's growth during the 1990s,the Highlights of the recommendations 1997 Minnesota Legislature passed include: and Governor Arne H.Carlson signed the Community-Based Planning Act. ■ Expanding advisory council The act sets forth a new voluntary membership to achieve better planning framework that integrates geographic and local government sustainable development principles representation,and extending the into local comprehensive plans and council until Dec.31, 1999 provides financial and technical • Adopting a preamble to clarify the assistance for planning.The law lays purpose of community-based out 11 goals that establish the basic planning framework for community-based • Refining the goals of community- plans.These goals address the long- based planning and adopting a new term interest of the state in responding goal to address property rights to growth and change.The law also • Amending the law to include a requires communities to involve four-step planning process for citizens heavily in the planning communities process and encourages cooperation IN Adding to the law six principles for among neighboring communities and citizen participation and three all levels of government. Public Review Draft:Community-Based Planning Recommendations 1 Four pilot projects in community- ■ Develop a model process for The working groups considered based planning will provide practical citizen involvement in community- information from the 24 public experience in applying the new based planning meetings conducted across the state in framework,beginning in 1998.The • Review and recommend changes to fall 1997.The public meeting results pilot projects are in the St.Cloud area, the community-based planning are detailed in a separate report, Dodge County,Carlton County and framework Directions for Community-Based the three counties of Big Stone, ■ Develop specific,measurable Planning. Chippewa and Lac Qui Parle. criteria for reviewing the plans for consistency with the statewide goals In December 1997,the advisory Minnesota Planning will work with ■ Recommend procedures for review council considered the reports of its the pilot projects to gain a better and comment on local plans five working groups and developed understanding of how to develop ■ Recommend a process for preliminary recommendations community-based plans,including coordination of plans among local contained in this review draft.The public input,coordination among jurisdictions recommendations include proposed governments,dispute resolution and ■ Recommend alternative dispute changes to the legislation,areas for the cost of preparing plans.Additional resolution methods for citizens and further study,administrative issues funding for planning and technology local governments to use to challenge that need resolution,and guidance for grants will be available in July 1998. proposed plans or the implementation Minnesota Planning in the Minnesota Planning is the state of plans administration of community-based agency that will provide support for ■ Recommend a time frame for planning. local planning and state review of completing plans completed plans. • Recommend incentives to The remainder of this report contains encourage state agencies to implement the recommendations,grouped by Responsibilities of the the goals of community-based topic.Each recommendation is advisory council planning numbered. The Minnesota Legislature and the ■ Recommend incentives to Governor appointed the advisory encourage local governments to council in August 1997.The council develop community-based plans consists of 18 voting members—four ■ Identify tools and strategies for RECOMMENDATIONS FOR state senators,four state local governments to use to achieve representatives,nine private citizens the statewide goals Ongoing and the deputy director of Minnesota Planning.Five ex-officio members The advisory council began work in oversight represent the departments of Natural September 1997.To address its duties, Resources,Agriculture, the council established five working Transportation,and Trade and groups to develop recommendations The law directs the advisory council Economic Development,and the for the advisory council to consider. to consider the need for ongoing Metropolitan Council. Technical advisors from several state stewardship and oversight of agencies and other interested parties sustainable development initiatives The law instructs the Advisory assisted the working groups.The and the community-based planning Council on Community-Based working groups were organized by process. Planning to propose changes to the topic: law for the 1998 legislative session Extend the council's and to complete its remaining work by ■ citizen participation and 1 appointment June 30, 1998.The 12 duties assigned cooperation among governments The council recognizes that by law to the advisory council include: ■ incentives for community-based community-based planning is a planning significant step for the state and that • Hold statewide meetings to solicit ■ economic development and public oversight of its development is ideas and comments about investment critical.Because the advisory council community-based planning • livable communities,housing and was not appointed until August,it had • Consider ongoing oversight of transportation a very short time to complete its work. sustainable development initiatives • conservation and sustainable The council also believes that valuable and the community-based planning development information could be garnered from process the pilot projects and is reluctant to 2 Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning for a propose significant legislative changes ■ Provide opportunity to influence Include process without the benefit of this practical decisions that affect one's life by 6 creating local plans experience.To provide continuity in proactively soliciting participation The law stipulates that the the development of community-based ■ Be responsive to public input and state will review plans for consistency planning,the council recommends communicate the final decision with the 11 statewide goals of that the Legislature extend the ■ Go beyond minimum legal community-based planning.It does council's appointment through requirements for public notification communitiesnot however, owvshould go processe a tocthat h at to Dec.31, 1999. Establish a resource address the goals.The advisory Broaden representation 4 center on citizen council recommends that the 2 Members of the public have participation following four steps be added to the expressed strong concern To assist local governments with the legislative framework and be used by about the lack of representation from citizen participation process,the counties and planning districts in local government and northern advisory council also recommends addressing the 11 goals separately and Minnesota on the advisory council. that a citizen participation resource collectively: The council recommends that council center be established.They membership be expanded to provide recommend that this resource center • Establish a vision three more voting members,including be a part of a more comprehensive ■ Create an inventory and analysis of two elected officials from local resource center for community-based the current situation government and broader geographic planning that would assist with • Develop strategies for representation. cooperation,geographic information accomplishing the vision systems,data collection and other ■ Determine how to monitor and planning issues. measure success RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 7 Refine and augment the goals Citizen RECOMMENDATIONS FOR The goals provide the basis for state review of plans.Each involvement Changes in the commuty must based omit local characteristics. rist cress these goals framework Recognizing concerns for local The law directs the advisory council differences expressed at the statewide to develop a model process to involve meetings,the advisory council l plannin in community-based The law to eviewdirects the advisory and recommend hangeslt the 11 recommends d goals established in planning. the community-based planning the law.These changes include Add principles for framework established in the act. moving the land use goal to the 3 citizen participation preamble,adding a property rights The Community-Based Add a preamble goal,emphasizing cost efficiency of Planning Act places great emphasis on 5 The advisory council government services,and making citizen participation as local plans are recommends revising the law several goals easier to apply to all developed.The council decided to to include the following preamble that types of communities. recommend not a model process,but articulates the purpose of the law.The six principles to be incorporated in the preamble incorporates concepts from Thefd oposed ch4 nnge 5.in tthe goals are law.The principles are intended to the law's land use goal. pages further define the citizen participation goal and to assist local governments in "The purpose of the Community- involving citizens from the beginning Based Planning Act is to establish a of the planning process: local planning framework,based on public participation,education and ■ Be early and continuous in efforts coordination,to guide all decisions to involve citizens and actions related to land use for the • Be flexible,tailored to the specific most effective and efficient population and situation expenditure of public and private ■ Engage the public on their terms funds." and at their convenience Public Review Draft:Community-Based Planning Recommendations 3 Changes in the 11 statewide goals of community-based planning Goal Original Proposed Citizen participation To develop a community-based planning [Delete the last sentence] process with broad citizen participation in order to build local capacity to plan for sustainable development and to benefit from the insights, knowledge,and support of local residents.The process must include at least one citizen from each affected unit of local government. Livable community To strengthen communities by following Community design—To strengthen design the principles of livable communitydesign 9 communities through development and in development and redevelopment, redevelopment design that including integration of all income and accommodates integration of all income age groups, mixed land uses and compact and age groups, mixed land uses and development,affordable and life-cycle compact development,affordable and housing,green spaces,access to public life-cycle housing, transit, bicycle and pedestrian ways,and cY green spaces,access to enhanced aesthetics and beauty in public and lenhanced aesthetics nd beaic transit, bicycle and uty iian nays, spaces. public spaces. Conservation To protect, preserve,and enhance the To protect, preserve and enhance the state's resources, including agricultural state's resources, including agricultural land,forests,surface water,groundwater, land,forests, lakes, rivers,wetlands, recreation and open space,scenic areas, ground water, biological resources,energy and significant historic and archeological resources, mineral resources,other raw sites. materials and renewable resources, recreation and open space,scenic areas and significant historic and archeological sites. Cooperation To promote cooperation among [No change] communities to work toward the most efficient,planned,and cost-effective delivery of government services by,among other means,facilitating cooperative agreements among adjacent communities and to coordinate planning to ensure compatibility of one community's development with development of neighboring communities. Economic To create economic development development strategies and provide economic To create economic prov de economic development c opportunities throughout the state that strategies and provide economic opportunities that focus on local will achieve a balanced distribution of strengths. growth statewide. Housing To provide and preserve an adequate q To enable the development and supply of affordable and life cycle housing preservation of an adequate supply of throughout the state. affordable housing and life-cycle housing (appropriate for all age groups). 4 Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning Goal Original Proposed Property rights [Proposed new goal] To ensure that private property shall not be taken,destroyed or damaged for public use without just compensation. Or: To consider effects on private property. Or: To consider effects on private property and avoid arbitrary or discriminatory land use decisions. Public education To support research and public education To support research and public education on a community's and the state's finite on a community's finite capacity to capacity to accommodate growth,and the accommodate growth and the need for need for planning and resource planning and resource management that management that will sustain growth. will sustain growth. Public investment To account for the full environmental and To take into account the environmental, social and economic cost of new social and economic costs of development, development, including infrastructure including infrastructure costs such as costs such as transportation,sewers and transportation,sewers and wastewater wastewater treatment,water,schools, treatment,water,schools,recreation and recreation and open space,and plan the open space.To plan the funding funding mechanisms necessary to cover mechanisms necessary to cover the costs the costs of the infrastructure. of the infrastructure.To maximize use of public infrastructure and services in order to decrease costs. Sustainable To maintain a better quality of life for all [Replace with the sustainable development development residents while maintaining nature's language in Minnesota Statute 4A.07, ability to function over time by which is]:To maintain or enhance minimizing waste, preventing pollution, economic opportunity and community promoting efficiency,and developing well-being while protecting and restoring local resources to revitalize the local the natural environment upon which economy. people and economies depend.To meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Transportation To focus on the movement of people and To provide a transportation system for the goods, rather than on the movement of movement of people,goods and automobiles,in transportation planning, information that maximizes the efficient and to maximize the efficient use of the use of the existing transportation transportation infrastructure by increasing infrastructure and integrates land use the availability and use of appropriate planning and appropriate transportation public transit throughout the state alternatives such as public transit, through land-use planning and design bikeways,walkways,telecommunication that makes public transit economically and other technology. viable and desirable. Land use To establish a community-based [Move to preamble] framework as a basis for all decisions and actions related to land use. Public Review Draft Community-Based Planning Recommendations 5 8 Direct funding to the 24 public meetings around the ■ Be responsive to feedback counties and joint state in fall 1997,the council ■ Coordinate implementation of the planning districts recommends that Minnesota Planning plan among jurisdictions The act provides funding for counties use one basic interim criterion: and joint planning districts electing to general adherence to the community- The interim criteria to be used by prepare community-based plans.No based planning framework.Other Minnesota Planning in evaluating funding is provided directly to cities interim criteria are listed below. cooperation are: and townships.The advisory council believes that cities and townshipsEvaluating citizen • Was a good-faith effort made to preparing community-based plans 10 participation involve officials of other jurisdictions, should be encouraged to work in The advisory council views including sovereign tribes? concert with the county.Given the citizen participation as the key to • Were comments and plans of other limited funding available,the advisory community-based planning,but jurisdictions considered? council recommends that funding cannot yet identify a set of criteria to ■ Was sufficient effort made to remain targeted to counties or joint evaluate consistency with the goal. secure cooperation in delivering cost- planning districts.Counties or joint Citizen participation should be effective services and coordinating planning districts can distribute grant integrated into every step of planning. regulatory standards? money to cities or townships,if desired. The council recommends the The council recommends the following approach to developing following approach for further criteria for citizen participation: refining criteria for evaluating cooperation: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR • Ask communities participating in the pilot projects to use the six ■ Ask communities participating in C • riteria for principles of citizen participation the pilot projects to develop a recommended in this report to develop cooperation plan addressing the three statereview a process for participation and to principles and the interim criteria develop criteria for evaluating • Ask communities to set measures consistency with the citizen for evaluating the success of the The law directs the advisory council participation goal cooperation plan to develop specific,measurable • Ask the communities to set ■ Minnesota Planning should use criteria by which plans will be measures for evaluating the success of these criteria and measures to evaluate reviewed by Minnesota Planning for the process cooperation consistency with the goals of ■ Minnesota Planning should use ■ Minnesota Planning should work community-based planning. these criteria and measures to evaluate with the pilot projects and other citizen participation communities to recommend changes 9 Use an interim • Minnesota Planning should work and refinements to the criteria approach with the pilot projects and other The law requires that counties communities to recommend changes Use interim criteria and joint planning districts send their to the criteria1 Z for other goals community-based plans to Minnesota Each working group identified Planning.Minnesota Planning will Evaluating cooperation a series of items that each community review the plans for consistency with 1 1 among governments should consider in preparing their the goals of the act.However,no The advisory council plan.The advisory council believes specific criteria for evaluating recognizes that neighboring these suggestions are appropriate for a consistency are provided in the act. governments must work together in guidance document to assist order for community-based planning communities in planning,but too The advisory council concluded that it to succeed.The council recommends expansive to be used as criteria for is too early to adopt specific criteria. a set of principles,interim criteria and state review.For the remaining goals, The council's five working groups guidelines to achieve the cooperation the advisory council recommends the developed many options that could be goal.The three principles should be following approach for developing used as either criteria for evaluating added to the law: criteria: plans or guidelines to help communities as they prepare plans. ■ Make early,continuous and broad Based on these options and input from efforts to involve other jurisdictions 6 Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning • Rephrase the goals as questions to district for their response.State-level among communities to work towards be used as interim criteria by concerns include determining if the the most efficient and cost-effective Minnesota Planning in evaluating plan is consistent with state goals for delivery of government services.This community-based plans community-based planning,and may be accomplished by,among other • The review by Minnesota Planning issues of state interest and jurisdiction means,cooperative agreements should focus on whether the plan such as highways,wetlands and parks. among adjacent communities and adequately considers and addresses coordination of planning to ensure each goal The advisory council recommends compatibility of development in • Minnesota Planning should work that if cities and townships develop neighboring communities. with the pilot projects and other community-based plans,they may communities to recommend request review and comment by Notifying state agencies refinements to the interim criteria Minnesota Planning. 15 Minnesota Planning should notify state and regional Refine the review and agencies when a county or joint 14 comment process planning district has decided to RECOMMENDATIONS FOR At this time,the advisory undertake community-based planning. council recommends no further This would revise the current Review and changes to the review and comment language that requires a county to process.Minnesota Planning should notify selected state agencies of the comment work with the pilot projects and other county's intent to undertake early community-based planning community-based planning. procedure projects to refine the process. Minnesota Planning should also Notifying local explore necessary changes to the 16 governments The law directs the advisory council review and comment process with The county should remain to recommend a procedure for review input from counties,cities and responsible for notifying all local and comment on community-based townships,state agencies and the units of government.The advisory plans. public.Minnesota Planning should council recommends clarifying the report these findings to the advisory law regarding notice to local Currently,the law establishes a formal council for possible changes for the governments to include all general procedure for submitting a plan to 1999 legislative session. and special purpose units of Minnesota Planning.It provides a government within or adjacent to the policy for notice and participation of county or planning district.This all interested or affected parties and would include watershed districts, determines how and when comments RECOMMENDATIONS FOR school districts and other special- and objections must be filed.The law purpose districts,as well as townships also sets time limits for Minnesota Coordination and cities. Planning to complete its review and for the county or joint planning among 1 Expand the list district to complete any revisions. for notification governments The following organizations 1 Address all written should be added to the list of those comments who must receive notice from The advisory council The law directs the advisory council Minnesota Planning when a recommends that Minnesota Planning to recommend a process for community-based planning project be required to acknowledge,in coordination of plans among local begins: writing,all comments or objections jurisdictions. that were submitted in writing to ■ State Historic Preservation Office Minnesota Planning during the It is apparent that the intent of the • Department of Health comment period. Legislature,through passage of the ■ Office of Environmental Assistance Community-Based Planning Act,was ■ Housing Finance Agency Minnesota Planning should respond to to improve coordination among ■ the appropriate Regional comments that are of state concern, governments as they conduct Development Commission and refer comments of local interest to comprehensive planning.A goal of the respective county or joint planning the new law is to promote cooperation Public Review Draft Community-Based Planning Recommendations 7 Provide state agency a county or planning district and RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 18 plans to communities Minnesota Planning.This same The Community-Based process can be used for annexation Incentives Planning Act should be amended to disputes.No process is provided for require state agencies that are notified citizens to challenge plans,or for for planning by Minnesota Planning to provide addressing conflicts in implementing applicable state agency plans to plans(beyond annexation). communities beginning the The law directs the advisory council community-based planning process. Monitor the need to recommend incentives to encourage 20 for changes local governments and state agencies Refine the The advisory council suggests to implement the goals of community- 19 coordination process no change to the alternative dispute based planning,and to identify tools based on experience resolution process,but recommends and strategies that a county,city,or Minnesota Planning should work with that Minnesota Planning work with town may use to achieve the goals. the four current pilot projects,and the four pilot projects,and other other projects to be named after July projects to be named after July 1998, The advisory council recognizes that 1998,to refine the process for to refine the process.No completed financial and technical incentives are coordination among governmental plans are anticipated until late 1999 or necessary for community-based bodies.Minnesota Planning should early 2000.Minnesota Planning planning.During the public meetings also seek comment from the public should also monitor the need for held in fall 1997,people across the and affected parties about necessary changes in the alternative dispute state expressed the need for assistance changes to the coordination process. resolution process,seeking input from in such areas as gaining citizen Minnesota Planning should report the Municipal Board,Bureau of participation,developing geographic these findings to the advisory council Mediation Services,local information,beginning the planning for possible changes for the 1999 or governmental units,state agencies and process and collecting data. 2000 legislative session. the public.Minnesota Planning should report its findings to the advisory Many local governments also cited council for possible recommendations technical assistance as their most for the 1999 or 2000 legislative pressing need in moving forward with RECOMMENDATIONS FOR session. planning.Needs range from information on basic planning Dispute principles to hands-on instruction in the use of geographic information resolution RECOMMENDATIONS FOR systems. Time limitAssess the need The law directs the advisory council 22 for future funding to recommend an alternative dispute The Legislature should resolution method for citizens and The law directs the advisory council appropriate more money for local governments to use to challenge to recommend the time frame in incentives for local governments and proposed plans or how the plans are which the community-based plans state agencies.The advisory council implemented. must be completed. believes that the$750,000 allocated for local governments for the 1999 The Community-Based Planning Act Keep the two-year limit fiscal year is inadequate.In addition, emphasizes citizen participation and 21 The law requires that pilot money is needed for Minnesota cooperation among governments to projects complete their Planning and other agencies to ensure that potential conflicts are community-based plans within two provide technical assistance to local addressed as local plans are years.The advisory council believes governments.The council developed.The intent appears to be this is a reasonable starting point and recommends that Minnesota Planning that parties resolve disputes before should be further evaluated through prepare a report projecting the cost to plans are submitted to a county or to the pilot projects to determine whether local governments and state agencies Minnesota Planning for review.The a requirement should be added to the of community-based planning.The law does provide a dispute resolution law. report should be submitted to the process for addressing disagreements council by June 1998 for inclusion in between a city and county or between the 2000-2001 biennial budget. 8 Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning Use current funding to Develop grant Develop a planning 23 expand pilot program 25 distribution and cost- 28 resource center The current 1999 fiscal year sharing requirements Minnesota Planning should appropriation,slated for planning The law does not specify how to establish a community-based planning grants and technology grants,should select grant recipients and determine resource center to provide technical be used largely to help determine the the amount of funding for them.In assistance and coordinate assistance real costs of preparing a community- addition,no local matching funds are from other state agencies.The center based plan.A portion of the planning required.The advisory council wants must complement and draw on grants should be used to fund two or to ensure that communities receive existing technical assistance efforts three additional pilot projects adequate money for planning,that and expertise. beginning in July 1998.Technology cooperative efforts are encouraged grants should be made available to and that communities with special The center should include resources these new pilots,as well as to the needs receive additional assistance. on citizen participation,community pilots selected in 1997. design and other planning related Minnesota Planning should develop materials.It also should include Technology grants should cover possible funding methods,which technical materials and resource lists geographic information systems and could include match requirements, to assist local communities in finding other technology needs.Grants for bonuses,and selection criteria,for or collecting data,analyzing data and geographic information systems could advisory council consideration by preparing ordinances. be used for data collection,staff January 1998.Options could include a training,software and hardware. base grant amount,cost sharing, Through the resource center, Other technology grants could cover hardship grants based on total cost of Minnesota Planning should provide telecommunications and Internet planning or technology in relation to training and information on needs,data development and visual the total budget of the local geographic information systems and tools(such as drawings or computer government,and a cooperation bonus develop a statewide inventory and simulation).Planning and technology for joint planning districts. directory of geographic information grants should continue to be resources,which could be Internet- distributed to joint planning districts Provide grants for based.Minnesota Planning also and counties. implementation should work to strengthen the Many communities have visibility and activities of the Increase funding for expressed the need for help in Governor's Council on Geographic 24 citizen involvement implementing their plans.The Information to encourage state agency Recognizing the importance of advisory council and Minnesota coordination. citizen involvement and the lack of Planning should examine the need for clear models for achieving it,the ongoing support and recommend an Minnesota Planning should develop advisory council recommends that appropriate state role in funding cost estimates for this resource center, additional money be allocated for the implementation of community-based and report to the advisory council by 1999 fiscal year for programs and plans. January 1998. materials to strengthen citizen involvement.This could include 27 Create a planning grants to local governments to manual develop local citizen involvement Minnesota Planning should programs and materials,and grants to prepare a manual for community- statewide organizations or agencies to based planning,including guidelines develop model programs and for the content of plans.The manual materials.Money also should be should draw on materials prepared by provided to Minnesota Planning to the advisory council's working groups establish a citizen participation and should include input from the resource center,as part of an overall pilot projects and other agencies. resource center for community-based planning.Minnesota Planning should develop cost estimates for advisory council consideration by January 1998. Public Review Draft:Community-Based Planning Recommendations 9 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR Develop other tools More funding 31 and strategies Further studyMore work is needed,drawing needed in on the pilot projects,the public,and 998 of incentives other affected parties,to develop other1 tools and strategies to achieve the goals of the Community-Based Additional studies are needed to Planning Act.Some possibilities The 1997 law provided funding for further define incentives for include: community-based planning through community-based planning.Most of June 30, 1998.The advisory council these could be pursued by Minnesota ■ Streamlining or waiving the permit recommends several new initiatives Planning,the advisory council,and a process for governments with and studies for 1998 and 1999,and new planning cabinet made up of state community-based plans also recommends that the council agencies that have local planning ■ Consolidating state planning itself be extended for another year and authority and responsibility. requirements into community-based a half to provide further policy plans direction and guidance for the act. Explore public ■ Helping governments integrate Recognizing that current funding is 2ginvestment surcharges existing state-required plans into inadequate to follow through with The 1998 Legislature should community-based plans these recommendations,the advisory establish a task force representing • Expedited project review from council has directed Minnesota local governments,property state regulatory authorities Planning to develop a cost estimate developers and builders to explore • Requiring state agencies to comply for the recommended activities.The allowing local governments with with community-based plans estimate should include: approved community-based plans to adopt local ordinances imposing • Planning resource center,including public investment surcharges,or citizen participation resources impact fees.This task force should ■ Planning manual draft enabling legislation for public ■ Continuation of the advisory investment surcharges,for council consideration by the Legislature in • Additional Minnesota Planning 1999. staffing or consultant services Consider tying grants The cost estimate,to be submitted to 30 and loans to plans the advisory council by January 1998, Giving local governments with will be used to request a supplemental community-based plans priority for appropriation from the 1998 state grants,loans and other Minnesota Legislature. discretionary spending would be a financial incentive to participate in planning.Minnesota Planning and the council should study and identify specific agency appropriations, funding programs and discretionary spending authority that could be used for this purpose.This should be completed by October 1998. 10 Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning Members of the advisory council Randy Jorgenson Representative Dee Long Co-chair Home:Minneapolis Southwest Regional Development Commission Representative Joe Opatz Slayton Home: St.Cloud Senator Steve Morse Senator Pat Pariseau Co-chair Home:Farmington Home:Dakota Christine Rice Representative Bruce Anderson Woodbury Buffalo Township Lee Ronning Caren Dewar Land Stewardship Project Dewar and Associates,Inc. 1,000 Friends of Minnesota Minneapolis White Bear Lake Senator Steve Dille Home:Dassel Ex-officio members James Erkel Randy Halvorson The Nature Conservancy Assistant Director Minneapolis Minnesota Department of Transportation Marcia Farinacci Deputy Director Ray Hitchcock Minnesota Planning Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Department of Natural Chris Hagelie Resources City Administrator St.Cloud Amy Janke Assistant to the Commissioner Ginny Harris Minnesota Department of Agriculture St.Paul Curtis Johnson Senator John Hottinger Chair,Metropolitan Council Home:Mankato Terry Kuhlman Representative Bill Kuisle Executive Director,Public Facilities Home:Rochester Authority Minnesota Department of Trade and Gary Laurent Economic Development Laurent Builders,Inc. Shakopee Alden Lind Duluth Minnesota Chapter American Planning Association 0 Minnesota Planning Association '''',7 : , :, , ,., ;,.-1 ',,l,. – '+'+ .7.7,.,- ,-, :,,, i VOL 16Ngt JANUARY 1998. Notes from the Northland IN THIS ISSUE BY JILL FISHER,AICP People from a number of fields ing the video can contact Jill Fisher at " 9 learned about TNDs—Traditional 218-723-3328. Another successful Neighborhood Developments—at an program provided by MnAPA! `..--- r .�l p �,� C ,e .a u ' = afternoon workshop on Friday, �,� �' No- vember 14 in Duluth. The workshop Other Duluth-area planning activities � r ,,::_.. L:. ,.,,,8 include the Arrowhead Regional De- was sponsored by MnAPA and adver- From the Editor 4 velopment Commission's finishing tiled to potentially interested partiesJob Listing..... 6 such as architects, developers, and up of a long-range"Transit Vision" neighborhood activists as well as area for the Twin Ports area. This has been Mixed-Income Housing 5 a two-year project which will be corn- HUD Research planners. The session featured three pleted in January. If you are interest- MnAPA Election 8 panelists, Michael Lander of the ed in learningmore about this docu Town Planning Collaborative and the Planners on the Move 4 Lander Group, Karen Swenson withcontact Jim Henricksen at ment, Starting a Consulting Practice 3 the North East Neighborhood Devel- opmentARDC: 218-722-5545. Corporation of Saint Paul and ARDC is also moving full-steam Eileen Kelly,Planner with Middleton, ahead with a parking study for down- Planners Day at Wisconsin who shared their expertise town Superior,Wisconsin along with in applying the principles of TNDs to a study of railroad corridors in the Su- theCapitol. both greenfield development projects perior area. The latter will involve and redevelopments in existing neigh- recommendations to consolidate rail- mk Coming Soon borhoods. Ken Larson, Engineer road corridors and eliminate certain with RLK-Kuusisto, acted as modera- hazardous crossing situations. Other tor, bringing engineering and street plans on the drawing board for (January 28) design aspects of this planning ap- ARDC: tourism and transportation proach into the discussion. plans and a pedestrian system plan. The date for this event is not February The most exciting part of the after- Bill Schlenvogt in Cloquet reports 28, as listed in last month's newslet- noon session proved to be the small that a Community Revitalization Plan ter. No,it's Wednesday,January 28. group discussions about TNDs, where for downtown Cloquet is nearly com- By the time you receive this newslet- potential real-life applications of TND pleted. Hoisington Koegler Group, ter you should have received a sepa- were examined by attendees. The Inc.,partnering with LHB of Duluth, rate mailing with all the details. range of situations discussed included was hired to undertake this grass-roots Plans are still being firmed up, but a new 80-acre housing development planning project initiated by the participants should meet at 1:00 p.m. near Lutsen; revitalization of Moun- downtown business group. A small at Room 400 North,State Office tam Iron,and two different neighbor- grant from the Grand Rapids-based Building. A reception may follow at hood infill developments in Duluth. Blandin Foundation helped fund the the League of Minnesota Cities build- Many favorable comments about the project. Schlenvogt also notes that ing nearby. workshop were made by attendees Potlatch is making$500 million worth indicating that they were intrigued of improvements to its facility in Clo Planners will have a chance to meet and challenged by the concepts they quet which will more than double its with some of the state's leading poli had been exposed to and that they product output. While these improve- cy makers, visit with their own legis would endeavor to apply them in fu- ments do not involve much in the way lators, and catch up with colleagues. ture development projects. APA of physical expansion,it is anticipated Please contact Mark Grimes at 612/ member Bill Majewski videotaped the that there will be an increase in the 59,_3-8.097 to sign up for this event, workshop; those interested in borrow- number of employees in the facility. wi "'• 1" ...— " , sf tim is °J 'i% jJAt49l998 `,` ,I� U Citizens Voice Their Opinions on One grant goes to the three counties of Big Stone,Chippewa and Lac qui Community-Based Planning Falland thecommunities of Ganite Falls, Dawson, Hazel Run,Milan, Nassau and Graceville.These commu- About 1,000 Minnesotans attendednities will enter into a joint powers • State guidance and assistance for agreement and work to address feed- meetings across the state in October g local planning are desirable,but and November to express their views state approval is viewed with con continued on page 7 on the new, voluntary state framework cern for local planning,called the Community Based Planning Act. A • Citizen involvement is essential report,Directions for Community- • Cooperation across local bound- P NG MILAN . Based Planning,released in early De- aries is necessary for success cember by Minnesota Planning, sum- � �ny(ex� marizes the discussions at these meet The advisory council held a retreat bined,JnlyiAugust issue)by'the-Mitt ings. December 17 and 18 in Minneapolis nesota Planning Association�A), to develop draft recommendations for and the Minnesota Chapter,FAt terican "Minnesotans have a very high level the 1998 legislative session. All advi- Planning Association(MnA?A}, of interest in the future of their corn- sory council meetings are open to the NGES OF ADDRESS: munities and the state," said Marcia public. The council will draw on the ` Farinacci,deputy director of Minne- results of the 24 public meetings, as Pled do not send to thee newsletter sota Planning and a member of the well as findings and recommendations editor,Far APA members send to: advisory council. "The council heard of its working groups,to develop rec- Pr inatar excellent ideas and insights in every ommendations. A report of the draft American Planning A cation Ste community." findings is expected in early January. 122 S.hlrchrgan Avenue, .1600 Cltia Followingblic reviewfinal recom- ,It.60603-6107 The 24 meetings in 12 communities P u were hosted by the Advisory Council mendations will be forwarded, to the For MPA,members,send no: on Community-Based Planning. This Minnesota Legislature. Tim Nn-NPA 18-member council,charged with re- 07NStreetth11#r ' fining the act, was seeking adviceGRANTS AWARDED FOR PILOT Moorhead,MN 56560-0280 from Minnesotans on changes it PXanning Minnesota nnesota welcomes arti- should recommend to the Minnesota cies,announcements, letters,pictures Legislature in 1998. and advertising(call Cindy Carlsson: In December, Minnesota Planning The Community-Based Planning Act awarded grants totaling$150,000 to for advertising y t$3, is tion), Deadline or the February itsu encourages cooperative planning three community-based, comprehen January 18. among neighboring jurisdictions and sive plan pilot projects involving 5 Disk f WP)ore-mail plreerred for calls for state review of local plans for counties, 20 cities and 13 townships. longer uncle , consistency with 11 broad goals. The goal of the pilot projects is to Anne S.Di Eds. itsr Many of the goals draw on sustainable gain a better understanding of how to 140 West 48th�' development--the linking of econom- develop local plans, including public ldnrneaz 6�s,MN 5 ic,environmental and community input,coordination among govern- e-map5409 h lfS*.6121623-5896 well-being in order to preserve oppor- ments,resolving disputes and the cost arch cod tunities for future generations. Min- of preparing plans. Sarah lefutil, o-Editor nesota Planning is implementing therah.beliefug@co. nnapin.mn.us "Through community-based planning new planning process through a we are developing a new statewide For other MrKAPA business or mem- project called Common Ground. framework for local comprehensive bersh p irtf©rtruifiora,please crarataet Several common themes emerged planning," said Ann Schluter, director indy�arl son across the state, including: of Minnesota Planning. "These volun- 1080 Laurel Avenue • Local planning is important tary pilot projects involve communi- dnt Paul,MN 5510 4 ties with very different characteristics phone:6121229=4587 • Local planning should remain vol- and will provide great examples for a-mail:Carls1Z8©maroon.tc.umn.edu untary other communities to draw upon in For other news and infvrmatian,visit • The goals and program must be the future." the MnAPA website at: flexible ittrix//www.ninapa.coin Ye en BOOK StartingREVIEW • a Consulting Practice Placing Nature: Culture and Landscape Ecology. Edited by BY AMY KATES Joan Iverson Nassauer. Island Thinking of going out on your own to including taxes. Another rule of Press, Washington, D.C. and offer planning,architectural,environ- thumb: set a goal of 2.5 times your Covelo, CA. 212 pages, $30 paper. mental or other services? What do desired salary for revenues. For ex- you really need to get started? A ample,if you want to earn$50,000, BY SUZANNE S.RHEES,AICP group of practicing consultants and you'll need to bill$125,000,not in- Placing Nature is an important contri- those interested in exploring the con- eluding any other employee salaries. bution to the rapidly growing field of suiting world gathered earlier this A home office is a good idea. Now landscape ecology: the study of eco- year to identify some of the key corn- with the loosening of rules regarding logical functions at the landscape ponents of a successful practice— tax deductions,it is possible to work scale,especially the human influence from infrastructure, marketing strate- from home and realize some tax bene- on ecosystems. While multidisci- gies, and billing to the skills needed fit. However,check on home occupa- plinary in its subject matter,it con- for success. The session was spon- tion regulations and do invest in a sec- veys a strong Midwestern, and specif- sored by the New York Metro Chap- and phone line. No matter how small ically Minnesotan,focus. Joan ter's Professional Development Com- you are,you need to project a profes- Nassauer was until recently a profes- mittee. Special thanks to Alberto sional image. With all-in-one printer/ sor of landscape architecture at the Villar and John Phillips for helping to scanner/fax/copier machines available University of Minnesota(she is now facilitate. The following are some it is easier than ever to produce docu- at the University of Michigan)and suggestions made by the experienced ments and respond to clients with the many of her contributors are members consultants: quality and speed they expect. Com- of other departments at the University, ranging from urban studies to philoso- Begin building your practice while puter literacy is a must,including In you have a "day job." Take on some ternet and e-mail capability. phy. What's more,the book is illus thatyou can do nights,week trated by local photographer Chris projectsg Realistically assess your own skill set. ends,holidays or vacations (of course, Going out on one's own is different Faust,whose photographs illuminat- onlyif theydo not conflict with our y than joining a larger firm as a consult- employer's onsult- ing the juxtapositions of suburb,conn em to er's work). Developa net- tryside and city are no doubt familiar p y ) ant. While consultants must have a work of potential clients and contacts. different set of skills than,for in- to many readers. Take on projects and work with your stance, a planner at a government This is not a"how-to"book that pro- current employer that will give you agency, an entrepreneur is a different vides planners with useful tools or visibility and credibility. Volunteer animal altogether. First,check if you techniques for ecological planning. for organizations and activities that have the passion and the commitment Rather,it is a book that can help plan- will bring you in contact with leaders to building an organization. Do you ners view their work, and the medium in the field. Don't launch yourself as enjoy both making the sale and deliv- they work in,from a series of new an independent until you have a cou- ering your services and can you excel perspectives. This"medium,"both ple of projects waiting to go. One at both? Do you like the challenge of for most planners and for the other way to make the transition is to take continually solving problems,jug- design professions,is the land, and the on some part-time or project work for gling multiple priorities, generating larger landscape. Placing Nature an established consulting firm as a options and meeting deadlines? views this landscape from many an- sub-contractor. You'll have the flexi- gles. this economy everyone should be gles. Geographer Curt Meine exam- bility to market yourself with the preparing themselvesr for should e ines the"grid"—the system of sec- cushion of an income stream. ees. It's not inconceivable that some a- tions and survey lines bequeathed to Keepin rastructure investments small. the Midwest and West by the U. S. f government planning services may A common rule of thumb•is to have Land Survey of the 1780s—and its become"outsourced"to private pro- six months of operating expenses in eiders in the future or that planning pervasive consequences for biotic and the bank before you begin. This may firms may merge,reorganize or disap- human communities. The grid,and be venture capital if you're or the structures such as roads,fences p lucky pear. Even if you are nearing retire- just your own savings. Remember, ment you may find yourself wanting and ditches that follow grid lines,en- have to coveryour own livin couraged the spread of some plant and youg to stay involved with the profession or expenses plus business expenses. animal species and restricted others. Even if you have a home office,you continued on page 8 continued on page 7 will now have to pay for everything, w' tif 1t , ; ice , ; yx. a, 4-14 4' , a -17 j W 4' W f 44'` r [ 10,,,A,‘* - 7 '* '.°"! in''''' `�r" i:, `" ,ter", - i;�,5l'" is � IMF PA 'DIRECTORY PLANNERS ON THE MOVE across the nation. His study,initiated Randall Thoreson has recently as in 1995,focuses on problems and de sumed the duties of Planning Coordi- velopment strategies in downtowns of ��AIC;6123 , nator for the Lower St.Croix Na- cities between 25,000-50,000 popula- `�' '� tional Scenic Riverway. The position tion, a category of cities that has re- VPrs� is reflective of an Interagency Coop ceived little research attention. After fiefs AItP�8/73-3328, a survey sent to 108 city planning de- Jill erative Agreement between the Na 723-3400 fax I x/444-6610, tional Park Service,Minnesota De partments in 46 states,he selected five '.ddttltfth. .tin partment of Natural Resources and the cities for in-depth site visits: Auburn, =fir Wisconsin Department of Natural Re New York;Bangor,Maine;Carsonn Braun,612/421-6630, sources. He will be involved in updat City, Nevada; Texarkana, Texas/Ar la'atm02t ld.tc.umn.edu ing the Management Plan for the Roberkansatson's ; and Wausau, Wisconsin. Treasurer Lower St. Croix Riverway. Initial Robertson's visits were big news in Dan Meyers,AIC:612/3734446, stages of the Plan and an extensive these small cities, and made the front 370-1378 fax,cfmtlyeaiN‘vinsixcala public involvement program have pages of many newspapers. His im been underway since 1996. mediate plans are to generate several DISTRICT DIRECTORS journal articles based on this research. rAsitrai iiistritt Randy, who many MnAPA members Tom Sail ki,ACP 612/682-7330 339- know from his work on the Legisla- 6881 ( j,682-6178 fax five Committee and many statewide FROM THE EDITOR: A teesalk©aolcom conferences,has more than 20 years RESOLUTION FOR YOU �n experience as director, consultant, ed- Ronald L Fiscus,ASIA,507/288-6464, ucator and facilitator of planning and Of all the newsletter issues we put 2 - 8 fax environmental activities, and was em- together during the year, the January ployed until recently with the consult- one is probably the hardest,for a sim Northern I�t ing firm of SEH, Inc. He has lived ple reason: no one has time to write Curt Oakes,218/759-3579,759-3590 fax and worked in the St. Croix Valley for anything during December(except, in Pietro D� a number of years. this case,Jill Fisher—thanks!). All Jeffrey Salyut,AICD 612/933-0972, whining aside,how can we make the The Lower St. Croix Riverway Plan 933-1153 fax fling Coordination Office is locatedat newsletter more relevant this year? Sent DimerOne idea that other chapter newslet 139 Main Street in Stillwater; 612/ ters have used with success is to focus Anitat Forst,5071387-6133," 439-7122. f©rsta©VAX1.ManleatoJ4SUS.edu on "themes"for certain issues. Some Dahlgren,Shardlow and Uban,Inc. themes that might be relevant to the is pleased to welcome two new plan- readership include: parks and park C +IMITI"EE OttlitS ners to the firm and to Minneapolis. Program Committee p planning, transportation and transit, Carissa Schively,a native of Lake downtown revitalization, housing... Mark 6rirttes,"AICD,612/593-8097, City, MN,is a 1997 graduate of the not to mention the many topics that 593-8109 fax,mgtirtcl.galden- master's program in City and Region- are related to legislation, such as the vall rl ey mnt.us al Planning at Clemson University in Community-Based Planning Act,the Legislative caalntlttea South Carolina. She also served an Livable Communities Act, and so on. Blair Tremere, 612/521-7700,521-7711 internship in the Winona,MN plan- Please suggest other themes as they fax btreuteresompuserve.cHing department to occur to you! Development Commom. Clemson. Elizabethbefore Blodgettgoing , a Tex_ Therefore: the March issue will focus Meg A1ur [, 612/476-64111, as native, completed her M. S. degree in Communityand Regional Planning on park and recreation planning. 4764532 fax g g This gives you a month to write a Past Presideittlast spring at the University of Texas in Austin. Both Carissa and Elizabeth short article about your experiences, Tom Campbell,612/473-7054,473-7062 or to at least give send us an e-mail will be assisting in comprehensive fax, with some comments or suggestions. tbcsettp©attl.cttm planning projects as well as other pub- P lic and private planning work. We will come up with other themes Kenneth Harrington,AICD 612/438-4542, throughout the year. Make writing an 4384405 fax Professor Kent Robertson of St. article your New Year's resolution— Cloud State's Center for Community one that is easy to keep,helps build Studies, spent the summer conducting your resume, and reaches planners research on small city downtowns around the state and beyond! 4 ., --er, 70,..; °,RIS , , � t. 1k * m �` E � , ,.i .z# :: HUD Examines Mixed-Income ' �� � Housing Reacting to the effects of concentrated their examination of the national data, ''$tkiveri Uentence 612.1269,6231�. poverty in public and assisted hous- the researchers also conclude that spe2694412- It ing,Federal policy in the 1990s has cial incentives for relatively higher increasingly championed income households are not needed to mixed-income housing—even create public housing with a mix ofo� though the concept has not been well incomes. Chad Haabredt,218/326.7601, defined or rigorously researched. The 326-7608 fix latest issue of HUD's Cityscape: A Advocacy of mixed-income housing is Journal of Policy Development and based largely on faith and on dissat isfaction with theprevious thrust of 5ecratary�-T 'atr Research begins to fill this void with low-income housing policy,"contend Marie Ma's,218/287.2693' three articles that define and examine Alex Schwartz and Kian Tajbakhsh in 287-2693 fax mixed-income housing, its character- « istics,and its benefits. Mixed-Income Housing: Unan- swered Questions." Schwartz and APA President Good location and excellent design Tajbakhsh identify and illustrate four Michael Wozniak,612/480-2380 and management are essential to at- different contexts for achieving tracting higher income renters who mixed-income housing: density bo- have several housing choices, accord- nuses and other land-use regulations, ing to Paul C. Brophy and Rhonda N. special public housing initiatives, Smith,who studied seven multifamily, State and local programs, and nonpro- Barbara Hangsleben,'218/773-2624 mixed-income developments. Beyond grammatic private projects. The ef- [VA A TJ that,mixed income succeeds most fectiveness of any of these types re- where enough units are aimed at high- mains open to question, they District-8 er income renters to create a"critical conclude, because little is understood Bill SchIenvogt,218/879-2507 mass"in the community and where about either the potential benefits and Chad Haatvedt,218/326-7601 the type and quality of the units is the costs or the necessary preconditions to same for all income levels. Having achieving social goals. neighbors who are earning a paycheck DistrictC isis not enough to achieve upward he These stimulating discussions of a key Gordon Hyduitovicb,218/739-2251 for the lowest income tenants, housing policy issue are found in the Marie Mars,218/287-2693 caution Brophy and Smith in latest issue of Cityscape, which is available from HUD USER for$5. To Mixed-Income Housing: Factors for order a publication from HUD USER, Success."Resources also must be simply go to the HUD USER Homep- Rita Johnson,612/441-4547 committed to creating education or age at: http://www.huduser.org ands Jacobson,612/263-2107 employment opportunities for these choose"Order Online Publications." tenants. From this point you can browse all the District E Most privately owned, mixed-income available titles, search the publica- Mary Jo Halliday,612/523-2361 rental housing projects subsidized by tions list by keywords,or type in the Bruce petemail612/2354311 HUD are not located in high-poverty titles of the publications you want to neighborhoods,report Jill Khadduri order. and Marge Martin in"Mixed Income DistricF Housing in the HUD Multifamily You can also order publications from David Dacquisto, 5f17/332-6173 HUD USER at: Stock,"which analyzes a new national Abraham Als�adi, 507/ 56-81 or 1 data set of such projects. Only special HUD USER 800/848-3953 market conditions—such as the pres- P.O. Box 6091 ence of upwardly mobile immigrants Rockville,MD 20850 District 6 who are willing to use assisted hous- 1-800-245-2691Glenda Moon,612/429-9065 ing as a starting point—make 1-800-483-2209(TDD) mixed-income housing feasible in 301-519-5767(fax) 612/429-8126 high-poverty neighborhoods. From r. a@ . r o sP cm r JOB LISTING The city of West Fargo,ND(pop. ministrating state/federal grants and This position requires a B.S.in plan- 14,500 est.)is seeking qualified can- performing related work as required. ning or related field and one year of didates for a new position of AssistantThe position requires considerable increasingly responsible experience in Planner. The individual will worka public planning agency. Salary knowledge in the field of urban plan ran e$26,712 33,744. under the direction of the Planning ning;working knowledge of symbols, g Director and be responsible for a van- techniques and mathematics used in Applicants must submit a cover letter ety of planning projects, subdivision maps and charts;working knowledge and resume on or before January 30, and zoning administration, presenta- of laws,ordinances and regulations 1998 to City of West Fargo,Auditor's tions to commissions and agencies on relating to planning;work experience Office, 800 4th Avenue East,West planning projects,preparing and pre- with subdivision and zoning review; Fargo,ND 58078. For additional in- senting of subdivision and zoning ap- and ability to prepare technical reports formation call 701/282-3837.Equal plication reports,preparing and ad- and communicate effectively. Opportunity Employer. WTI • Community Planning •Urban Design • Public Spaces&Trails • Environmental Planning • Transportation &Traffic CONSULTING GROUP,INC. • Civil&Structural Engineering Diversified Practice - Combined Strength One Carlson Parkway North,Suite 150,Minneapolis,MN 55447-4443 (612)475-0010■Fax(612)475-2429 MFR4 McCombs Frank Roos Associates B R W ,„,,,,,, ,,,.,-,, , ,,,r,-,....--,,,p,--,„,:7,,,,:., ,,,:t.:17,:t .,,,,,,,...,,nt .,4 ,,.., ,e_,,---:,,,,,,,,,f ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,„,,, ,z,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,;,;:e;„ „,:,:. #„_11,1„.2, ', ,z',-.,,,:-.:t,',,,,, *,,2,,,,-,,, :J.--;;'„ ,..,,,,,.,4*, ;,..,:,,, :(' 700 Third Street South 'i e�3 l ` , _3 € Minneapolis,MN 55415 ,s , .. : , - . ` .. '' ". .,,,, ''' 612/370-0700 Meg J. alca/onigal,AICP Contact:William Weber,AICP 1.5050 23rr1 Avenue.North (612) 476-6010 Planning Transportation Urban Design Engineering Plymouth,Minnesota 55447 MULTIOISCIPLINED. SINGLE SOURCE. = PARSONS • Planning = BRINCKERHOFF s •Architecture •Planning A • Civil Engineering •Civil Engineering SHORT ELLIOTT • HENDRICKSON INC. •Transportation •Environmental 100 1 - 800 - 325 - 2055 YEARS 10 Second Street NE, Suite 209 • tT rap* atio ,. f Minneapolis,MN 55413 fi ,44 q , (612)378-0019•Fax:(612)378-9423 100+ Offices Worldwide St. Paul • Minneapolis • St. Cloud ..,... • - - `2 ,mom` r< .' Community-Based Planning Pilot Grants— Book Review—cont'd from page 3 several kinds of landscapes to which cont'd from page 2 Its impact on human communities is we attach values, such as parks, man- lots,flooding issues and the needs of less specific but just as deep—it aged rural landscapes and relatively the area's aging population. Contact made all land a commodity,open for pristine unmanaged landscapes, and Paul Michaelson at the Upper Minne- private development, and continues to discusses the typical features or at sota Valley Regional Development subtly shape the pattern of that devel- tributes we value in each one. Commission, 320/289-1981. opment(how many rural zoning ordi- The essays that deal directly with land A second grant goes to Dodge County, nances specify densities or number of development,oddly enough, seemed 12 townships and five cities that are houses per Quarter Quarter Section?). to me to be the weakest in the book. forming a joint commission to devel- Other essays compare the preferred In an essay entitled "Urban Conserva op a plan for the area. This plan will aesthetics of landscape to their health tion: Sociable, Green and Afford focus on agribusiness, economic de- and sustainability. Nassauer points able,"Minnesota geographer Judith velopment,housing, transportation out that"we are deeply attached to Martin and urban historian Sam Bass and public investments. The planning beautiful landscapes, and we have Warner report on the results of a focus commission will also consider sharing strong cultural conventions for how an group they convened composed of services and facilities across jurisdic- attractive landscape should look." developers, municipal officials and tional boundaries. Contact Duane M. We generally consider landscapes to landscape professionals. However, Johnson at Dodge County, 507/ be attractive if they look cared-for, or this group brought such disparate and 635-6272. well-groomed. However, most of us subjective views to the table that the The third grant goes to Carlton Coun know by now that the cultural prefer conclusions drawn seem more like a ence for neat and tidy lawns has seri- ty,its 9 cities and 1 township, and the collection of"war stories"about the Fond du Lac Reservation. These juris- ous consequences in terms of the local development process than a dictions will work together through a heavy irrigation and chemical inputs meaningful analysis of its strengths joint powers agreement to address they often require. The real difficulty and weaknesses. Another local per growth areas,housing needs, natural in protecting the ecological health of spective is provided by Deborah resource management,recreation and the metropolitan landscape, as Nas Karasov's account of the planning the needs of an aging population. sauer sees it, is its fragmentation. The process for the Eagle Creek watershed g g P P Twin Cities benefits from large blocks Contact Bruce Benson at Carlton in Savage and Shakopee. Karasov this views process as one that, while of public land around both the Minne- County, 218/384-4281. apolis Chain of Lakes and the Phalen well-intentioned, was too limited by The 1997 law also provides funding and Vadnais watershed areas. More "the mismatch of environmental sys- for another pilot project in the St difficult than managing these public tems and politics"to protect the Cloud area. That project involves lands, however, is the challenge of creek's whole ecosystem. However, three counties and five cities that have instilling a new aesthetic in the own- her judgement of the planning process already formed a joint planning board ers of the thousands of small residen as inherently flawed seems premature, and are moving ahead with the plan- tial lots that surround them. Such an based on the evidence she presents. ning process. Additional planning and aesthetic might recognize the"messy" As landscape ecology theory contin- technology grants for community- diversity of species in a small patch of ues to evolve,Placing Nature offers based planning will be available be- prairie rather than a neat lawn and an invaluable collection of readings ginning in July 1998. garden alone as a sign of ecological that together constitute a comprehen- More information on community- health. sive introduction to the evolving dis- based planning is available at the Philosopher of art Marcia Muelder cipline of landscape ecology. As the- Common Ground web site, Eaton examines the values and knowl- ory and practice in this field continue www.mnplan.state.mn.us, or by call- edge that we bring to our appreciation to evolve,it would be wise for plan ing the Common Ground staff at 612/ of landscapes. We often find beauty ners to familiarize themselves with it, 296-6550. in "natural"appearing landscapes, and to introduce their own issues and Based on press releases from Minne- without knowing whether, or to what values into the discussion. extent those landscapes have been sota Planning which we picked up on the Internet. changed or diminished by human ac- tivity—runoff,erosion,invasive plant species. Ecological health will not be perceived as a scenic value un- til people are educated to recognize it. Eaton's complex essay distinguishes � � * � " y. p �^,� a t_ `,a[;,i pi , ..� iikam .® , ` f '" reA. I <. . .. ,e, Starting a Consulting Practice—cont'd EVENTS CALENDAR from page 3 January 22: Landmark Series Pub- Planners' Day at the Capitol. See needing the additional income. One lic Affairs Forum. A panel • discus- article,page 1. Meet in Room 400 should always be thinking of develop sion with members of the Advisory North, State Office Building(near ing marketable skills and exploring Council on Community Based Plan- University and Rice Avenues in St. employment options. ning,the legislative and citizen coun- Paul), 1:00 p.m. Reprinted with permission from the cil appointed by the governor to de- February 4: Native Plant Land- December issue of Metro Planner, the velop a process for land use planning scapes from Start to Finish. Semi- newsletter of Metropolitan New York's throughout the state. The Advisory nar on design and management of na- APA chapter. Amy Kates is managing Council has spent the fall travelling tive plant landscapes,by Minnesota associate at Downey Associates, Inc., around the state to hear citizens' con- Nursery and Landscape Association, an organization development consult- cerns. Its findings and recommenda- 612/633-4987. Earle Brown Center, ing firm. She holds a master's degree tions to the legislature will be present- U of M- St.Paul,8:00 a.m. - 3:45 in city planning and was formerly ed in a panel discussion in the F. K. p.m. with New York City's planning depart- Weyerhaeuser Auditorium, 11:30 February 19: Annual Planning In- stitute:You can reach her with feed- 1:00 p.m. The Basics. GTS Workshop, back or questions at January 24: A Comprehensive Plan Earle Brown Center,U of M St. DDowney@DDAssoc.com. for Your Community—Do You Paul,9:00 a.m. -4:30 p.m. Contact Know Everything You Need to GTS at 612/222-7409 or toll free 800/ Know? GTS Workshop,Earle Brown 652-9719 for registration materials. Center,U of M-St.Paul,9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Contact GTS at 612/222- MnAPA ELECTION UPDATE 7409 or toll free 800/652-9719 for registration materials. Advance returns from the MnAPA election indicate that... the envelope, January 28: Sensible Land Use Co- please... the uncontested incumbents alition program on neighborhood op- all were re-elected(yes,that was a position to development. Radisson Hotel South, 11:30-2:00 p.m. 612/ real cliff-hanger)! Jill Cornman is the 474-3302. new Student Director. We are await- ing the ballot deadline of December January 28: MnAPA Board Meet- 30 for the final count on the contested ing, 10:00 a.m.,at League of Minne- Central District seat. Thanks to all sota Cities offices, St.Paul;open to who agreed to participate,especially all members. Call Cindy Carlsson for the incumbents who agreed to run more information,612/229-0587,for again! more information. Followed by: M M NIS AL 00 Non Profit Org Minnesota Chapter,American Planning Association US Postage Minnesota Planning Association PAID 140 W. 48th Street St.Paul,MN Minneapolis, MN 55409 Michael Robertson Permit 1, 81 Oak Park itoight.5 City Hall 14168 57th St M Oak Park Hri i qht 4 » MN n5082-640 R Minnesota Planning is charged with developing a long-range plan for the state,stimulating public participation in Minnesota's future and coordinating activities among all levels of government. Directions for Community-Based Planning is a summary of 24 meetings held in communities across Minnesota in October and November 1997 to gather ideas for the Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning.Opinions expressed in this document are those of meeting participants,not Minnesota Planning or the Advisory Council. Directions for Community-Based Planning was prepared by members of the Common Ground Project at Minnesota Planning:Deborah Pile,Steve Reckers, Lisa Freese,Melissa Petrangelo,Gwen Wise and Susan Hass. Acknowledgements The meetings were moderated by volunteers arranged through the Minnesota Environmental Initiative. Assistance in facilitating small group sessions was provided by volunteers from the Headwaters Regional Development Commission, Northwest Regional Development Commission,Arrowhead Regional Development Commission,Region 5 Development Commission, Mid-Minnesota Regional Development Commission,Upper Minnesota Valley Regional Development Commission,Southwest Regional Development Commission, Region 9 Development Commission,West Central Initiative Fund,Department of Agriculture,Department of Natural Resources, Office of Environmental Assistance and several private consultants. Upon request Directions for Community-Based Planning will be provided in an alternate format,such as Braille,large print or audio tape.For TTY,contact Minnesota Relay Service at 800-627-3529 and ask for Minnesota Planning. December 1997 For additional copies of this report or further information on community-based planning,contact: MN PLANNING 658 Cedar St. St.Paul,MN 55155 612-296-3985 www.mnplan.state.mn.us Directions for Community-Based Planning DECEMBER 1997 MINNESOTA PLANNING PIN eFagaen;;e MN PLANNING Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning www.mnplan.state.mn.us 612-296-6550 fax 612-296-3698 common.ground@mnplan.state.mn.us 658 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55155 1. Please comment on Directions for Community-Based Planning: 2. How useful is Directions for Community-Based Planning? ❑very useful 0 useful 0 not very useful 0 not at all useful 3. How would you rate the quality of the contents? ❑excellent 0 good 0 fair 0 poor 4. How will you use this report? ❑ planning 0 evaluating activities 0 public relations ❑ background information 0 other: 5. With what type of organization are you affiliated? ❑ legislature 0 academic 0 media 0 local government ❑state agency 0 library 0 nonprofit 0 federal government 0 business 0 other: 6. I would like more information about the council and opportunities to get involved. Name: Phone: - E-mail: Thank you. PLANNING DEC 1 0 1997 December 8, 1997 Dear Minnesotan: Thank you for your continuing interest in Minnesota's new Community-Based Planning Act and for the time you took to give your thoughts and insights to the Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning. I am pleased to provide you with a copy of Directions for Community-Based Planning, released today by Minnesota Planning. This report summarizes the results of 24 public meetings held across the state in October and November 1997. About 1,000 Minnesotans attended the meetings to express their views on the new state framework for local planning. The council received many excellent ideas at these meetings to help it refine the Community-Based Planning Act. The advisory council is holding a retreat December 17 and 18 in Minneapolis to develop draft recommendations for the 1998 legislative session. It will draw on the results of the public meetings, as well as findings and suggestions of its working groups. All advisory council meetings are open to the public. You will receive a copy of the report of the draft recommendations in early January. Following public review, final recommendations will be forwarded to you and the Minnesota Legislature. More information on community-based planning is available at Minnesota Planning's Common Ground web site, www.mnplan.state.mn.us, or by calling the Common Ground staff at (612) 296-6550. Thanks again for your help. Sin rely, Marci inacci aa Deputy Director M Member, Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning • ao oc 6t9 Lt• f► Q7 CV Cfl 658 CEDAR STRUT, T. PAUL, MN 55115 612 296.3985 FAX 612 296-3698 Directions for Community-Based Planning 1 Summary 1 Introduction 2 Common themes 3 How people rated the goals 4 Voices from around the state Bemidji 4 Crookston 5 Fergus Falls 6 Brainerd 7 Duluth 8 Hibbing 9 Marshall 10 Mankato 11 Rochester 12 Bloomington 14 White Bear Lake 15 St. Cloud 16 17 Meeting attendance 22 Members of the Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning About 1,000 Minnesotans attended community-based planning meetings around the state *. yl. ° e�a � `73 r as • Win'. o rbbing Duluth# °:•'Fergus all • Brainerd St.'°Cloud". v White Bea °Lake Bloomington . " • Marshall Mankato Rochester Directions for Community-Based Planning 1 Summary About 1,000 Minnesotans attended meetings across the state to learn about and "Maybe this first go around comment on the new state framework for local planning,called community-based we won't get it right,but we planning.Community-based planning integrates sustainable development principles will learn a bunch and this into voluntary local comprehensive planning.The new law provides financial and will guide us in the future." technical assistance for planning and created an advisory council to help refine the law. "There's no person on a white The Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning hosted meetings in 12 cities horse who can come in and during October and November 1997 to solicit advice and insight that would help the solve everyone's problems. council make its recommendations to the Minnesota Legislature.The meetings were Communities should learn organized by the Common Ground staff at Minnesota Planning,the state agency that how to do it themselves." coordinates community-based planning. "There's a need for people to This report,Directions for Community-Based Planning,summarizes the discussions at get together and address those meetings and provides samples of the many comments received.It reports issues.Diverse interests need opinions expressed by meeting participants,not those of Minnesota Planning or the to resolve differences and be advisory council. addressed in the plan. In each of the 12 cities,participants voiced unique local and regional concerns.These Mutual listening." are summarized in the section"Voices from around the state"Common themes about community-based planning also emerged,including: • Local planning is important • Local planning should remain voluntary ■ Local ownership of plans is crucial • The goals and program must be flexible • State guidance and assistance for local planning are desirable,but state approval is viewed with concern • Citizen involvement is essential IN Cooperation across local boundaries is necessary for success ■ Membership of the advisory council is not broad enough Introduction Twenty-four meetings in 12 communities across Minnesota in fall 1997 generated many ideas for refining the state's Community-Based Planning Act.Meetings were held in the afternoon and evening in each city.A total of about 1,000 people attended, including county,city and township officials,business people,private citizens and state employees.Discussions were lively,opinions were varied and interest was high. During each meeting,advisory council members presented an overview of the Community-Based Planning Act.Meeting participants heard about local planning activities and issues from representatives of local governments.The participants then broke into small groups to discuss local concerns and community-based planning.A facilitator worked with each group to keep the discussions going and ensure that everyone had an opportunity to participate,and a note taker recorded the discussion.Each small group focused on one of the following sets of community-based planning goals: • Citizen participation and cooperation among governments IN Economic development and public investment ■ Conservation and sustainable development • Livable communities,housing and transportation 2 Minnesota Planning Small group participants evaluated and rated the 11 statewide goals contained in the Community-Based Planning Act,then discussed the following four questions: • What issues and concerns confront your community and this part of the state? • How important are the goals of community-based planning to you and your community,and why?What aspects of the goals are important? • What do you think a local plan should address or contain with regard to the goals? • What would it take to motivate your community to get involved in community- based planning and to remain involved?How about you personally,or your neighbors? Participants reconvened to hear reports from the small groups and deliver additional comments to advisory council members in an open microphone session.During December 1997,the advisory council will discuss the results of these meetings and develop its draft recommendations. Common themes Several common,overarching themes emerged at all the meetings.These provide an overall sense of what Minnesotans think about local planning and about how community-based planning should proceed. Local planning is important.Over and over,planning was mentioned as the best way to address issues ranging from growth to declining and aging populations.All Minnesotans want to preserve the quality of life and unique character of their communities and regions.But there are many ongoing planning efforts.Communities do not want to be told that these plans must be redone. Planning should remain voluntary.While some called for required planning,most urged that planning remain voluntary with incentives.Many areas want to plan,but lack the resources.Communities want the ability and opportunity to plan. Local ownership is crucial.If local citizens and governments do not feel as if they own the plan,it will sit on the shelf.Plans must be community-specific and unique, reflecting the visions of the people.Voluntary planning can make local ownership easier to forge. The goals and process must be flexible.Minnesota is highly varied,with different physical characteristics,economic bases,population density and ethnic heritage from region to region.As a result,issues and needs also can be unique.Goals must be flexible and be able to be adapted to these differences. State guidance and assistance are desirable,but the need for state approval of local plans is viewed with concern.Repeatedly,people echoed the need for state financial and technical assistance in planning.Most communities would welcome guidance and better integration of state agency efforts.Communities need access to information.However,too much state involvement leads to state-driven plans that can never truly be community-based. Citizen involvement is essential.The importance of involving citizens in planning was a key point of discussion throughout the state.Communities must embrace and involve all people and ideas to forge local ownership and ensure that plans reflect what people want and need and have the momentum to be implemented. Directions for Community-Based Planning 3 Cooperation across local boundaries is required for success.Each community has its own strengths,but communities are also interdependent.Many problems cross traditional boundaries and require joint efforts to solve or prevent.Instances of sharing and cooperation are numerous,but more are needed.State agencies must be partners. Other communities and the state must respect community plans. Membership of the advisory council is not broad enough.The council membership became the focus of many discussions across the state.Representation from northwestern and northeastern Minnesota and from local governments was deemed inadequate. How people rated the goals At the meetings,participants rated the importance of each of the 11 goals of community-based planning.The goals,which address the long term interests of the state in responding to growth and change,cover the following topics: IN Broad citizen participation in local planning ■ Cooperation among governments • Economic development that links growth throughout the state with long term environmental and community well-being • Conservation of natural resources and other state assets • Community design that uses"livable community"principles ■ Good,affordable housing for people at all stages of life IN Transportation that focuses on moving people and goods,not just automobiles • Land use decisions that are based on a publicly supported plan • Public investment—understanding the full costs of development • Public awareness of the need to carefully manage growth IN Sustainable development—improving life for all community members today while preserving the ability of future generations to do the same How meeting participants rated the goals Percent who Average rated it at Total score 8 or above responses Citizen participation 8.8 83% 814 Land use 8.6 80% 812 Cooperation among governments 8.5 78% 808 Public awareness 8.3 75% 814 Sustainable development 8.2 70% 795 Conservation 8.1 68% 796 Transportation 7.9 65% 812 Economic development 7.8 61% 809 Livable community design 7.8 61% 795 Housing 7.7 61% 808 Public investment 7.5 55% 798 The survey asked:"How important is each of the 11 goals of community-based planning to you?" Scale: 1 =not important 10=extremely important Source:Minnesota Planning 4 Minnesota Planning Voices from around the state Although there were some strong common themes,the meetings were also rich with differences.This section highlights some of the unique local and regional issues, perspectives and experiences from each meeting site. Bemidji Participants stressed the importance of land use planning and felt that it must balance "We know we have to do development and natural resource protection.There were strong sentiments against something,but don't want mandated planning and concern that planning be truly community-based.Many people the state telling us what distrust government and fear that planning will become mandatory.They do not want to do." more inflexible rules,such as those that regulate private septic tanks.They do not want a difficult approval process,such as that for solid waste plans.They do not want to be "Ought not to be doing told how to do things.They criticized the advisory council for lacking rural elected things to people but officials and representatives from northern Minnesota. with people." Additional points: "Current planning is not • Use water plans as a model planning process community-based, it's city • There should be no"boilerplate"plans council and special • Allow local flexibility and recognize differences across the state interest based." ■ Judge plans on honest efforts and serious attempts—results could take years • Cooperation among city,county,township,tribes,state and others is vital "Turf battles will kill ■ Establish an agreed-upon mechanism to mediate differences planning and cooperation." • Involve all kinds of people in the"community voice,"including the elderly • Look 100 to 200 years into the future to conserve open space "Cities must get `annexation'out of their vocabulary when they talk Local and regional concerns with townships if this is People expressed concerns with pressure on natural resources,such as lakes and to work" wetlands;and with low incomes and an aging population.They also noted that annexation issues make cooperation on other issues difficult. "People expect to have their own plot with no controls, ■ Low wages and a high percentage of retired people lead to transportation and but want controls on others." housing affordability problems • Small communities find it hard to compete with large retailers in regional centers "Submit plans and have ■ Second and third tier development is occurring around lakes and wetlands them approved before money ■ Conversion of seasonal homes to year-round homes is increasing is made available." ■ People move out from urban areas expecting rural life with urban services • Growing population and commerce jeopardize fishing,hunting and other amenities "We often react and deal ■ People are being forced off their land due to rising prices with zoning more ■ Townships want to be equal with cities in planning and annexation discussions than planning." Concerns about the goals of community-based planning All goals do not apply everywhere.Long-term goals should be developed for regional areas.Furthermore,local governments must be able to prioritize state goals to fit local needs. Still,the vast majority of participants rated all of the goals as eight or higher on a 10- point scale where 10 equals"extremely important."Citizen participation was viewed as the most important goal,with 83 percent of respondents rating it 10.The sustainable development and livable communities goals were viewed as not well understood and in need of better definition.People thought that education of citizens and officials also must be a goal. Directions for Community-Based Planning 5 Motivators and incentives For people to become involved in local planning,they must have a stake in the plan and must know that they will be heard and make a difference.Also,planners must not use technical or vague language if they want to keep people's interest.Communities need professional help,technical assistance and guides,as well as implementation money.Communities should be reimbursed for successfully completed plans,with perhaps$2 in state matching funds for every$1 spent by the community.Grants are helpful but should not come without requiring a product.Funding to make it easy for people to participate via telephone,video,fax,and other methods also would be helpful. Crookston Participants recognized the need for local,coordinated planning and stressed that "Make local and cooperation among local governments is critical.They do not want mandates and fear e partners,governmentsnot subjects."and that the current law is the"thin edge of a wedge"leading to mandatory planning. p p Planning must be kept flexible,recognizing that one size does not fit all.Many people O er a carrot,but use a were concerned that complicated,inflexible rules will follow,even if the legislative " intent is to keep the program flexible.The fact that the council has no representative little stick" from this area has set things off on the wrong foot. "We are not running out of Additional points: space,energy or resources in ■ Local people should set priorities,such as on a recent local road construction northwestern Minnesota. project,where people wanted to save old-growth white pine instead of wetlands We are running out of people." • Some fear that this program could be like shore land regulation—first optional "We can't do it all with small incentives,then mandatory ■ Get information out to people and let them develop the plans on our own." • Criteria for approving plans must be tailored to population size and place or region "Planning concept is good,but • Communities don't want to be told to redo plans they just completed IN Conservation and economic growth must balance each other flexibility needs to be there." "Why do we need a state Local and regional concerns group or agency to listen to Not every place is growing.Growth controls are not needed here and might hurt. what we say,decide what we Declining populations,declining profitability of agriculture,affordable housing and mean and then tell us what we related issues are key. want?Help us plan,but let us decide!" ■ Youth are drawn to cities for higher wages "The need to plan for the II Housing costs are driven up by zoning and regulations,including costly septic rules ■ Agricultural changes and difficulties—big farms replacing small ones,repeated future grows so important as failure of wheat and other crops,high transportation costs to get specialty crops to we lose population." distant markets • Loss of work ethic,can't get people to do things "Rule-making by state • People are abandoning small town housing and moving to Grand Forks agencies is taxation without ■ Private bus transportation to Warroad stopped due to increased state insurance representation." requirements "Strongly oppose statewide or regional control of local Concerns about the goals of community-based planning planning." Keep definitions simple,participants stressed.We might be in favor of a general goal but not in the way it is defined.Sustainable development and growth are not northwestern Minnesota issues.Livable community design must be very different for Plummer,Minnesota,and White Bear Lake;it applies more to new and big developments.Property rights issues also should be addressed. 6 Minnesota Planning The vast majority of participants rated all of the goals at seven or higher on a 10-point scale of importance.Citizen participation,cooperation among governments and public education received the most 10 ratings,with 52 percent,47 percent and 42 percent, respectively. Motivators and incentives Technical assistance from state agencies and grants were seen as necessary incentives for planning.Some communities felt that they could not afford cost-sharing.Tax reductions also were suggested.People could more easily participate by using technology such as the video teleconferencing facilities available at schools. Fergus Falls Planning is a potentially effective way to address local needs,noted participants at "Conflicts are inevitable and Fergus Falls.They stressed that grass-roots participation and intergovernmental all interested parties need cooperation are crucial for planning to be successful.Plans must respond to local a voice." needs and requirements must be flexible.Some were concerned about more bureaucracy,while others suggested that more controls and assistance are necessary. "More is done here over coffee shop talk than Additional points: anywhere else." ■ Developments that affect quality of life should be regulated more stringently • Counties need direction and financial help in planning "Land use in one community • Consolidate and simplify existing laws,rather than adding another layer can affect another community • Plan continually,not just during a crisis 500 miles away." Local and regional concerns "We should be proactive,not Participants discussed environmental quality,agriculture,housing and transportation. reactive.Plan what we do." They suggested using economic development strategies,including public investments in infrastructure and education,to build on what is already in the community, "The state can't buy this strengthen small businesses,and give youth a good education and reason to stay. product. It must be wanted by locals." • Increase family farming,preserve agricultural land • Agriculture and lakeshore development pose environmental threats "Our county commissioners • Affordable housing demand is greater than supply tell us that they `don't know ■ Transit and other transportation needs are great how to implement a land use • Property taxes are rising and there is a need for greater efficiency in spending tax plan county wide.' They need money direction and help.... " ■ Protect environmental quality,especially water quality,and preserve habitats for future generations "People want open spaces and forests,but they want it in their backyards as private Concerns about the goals of community-based planning space rather than as Participants identified conservation as an extremely important goal,but felt that most public spaces." people are more concerned with their own lives.Citizen participation is seen as very important.Cooperation among governments is also viewed as a relevant goal because while communities should have their own strengths,communities are interdependent. Most participants rated all of the goals at eight or above on a 10-point scale of importance.Land use planning and cooperation among governments were ranked as most important,receiving"10"ratings from 39 percent and 37 percent of respondents. Directions for Community-Based Planning 7 Motivators and incentives For people to participate in planning,they must believe that it can improve quality of life in specific,tangible ways important to the community,said participants.Public education about planning issues is essential for building interest and community pride. Crises motivate people to be involved but are not essential.Funding is important,and matching grants would lead to local ownership of the process. Brainerd Many participants support more planning in the region,though some expressed fear that the state would take over local decisions.Planning could help the region view "Cooperation requires money itself as a"community,"rather than as individual jurisdictions.Plans and enforcement out of pocket.How will this be that are integrated and consistent across jurisdictions would encourage this.Others reimbursed?" voiced concern about duplication of efforts,protection of individual rights and lack of planning resources. "It is important to have strong areas in the state besides the Additional points: Twin Cities." • Extensive bottom-up citizen participation and public education are essential ■ Provide models and a central place for information and technical assistance "I don't want state plan review IN Provide training for facilitation,planning and problem solving and approval." • Give incentives,not mandates or a master plan for the state ■ Use quantitative indicators and performance measures to measure success of plans "Aggrieved citizens participate. • Cities and townships must plan together It's not the general public." • The region needs a longer term and broader perspective in decision-making "Our area is growing at such a Local and regional concerns fast pace that we need planning The competing interests of agricultural production,development and protection of for the future.Hindsight is not forests and water quality are a big concern in this region.Ultimately,agricultural land good." and forests must be better conserved,and water quality in the lakes must be preserved. "I would like to see annexation • Increased development conflicts with preserving a rural character restrictions removed." • The region may not want or be ready for tourism-driven development that is occurring "Communities can make the • Economic development and jobs are emphasized over the cost of development best decision for themselves." • Development is outpacing the transportation system,including public transportation "Most counties have plans but • There is a shortage of affordable housing with transportation access to jobs they're outdated. Give dollar ■ Housing and economic development efforts are poorly coordinated incentives to update plans." • There is tension between rural residents and agricultural operations "There is a need to engage people early on in planning Concerns about the goals of community-based planning and explore new methods for Cooperation is crucial but difficult,participants noted.Cities and townships must build bringing people in." trust and operate on a level playing field in order to cooperate more.Citizen participation also is important,because the plan should reflect a shared vision of the "The plan should contain region.Sustainable development was viewed as an overriding goal by some.If we protection of rights of undermine local resources,everything else will fall apart,they said. individuals to live without government intervention within The majority of respondents rated all the goals at seven or above on a 10-point scale of the framework of importance.Citizen participation was rated 10 by 57 percent of respondents. reasonableness." 8 Minnesota Planning Motivators and incentives People will get involved if they feel that their quality of life is threatened—for example,if they sense a loss of clean air,trees,water quality or agricultural land. Economic self-interest also can motivate,such as a threat of increased property taxes, lower land values,a growth moratorium or an awareness of public subsidies for certain activities.To interest citizens,the plan must be accountable,must change over time, and must be concrete so that people see it as relevant to their lives.The involvement process must be creative,with visits to schools,employers,and citizen groups. Duluth Planning legislation is sorely needed in this area,Duluth participants noted,and the " `Community-based'must be Community-Based Planning Act may help.The state should be involved only in local. State should provide providing direction,assistance,encouragement and feedback—not providing dictates direction,assistance, and mandates.Participants were interested in finding out more about the new law,but encouragement and feedback suspected strings attached to grant money.Lack of representation of northern — not dictates." Minnesota on the advisory council was seen as a significant problem. "The state role should be Additional points: limited.Most of what needs to • "Community-based"must mean locally driven and controlled be accomplished is already in • Broad and diverse citizen participation is the key to success law State should help improve ■ Plans must coordinate transportation,affordable housing,preservation of natural coordination,provide a resources and other issues checklist of issues to consider, ■ Planning loopholes must be eliminated provide contacts at the state." ■ No cookie-cutter plans • Local concerns must drive implementation of the Community-Based Planning Act "This act is a positive note. • Plans should identify with the community's vision There is a need for ■ Plans should be simple and straightforward so that all can read and understand cooperation among local them governments." "Two Harbors has some Local and regional concerns sprawl.But things are turning Maintaining the region's high quality natural resources was a strong theme.Better around —planning is forest management,preservation of agricultural land and open space and maintaining a beginning." diversity of land uses were all mentioned.Participants also saw needs for alternative forms of transportation and affordable housing. "People buy property and expect to be able to do ■ Balance preservation and development anything they want to it, • Community demographics and economics are changing ignoring effects on the • Cooperation on land use issues is needed among recreation,industry and farm community." interests • There is concern about the cumulative environmental effects of development and "Tax policy drives a lot of forest management techniques decisions.People make ■ Development of commercial strips affects transportation and public service needs decisions based ■ There is misuse and overuse of lakes and lake shores on economics." "Community-based planning Concerns about the goals of community-based planning is absolutely necessary." Many participants felt it was impossible to evaluate single goals,because planning involves all objectives.Others felt that some goals may be more important than others and that some have a"metro spin."They suggested that the vision of a local community is more important than the statewide goals.Some thought the sustainable development goal was not needed,since it pervades all the goals.The economic Directions for Community-Based Planning 9 development goal must deal with existing businesses,not just new ones.Several "We need to change our suggested that the goals balance and define public and individual rights.Energy and mindset and think about what recreation were suggested as additional topics for statewide goals. to give back for the betterment of society." The majority of participants rated all of the goals at seven or higher on a 10-point scale of importance.Citizen participation was seen as the most important goal,with 52 "Lower income and percent of respondents rating it 10. disenfranchised people need to be sought out." Motivators and incentives "Goals of community-based Communities must feel as if they can make a difference through their plans.A variety planning have no meaning to of techniques will be needed to interest people and keep them involved.Computer me. The needs of my community simulations could forecast future problems,without waiting for a crisis to get people's will drive the goals for attention.The state could promote local planning by highlighting its benefits, planning in my community." including improved quality of life and increased ability to obtain public funds and private investment.Other state incentives could include assistance in putting a plan together,money,education and mentoring.Incentives need not be extortion-based. Hibbing Participants recognized the importance of planning.They discussed many ongoing efforts in the area,problems that result from lack of planning and the desire to preserve "Northern Minnesota must their high quality of life.Some participants,including several from townships,felt that plan to preserve its beauty." community-based planning could benefit them.Others questioned how the new process fits with ongoing efforts.Lack of northern Minnesota representation on the "We think of the taconite relief advisory council was a major concern.Some suggested that the Legislature and regions as the community." advisory council need more hands-on knowledge of this region. "There are too many one-size- Additional points: fits-all laws." ■ Do not turn this into mandated planning with"purse strings"attached • Local control is important in local planning "We need new citizens and ■ Give communities independence and flexibility in planning organizations involved.The • Do not create another inflexible,unwieldy act like the wetlands legislation same people are always there • Address possible overlap with Iron Range Resources and Redevelopment Board and the same groups get the and Northern Counties Land Use Coordinating Board funding." ■ Emphasize partnerships among state agencies that have a role in planning "In St.Paul,townships are treated like 'the little people.' Local and regional concerns Township officials need to get Population loss—particularly youth—development and the economy are major involved in planning,get concerns.People are concerned about the region's resources,especially the Boundary organized,get trained." Waters Canoe Area and the Superior National Forest. "The state is interested in • Many young people must leave the area for college and do not return asking for locals to show more ■ Rural areas have lost political power in the Minnesota Legislature accountability in use of funds. • Jobs with livable wages for youth and others are too few Not a bad thing." • Infrastructure is aging • Affordable housing for the elderly as an alternative to nursing homes is in short supply ■ Shoreline development is harming lakes • Mined lands should be redeveloped in an orderly manner IN Future economic stability is in question,partially because of reliance on the mining industry 10 Minnesota Planning "The plan needs to touch Concerns about the goals of community-based planning each person—what makes The goals must be flexible to account for each community's demographics and needs. them a stakeholder in Some suggested one set of goals and criteria for rural areas and another for urban the community?" areas.Several additions to the 11 goals were suggested,including goals addressing rights of property owners,education systems and the issues of tourism,recreation and "Comprehensive planning is energy.Some thought that sustainable development should not be a goal,but a natural important.I see the effects of outcome of community-based planning.Some participants suggested additional an absence of planning." elements for specific goals.These included the need to address routes from rural to urban areas under transportation;the need to address heavy industry in the livable communities goal;and under the conservation goal,specific language discouraging land subdivision. Most participants rated all of the 11 goals at eight or above on a 10-point scale of importance.Citizen participation received the most top ratings,with 68 percent of respondents rating it at 10.Public education was second at 59 percent. Motivators and incentives Ways to interest people in planning include raising appropriate questions, personalizing planning issues,letting people know they have been heard and identifying a common project or crisis.School districts could help involve people, because of their role in shaping development and sense of community.Government must allow citizens the freedom to run the process.In order to get broad citizen participation,employers must cooperate and give paid time for participation in community planning and visioning.Communities must forge alliances and cooperate before they can begin planning together.They need both financial and technical assistance.The state could provide local governments with training and information on budgeting and planning. Marshall Marshall participants had a strong interest in planning.They stressed the need for a "Appoint a local board of long range focus,rather than crisis management.They believed the state should people— not elected people provide financial and technical assistance,guidance and information.More —and give them a budget to coordination among local governments and with state agencies is needed,as is greater work with." public involvement.Minnesota is a diverse state,with many unique areas that must be taken into account.Many felt that the advisory council should include elected officials "Don't tell people what they from cities,towns and counties. need to do;empower them to do what they want to do." Additional points: ■ Encourage more economic development in this part of the state "It's important for the • Address capital improvements and citizen needs based on sound information community to know where it's • Keep plan content and review flexible going;planning will ■ The state should not be overly prescriptive certainly help." ■ Avoid unfunded state mandates and funding with too many strings attached "You can hamstring a process by having too much Local and regional concerns public input—always Jobs,housing,transportation,farming,population change and the demands of new someone with an agenda that rural residents are key concerns in this area.Many feel powerless and do not feel that can hamstring the process." state officials really listen to their concerns.Local governments are burdened by additional state unfunded mandates,such as additional training for ambulance and fire personnel.The area relies too heavily on local property taxes to fund necessary services;there is a need for other funding sources. Directions for Community-Based Planning 11 • The transportation system is inadequate to support local industries and an aging "Some groups have already population done planning. We should • There are too few livable-wage jobs or too few jobs—young people leave the area not replace these plans • Affordable housing is scarce for people in low-wage jobs,including immigrants or boards." • Non-farm rural residents tend to demand urban service levels and complain more about farming operations "I believe we have to get our • Medical facilities,particularly those for seniors,are inadequate ducks in a row. The trouble • There is tension between the needs of corporate farms and family farms we are having(loss of family • Large feedlots have the potential for pollution problems farms)is only a small • The region's communications system is outdated example what could happen • Aging,stable or declining populations in many areas create different needs state-wide." "Units of government have already been doing many or Concerns about the goals of community-based planning all of the goals in the Some of the goals seem to apply more to large urban centers than to southwestern community-based Minnesota,participants stated.Local plans must have a strong statement of vision so planning act." everyone knows what the community is expected to look like in the future.Although there was strong support for public involvement,some were concerned that too much "We have trouble filling public involvement could result in erosion of representative government.Elected township board positions." officials often have more information than the general public and are in a better position to make decisions for the good of all. The statewide goals were felt to be important,with most respondents rating all goals at seven or higher on a 10-point scale of importance.Sixty percent rated citizen participation at 10,which means"extremely important."The goals about public investment,livable community design and housing received the lowest number of"10" ratings. Motivators and incentives Citizens must be listened to and have a stake in the planning process,otherwise they will lose interest in participating.They must know that plans will be implemented. Listing the benefits of planning might help,as might giving local people more say in planning efforts and more control over local taxes.While a crisis or threat to the current way of life will motivate people,community pride can motivate as well.The state must be a partner in planning and provide funding,information and guidance. Continuing public education also is essential. Mankato Participants value planning.Coordinated planning efforts are already underway in the • area.The process must be bottom-up and community-based,participants stressed. "We aren't encouraging People expressed some concern that the state would give a top-down mandate and local small businesses to would review plans using inflexible criteria.Some participants felt barred by the state succeed,but we 'give away from meaningful involvement in highway and railroad projects,and are concerned that the farm'to outside this might happen again. businesses." Additional points: "We need to communicate • Citizens must be more involved in the future of their communities long term needs efficiently, • Long range,big-picture planning is needed to prevent further unplanned, clearly and often to the disorganized development public." • More cooperation among jurisdictions in planning and service provision is essential • Planning must reach people who normally aren't interested,to develop genuine community consensus 12 Minnesota Planning "We must stop Local and regional concerns unorganized growth." A major theme was the need for cultivating strong rural communities,including family farms.This requires coordination and good planning. "Developers set the direction,not the general • Better economic development and education are critical for the revival of rural input of citizens." towns • Jobs,affordable housing and training for livable-wage jobs are in short supply "We cannot try to • People want to preserve farmland,family farms,and interest in farming among accommodate everyone's youth personal desires if these ■ With schools emptying and infrastructure costs rising,governments need to get in the way of the goal cooperate of the total community— • Failing septic systems and feedlots threaten water quality local, regional or state." ■ Rural farm and non-farm residents clash over feed lots and other issues • The population is aging and has changing needs,especially for transportation. "Goals are critical. There has to be a level of consistency between Concerns about the goals of community-based planning plans." All of the goals were deemed important for dealing with the issues of concern in Mankato.Conservation is important for preserving agricultural land and water quality. I haven't heard any good Economic development is critical to preserving the viability of farms owned and reason why a community operated by families. would want to get involved under the state law...they Most respondents rated all goals at seven or higher on a 10-point scale of importance. should retain their Citizen participation was rated 10,or"extremely important,"by 49 percent of independence." respondents.Cooperation and land use also were significant,with each being rated eight or above by about 80 percent of respondents. "Urban/rural imbalance in legislature led to bias in the act in favor of urban Motivators and incentives areas." Focusing on specific issues or crises that engage people's attention can provide motivation.This should be coupled with public education on important issues.Another incentive is to show successes,models and opportunities,some of which could be implemented quickly.People will get involved if they feel they will be heard,and if they have the opportunity for real communication and interaction with politicians. People need good opportunities to participate and need to hear about them. Rochester There already is a great deal of local planning underway in this area,participants "The law is overreacting and noted.Planning processes initiated locally are the most successful.Local planning will create division in our should be locally controlled,but some expressed a need for a safety net if the local rural communities." government fails to plan.People stressed the need for coordination at all levels of government and said the state should focus on state-level activities.Some were "We need some supervision disappointed that the advisory council does not include township representation. down here to watch over some of these local `good-old-boy Additional points: networks'that are now ■ Keep the program voluntary;do not create another unfunded mandate running many local ■ Townships and small cities do not have planning staff and resources governments." ■ The state should concentrate on providing a coherent statewide framework for local planning,then let local governments take it from there ■ State and federal agencies must communicate their plans to local governments • Overlapping planning efforts at state,federal and local levels must be better coordinated Directions for Community-Based Planning 13 Local and regional concerns "Suggestions and ideas are Urban growth outside municipal boundaries,rural-urban land use conflicts,stability of okay, but let counties and local agriculture and ground water contamination were some of the major concerns voiced governments have the in the area.The public needs education about the implications of local decisions. final say." • The state lacks an effective agricultural land preservation program "The goals are too general and ■ High-grade farmland is being lost to urban development `apple pie-ish'—growth and ■ Growth areas have conflicts between urban and rural land uses development are more complex • Low commodity prices,suburban development and inflated land values threaten and full of value conflicts." farming • Septic systems and feed lots are contaminating ground water "Rescind the act and provide ■ Cities have insufficient power to protect growth areas outside their boundaries incentives to planning which • Tax increment financing should be reserved for small towns and rural areas do not contain mandates and a State `check off'for a local plan." Concerns about the goals of community-based planning Overall,participants thought the goals were too general.They suggested adopting . ..these goals should have good goals and standards that already exist,rather than reinventing.Goals should be guidelines that could be used prioritized so that when two goals conflict,one takes precedence.Local plans must as a template for governing consider the capacity of natural systems.True-cost accounting should be required in bodies to establish their analyzing the cost of development,particularly the impact of residential development comprehensive plans." on private utilities within a city's urban growth boundary.Some participants suggested that conflict resolution among units of government should be a required goal. "Let the plans from the communities take priority over Most people rated the goals as seven or higher on a 10-point scale of importance. all other plans." Forty-nine percent of respondents rated citizen participation at 10.Close behind were land use and conservation.Livable communities and housing were rated eight or "Planning needs to be tied to below by about two-thirds of respondents. financial incentives,especially if it is voluntary." Motivators and incentives Funding and technical assistance for planning are both viewed as important. Participants suggested funding for implementation rather than for planning,with planning a prerequisite.Information and tools are needed—maps are outdated and data is expensive to collect.A state-funded conservation easement program to preserve farmland would be useful,especially in urbanizing areas. Some suggested that a controversy or implied threat is needed to increase citizen participation.Others note that elected officials must be open to citizen participation. Too often citizens feel that they are resented and that their participation does not change outcomes.Participation techniques should be diverse and should reach a representative sample of the entire community,not just the naysayers or the people who have high financial stakes. • 14 Minnesota Planning "The `biggest bang for the Bloomington buck'will come from Participants supported the concept of statewide local planning.The state should empowering people up provide a framework similar to the regional plan provided by the Metropolitan front." Council.Many thought that planning should be more actively encouraged outside the "Tools of implementation seven-county metropolitan area.However,there was also a concern that community- based planning would add another level of review to an already cumbersome approval are critical to not having a process in the Twin Cities area.Communities need tools to implement regional plan `shelved.' " policies,including funding resources and incentives that they can pass on to "Communities should have developers. the ability to set housing Additional points: goals on a percentage ratio. • Define how community-based planning fits into the Metropolitan Planning Act There is no cookie cutter • Intergovernmental coordination is essential formula that can work for • Monitor planning with checkpoints that link funding to reporting all communities." • Implementation funding will be needed,particularly for affordable housing "Most newer developments • The law requiring 60-day local government decisions on development applications results in premature decisions seem to be based on • Local governments need better tools to require development to pay for itself economic strategies which overlook the social impacts. By creating a `livable Local and regional concerns community'most of the other In this primarily urban and suburban area,many concerns centered on issues goals will come naturally." associated with population growth and development. "Transit will not be • Transportation and public transit are critical in light of regional growth attractive until we stop • Low prices for farm products and cheap fuel are supporting urban sprawl building roads and • Affordable housing is needed,but"not in my backyard" congestion increases." • Neighbors often don't know each other in urban and suburban areas "I see community-based • Natural open spaces are in short supply in urban areas ■ Fully developed communities face the need to maintain and renew infrastructure planning to be a big II Crime remains an ongoing concern for the public challenge, but I also see it as a necessity for our future survival." Concerns about the goals of community-based planning Some of the goals,such as transportation,housing and livable communities,run contrary to market forces and the life cycle of communities.An educational effort at all levels is necessary to change 30 years of private marketing and public planning that contradicts livable community design,said participants.The goal of requiring development to pay for itself will need to be balanced with other goals such as affordable housing. Still,most respondents rated all of the goals as eight or higher on a 10-point scale of importance.Sixty-three percent rated citizen participation at 10,and about 50 percent rated sustainable development,land use,livable communities and conservation at 10. Motivators and incentives The key to encouraging citizen participation is to start early in the process and demonstrate to people that they are being heard.They must know that they can make a difference.Perceived threats to local control or life-style motivate citizens and communities to plan.Serving food also is a draw for public involvement but it is becoming less effective.Local communities must be able to provide incentives to developers to implement planning.Target funding to only those areas designated for development,similar to Maryland's Smart Growth Initiative.Broadcast the successes and failures. Directions for Community-Based Planning 15 White Bear Lake "We need to treat landowners fairly,protect open spaces, Participants believed strongly in local planning.Many noted a long tradition of and encourage good growth if planning in their communities.They viewed planning as a means for improving the we want to preserve quality of quality of life.Cooperation with adjacent communities,broad community input and life long-term." technical assistance were mentioned as needs.While some questioned how a voluntary approach could work to enforce statewide goals,others felt that goals should be the "The goals are broad enough responsibility of local communities. to avoid or deflect criticism. Resistance rears its ugly head Additional points: when application and funding • Allow for innovation enter the discussion." ■ Promote statewide planning goals and a strong central planning group • Citizens must participate in plan development and implementation "It is important to understand • The planning process must draw out people's values and then incorporate them that to plan or not to plan is • Recognize each community's identity not the question.In particular, • Population growth spills beyond city limits sprawl is a result of very bad • Preserve property rights planning." "Make elected officialsLocal and regional concerns accountable and have Development in the region is sprawling,participants said,which creates tremendous measurable milestones to costs.Lack of investment in the inner cities leads to greater problems for poor and vulnerable populations.Development is spilling into the countryside while polluted mark progress or lack of it." sites are waiting to be cleaned up. "Don't have more regulations • People move to the country but don't want the downsides of rural living than necessary to meet goals." • The region is losing natural habitat,agricultural land and open space "Taxes and subsidies are ■ Much housing needs rehabilitation,and affordable housing is insufficient going to fringe areas,which • A growing elderly population has changing needs,including more affordable encourages people to move housing farther out and causes decay • Improved public transit and more transportation choices are needed in the central cities." Concerns about the goals of community-based planning "We need economic development that preserves the All the goals depend on public awareness,participants said.Sustainable development environment." is a hope for turning around the trend of sprawling development.Economic development and public investment goals are important but must be coordinated with "Coon Rapids and Blaine transportation planning and urban design. have gone from 90 percent Most respondents ranked all the goals at eight or higher on a 10-point scale of open space to 70 percent importance.Sustainable development and land use received the most"10"ratings, asphalt in my lifetime." with 59 percent of respondents giving both goals a 10("extremely important"). Motivators and incentives Technical assistance and education of the public will get governments and citizens involved.Provide long term funding for planning and implementation.Giving citizens relevant information on topics such as performance standards or the full public costs of development will generate interest.Citizens will be more willing to help if the time frame for the planning process is short.Public awareness of the risks of not planning may also be useful. 16 Minnesota Planning "Make your plans as if you St. Cloud need to live with the results Planning is necessary,but should be done at the local level,participants said.The state for the next 300 years." should provide assistance,especially technical assistance.Planning requires true participation by citizens who understand the issues and feel that they have a role in "We need to look at things as decision-making.Intergovernmental cooperation also is important.Planning must a community—NOT as balance competing and sometimes conflicting community needs.Some participants 'every man for himself.' " were concerned that the advisory council contained no representatives of county or township governments. "The value of a community working together is probably Additional points: the most valuable thing about ■ Economic development should combine liveable wages and environmental this act." protection • Consider community goals and values "Too many extremists control ■ Consider the rights of individual property owners the local planning process." • Maintain local control of planning • Resist state mandates "We want to maintain local ■ State agencies should comply with community-based planning control —guidelines are • Communities need good data to develop good plans okay,mandates are not." ■ Citizens need to be engaged and involved in decision-making • Disincentives for high-impact projects as well as incentives for low-impact ones "Planning `doesn't work' should be included in local plans. because people get too anxious and start offering solutions before problems are Local and regional concerns outlined,defined,and Participants emphasized issues surrounding rapid growth,the way development is prioritized." occurring,and changes in the character of rural areas. "Plans must have an ongoing ■ Feed lots affect water quality,human health and aesthetics planning process and ■ Maintaining small town character is important structure in place,supported ■ There are rural-urban conflicts over odors,farm vehicles on roads,and so on by local people and • Agricultural lands,open spaces and forests should be preserved politicians with adequate ■ Lakeshore development raises concerns including impact on water quality resources, trained staff and • The need for affordable housing is great budget or all plans are a ■ The elderly population needs transportation services waste of money." • There is a need for livable wages and economic diversity • The downtown area needs to maintain a strong economic base "Leaders need to lead based ■ Sprawling development shows need for on information and data, p g p growth boundaries and farmland preservation not politics." ■ Familyfarms should remain viable and local agriculture griculture should be supported • Newer housing developments are not pedestrian-or child-friendly Concerns about the goals of community-based planning Participants called for a long-term view on goals and issues.Community rights and values must be balanced against individual property rights,such as the right of farmers to sell land for retirement income,some suggested.A participant noted that goals should address protection of animals and plants,not just people.Economic development must focus on local businesses first before recruiting new ones.If development is not sustainable it should not take place. Most respondents rated all 11 goals at eight or higher on a 10-point scale of importance.Citizen participation got the most 10 ratings,with 52 percent of respondents.More than 80 percent rated the land use goal at eight or higher. Directions for Community-Based Planning 17 Motivators and incentives State funding for grants and technical assistance were viewed as necessary,especially if the state imposes mandates.All types of people,not just government officials and people with money,should be encouraged to participate.All ideas should be included in plan preparation and implementation.Publicity,convenient meetings and offering child care and refreshments are good ways to increase participation. Meeting attendance The meetings were open to the public.Local city,township and county officials received mailed invitations,and the meetings were publicized through local news media.Attendees included local officials,representatives of local organizations,private citizens and members of the Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning.The following section reports on attendance of each meeting. Bemidji Oct.28 at Bemidji State University Attendance:38 Forty-seven percent were representatives of cities,counties and townships.The rest were from interest groups,the general public,state agencies and the Leech Lake Tribal Council. Local government presenters: Paul Fairbanks,Cass County;Carol Engebretson,Becker County;Bill Bliss,Cass Lake Township;Dale Hoosier,Northern Township;Phil Shealy,Bemidji Advisory council members: Lee Ronning,Ray Hitchcock,Randy Jorgenson Crookston Oct.29 at the Northland Inn Attendance:82 Sixty-four percent were representatives from cities,counties and townships.The rest were from interest groups,the general public and state agencies. Local government presenters: Carol Engebretson,Becker County;Gene DeFault,County Township Association; Arvid Clementson,Fosston;Ray Ecklund,Crookston Advisory council members: Senator Steve Morse,Lee Ronning 18 Minnesota Planning Fergus Falls Oct.30 at Ottertail Power Company and Fergus Falls Community College Attendance:70 Forty-one percent were representatives of cities,counties and townships.The rest were from interest groups,the general public and state agencies. Local government presenters: Mike Howe,Pope County;Gordon Hydukovich,Fergus Falls;Matt Glaesman, Moorhead Advisory council members: Senator Steve Morse,Chris Hagelie,Jim Erkel,Lee Ronning,Terry Kuhlman, Randy Halvorson Brainerd Nov.3 at the Brainerd Public Library and the Holiday Inn Attendance:84 Thirty-seven percent were representatives of cities,counties and townships.The rest were from interest groups,the general public and state agencies.Also in attendance was Representative David Ten Eyck. Local government presenters: Duane Konewko,Aitkin County;Scott Hanson,Crow Wing County;Jim Demjen, Cass County;Dave Miller,Cuyuna Range Economic Development Inc.;Dan Vogt, Brainerd Advisory council members: Randy Jorgenson,Representative Dee Long,Chris Hagelie,Marcia Farinacci,Lee Ronning,Randy Halvorson Duluth Nov.5 at the Radisson Hotel Attendance:63 Forty-eight percent were representatives from cities,counties and townships.The rest were from interest groups,the general public and state agencies.Representative Mary Murphy also attended. Local government presenters: Tim Kennedy,Cook County;Dick Segal,Lake County;Dennis Fink,St.Louis County;Russ Georgeson,Canosia Township;Paul Iverson,Two Harbors Advisory council members: Randy Jorgenson,Representative Dee Long,Marcia Farinacci,Amy Janke,Lee Ronning,Virginia Harris,Gary Laurent,Alden Lind,Terry Kuhlman Directions for Community-Based Planning 19 Hibbing Nov.6 at Hibbing Community College Attendance:48 Twenty-five percent were representatives from cities,counties and townships.The rest were from interest groups,the general public and state agencies.Representatives Dave Tomassoni,Tom Rukavina and Loren Solberg also attended. Local government presenters: Terry Greenside,Itasca County;Steve Raukar,St.Louis County;Frank Ongaro,St. Louis County;Cheryl Sharp,Cotton Township;Ray Battaglia,Buhl Advisory council members: Randy Jorgenson,Amy Janke Marshall Oct.10 at Southwest State University Attendance:148 Sixty-three percent were representatives from cities,counties and townships.The rest were from interest groups,the general public,and state agencies.Representatives Elaine Harder,Marty Seifert and Ted Winter also attended. Local government presenters: Larry Gasow,Nobles County;Gene Short,Redwood County;Jon Mitchell,Redwood County;Greg Isaackson,Cottonwood Advisory council members: Senator Steve Morse;Randy Jorgenson,James Erkel,Lee Ronning,Terry Kuhlman, Randy Halvorson,Marcia Farinacci Mankato Nov.12 at Mankato State University Attendance:98 Forty-nine percent were representatives from cities,counties and townships.The rest were from interest groups and the general public.Representatives Howard Swenson and Ruth Johnson also attended. Local government presenters: Tina Rosenstein,Nicollet County;Tony Fillipovitch,Mankato Growth Management and Planning Study;Keith Metzel,St.James;Pat Hentges,Mankato Advisory council members: Randy Jorgenson,Senator John Hottinger,James Erkel,Lee Ronning,Gary Laurent 20 Minnesota Planning Rochester Nov.13 at Rochester Community and Technical College Attendance:107 Fifty-three percent were representatives from cities,counties and townships.The rest were from interest groups,the general public and state agencies. Local government presenters: Kevin Kelliher,Houston County;Phil Wheeler,Rochester and Olmsted County;Gary Neumann,Rochester;John Hunziker,Rochester Advisory council members: Randy Jorgenson,Virginia Harris,Ray Hitchcock Bloomington Nov 17 at Normandale Community College Attendance:61 Eighteen percent were representatives from cities,counties and townships.The rest were from state agencies,interest groups and the general public.Representatives Peggy Leppik and Barb Sykora also attended. Local government presenters: Larry Lee,Bloomington Advisory council members: Senator Steve Morse,Lee Ronning,Curt Johnson,Virginia Harris,Christine Rice, Representative Dee Long,Randy Jorgenson White Bear Lake Nov.18 at Century Community College Attendance:71 Twenty-five percent were representatives of cities,counties and townships.The rest were from state agencies,interest groups and the general public.Several attendees came from Isanti,Chisago and Pine Counties.Representative Satveer Chaudhary also attended. Local government presenters: Robert Lockyear,Washington County Advisory council members: Representative Dee Long,Representative Bill Kuisle,Curt Johnson,Marcia Farinacci, Amy Janke,Lee Ronning,Virginia Harris,Christine Rice,Senator Steve Morse Directions for Community-Based Planning 21 St.Cloud Nov.19 at City Council Chambers Attendance:180 Thirty-seven percent were representatives of cities,counties and townships.The rest were from state agencies,interest groups and the general public.Representatives Kathy Tingelstad,Leslie Schumacher,Doug Stang and Mark Olson also attended. Local government presenters: George Rindelaub,Stearns County;Franklin Denn,Monticello Township;Johnny Olson,Paynesville Township;Nelda Remus,Zimmerman;Patti Gartland,St.Cloud Advisory council members: Representative Dee Long,Representative Joe Opatz,Representative Bruce Anderson, Marcia Farinacci,Randy Halvorson,Terry Kuhlman,Lee Ronning, Senator Steve Dille 22 Minnesota Planning Members of the Advisory Council on Community-Based Planning Randy Jorgenson Representative Dee Long Co-chair Home:Minneapolis Southwest Regional Development Commission Representative Joe Opatz Slayton Home:St.Cloud Senator Steve Morse Senator Pat Pariseau Co-chair Home:Farmington Home:Dakota Christine Rice Representative Bruce Anderson Woodbury Buffalo Township Lee Ronning Caren Dewar Land Stewardship Project Dewar and Associates,Inc. 1,000 Friends of Minnesota Minneapolis White Bear Lake Senator Steve Dille Home:Dassel Ex-officio members James Erkel Randy Halvorson The Nature Conservancy Assistant Director Minneapolis Minnesota Department of Transportation Marcia Farinacci Deputy Director Ray Hitchcock Minnesota Planning Assistant Commissioner Minnesota Department of Natural Chris Hagelie Resources City Administrator St.Cloud Amy Janke Assistant to the Commissioner Ginny Harris Minnesota Department of Agriculture St.Paul Curtis Johnson Senator John Hottinger Chair,Metropolitan Council Home:Mankato Terry Kuhlman Representative Bill Kuisle Executive Director,Public Facilities Home:Rochester Authority Minnesota Department of Trade and Gary Laurent Economic Development Laurent Builders,Inc. Shakopee Alden Lind Duluth