Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-05-11 Minutes Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Centerville held a public hearing on May 11, 1989 at City Hall. The purpose of the meeting was to hear all persons regarding the proposed amendments to the Centerville Comprehensive Plan. Vice - Chairperson Welk called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. Present: Vermeulen, Lindgren. Absent: Drilling, Tourville. Also present were Andrew Mack (City Planner), Council member Neumann, and Council member. Pelton. These minutes will be in a question /response format„ The questions were submitted prior to the meeting by the City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission, Park and Recreation Committee, Centerville Economic Development Task Force, City Attorney (Barry Blomquist), and City Engineer (John Stewart). The following persons responded before the meeting advising that the Comprehensive Plan appeared to be appropriate and that they had no comments at this time: Bob Burgstahler, Jerry Peterson, Dan Tourville, Kathy Welk, Steve Dixon, Dan Kupfer, Cindy Paschke, Lisa Smith, Gerry LeTendre, Sonny DaBruzzi, Jeff Will. No pre- meeting response was received from: Tina Vermeulen, Lloyd Drilling, Linda Drilling, George Haberman. The following persons submitted the following pre- meeting comments: Carol Pelton, Walt Neumann, Bob Lindgren, Dick Hubers, Leon L'Allier. Question: page 8 - Land use policies - #15. Emphasize the use of buffers between two different zones. (Hubers) Response: No change. Question: pages 10 - 11 - Residential development. Try to provide low co; =t, ho f _..� for senior citizens. (Lindgren) Response: Welk noted that the plan does appear to address this. Mack advised that in the preliminary stages of the plan, they had been asked by the City to asked to decrease emphasis on low income. It appeared that the consensus of the Planning and Zoning Commission was that this item was clear in the current plan. Question: pages 20 - 21 - Annexation goals and policies. Annexation of land east of the City to 35E. A MUST! (Lindgren) Response: Appeared that this was self explanatory in the plan. Planning and Zoning Comp Plan. Meeting Minutes page two May 11, 1989 Question: page 27 - Transportation goals - Last item. If a City trail system is developed make sure that the home owners and properties (including business) are protected by policing and /or screening where needed. (L'Allier) page 28 - Transportation policies - 05. Protection of property owners where trails go between properties by policing and /or. screening. (L'Allier) Response: Mack advised that this was put in as a general goal (reference page 91, last paragraph) to strike a balance between need and concerns for screening, etc. He noted that it is recommended that the trails be within the street right of way. He also noted that the specifics should be taken into account before any trail implementation. The Comp Plan takes the middle of the road approach. Pelton noted that it could be more specific in a park plan with a possible appendix or addendum. Question: page 29 - Streets - #2 and #4. Do they contradict each other, or are they the same. (L'A111er) Response: It appeared that it was the consensus of the Planning and Zoning that they do not contradict as they are not the same type of streets. See page 90. Question: page 34 - Trails - #16, #19, and #20. Cost factor? Initial up keep. (L'Allier) Response: Mack noted that #16 is not a requirement, just a statement that refers to commercial /multifamily areas. Mack noted that with regard to #19 and #20, it is given that this must be done if the trail is implemented. Pelton advised that different types of trails are less maintenance. The City is getting to the point that trails are needed. The costs would have to be implemented up front with each new developer. Welk noted that the cost factor could be discussed when the development begins, Question: Planning and Zoning Comp Plan Meeting Minutes page three May 11, 1989 page 34 - Trails - #21a. Don't believe we have room for an 8 foot wide path on each side of the road. (Neumann) Response: Mack noted that 8 feet would be the ideal situation, but that the key word would be "feasible ". Pelton noted that 8 feet is good, as two bikes can pass - or would be wide enough for pedestrian and bike traffic. She noted that the path should be wide enough that a bike or pedestrian would not have to step off the path on to collectors when it is necessary to pass. She advised that it may unrealistic to put a path on both sides of the street. She suggested one side of the street that can be physically separated with a curb, guard rail, buffer, etc. Welk noted that she would rather see 8 feet on one side versus 4 feet on each side of the street. Mack again advised that he felt that City flexibility was built into the statements as written. *Question: page 35 - Trails - #21c. Was under the impression we would have sidewalk or trial on one side of road in all new development. (Neumann) *Response: It appeared that the consensus of those present were in favor of amending the proposed plan as follows: page 35 - Trails - #21a. Shall be left as is. - #21b. Shall be amended to read a 5 foot minimum and that it shall be either concrete or bituminous. - #21c. Shall be amended to that a trail or sidewalk "may" be required. *Question: page 35 - Trails - #23 and #25. #23 - How would this be accomplished and at who's cost? #25 - Explain to include what type of travel. (L'Allier) *Response: Mack advised that this would depend upon the type of street or location and if the County or the City initiated the system. The plan advocates separation of the pedestrian and motor traffic. Mack noted that #25 was added per the recommendation of the Park and WW@Ati@fl @ ®mmLtt @@ for hiking, biking, or ©®® Planning and Zoning Comp Plan Meeting Minutes page four May 11, 1989 country skiing, etc. Neumann appeared to be of the opinion that if one type of vehicle is allowed on the paths, the others should also be allowed. It appeared that the consensus of those present were in favor of amending the proposed plan as follows: page 35 - Trails - #24 - strike the word "all- terrain" and add "except as may be designated ". Question: page 37 - Community Facilities Goals - Fist and fifth item, very important. Cost effective! (L'Allier) Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission acknowledged the comments. Question: page 39 - Government Buildings and Facilities - #1. Very important, in order to save tax payers money. (L'A111er) Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission acknowledged the comments. Question: page 41 - Parks and Open Space - #13. Costs to build and maintain? Can Centerville tax payers afford this system and is it feasible? (L'A11ier) Response: Addressed above under page 35. Question: page 47 - Tax increment financing policies - Use TIF to widen culverts in Clearwater Creek to improve the floodplain area. (Lindgren) Response: The City Council is currently working on this project. Question: page 47 - Tax increment financing policies - Use TIF to put up another water tower in the industrial and commercial areas. (Lindgren) Response: Mack noted that both this question and the question above are very good comments, but that the City may not want to limit itself by putting them in the Comp Plan. He noted that as written the Comp Plan does provide a degree of flexibility. Question: Planning and Zoning Comp Plan Meeting Minutes page five May 11, 1989 page 53 - Energy Goals - #5. Municipal building is a cost saving factor. (Combine City Hall, Fire Hall, etc. in one building.) (L'Allier) page 54 - Energy Policies - #4. Encouraging concentration of structures and facilities. Central location within the City! (L'Allier) Response: Mack noted that these are just general goals. Welk noted that the two above comments may be out of the Planning and Zoning scope. Question: page 59 - Industrial Park - define business park zoning district. ( Pelton) Response: Mack noted that page 6, last reference does address this concern. Question: page 89 - Collector and Arterial Streets - second paragraph. Upgrading of Main Street. (Cnty Rd 14) to a fully minor arterial road status. What is the width of a minor arterial? Two lane with wider shoulders (pedestrian and bicycle) or a four lane? (L'Allier) Response: Mack advised that the status is left open, traffic volumes dictate the need for design, no specific recommendation is made in the plan. Question: page 95 - Government Buildings and Facilities - The City should look at the most cost effective type of facilities. - Last paragraph - Consideration "should" also be given to the construction of an all in one facility ingt.F=a,1 of "could" (L'Allier) Response: It was discussed that this would have to be a City Council.decision. Question: page 107 - Northeast District - Would have been better to illustrate the streets in a more general form to conform less to development proposals (similar to the North Central District on page 103). (Pelton) Response: Mack noted that they tried to make the plan as general as they could. He noted that there is a "knob" in the road so that there is no straight through street. He noted that it is good to have some basis of plan. Mack did not appear Planning and Zoning Comp Plan Meeting Minutes page six May 11, 1989 to feel that the illustration of this district tied the City down to put streets in as shown. Welk noted that the park illustrated in the district has to much street frontage with regard to assessments. *Question: page 124 - Central District Recommendations - #3. Eastern side of Center Oaks II (zoned commercial at this time). If so wouldn't it have to be rezoned at the request of the property owner. (L'Allier) *Response: Mack advised that he would review this section and "clean up" the page to not exclude commercial. To be reviewed by the City Council. Question: page 131 - Plan Implementation Priority Level III - last paragraph. 1. How would this occur (there shall be no guarantee that property will remain within the Centerville MUSA). 2. Explain. Pertaining to what area of the City. ( L'Allier) page 132 - Development Priority Level II - paragraph 3. Ordinarily aren't MUSA extensions usually confirmed by City, then Metro and then contracts executed? ( L'Allier) Response: MUSA is not the property owners right. The decision has to be made by the City to properly allocate where development is occurring. If land is to be taken out of the MUSA, it would require City action and a Comp Plan amendment. Other comments not relating to specific page numbers: Question: The Park and Recreation Committee are making revisions to their Park Comprehensive Plan, This could be added to the Centerville Comprehensive Plan as an addendum. (Felton) Response: Addressed earlier in the meeting. Per Mack, if this were adopted by the City, it would be a major amendment. Question: Look at developing a Flood Plain reduction strategy. (Rezoning, MUSA extensions, etc.) (Felton) Response: The City Council is now working on this. Planning and Zoning Comp Plan Meeting Minutes page seven May 11, 1989 Also see attached City Attorney comments. It appeared that it was the consensus of the Planning and Zoning Committee that they agreed and recommended implementation of City Attorney comments, and that Mack contact the Attorney for clarification on the items that they disagree upon. Discussion of attached City Engineer comments. #1. Addressed earlier in the meeting. #2. Mack will contact City Engineer for recommendation on watermain size in commercial and residential. #3. Mack noted that this concern is addressed in building code requirements. #4. Addressed earlier in the meeting. #5. Mack noted that the City may want to check into this further. He advised that about 507, of cities have this. He noted tax benefit and exemptions as a benefit to the property owner. He advised that the City Engineer comments were appropriate, but that inclusion could be deferred until the zoning ordinance is updated and then reference it in the ordinance. It appeared that the consensus of the Planning and Zoning Commission was to not include this change in the Comp Plan. #6. Mack suggested simply referencing the program. He will obtain a copy from the City Engineer. #7. Addressed earlier in the meeting. #8. Mack advised that he agreed in part. Mack will contact the City Engineer to clarify his concerns. #9. Vermeulen noted that she felt that flexibility was given on page 131, paragraph 1, 4th sentence. Motion by Vermeulen, second by Welk to recommend approval of the proposed Centerville Comprehensive Plan amendment, contingent upon amending the following: page 35 - Trails - $21a. Shall be left as is; - 021b. Shall be amended to read a 5 foot minimum and that it shall be either concrete or bituminous; • Planning and Zoning Comp Plan Meeting Minutes page eight May 11, 1989 - #21c. Shall be amended to that a trail or sidewalk may be required; page 35 - Trails - 824 - strike the word "all-terrain and add "except as may be designated "; City Planner will review page 124 - Central District Recommendations - 83 and "clean up" the page to not exclude commercial, to be reviewed by the City Council; and contingent upon: the City Planner contacting the City Attorney (Barry Blomquist) and the City Engineer for comment to the City Council for review; subject to review and approval of the Metropolitan Council, motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, j LNILC -/ Tamara M. Miltz Miller ' Clerk /Administrator si(diji;10) CONSULTING ENGINEERS Maier Stewart & Associates Inc. April 12, 1989 File: 260 - 000 -00 Ms. Tammy Miltz- Miller Clerk /Administrator City of Centerville 1694 Sorel Street Centerville, MN 55038 RE: Review of the Comprehensive Plan Update Policy Plan /Development Framework /Plan Implementation Dear Ms. Miltz- Miller: We have reviewed the Comprehensive Plan Update prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. dated March, 1989 as it relates to Maier Stewart and Associates, Inc. and the services it provides for the City of Centerville. There are a couple of points which we felt needed highlighting as we read through the plan. These items may need future clarification or discussion. 1. The policy discussion of placing a 4' concrete sidewalk on minor collectors may be limiting. Possibly a 5' bituminous or concrete sidewalk /pathway would better serve this type of roadway and soil conditions typically found in the City. 2. In defining the City participation beyond a minimum watermain size (6" in residential) it may be appropriate to consider a minimum size for commercial /industrial areas. 3. With regard to any policy regarding improvements to government buildings, there appears to be no discussion included on handicap access. 4. It should be noted that no plan has been adopted for a park system. 5. The use of an Agricultural Preservation Zoning District as a • policy recommendation can be restricting when development pushes toward it and it is time to consider the placement of utilities. Consideration should also be given as to how to handle assessments within any Agricultural' Preservation Zoning District. 1959 SLOAN PLACE, 5T. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 812- 774 -6021 Ms. Miltz- Miller April 12, 1989 Page Two 6. There was a statement in the discussion of the development framework section about the fact that the existing streets within the City are in good condition. We would reference you to the 1989 Overlay and Patching Program which better clarifies existing street conditions. 7. When there is discussion of the requirement for multi -use trailways within any future development, a restriction of 4' width may not provide for a sufficient design for bicycles and pedestrians. If a wider design is considered, the City may wish to make the Developer responsible for the entire trail. 8. Within the Development Framework section under the East District, there was discussion regarding the discouraging of any development south of Clearwater Creek. This recommendation was supported, in part, by the fact that much of it is within a flood plain. It should be noted that the flood plain study may re- define the boundaries of the flood plain within this area. As a resUit any zoning recommendation or development restriction at this time may be premature. 9. Within the Plan Implementation Section it was indicated that lot building per phase of development should be limited to 25. This may be too restricting. Possibly a larger number, say up to 40, may be more appropriate. We see our involvement, once the Comprehensive Plan has been adopted, as helping the City in preparation of the Capital Improvement Program outlined in the Plan Update for streets and utilities. We feel it is important to note that we concur with the utility recommendations outlined in the Plan Update. We will be prepared to discuss the items listed as our comments regarding the plan at your convenience. Yours very truly, MA ER STEWART & ASSOCIATES, INC. Joh :. Stewart, P.E. JBS/jt • • BARRY L. BLOMQUIST LAW OFFICES NORTH BRANCH, MINNESOTA 55056 BARRY L. BLOMOUIST • PHONE: (812) 874 -8381 TIMOTHY J. PETERSON METRO: 462 -2121 March 30, 1989 Centerville City Council c/o Tamara Miltz- Miller Clerk /Administrator 1694 Sorel St. Centerville, MN 55038 Re: Review of proposed amended comprehensive plan update Dear Council Members: By letter dated March 23, 1989, you forwarded to me for review the proposed comprehensive plan update. I herewith respond to your request. Permit me to preface my review with two comments. First, I have limited my review to the legal considerations and ramifications which attend this proposed plan. You have wisely retained a professional planning consultant. Certainly, with that assistance and the good offices of your elected officials, committees and volunteers, it would be inappropriate for me to comment upon the plan except from the vantage point of the law. To the extent some of my comments address certain language used in the plan - -and they do- -those comments are made to address or avoid future legal issues. I will leave it to you and your consultant to determine their merit and whether any specific changes should result. Second, I should begin with an assumption that each local person involved in this process is intimately acquainted with the role and objects of a comprehensive plan. However, given the present anomalous view of comprehensive plans, both by the state legislature and state courts, it may be helpful -- certainly it will do no harm - -to provide you with some background information regarding comprehensive plans. I thus include a segment of a recent land use seminar by Robert L. Hoffman which discusses the present role of comprehensive plans and which suggests that this situation be corrected by future legislation. The anomaly simply put arises out of the distinction between comprehensive plans and land use plans as defined under M.S. 462.352, a copy of the relevant portion of which is also enclosed. Generally, the comprehensive plan determines the future make -up of the community; the "planning agency's recommendation for the future development of the community " - -land use plans (zoning ordinance, subdivision regulations, capital improvement plans, etc.) dictate by their implementation and enforcement the means by which that future development will be realized. As the Hoffman article discusses, the law requires comprehensive plans; however, both by legislation and by court decisions, if there is a conflict between the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance, the provisions of the zoning ordinance prevail. In one Minnesota court decision, the governmental body had no comprehensive plan; the court stated that the zoning ordinance could be construed as also constituting a comprehensive plan. As the Hoffman article suggests, we may soon see a change whereby a comprehensive plan will be given greater deference. Indeed, in the event of a conflict between a comprehensive plan and a zoning ordinance for example, the provisions of the comprehensive plan will prevail. Should that occur, the courts will likely shift their attention to the contents of the comprehensive plan in determining contested land use issues, a more thorough and careful process in the development of the plan and greater concern for the language used, which prompts my first general comment regarding this proposed plan. Comment 1 You will note in Section 3, the "Policy Plan ", the frequent use of mandatory phrases, in particular "shall be ", e.g. curb and gutter shall be provided on all urban streets and maintained in a good condition (p. 32, item 17). The format of this section of the plan is to formulate "goals" and to establish "policies" as the means of achieving those goals. See Introduction (p. 3). I would respectively submit that the policy statements should be couched in more discretionary language as opposed to self- imposed mandates, i.e. "should be" as opposed to "shall be ". Mandatory language should be reserved for the ordinances which will implement the comprehensive plan. My concern with this mandatory language is the impact it will have if made an issue in a court proceeding. For example, if the city is a party to litigation involving its land use ordinances, one can readily and easily envision the tactics of an opposing attorney merely addressing each of these mandatory, self - imposed obligations and inquiring as to whether or to what degree the city has complied with them. Picture yourself on the witness stand responding to repeated inquiries as to whether the city complied with these self- imposed obligations. It would be embarrassing (which city official would be knowledgeable about all of these self- imposed obligations) and it could be devastating as to the outcome of the litigation. By making these phrases discretionary, e.g. "should be ", or the equivalent, the policies may be retained. However, the Council may prioritize or otherwise be selective between those utilized as general guidelines and those vigorously pursued. -2- If the Council decides to vigorously pursue any number of these policies, they could then be self - imposed through the adoption of implementation ordinances or resolutions. Comment 2 These are specific comments to particular language referenced by page and item if numbered: 1. P. 8, #11 - consider "use of [future) easements" if you have existing private access easements. 2. P. 8, #13 - consider deleting "clearly" which also imposes a self- imposed and unnecessary standard. 3. P. 8, #20 - setback requirements for new development - as part of your transportation plan, you may wish to consider the provisions of M.S. 505.1792, a copy of which is enclosed, which permits the city to identify future streets. 4. P. 12, #14 - under M.S. 327, a political subdivision may not discriminate against manufactured homes, although their location may be addressed by non - discriminatory provisions of a zoning ordinance. You may wish to delete item #14 in its entirety, then by way of the zoning ordinance place restrictions on all single family, detached dwellings which is presently accepted. For example, it is permissible to require a minimum width for homes located in a single family district which applies to all such structures but effectively prohibits narrow manufactured homes. 5. P. 12, #21 - high density housing is frequently placed between single family residential districts and commercial districts as your proposed plan discusses in later sections. How does one determine whether the high density housing project is "utilized specifically as a buffer... "? The Council is leaving itself open to defending an allegation that this policy is being violated. You may wish to delete this item in its entirety. 6. P. 19, #1 - consider elimination of "to the greatest extent possible..." Your ordinances will assume compliance with- out exception. 7. P. 19, #5 - under M.S. 105.485(6), the city was required to adopt a municipal shoreland management ordinance on or before April 1, 1974. Assuming that the city has adopted such an ordinance approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources, any reference to the DNR's standard or any Anoka County ordinance is irrelevant. For that matter, as you are aware, county ordinances do not apply to lands -3- within the city. If the city has not adopted a shoreland management ordinance, one should be adopted. 8. P. 32, #17 - there is no definition in the plan for "urban streets ". Consider something akin to "curb and gutter may be required as to any street hereafter developed and as to any project on an existing street ". In conjunction with this comment, you may wish to review the provisions of M.S. 429.021 delineating those projects for which special assessments may be levied. As you are aware, unless a petition is received by the owners of not less than 35% in frontage of the real property abutting a street, a project to be assessed may not be ordered except upon a vote of 4/5 of the council. Rather than reviewing each policy which would require or permit special assess- ment projects, the council may wish to insert a separate policy which would limit the council's authority to under- take those projects only when the threshold requirements of the special assessment law have been complied with. Even eliminating the mandatory language "shall be" in this item and substituting "should be ", the council will not be confronted with the argument that curbs and gutters should be installed even though the cost could not be specially assessed. 9. P. 32, #18 - this is very strong language. While commendable, I suspect no councilperson would feel comfortable defending this policy on the witness stand faced with a proven violation of it. 10. P. 38, #1 - you may find an annual update difficult to maintain and perhaps unproductive. Does this policy require a written report? Perhaps something a little less demanding such as an annual review of the activities of each utility would be in order. 11. P. 38, #5 - I assume you are aware of the provisions of M.S. 272.67, a copy of which is attached, permitting the division of a city into urban and rural taxing districts. To my knowledge, Anoka is not a city of the first class; if not, this section may be utilized by the city. It is beneficial if a distinction is appropriate between lands rural in nature and lands urban in nature where the latter receive greater services than the former. 12. P. 39, #17 - I assume MUSA refers to the Municipal Utilities Service Area or its equivalent. Please consider placing the acronym immediately following the terms it identifies after their first use and where isolated. (My only legal concern is the time required to solve the puzzle, a puzzle for each -4- reader for the first time through.) 13. P. 45, last paragraph - if "assessed" is used in the general sense, perhaps "shall be borne,by" would be appropriate. 14. P. 46, #7 - you are by the language used in this item assuring an applicant that he or she will be fully educated as to all of the city's ordinances, policies, etc. It is in the interests of the city and of its land owners that the latter be aware of the city's land use ordinances, etc. However, you may wish to consider limiting your obligations under this item to make all such documents available to an applicant. Obviously, as part of the day -to -day operation of the city, city officials assist the residents in their efforts to comply with the city's plans and ordinances. However, to make that an obligation by a written policy may be construed as shifting the burden to the city that an applicant is fully informed. Thus, if an applicant fails to timely or properly complete his /her obligations, the city is at fault. 15. P. 48, #1 - the law requires that fair market value be paid for property condemned. To avoid any unjustified inferences, you should delete or qualify by adding "as determined by the parties or a court ". 16. P. 48, #3 - again, unjustified inferences may arise where the policy of the city is to provide such treatment and assistance to property owners. Indeed, you may be an adverse party to the property owner, particularly in the event of condemnation. Thus, you may be inconsistent, partial or inequitable in your treatment of a property owner. You may be precluded from rendering such "assistance ". This policy is if anything a goal; you may wish to delete it altogether. 17. P. 49, #4 and #5 - you may find these combined policies too restrictive. As you are aware, when a political unit makes it known that it is seeking a particular parcel of property, it is not unusual for the value of that parcel to suddenly increase -- sometimes substantially. It is not unknown for a political unit to utilize the service of a strawman to enter into a purchase agreement with the owner the strawman then assigning his interest in the purchase agreement to the city, thus resulting in substantial savings to the city. These acquisition policies eliminate such possibilities. Indeed, a resident taxpayer may question, indeed challenge, such restrictions. How can the council negotiate an acquisition if the property owner is provided with the city's appraisal? -5- Some of these policies may be relevant where highway acquisition is involved. However, that is state law and the city is bound by same. Otherwise, these policies provide little if any benefit and may place the city at a significant disadvantage. 18. P. 49, Land Disposition Policies - consider deletion of items #1 and #2; in whose view is a sale equitable? Obviously, the city must follow state law in such sales. 19. P. 51, #5 - again the self- imposed obligation to con- stantly monitor and update design guideline regulations appears unreasonable and may subject the city or its officials to necessary and frivilous criticism. Consider language less demanding such as a bi- annual review with the Planning Commission, etc. 20. P. 52, #3 - where public hearings are required, it may be beneficial to hold prior informational meetings; however, that is probably the exception and not the rule. An informational meeting requires the attendance of the council, the Planning Commission or some other body requiring the expenditure of time, money and resources. Such in- formational meetings should be discretionary, subject to the approval of the council. A word of caution is needed. Assuming you had or now have a sense of the role that the comprehensive plan plays in the development of the city, an in the drafting and enforcement of the implementing ordinances, it then becomes important to focus on the impact of that document upon the city council, the Planning Commission and any other appointed commission. It is well and good indeed the law requires that the city adopt a comprehensive plan. However, those involved in its adoption and implementation should not disregard the potential, adverse impact which attends that plan. It should be visionary in what it contemplates for the city. It should be conservative as to the burdens it imposes upon the city. The goals are visionary. It is the policies which must be carefully reviewed and drafted such that they may not be used against the city. If those policies are mandatory and constitute self - imposed obligations, view each in the context of whether you will be able to defend it if challenged. If those policies merely provide guidelines leaving the mandates to the implementation ordinances, then challenges are unlikely. Consider if and how you would defend each policy against an allegation that the city has failed to follow same. If you are comfortable that the policy can be defended or no defense is necessary, that policy is one with which the city can proceed. -6- 0 As is customary, should you have any questions or comments concerning this review, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Sine, / prely, ; :) CIAA-4 Re le-v-,ItAA-1-1 ' Barry L. lomquist i( njs enc • • -7-