Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/2009 AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 17, 2009 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. March 3, 2009 5. Public Hearings 6. New Business a. City Attorney Discussion-Open Meeting Law b. 2008 Annual Report 7. Unfinished Business a. Community Gardens CUP Status Report b. Comprehensive Plan Update Discussion 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. Commissioner Report on the March 9, 2009 City Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson was scheduled to attend but was not needed since the proposal, the Mountain of Fire and Miracle Ministries CUP on Rice Street, was postponed at the property owner's request. b. Upcoming City Council Meeting of March 23, 2009: Item scheduled at this time is the Proposed Rezoning from R1 R to R1S by Tyrus Land Company, for Property South of Carver Avenue. Commissioner Trippler is scheduled to attend. 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, MARCH 3,2009 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Commissioner Joseph Boeser Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Robert Martin Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Joe Walton Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Present Present Present Absent Present Present Present by telephone Absent Present City Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, City Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the amended agenda tabling item 6.a.-City Attorney Discussion. Commissioner Boeser seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. February 17, 2009 Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the minutes of February 17, 2009 as submitted. Commissioner Desai seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all V. PUBLIC HEARING a. 7:10p.m. - Conditional Use Permit-Community Gardens Proposal, Southwest Corner County Road C and Hazelwood Street City Planner Ekstrand presented the staff report for the request for a conditional use permit by the city and First Evangelical Free Church to put in community garden plots on vacant property the Church owns at the southwest corner of County Road C and Hazelwood Street. Commissioner Boeser asked if the entire property is owned by the Church. Staff responded that, except for the center land-locked parcel, the land is owned by the Church. Commissioner Boeser asked how staff decided on the dimensions for the parking lot and gardens and suggested moving the parking lot towards Hazelwood by making it longer and narrower. Mr. Boeser said the gardens could then be moved over which would address some of the neighbors' concerns. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-09 -2- Planner Ekstrand responded that city engineering staff designed the site and placed the parking lot in that area to keep it on the degraded part of the site. Planner Ekstrand said the site south of the proposed parking lot was considered for the gardens, but it is a low spot and staff felt the site west of the proposed parking lot would be a better location since it was already tilled from last year. Planner Ekstrand said this is a large site with room to make adjustments if the commission wishes to modify the proposal. Commissioner Desai mentioned there are only 25 parking spaces designated and 80 garden plots and suggested that the 25 spaces may not be enough on weekends. Planner Ekstrand said staff spoke with other cities having garden plots and also considered what Maplewood required with previous years' garden plot rentals. Mr. Ekstrand said this issue was reviewed by staff and it was decided that 25 spaces would be sufficient. Mr. Ekstrand said there is room to add more parking spaces to the proposed site if the commission feels it is necessary. Commissioner Trippler questioned whether the expense of these garden plots was economical for the city and why the city does not charge more for the plots to cover the expenses. Planner Ekstrand responded that the cost to rent a garden plot was compared with what other cities are charging and Maplewood's past experience with garden plot rentals. Commissioner Trippler said he lives across the street from where the garden plot would be located and although he does not have a problem with the location, he is concerned with having a gravel parking lot and who would be responsible for repairs if it turned to a mud bath. Commissioner Trippler asked if the city would provide protection for the garden plots during the July Fourth fireworks celebration. Planner Ekstrand said this has not been considered, but it will be reviewed by staff. Commissioner Martin asked if any other commissions would be reviewing this request. Planner Ekstrand said that the park commission reviewed this request at their last meeting and will review the lease agreement, but the planning commission tonight needs to consider whether this is an appropriate land use. The applicant, John Gregerson of First Evangelical Free Church, said that the church wants to offer the use of this property to the community until the land is needed for church expansion. The public hearing was opened for comments from the public; the following people spoke: George Rossbach, 1406 County Road C East, said he does not see any problems for the neighborhood. Mr. Rossbach asked how long the CUP would exist and if the CUP would change the area's R-1 zoning. Planner Ekstrand responded that to be cost effective, the city would want to have the CUP for garden plots for about five years. Mr. Ekstrand said the CUP would not affect the zoning. Commissioner Martin asked if the applicant could install the permanent parking lot for the church expansion now, rather than the city investing in a temporary parking lot. Planner Ekstrand said this was looked into, but the church does not yet have their site designed for the future church campus and does not know where the building or parking lot will be located. Roger Vannelli, 1448 County Road C East (owner of the land-locked adjacent parcel), said he did not expect his neighboring property to become a commercial operation and questioned if this will hurt his property value. Mr. Vannelli said he has concerns with traffic, vandalism and the increased number of people. Mr. Vannelli said his property is a rental property and he is concerned the gardens will affect his rental income. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-09 -3- Commissioner Boeser asked if Mr. Vannelli owns this driveway property or if it has a right-of-way easement. Mr. Vannelli responded that he has a driveway easement. Commissioner Boeser said this request is proposed with a property line setback that should not conflict with the easement requirements. Commissioner Boeser said that concerns might be eased if the parking lot and gardens were reconfigured to be farther to the east, but mentioned that this site has been farmed for many previous years. Marilyn Duhaime, 2608 Hazelwood Street, asked who would be eligible for the gardens and how the public would be notified for rentals. Planner Ekstrand responded that the plots would be advertised on the city's website and newsletter and there would be a limit on how many plots a person could rent. Ms. Duhaime asked if there would be controls for sites not cared for and if pesticides would be regulated. Planner Ekstrand said that control of pesticides and requiring plots be kept clean has been discussed by staff and would be included in the plot rental lease. Ms. Duhaime suggested that a sign be added to let the public know these are private garden plots. Ms. Duhaime said she is concerned whether there will be enough water supplied to meet the needs and also with parking overflow on Hazelwood Street. Commissioner Martin said that since the city has had rental garden plots in previous years, there should be past rules and regulations in place to refer to. Staff concurred. Commissioner Boeser said the city needs to be clear when contracting with the church and with the renters of the plots as to who is responsible for what and the ramifications if those things are not done. Ms. Duhaime asked about construction noise with the preparation of the site. Planner Ekstrand responded that there would be city trucks preparing the garden site initially and the parks department plans to till the site before the garden plots are rented. Ron Cockriel, 943 Century Avenue, suggested the garden plots be located north of the ball fields on the southwest side of the site so the church parking lot could be rented and utilized. George Rossbach responded saying that the distance might be too great at this suggested southwest location for the gardeners to haul equipment and that using this land for community gardens will prevent the land from becoming overgrown with weeds. The applicant, John Gregerson, spoke again saying the church does not want to profit from this proposal and would lease the site to the city at no cost. Mr. Gregerson said there are volunteers at the church who would like to help keep the property clean. Mr. Gregerson said that Phil Oswald has asked to plant corn on the adjacent area of the site for at least one more year and he volunteered to till the garden site also. Commissioner Boeser said that if this proposal were delayed for a year, the site could be planted with corn for this year, it would appease the homeowner, allow time to address concerns and issues with County Road C and Hazelwood, and the city would not have the financial expense. Commissioner Trippler mentioned that using the church parking lot may be a problem since the gardeners would want to use the church parking lot on the weekends, which is a busy time for the church. Mr. Gregerson responded that the parking on Sunday is not being used by the church for any church function, but is from another group using the lot. Mr. Gregerson said the paved parking lot adjacent to the site is now owned by Twin City Bible Church and Mr. Gregerson has not been able to reach someone from that church to discuss parking. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-09 -4- There were no further comments by the public; the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Trippler said he likes the idea of the community gardens, but thinks the proposal needs more study. Commissioner Pearson said he feels the expenses of this project do not justify doing it. Mr. Pearson said he does not see a positive effect for the city and sees the potential for criticism. Mr. Pearson suggested that a deposit be required on the plots that would not be returned until the plot was cleaned at the end of the season. John Gregerson spoke again saying that delaying this project for a year would not be a problem for the church, but that he has heard from many people interested in renting a garden plot. Commissioner Boeser moved to table this request until the next meeting to allow staff time to make suggested revisions to the proposal. Commissioner Pearson seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all b. 8:30 p.m. Rezoning Request-R-1R, Rural Single Dwelling Residential, to R-1S, Small Lot Single Dwelling Residential, for the property east of 2510 Carver Avenue Planner Ekstrand presented the staff report for this request from Jamie Jensen of Tyrus Land Company for a rezoning from R-1 R, Rural Single-Dwelling Residence District to R-1 S, Small Lot Single-Dwelling District on the south side of Carver Avenue east of 251 0 Carver Avenue. Commissioner Pearson said that the R-1 S zoning designation was originally created as a transition to be a bridge between commercial and the R-1 designation and this request does not meet that standard. Commissioner Yarwood asked staff why there were not more citizen comments listed in the staff report and if a survey was mailed. Planner Ekstrand said the neighborhood was notified of the public hearing tonight, but it was considered redundant to send a survey since this information was mailed to the neighbors previously. Mr. Yarwood said this requested rezoning is not consistent with the past several years of planning by the city or the vision of the community for the area of south Maplewood. Commissioner Trippler said he agrees with Commissioner Yarwood's comments and does not see any justification for granting an R-1 S designation for this request. Mr. Trippler said he will vote to deny this request. Commissioner Boeser said he agrees with Commissioner Yarwood's comments. Commissioner Boeser referred to several items in the applicant's letter that he challenged. Mr. Boeser responded to the applicant's letter mentioning that the applicant's comment that his proposed rezoning is in the spirit of the zoning code is inaccurate, corrected the applicant that the planning commissioners are not elected officials but are residents appointed by the city council, and that in reviewing the existing land use map it clearly shows there are no variances from the R-1 R zoning designation abutting or surrounding the site. Mr. Boeser said he will vote to deny this request. Commissioner Martin suggested this proposal might be reconsidered under the new ordinance that would allow conservation principles to be applied for density incentives. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-09 -5- Commissioner Boeser asked if this request is affected by the new R-1 R ordinance. Planner Ekstrand said the city attorney has advised that the new R-1 R ordinance does apply to this rezoning request. Planner Ekstrand said the applicant's rezoning request for consideration tonight is for the R-1 S zoning and not for the new R-1 R zoning designation. The applicant, Jamie Jensen of Tyrus Land Company, was not present at the meeting and did not have a representative present. The public hearing was opened for public comments. The following people spoke: Jim Kerrigan, 2620 Carver Avenue, said he is against this requested rezoning and that the applicant has been informed and had plenty of opportunity to voice his opinion for a higher density on his site at any of the various public meetings that have been held previously. John Nephew, 628 County Road B East, said he acquired zoning information from the League of Minnesota Cities and he read the state law on standard of review for zoning applications. Mr. Nephew explained that the city would not be required to change the zoning unless the applicant could prove there is something fundamentally wrong with the existing ordinance and that he is entitled to the change. There were no further public comments; the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Boeser moved to deny the proposed zoning map change from R-1 R, Rural Single Dwelling Residence District to R-1 S, Small Lot Single Dwelling District, for the proposed conceptual 16-lot Saint Clair Hills single-dwelling housing development east of 2510 Carve Avenue, based on the following reasons: 1. A rezoning would not be consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code which is to provide larger lots. 2. The proposed R-1 S zoning would not be in character with the neighborhood since this neighborhood is not developed with lots of this small size. 3. The proposed change would not serve the best interests of the community since the city council, based on substantial citizen input, has determined that a lower density in this neighborhood is preferred. 4. The proposed change is not consistent with the current or future comprehensive plan. Commissioner Martin seconded Commissioner Pearson referred to the fact that the R-1 S zoning was not designed for this requested kind of application in the first place. The commission voted: The motion passed. Ayes - all VI. NEW BUSINESS None VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes of 03-03-09 -6- None VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Commissioner Martin reported on the February 23 city council meeting. b. March 9 City Council Meeting - Commissioner Pearson will attend. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:16 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Planning Commission Shann Finwall, AICP, Environmental Planner Open Meeting Law Discussion February 25, 2009 for the March 3 Planning Commission Meeting The Minnesota Open Meeting Law (Minnesota Statutes, section 130) requires that meetings of governmental bodies generally be open to the public. The Minnesota Supreme Court has articulated three purposes of the law: 1. Prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed about a public board's decision or to detect improper influences. 2. To assure the public's right to be informed. 3. To afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body. Alan Kantrud, city attorney, will be present at the March 3 Planning Commission meeting to summarize the MinnesotaOpen Meeting Law and how it impacts the commission. Attachments: 1. Minnesota House of Representatives Open Meeting Law Information Brief 2. Minnesota Open Meeting Law 3. Alan Kantrud Open Meeting Law White Sheet (2-3-09) A-tt-QGh mer1'f-- 1 ~~Im<JF'" Research Department ""M............"'-1;I..u_.,.'k"'.,._"..'A!!i.~..i.ves.. ~~,...m'~~~~~J~~~~>-J~M:IU~'f~~:j 600 State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 Deborah A. Dyson, Legislative Analyst 651-296-8291 Revised~& Minnesota Open Meeting Law iIl'li~1lI,~_~.a\Wl,,'equires that meetings of governmental bodies generally be open to the public. The Minnesota Supreme Court has articulated three purposes of the law: · To prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed about a public board's decisions or to detect improper influences . To assure the public's right to be informed · To afford the public an opportunity to present its views to the public body' This information brief discusses the groups and types of meetings covered by the open meeting law, and then reviews the requirements of and exceptions to the law and the penalties for its violation. Contents Groups and Meetings Governed by the Open Meeting Law ...................................2 Requirements ofthe Open Meeting Law.................................................................5 Exceptions to the Open Meeting Law......................................................................7 Penalties........................................ ......................... .............................................. ..11 Advice ....................................................................................................................12 1 Minn. Stat. ch. 13D (recoded from Minn. Stat. ~ 471.705 in 2000). The Minnesota Open Meeting Law was originally enacted in Laws 1957, chapter 773, section I. , Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N. W.2d 729, 735 (Minn. 2002) (citing St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Community Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. t983)). While the courts consistently say that the open meeting law is to afford the puhlic an opportunity to present its views to the public body, there is no general right for members ofthe public to speak at a meeting. Some statutes, and perhaps some home rule charters, specify that a hearing on a particular matter must be hetd at which anyone who wishes to address the public body may do so. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. ~ 117.0412, subd. 2. Copies of this publication may be obtained by calling 651-296-6753. This document can be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities by calling 651-296-6753 or the Minnesota State Relay Service at 711 or 1-800-627-3529 (TTY). Many House Research Department publications are also available on the Internet at: www.house.mn/hrd/hrd.htm. House Research Department Minnesota Open Meeting Law Revised: November 2008 Page 2 Groups and Meetings Governed by the Open Meeting Law The law applies to al11evels of state and local government. The open meeting law applies to: . a state agency, board, commission, or department when it is required or permitted by law to transact public business in a meeting; . the governing body of any school district, unorganized territory, county, city, town, or other public body; . a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission of a public body subject to the law; and . the governing body or a committee of a statewide or local public pension plan.' "Public body" is not defined but the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that "[i]n common understanding, 'public body' is possibly the broadest expression for the category of governmental entities that perform functiOnS for the public benefit.'" In determining whether the open meeting law applies to a particular entity, one should look at all of the entity's characteristics. For example, in a 1998 case, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that because the statute authorizing creation of a municipal power agency authorized an agency to conduct its affairs as a private corporation, it could hold closed meetings.' The court held so notwithstanding the statute that provides for municipal power agencies to be political subdivisions ofthe state.' The open meeting law and the Government Data Practices Act apply to the University of Minnesota Board of Regents, and the application of these laws to the university does not violate the university's constitutional autonomy.' 'Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.Ol, subd. 1. 'Star Tribune Co. v. University afMinnesota Board of Regents, 683 N.W.2d 274, 280 (Minn. 2004). , Southern Minn. Mun. Power Agency v. Boyne, 578 N.W.2d 362, 364 (Minn. 1998) (citing Minn. Stat. ~ 453.54, subd. 21, and discussing the factors that distinguish a pubtic corporation from a private corporation). 'Minn. Stat. ~ 453.53, subd. 1, ~ (I) (The agency agreement shall state: "(1) That the municipal power agency is created and incorporated. .. as a municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the state, to exercise thereunder a part of the sovereigu powers of the state;"). . , Star Tribune Co., 683 N.W.2d 274. In 2002, Mark Yudofresigued from the presidency of the University of Minnesota. When fmalists for the position had been selected but not announced, the Board of Regents closed a meeting to interview them, ensuring their privacy. The university asserted that its constitutional autonomy meant it was not subject to these laws. A number of newspapers sued, claiming that the university is subject to the open meeting law and data practices act, and that it violated both taws. The district court and court of appeats agreed with the newspapers, and the state supreme court affirmed those decisions. House Research Department Minnesota Open Meeting Law Revised: November 2008 Page 3 The law generally applies to nonprofit corporations created by governmental entities. The list of groups covered by the open meeting law does not refer to nonprofit corporations created by a governmental entity. However, the law creating a specific public nonprofit corporation may specify that it is subject to the open meeting law.' In addition, corporations created by political subdivisions are clearly subject to the open meeting law.' Gatherings ofless than a quorum of a public body are not subject to the law; a "meeting" is held when the group is capable of exercising decision-making powers. . The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the open meeting law applies only to a quorum or more of members ofthe governing body or a committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission ofthe governing body." Serial meetings in groups ofless than a quorum held in order to avoid open meeting law requirements may also be found to be a violation, depending on the facts of the case.l1 A public body subject to the law should be cautious about using e-mail to communicate with other members of the body. Although the statote does not specifically address the use of e-mail, it is likely that the court would analyze use of e-mail in the same way as it has telephone conversations and letters.12 That is, communication about official business through telephone conversations or letters by a quorum of a public body subject to the law would violate the law. Serial communication through telephone conversations or letters by less than a quorum with the intent to avoid a public hearing or to come to an agreement on an issue relating to official business could also violate the law. In a 1993 case, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the open meeting law was not violated when two of five city council men;tbers attended private mediation sessions related to city 8 E.g., Minn. Stat. !l!l62Q.03, subd. 6 (Minnesota Risk Adjustment Association); 1160.03, subd. 5 (Minnesota Technotogy, Inc.); t t6V.OI, subd. 10 (Agricultural Utilization Research Institute); t t6S.02, subds. 6 and 7 (Minnesota Business Finance, Inc.); 124D.385, subd. 4 (Minnesota Commission on National and Community Service may create a nonprofit b\lt it is subject to the open meeting law); 128C.22 (State High School League); and Laws 1990, ch. 535, !l2, subd. 6 (Lake Superior Center Authority). 9 Minn. Stat. !l465.719, subd. 9 (enacted by Laws 2000, ch. 455, art. I, !l2, subd. 9). A 1986 attorney general opinion stated that the open meeting law did not apply to nonprofit corporations created by politicat subdivisions. Op. Att'y Gen. 92a-30, Jan. 29, 1986. The 1999 Legislature established a task force to recommend legislation in 2000, governing corporations created by politicat subdivisions. Laws 1999, ch. 186. Among other things, the 2000 legislation addressed the issue of application ofthe open meeting law, stating that the law applied and a corporation created by a political subdivision cannot be exempted from it. 10 Moberg v. Independent School Dist. No. 281,336 N.W.2d 510 (Minn. 1983). 11 Id at 518; see also Mankato Free Press Co. v. City of North Mankato, 563 N.W.2d 291, 295 (Minn. App. 1997). On remand to the district court for a factual finding on whether the city used serial interviews to avoid the open meeting law, the trial court found, and the court of appeals affIrmed, that the serial meetings were not held to avoid the taw. Mankato Free Press Co. v. City of North Mankato, 1998 WL 865714 (Minn. App. 1998) (unpublished opinion). 12 Moberg, 336 N.W.2d at 518. The Commissioner of Administration stated in a July 9, 2008, opinion that an e-mail sent to all members of a city council was effectivety "printed material" that should be available to members of the public and also suggested that the legislature revise the statute to recoguize the use of electronic and other types of communications. Minn. Dept. of Admin. Advisory Op. 08-15. House Research Department Minnesota Open Meeting Law Revised: November 2008 Page 4 business. The court determined that the two council members did not constitute a committee or subcommittee ofthe council because the group was not capable of exercising decision-making powers." The law applies to informational meetings. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that the open meeting law applies to all gatherings of members of a governing body, regardless of whether or not action is taken or contemplated. Thus, a gathering of members of a public body for an informational seminar on matters currently facing the body or that might come before the body must be conducted openly.I4 However, a 1975 attorney general opinion stated that city council attendance at a League of Minnesota Cities training program for city officials did not violate the open meeting law ifthe members did not discuss specific municipal business.Is Under a 2007 law, it appears that informational meetings of the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources may be c10sed.I6 The law does not cover chance or social gatherings. The open meeting law does not apply to chance or social gatherings of members ofa public body.17 However, a quorum of a public body may not, as a group, discuss or receive information on official business in any setting under the guise of a private social gathering. IS The law does not apply to certain types of advisory groups. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has held that the open meeting law does not apply to certain types of advisory groupS.I9 In that case, a presidential search advisory committee to the University of Minnesota Board of Regents was held not to be a committee ofthe governing body for purposes of the open meeting l-!lw. In reaching its holding, the court pointed out that no regents were on the search committee and that the committee had no power to set policy or make a final decision. It is not clear if a court would reach the same result if members of the governing body were also on the advisory committee. Depending on the number of members of the governing body involved and on the form of the delegation of authority from the governing 13 Sovereign v. Dunn, 498 N.W.2d 62 (Minn. App. 1993). 14 St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc. v. District 742 Cmty. Schools, 332 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 1983). 15 Op. Att'y Gen. 63a-5, Feb. 5, 1975. 16 Minn. Stat. S 116P.08, subd. 5 ("(a) Meetings of the commission, committees or subcommittees of the commission, technical advisory committees, and peer review panels must be open to the public. The commission shall attempt to meet throughout various regions of the state during each biennium. For purposes of this subdivision, a meeting occurs when a quorum is present and action is taken regarding a matter within the jurisdiction of the commission, a committee or subcommittee of the commission, a technical advisory committee, or a peer review panel. (b) For legislative members of the commission, enforcement of this subdivision is governed by section 3.055, subdivision 2. For nonlegislative members of the commission, enforcement of this subdivision is governed by section 13D.06, subdivisions I and 2." (emphasis added)). 17 St. Cloud Newspapers, Inc., 332 N.W.2d at 7. 18 Moberg, 336 N.W.2d at 518. 19 The Minnesota Daily v. University of Minnesota, 432 N.W.2d t89 (Minn. App. 1988). House Research Department Minnesota Open Meeting Law Revised: November 2008 Page 7 . Make good faith efforts to notify news media that have filed written requests (with telephone numbers) for notice of emergency meetings (special meetings called because of circumstances that require immediate consideration)" The same notice requirements apply to closed meetings." For state agencies, absent any other specific law governing notice, publication requirements can be satisfied by publishing notice in the State Register." The law requires relevant materials to be publicly available. The open meeting law requires that for open meetings, at least one copy of any printed material prepared by the public body and distributed or available to all members of the public body also be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public. This requirement does not apply to materials that are classified as other than public under the Government Data Practices Act. 33 Exceptions to the Open Meeting Law A closed meeting, except one closed under the attorney-client privilege, must be electronically recorded. at the expense of the public body. Unless otherwise provided by law, the recordings must be preserved for at least three years after the date of the meeting.34 The law does not apply to state agency disciplinary hearings. The open meeting law does not apply to any state agency, board, or cornmission when exercising quasi-judicial functions involving' disciplinary hearings." Certain meetings involving employee evaluation or discipline must be closed. A public body must close meetings for preliminary consideration of allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority.36 If the members of the public body conclude that discipline may be warranted as a result of those charges, further meetings or hearings relating to Administration stated that a public body's actions at a special meeting are limited to those topics included in the notice of special meeting. Minnesota Department of Administration Advisory Opinion 04-004. 30 Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.04, subd. 3. " Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.04, subd. 5. " Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.04, subd. 6. 33 Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.01, subd. 6. 34 Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, subd. 1, cl. (d). " Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.01, subd. 2 (2); see also Zahavy v. University a/Minnesota, 544 N.W.2d 32, 41-42 (Minn. App. 1996). 36 Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, subd. 2 (b). House Research Department Minnesota Open Meeting Law Revised: November 2008 Page 5 body to the members, a court might consider the advisory committee to be a committee of the governing body. A separate law applies to the legislatnre. In 1990, the legislature passed a law separate from the open meeting law that requires all legislative meetings be open to the public.20 The law applies to House and Senate floor sessions and to meetings of committees, subcommittees, conference committees, and legislative commissions. For purposes ofthis law, a meeting occurs when a quorum is present and action is taken regarding a matter within the jurisdiction of the group. Each house of the legislature must adopt rules to implement these requirements. Remedies provided under these rules are the exclusive means of enforcing this law. Requirements of the Open Meeting Law The primary requirement ofthe open meeting law is that meetings be open to the public. The law also requires that votes in open meetings be recorded in a journal and that the journal be open to the public. The vote of each member must be recorded on appropriations of money, except for payments of judgments and claims and amounts fixed by statute.2! A straw ballot to narrow the list of candidates for city administrator and not made public was held to be a secret vote in violation ofthe open meeting law." Open meetings must be held in a public place within the borders of the public body." Meetings may be held by interactive television if specified conditions are met to ensure openness and accessibility for those who wish to attend." Specific agencies have broader authority to hold meetings by telephone conference call or other electronic means as long as,specified conditions are met to ensure openness and accessibility for those who wish to attend. In addition, a meeting of any public body may be conducted by telephone or other electronic means if a health pandemic or other emergency makes meeting in person impractical or imprudent and all of the same conditions as for other meetings held by telephone conference call or other electronic means are met, unless unfeasible due to the pandemic or emergency. In general, those conditions include the following: 20 Minn. Stat. ~ 3.055 (added by Laws t990, ch. 608, art. 6, ~ I). 2! Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.OI, subds. 4 and 5. " Mankato Free Press Co., 563 N.W.2d at 295-96. " Quastv. Knutson, ISO N.W.2d t99, 200 (Minn. 1967) (school board meeting held 20 miles outside the jurisdiction ofthe school board at a private office did not comply with open meeting law; consolidation proceedings were fatally defective because the resolution by which the proceedings were initiated was not adopted at a public meeting as required by law). "Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.02. See a/so Minn, Stat. ~ 471.59, subd. 2 Goint powers board for educational purposes). House Research Department Minnesota Open Meeting Law Revised: November 2008 Page 6 . All members ofthe body can hear one another and can hear all discussion and testimony . Members of the public at the regular meeting location can hear all discussion, testimony, and votes . At least one member of the body, chief legal counsel, or chief administrative officer is present at the regular meeting location . All votes are conducted by roll call . The public body must allow a person to monitor the meeting electronically from another location. The body may require the person to pay for any documented additional costs the body incurs as a result of the additional connection . The public body must give notice of the regular meeting location, of the fact that some members may participate by telephone or other electronic means, and of the right of the public to monitor the meeting from another location" The law requires public bodies to give notice oftheir meetings. In 1974, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that failure to give notice ofa meeting is a violation of the open meeting law.26 The court has also held that it is a violation of the open meeting law to condu~t business before the time publicly announced for a meeting.27 In 1987, the legislature spelled out the notice requirements in statute for regular, special, emergency, and closed meetings. Ml!Ilrllll][~itilS]'jjj;1iI'S1ll~l\\\j~i'f0i1fIilMliI~ ''''''''''='-'''''-mN''''''''''''}~l''M"-....--tIH .. '"" -""--""t'.1.""~"2@ . '"""ep,~eHe"'thvs..'O'G"~5_ :u,,~~,e.. ",gs.tQP;,1lJ!',<;;;lUl"i.",,,,,,,,,,nL"'''s, . ~.R. ;.'0.'lll1'J1.).t1~""j....,,~ti"~"iiil!ilif"'s"!tiI""'iw"''''j,,",,1FI1s''i''''~@K'''''~.tIiUl'fI!l~&"'-"F#"",,""""'lllr' '__~'#~"'i"",=,",~"~""~,.,,<M!<A't1iL,-<<,,,>I,1tI.'.____J;:;"~- -_ ,6"t:'_""_,__~,*,"'~_^_e09!,'.!Lt~...~i:.a':!> ~F - ,k..WU~{'~M&-"'!;I&~~,t " Minn. Stat. ~~ 13D.021 (health pandemic, other emergency); 35.0661 (Board of Animal Health during restricted travel for animal health reasons); 41A.0235 (Minnesota Agricultural and Economic Development Board); 41B.026 (Rural Finance Agency); 116J.68, subd. 5 (Small Business Devetopment Center Advisory Board); 116L.03, subd. 8 (Minnesota Jobs Skills Partnership Board); I t6L.665, subd. 2a (Governor's Workforce Development Council); 116M.15, subd. 5 (Urban Initiative Board); 116U.25 (Explore Minnesota Tourism Council); 129C.I05 (Perpich Center for Arts Education); 248.10 (Rehabilitation Council for the Blind); 256.482, subd. 5b (Minnesota State Council on Disability); 256.975, subd. 2a. (Minnesota Board on Aging); 256C.28, subd. 7 (Commission of Deaf, Deaf-Blind, and Hard of Hearing Minnesotans); 268A.02, subd. 3 (State Rehabilitation Council and Statewide Independent Living Council); 326B.32, subd. 7 (Board of Electricity); 326B.435, subd. 7 (Board of Plumbing); 341.26 (Combative Sports Commissiou); 462A.04 I (Minnesota Housing Finance Agency). 26 Sullivan V. Credit River Township, 217 N.W.2d 502 (t974). 27 Merz V. Leitch, 342 N.W.2d 141, 145 (Minn. t984). 28 Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.04, subd. I (~ 13D.04, previously ~ 471.705, subd. tc, was added by Laws 1987, ch. 313, ~ I). 29 Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.04, subd. 2; Rupp V. Mayasich, 533 N.W.2d 893 (Minn. App. t995) (bulletin board must be reasonably accessible to the public). A February 3, 2004, advisory opinion by the Commissioner of House Research Department Minnesota Open Meeting Law Revised: November 2008 Page 8 the charges must be open. Meetings must also be open at the request ofthe individual who is the subject ofthe meeting. Statutes other than the open meeting law may permit or require closed meetings for certain local governmental bodies to conduct specific kinds of disciplinary hearings. For example, school board hearings held to discharge or demote a teacher are private unless the affected teacher wants a public hearing." A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individual who is subject to its authority." Before closing a meeting, the public body must identify the individual to be evaluated. The public body must summarize the conclusions ofthe evaluation at its next open meeting. An evaluation meeting must be open at the request of the subject of the meeting. A meeting must be closed if an individual's medical records governed by Minnesota Statutes, section 144.291 to 144.298, are discussed." A meeting may be closed to discuss labor negotiations. The open meeting law permits a public body to hold a closed meeting to discuss strategy and proposals for labor negotiations conducted under the Public Employment Labor Relations Act.'" The statute specifies procedures for tape-recording of these meetings, and for the recordings to become public when negotiations are completed.4l Another law permits the Commissioner ofthe Bureau of Mediation Services to close negotiations and mediation sessions between public employers and public employees. These negotiations are public meetings, unless the commissioner closes them." The law permits closed meetings. based on a limited attorney-client privilege. In 1976, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that there is a limited exception, based on the attorney-client privilege, for meetings to discuss strategy for threatened or pending litigation." In 1990, the legislature added the attorney-client exception to the open meeting law." Although the statute is not limited, the court has since held that the scope ofthe exception remains limited in relation to the open meeting law." "Minn. Stat. ~ 122AA1, subd. 9. " Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, subd. 3(a). "Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, subd. 2. '" Minu. Stat. ~ 13D.03, subd. 1. 4l Minn. Stat. ~ t3D.03, subd. 2. "Minn. Stat. ~ 179A.14, subd. 3. 43 Minneapolis Star & Tribune CO. V. Housing & Redevelopment Auth., 251 N.W.2d 620, 626 (1976). "Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, subd. 3(b) (added by Laws 1990, ch. 550 ~ 2). " Star Tribune V. Board of Ed, Special School Dist. No.1, 507 N.W.2d 869 (Minn. App. t993) review denied (Minn. Dec. 22, 1993). The court of appeals did not accept the argument that the statutory exception encompassed the full attorney-client privitege because tbat would result in the exception swallowing the rule in favor of open meetings. In 2002, the Minnesota Supreme Court restated that the attorney-client privilege exception only applies House Research Department Minnesota Open Meeting Law Revised: November 2008 Page 9 The attorney-client privilege exception does not apply to a mere request for general legal advice. Nor does it apply when a governing body seeks to discuss with its attorney the strengths and weaknesses of a proposed legislative enactment (like a city ordinance) that may lead to future lawsuits because that can be vi~wed as general legal advice. Furthermore, discussion of proposed legislation is just the sort of discussion that should be public." In order to close a meeting under the attorney-client privilege exception, the governing body must give a particularized statement describing the subject to be discussed. A general statement that the meeting is being closed to discuss pending or threatened litigation is not sufficient.47 A meeting may be closed to address certain security issues. If disclosure of the information discussed would pose a danger to public safety or compromise security procedures or responses, a meeting may be closed to: . receive security briefings and reports, . discuss issues related to security systems, . discuss emergency response procedures, and · discuss security deficiencies in or recommendations regarding public services, infrastructure, and facilities. Before closing a meeting, the public body must refer to the facilities, systems, procedures, services, or infrastructures to be considered during the closed meeting. A closed meeting must be tape-recorded at the expense of the governing body, and the recording must be preserved for at least four years. Financial issues related to security matters must be discussed and all related financial decisions must be made at an open meeting.4B when the purposes for the exception outweigh the purposes of the open meeting law. In that case, the city council was threatened with a lawsuit if it did not grant a request. The court found that the threat of a lawsuit did not warrant closing the meeting. Prior Lake American v. Mader, 642 N.W.2d 729 (Minn. 2002) (en banc). Cf Brainerd Daily Dispatch v. Dehen, 693 N.W.2d 435 (Minn. App. 2005) (applying analysis of StarTribune and Prior Lake American, finding threats were sufficiently specific and imminent that confidential consultation with legal counsel appointed by city's insurer to discuss defense strategy or reconciliation to address a threatened lawsuit justified closing the meeting). " Northwest Publications, Inc. v. City o/St. Paul, 435 N.W.2d 64,68 (Minn. App. t989); Star Tribune, 507 N.W.2d at 872. 47 The Free Press v. County o/Blue Earth, 677 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. App. 2004). 4B Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, subd. 3. House Research Oepartment Minnesota Open Meeting Law Revised: November 2008 Page 10 A meeting may be closed to discuss certain issues relating to government property sales or purchases. A public body may close a meeting to: . determine the asking price for real or personal property to be sold by the government entity; . review confidential or nonpublic appraisal data; and . develop or consider offers or counteroffers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property. Before holding a closed meeting, the public body must identify on the record the particular property that is the subject of the closed meeting. The proceedings must be tape-recorded at the expense ofthe public body. The recording must be preserved for eight years after the date ofthe meeting and made available to the public after all property discussed at the meeting has been purchased or sold or the governing body has abandoned the purchase or sale. The property that is the subject of the closed meeting must be specifically identified on the tape. A list of members and all other persons present at the closed meeting must be made available to the public after the closed meeting. If an action is brought claiming that public business other than discussions allowed under this exception was transacted at a closed meeting held during the time when the tape is not available to the public, the court would review the recording ofthe meeting in camera and either dismiss the action if the court fmds no violation, or permit use of the recording at trial (subject to protective orders) if the court finds there is a vio1ation.49 An agreement reached that is based on an offer considered at a closed meeting is contingent on approval of the public body at an qpen meeting. The actual purchase or sale must be approved at an open meeting after the notice period required by statute or the governing body's internal procedures, and the purchase price or sale price is public data. 50 There is a narrow exception for certain meetings of public hospital boards. Boards of public hospitals and certain health organizations may close meetings to discuss competitive market activities and contracts.'1 On-site inspections by town board members are not subject to the law. The law does not apply to a gathering oftown board members to perform on-site inspections, if the town has no employees or other staff able to perform the inspections and the town board is acting essentially in a staff capacity. The town board must make good faith efforts to provide notice of the inspections to the media that have filed a written request, including a telephone 49 Minn. Stat. ~ 130.05, subd. 3, referring to ~ 130.03, subd. 3. 50 Minn. Stat. ~ 130.05, subd. 3. Property appraisal data covered by this law is described in Minnesota Statutes, section 13.44, subdivision 3. 'I Minn. Stat. ~ 144.581, subds. 4 and 5. House Research Department Minnesota Open Meeting Law Revised: November 2008 Page 12 A public body may not pay a civil penalty on behalf of a person who violated the law. However, a public body may pay any costs, disbursements, or attorney fees incurred by or awarded against a member of the body in an action under the open meeting law ifthe member was found not guilty of a violation.61 A court may award reasonable costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees of up to $13,000 to any party in an action under the open meeting law. However, the following conditions apply: . A court may award costs and attorney fees to a defendant only if it finds that the action was frivolous and without merit . A court may award monetary penalties or attorney fees against a member of a public body only if the court fmds there was an intent to violate the open meeting law The court must award reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing plaintiff if the public body was also the subject of a prior written opinion issued by the Commissioner of Administration, and the court finds that the opinion is directly related to the cause of action being litigated and that the public body did not follow the opinion." The appropriate mechanism to enforce the open meeting law is to bring an action in district court seeking injunctive relief or damages. The statute does not provide for a declaratory judgment action.63 The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that actions taken at a meeting held in violation of the open meeting law are not invalid or rescindable." Advice Public bodies subject to the open meeting law may seek advice on the application of the law and how to comply with it from three sources: . The governmental entity's attorney . The attorney general" . The Commissioner of Administration" 61 Op. Att'y Gen. 471-a, Dec. 3t, t992: Minn. Stat. ~ t3D.06, subd. 4 (c). 62 Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.06, subd. 4. 63 Rupp V. Mayasich, 561 N.W.2d 555 (Minn. App. t997). 64 Sullivan v. Credit River Township, 299 Minn. t70, 176-177,217 N.W.2d 502, 507 (Minn. 1974). 65 Under Minnesota Statutes, section 8.06, the attorney general is the attorney for all state officers and boards or commissions created by law. Under Minnesota Statutes, section 8.07, the attorney general, on request from an attorney for a county, city, town, public pension fund, school board, or unorganized area, gives written opinions on matters of public importance. House Research Department Minnesota Open Meeting Law Revised: November 2008 Page 11 number, for notice. Notice must be by telephone or by any other method used to notify the members of the public body." The law does not apply to meetings of the Commissioner of Corrections." The law specifies how it relates to the Government Data Practices Act. Except as specifically provided, public meetings may not be closed to discuss data that are not public data under the Government Data Practices Act." Data that are not public may be discussed at an open meeting without liability, if the matter discussed is within the public body's authority and if it is reasonably necessary to conduct the business before the public body." A portion of a meeting must be closed if the following data are discussed: . Data that would identify alleged victims or reporters of criminal sexual conduct, domestic abuse, or maltreatment of minors or vulnerable adults" · Active investigative data collected by a law enforcement agency, or internal affairs data relating to alleged misconduct by law enforcement personnel" . Certain types of educational, health, medical, welfare, or mental health data that are not public data" Penalties The open meeting law provides a civil penalty of up to $300 for intentional violation." A person who is found to have intentionally violated the law in three or more legal actions involving the same governmental body forfeits the right to serve on that body for a time equal to the term the person was serving. The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that this removal provision is constitutional only if the conduct constitutes malfeasance or nonfeasance and provided that the violations occurred after the person had a reasonable amount oftime to learn the responsibilities of office." " Minn. Stat. ~ 366.Q1, subd. I!. "Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.OI, subd. 2 (I). This exception does not make sense. Until 1982, the exception was for meetings of the corrections board-a multimember body. A 1983 instruction directed the revisor of statutes to change "corrections board" to "commissioner of corrections" throughout the statutes. Laws 1983, ch. 274, ~ 18. "Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, subd. 1. "Minn. Stat. ~~ 13.03, subd. 11, 13.05, subd. 4, 11 (e), and 13D.05, subd. 1. "Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, subd. 2 (a)(I). "Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, subd. 2 (a)(2). "Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.05, subd. 2 (a)(3). " Minn. Stat. ~ 13D.06. "Claude V. Collins, 518 N.W.2d 836, 843 (Minn. 1994) (discussing the constitutionality of provision relating to removal from office); see also Brown V. Cannon Falls Township, 723 N.W.2d 31, 41-44 (Minn. App. 2006) (discussing the statutory history and that since 1994 the statute has required three or more legal actions). House Research Department Minnesota Open Meeting Law Revised: November 2008 Page 13 An individual may seek advice from two sources: . The individual's attorney . The Commissioner of Administration" Since 2003, an individual who disagrees with the manner in which members of a governing body perform their duties under the open meeting law may request the Commissioner of Administration to give a written opinion on the governing body's compliance with the law. A governing body or person requesting an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration must pay a $200 fee if the commissioner issues an opinion. The commissioner may decide not to issue an opinion. If the commissioner decides not to issue an opinion, the commissioner must notify the requester within five days of receipt of the request. If the commissioner decides to issue an opinion, it must be done within 20 days of the request (with a 30-day extension possible for good cause and notice to the requester). The governing body must be allowed to explain how it performs its duties under the law. Opinions of the Commissioner of Administration are not binding, but a court must give the opinions deference. However, a governing body that follows an opinion is not liable for fines, attorney's fees or any other penalty, or forfeiture of office. For more information about open meetings and other issues related to the government, visit the government operations area of our web site, www.house.mnlhrd/issinfo/gv_state.htm. 66 . Minn. Stat. ~ 13.072, subds. 1 and 2. 67 Id.; see www.ipad.state.mn.us/opinions/index.htmlfor access to prior opinions of the Commissioner of Administration or to fmd out how to request an opinion. 2 MINNESOTA STATU1ES 2008 13D.01 (1) to meetings of the commissioner of corrections; (2) to a state agency, board, or commission when it is exercising quasi-judicial functions involving disciplinary proceedings; or (3) as otherwise expressly provided by statute. Subd. 3. Subject of and grounds for closed meeting. Before closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed. Subd. 4. Votes to be kept in journal. (a) The votes of the members of the state agency, board, commission, or department; or ofthe governing body, committee, subcommittee, board, department, or commission on an action taken in a meeting required by this section to be open to the public must be recorded in a journal kept for that purpose. (b) The vote of each member must be recorded on each appropriation of money, except for payments of judgments, claims, and amounts fixed by statute. Subd. 5. Public access to journal. The journal must be open to the public during all normal business hours where records of the public body are kept. Subd. 6. Public copy of members' materials. (a) In any meeting which under subdivisions 1,2,4, and 5, and section 13D.02 must be open to the public, at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items of the meeting prepared or distributed by or at the direction ofthe governing body or its employees and: (1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body; (2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or (3) available in the meeting room to all members; shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public while the governing body considers their subject matter. (b) This subdivision does not apply to materials classified by law as other than public as defined in chapter 13, or to materials relating to the agenda items of a closed meeting held in accordance with the procedures in section 13D.03 or other law permitting the closing of meetings. History: 1957 c 773 s 1; 1967 c 462 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 654 s 15; 1973 c 680 s 1,3; 1975 c 271 s 6; 1981 c 174 s 1; 1983 c 137 s 1; 1983 c 274 s 18; 1984 c 462 s 27; 1987 c 313 s 1; 1990 c 550 s 2,3; 1991 c 292 art 8 s 12; 1991 c 319 s 22; 1994 c 618 art 1 s 39; 1997 c 154 s 2; ISp2001 c 10 art 4 s 1 Copyright ~ 2008 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. A ~\Ghl'\iel\t 2 1 MINNESOTA STATlITES 2008 13D.Ol MEETINGS MUST BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC; EXCEPTIONS. Subdivision 1. In executive branch, local government. All meetings, including executive sessions, must be open to the public (a) of a state (1) agency, (2) board, (3) commission, or (4) department, when required or permitted by law to transact public business in a meeting; (b) of the governing body of a (1) school district however organized, (2) unorganized territory, (3) county, (4) statutory or home rule charter city, (5) town, or (6) other public body; (c) of any (1) committee, (2) subcommittee, (3) board, (4) department, or (5) commission, of a public body; and (d) of the governing body or a committee of: (1) a statewide public pension plan defined in section 356A.01, subdivision 24; or (2) a local public pension plan governed by section 69.77, sections 69.771 to 69.775, or chapter 354A, 422A, or 423B. Subd. 2. Exceptions. This chapter does not apply Copyright iCl 2008 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 1 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2008 13D.02 13D.02 MEETINGS CONDUCTED BY INTERACTIVE TV; CONDITIONS. Subdivision 1. Conditions. A meeting governed by section 13D.01, subdivisions 1,2,4, and 5, and this section may be conducted by interactive television so long as: (1) all members of the body participating in the meeting, wherever their physical location, can hear and see one another and can hear and see all discussion and testimony presented at any location at which at least one member is present; (2) members of the public present at the regular meeting location ofthe body can hear and see all discussion and testimony and all votes of members ofthe body; (3) at least one member of the body is physically present at the regular meeting location; and (4) each location at which a member of the body is present is open and accessible to the public. Subd. 2. Members are present for quorum, participation. Each member of a body participating in a meeting by electronic means is considered present at the meeting for purposes of determining a quorum and participating in all proceedings. Subd. 3. Monitoring from remote site; costs. If interactive television is used to conduct a meeting, to the extent practical, a public body shall allow a person to monitor the meeting electronically from a remote location. The body may require the person making .such a connection to pay for documented marginal costs that the public body incurs as a result of the additional connection. Subd. 4. Notice of regular and all member sites. If interactive television is used to conduct a regular, special, or emergency meeting, the public body shall provide notice of the regular meeting location and notice of any site where a member of the public body will be participating in the meeting by interactive television. The timing and method of providing notice must be as described in section 13D.04. History: 1957 c 773 s 1; 1967 c 462 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 654 s 15; 1973 c 680 s 1,3; 1975 c 271 s 6; 1981 c 174 s 1; 1983 c 137 s 1; 1983 c 274 s 18; 1984 c 462 s 27; 1987 c 313 s 1; 1990c550s2,3; 1991 c292art8s 12; 1991 c319s22; 1994c618art 1 s39; 1997cl54s2 Copyright (;) 2008 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 1 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2008 13D.02l 13D.021 MEETINGS BY TELEPHONE OR OTHER ELECTRONIC MEANS; CONDITIONS. Subdivision 1. Conditions. A meeting governed by this section and section 13D.O 1, subdivisions 1, 2, 4, and 5, may be conducted by telephone or other electronic means so long as the following conditions are met: (1) the presiding officer, chief legal counsel, or chief administrative officer for the affected governing body determines that an in-person meeting or a meeting conducted under section 13D.02 is not practical or prudent because of a health pandemic or an emergency declared under chapter 12; (2) all members ofthe body participating in the meeting, wherever their physical location, can hear one another and can hear all discussion and testimony; (3) members of the public present at the regular meeting location of the body can hear all discussion and testimony and all votes of the members of the body, unless attendance at the regular meeting location is not feasible due to the health pandemic or emergency declaration; (4) at least one member of the body, chief legal counsel, or chief administrative officer is physically present at the regular meeting location, unless unfeasible due to the health pandemic or emergency declaration; and (5) all votes are conducted by roll call, so each member's vote on each issue can be identified and recorded. Subd. 2. Members are present for quorum, participation. Each member of the body participating in a meeting by telephone or other electronic means is considered present at the meeting for purposes of determining a quorum and participating in. all proceedings. Subd. 3. Monitoring from remote site; costs. If telephone or another electronic means is used to conduct a meeting, to the extent practical, the body shall allow a person to monitor the meeting electronically from a remote location. The body may require the person making a connection to pay for the documented additional cost that the body incurs as a result of the additional connection. Subd. 4. Notice of regular and all member sites. If telephone or another electronic means is used to conduct a regular, special, or emergency meeting, the public body shall provide notice of the regular meeting location, of the fact that some members may participate by telephone or other electronic means, and of the provisions of subdivision 3. The timing and method of providing notice is governed by section 13D.04 of the Open Meeting Law. Copyright \0 2008 by the Revisor of Statutes, State ofMiIinesota. All Rights Reserved. I MINNESOTA STATUTES 2008 13D.03 13D.03 CLOSED MEETINGS FOR LABOR NEGOTIATIONS STRATEGY. Subdivision 1. Procedure. (a) Section 13D.01, subdivisions 1,2,4,5, and section 13D.02 do not apply to a meeting held pursuant to the procedure in this section. (b) The governing body ofa public employer may by a majority vote in a public meeting decide to hold a closed meeting to consider strategy for labor negotiations, including negotiation strategies or developments or discussion and review of labor negotiation proposals, conducted pursuant to sections 179A.OI to 179A.25. ( c) The time of commencement and place of the closed meeting shall be announced at the public meeting. (d) A written roll of members and all other persons present at the closed meeting shall be made available to the public after the closed meeting. Subd. 2. Meeting must be recorded. (a) The proceedings of a closed meeting to discuss negotiation strategies shall be tape-recorded at the expense of the governing body. (b) The recording shall be preserved for two years after the contract is signed and shall be made available to the public after all labor contracts are signed by the governing body for the current budget period. Subd. 3. Ifvio1ation claimed. (a) If an action is brought claiming that public business other than discussions of labor negotiation strategies or developments or discussion and review of labor negotiation proposals was transacted at a closed meeting held pursuant to this section during the time when the tape is not available to the public, the court shall review the recording of the meeting in camera. (b) If the court finds that this section was not violated, the action shall be dismissed and the recording shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the court until otherwise made available to the public pursuant to this section. (c) If the court finds that this section was violated, the recording may be introduced at trial in its entirety subject to any protective orders as requested by either party and deemed appropriate by the court. History: 1957 c 773 s 1; 1967 c 462 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 654 s 15; 1973 c 680 s 1,3; 1975 c 271 s 6; 1981 c174 s 1; 1983 c 137 s 1; 1983 c 274 s 18; 1984 c 462 s 27; 1987 c313 s 1; 1990 c 550 s 2,3; 1991 c 292 art 8 s 12; 1991 c319 s 22; 1994 c 618 art 1 s 39; 1997 c154 s 2 Copyright (0 2008 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. ?: MINNESOTA STATUTES 2008 13D.04 13D.04 NOTICE OF MEETINGS. Subdivision 1. Regular meetings. A schedule of the regular meetings ofa public body shall be kept on file at its primary offices. If a public body decides to hold a regular meeting at a time or place different from the time or place stated in its schedule of regular meetings, it shall give the same notice of the meeting that is provided in this section for a special meeting. Subd. 2. Sp.ecial meetings. (a) For a special meeting, except an emergency meeting or a special meeting for which a notice requirement is otherwise expressly established by statute, the public body shall post written notice of the date, time, place, and purpose ofthe meeting on the principal bulletin board of the public body, or ifthe public body has no principal bulletin board, on the door of its usual meeting room. (b) The notice shall also be mailed or otherwise delivered to each person who has filed a written request for notice of special meetings with the public body. This notice shall be posted and mailed or delivered at least three days before the date of the meeting. (c) As an alternative to mailing or otherwise delivering notice to persons who have filed a written request for notice of special meetings, the public body may publish the notice once, at least three days before the meeting, in the official newspaper of the public body or, if there is none, in a qualified newspaper of general circulation within the area of the public body's authority. (d) A person filing a request for notice of special meetings may limit the request to notification of meetings concerning particular subjects, in which case the public body is required to send notice to that person only (;oncerning special meetings involving those subjects. (e) A public body may establish an expiration date for requests for notices of special meetings pursuant to this subdivision and require refiling of the request once each year. (f) Not more than 60 days before the expiration date of a request for notice, the public body shall send notice of the refiling requirement to each person who filed during the preceding year. Subd. 3. Emergency meetings. (a) For an emergency meeting, the public body shall make good faith efforts to provide notice of the meeting to each news medium that has filed a written request for notice if the request includes the news medium's telephone number. (b) Notice ofthe emergency meeting shall be given by telephone or by any other method used to notify the members of the public body. (c) Notice shall be provided to each news medium which has filed a written request for notice as soon as reasonably practicable after notice has been given to the members. Copyright 10 2008 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 2 MINNESOTA STATUTES 2008 13D.04 (d) Notice shall include the subject of the meeting. Posted or published notice of an emergency meeting is not required. ( e) An "emergency" meeting is a special meeting called because of circumstances that, in the judgment of the public body, require inunediate consideration by the public body. (f) If matters not directly related to the emergency are discussed or acted upon at an emergency meeting, the minutes of the meeting shall include a specific description of the matters. (g) The notice requirement of this subdivision supersedes any other statutory notice requirement for a special meeting that is an emergency meeting. Subd. 4. Recessed or continued meetings. (a) If a meeting is a recessed or continued session of a previous meeting, and the time and place of the meeting was established during the previous meeting and recorded in the minutes of that meeting, then no further published or mailed notice is necessary. (b) For purposes of this subdivision, the term "meeting" includes a public hearing conducted pursuant to chapter 429 or any other law or charter provision requiring a public hearing by a public body. Subd. 5. Closed meetings. The notice requirements of this section apply to closed meetings. Subd. 6. State agencies. For a meeting of an agency, board, commission, or department of the state: (1) the notice requirements of. this section apply only if a statute governing meetings of the agency, board, or commission does not contain specific reference to the method of providing notice; and (2) all provisions of this section relating to publication are satisfied by publication in the State Register. Subd. 7. Actual notice. If a person receives actual notice of a meeting of a public body at least 24 hours before the meeting, all notice requirements ofthis section are satisfied with respect to that person, regardless of the method of receipt of notice. History: 1957 c 773 s 1; 1967 c 462 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 654 s 15; 1973 c 680 s 1,3; 1975 c 271 s 6; 1981 c 174 s 1; 1983 c 137 s 1; 1983 c 274 s 18; 1984 c 462 s 27; 1987 c313 s 1; 1990 c 550 s 2,3; 1991 c 292 art 8 s 12; 1991 c 319 s 22; 1994 c 618 artI s 39; 1997 cl54 s 2 Copyright iO 2008 by the Revisor of Statutes; State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. ~c-h(w\fftt 3 THE OPEN MEETING LAW AND YOU This short white-sheet is intended to provide basic information regarding the Open Meeting Law in Minnesota as codified in Minnesota Statutes !l13D.01 et seq. While nothing can take the place of the actual law, this document will hopefully address very basic questions and situations that you may have. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE LAW? The open meeting law is intended to provide the public with the most transparent governmental activities possible and ensure that the decision-making process is subject to full public scrutiny and access while still being managed in a way that allows the process of government to function effectively. THE FIRST QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE ASKED: IS YOUR GROUP SUBJECT TO THE OPEN MEETING LAW? ANSWER: In most cases a 'public body' is subject to the Open Meeting Law. Standing Committees of a City Council are specifically called out as being subject to the law, so there really is no debating whether the ENR is subject to the law: It is. THE SECOND QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE ASKED: IS A MEETING OF YOUR GROUP CONDUCTING A 'MEETING' THAT MUST COMPLY? ANSWER: To be subject to the requirement of the Open Meeting Law, a body subject to it has to have a quorum of its members present together to trigger the requirements of the Statute. Less-than quorum size groups cannot meet in order to avoid having an open meeting. Email exchanges between members, if passed between a quorum of members, can be considered a violation of the open meeting law. Telephone calls can also trigger a violation if enough calls are placed between members and public business discussed. My recommendation is to avoid email and phone discussions entirely and restrict all discussions and debate to the gaveling of the meetings. WHAT ABOUT THE TWINS GAME?! Truly social, chance, meetings of a quorum of members are not per se violations of the Open Meeting Law. However, members need to be mindful of the fact that the appearance of impropriety may trigger allegations of a violation so steps should be taken to reduce that appearance. Not sitting together or huddling, even to exchange pleasantries, would be the best practice. 2. ..~-()' THE THIRD QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE ASKED: WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO TO COMPLY? ANSWER: 1. The open meeting law is simple to comply with. Provide a standing date and time for meetings of the ENR and deliberate in good faith at the meeting. Notice special and emergency meetings 3 days in advance (or with as much time and notice as possible for emergency . meetings. 2. have materials available for the public to take and follow-along with if needed. 3. Take discussion and votes in public only and at the meetings. 4. Record your votes! CONSEQUENCES FOR VIOLATIONS Violations are handled in civil court and a complaint must be brought in the district court against .the person who is alleged to have violated the law. No City may pay this cost once found to be validly imposed. The Fine my be up to $300.00 and removal from office is possible for multiple-offense violators. As public-body members, your conduct must be found to be intentionally designed to violate the law however and none of the decisions made at such a meeting are deemed invalid or rescindable. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand-Senior Planner Planning Commission's 2008 Annual Report March 10, 2009 INTRODUCTION The planning commission's 2008 Annual Report is attached for the commission's review. Please review and comment on this report. Once it is acceptable to the planning commission, staff will forward it to the city council. Thank you p:lplanning commission pclpc Annual Reports12008 ann report cover memo MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Lorraine Fischer-Maplewood Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Commission's 2008 Annual Report March 10, 2009 INTRODUCTION The city code requires that the planning commission prepare an annual report to the city council. 2008 ACTIVITIES The commission considered the following requests as noted: 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 changes to the comprehensive plan 2 3 4 5 10 changes to the zoning map 0 2 4 4 7 preliminary plats 3 3 7 7 12 ordinance changes 3 3 3 0 1 conditional use permits and revisions 10 11 14 19 21 vacations 4 2 11 8 5 variances/code waivers 1 6 2 12 2 miscellaneous reQuests and presentations 29* 20 13 8 11 Total 52 50 58 63 69 *In 2008, the planning commission spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the various elements of the "2030 Comprehensive Plan Update." This Plan Update was scheduled nearly every meeting throughout 2008. This accounts for 19 of the 52 business items discussed by the planning commission. Without those, the year-end total would be 33. Comprehensive Plan ChanQes PC Action Council Action Gethsemane Senior Housing Approved (2410 Stillwater Road) This Plan change was from P, park to R3H, high density residential. Approved This change was to amend the city comprehensive land use plan maps for the iii-unit Gethsemane Senior Housing project because the site was developed as a neighborhood park. Richie Place Single Dwelling Subdivision Approved Tabled (LaBore Road, east of Arcade Street) This Plan change was from OS, open space, to R1, single dwelling residential, for a Little Canada subdivision, which had its southerly three lots located in Maplewood. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND REVISIONS PC Action Council Action Hydrologic CUP Approved Approved (1261 Highway 36) This request was for outdoor storage for a tenant in the Metcalf Mayflower building on Highway 36. Xcel Energies CUP Approved Approved (1480 County Road D) This request was for the expansion of the substation complex by adding another electrical transformer. Carver Crossing PUD Approved Approved (Carver Avenue and Henry Lane) This request is for a planned unit development for a 165-unit housing development. Salvation Army CUP Approved Approved (2080 Woodlyn Avenue) This request was for a revision to the existing CUP to allow a building expansion. Gethsemane Senior Housing PUQ Approved Approved (2410 Stillwater Road) This request was for a planned unit development for a 111-unit housing development. St. John's Hospital CUP Approved (1575 Beam Avenue) This request was for a CUP revision to expand the hospital. Approved Legacy Shops PUD Approved Approved (County Road D) This request was for a revision of the Legacy Village PUD to allow the retail building to be placed further from County Road D. T -Mobile Approved Approved (2220 Edgerton Street) This request was to approve a revision to the conditional use permit for a cell phone tower at Trinity Baptist Church. 2 Menard's Approved Approved (2280 Maplewood Drive) This request was for a conditional use permit revision to allow Menard's to expand their facility by adding a warehouse building in their storage yard. Ken Berwald Garage Approved Approved (2080 Prosperity Road) This request was for a CUP to aI/ow Ken Berwald to build a residential garage for a residence on property zoned light manufacturing. PRELIMINARY PLATS PC Action Council Action Heritage Square 5th Addition Approved Approved (County Road D and Highway 61) This was the replat of Heritage Square 4th Addition to reconfigure the site to build another style of townhome. Gethsemane Senior Housing Approved Approved (2410 Stillwater Road) This was a subdivision to create the housing site, the church site and a future park. Richie Place Approved Approved (LaBore Road, east of Arcade Street) This request was technically a lot split since there were only three lots proposed in Maplewood. Staff reviewed this proposal, however, in the same manner as we would a preliminary plat. VACATIONS PC Action Council Action SI. John's Hospital Approved Approved (1575 Beam Avenue) Three utility easements were vacated as part of the proposed hospital expansion. Lisa and Todd Thomas Approved Approved (760 Sterling Street) A utility easement vacation was needed because of a previously approved administrative lot division. Maplewood Toyota Approved Approved (2905 Maplewood Drive) Four utility easements were vacated because of Beam Avenue improvements and new easements were rededicated. 3 VARIANCES I WAIVERS FROM CODE REQUIREMENT PC Action Council Action Gethsemane Senior Housing Approved Approved (2410 Stillwater Road) This senior housing development included a parking waiver to allow fewer spaces than the code required. CODE AMENDMENTS PC Action 1. Dynamic Display Signs Moratorium 2. Procedures, Hearings, Review Processes 3. Dynamic Display Sign Code Amendment Approved Approved Denied 2008 ATTENDANCE Name Lorraine Fischer Joseph Boeser Tushar Desai Robert Martin Gary Pearson Dale Trippler Jeremy Yarwood Harland Hess Joe Walton Appointed 1970 07 -09-07 07-22-02 07-09-07 12-10-90 06-08-98 04-11-05 02-23-06 02-12-07 - 2009 ACTIVITIES Terms Expire (12-31) 2009 2009 2009 2011 2011 2009 2011 2009 2009 Council Action Approved Approved Approved Attendance-23 meetinqs 22 14 18 22 20 23 17 21 17 In addition to the regular reviews typically seen by the planning commission, the workload in 2009 will include a considerable number of revisions to the zoning ordinance to implement the changes proposed in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update. RECOMMENDATION Accept the planning commission's 2008 annual report. p:lplanning commission pclpc Annual Reports12008 ann report 4 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: Acting City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Community Garden Plots-Conditional Use Permit Status Report Southwest Corner County Road C and Hazelwood Street March 10, 2009 INTRODUCTION On March 3, 2009, the Maplewood Planning Commission reviewed a conditional use permit (CUP) request by First Evangelical Free Church and the Maplewood Park Staff for the provision of community garden plots on vacant property the Church owns at the southwest corner of County Road C and Hazelwood Street. The planning commission tabled this proposal to have the staff and the church: . Address issues like monitoring the cleanliness of the site, clean-up and maintenance. . Explore site plan revisions to gain distance between the home at 1448 County Road C and the proposed garden plots. . Consider whether 25 parking spaces are a realistic number. . Consider providing the gardens project for less expense. . Consider "taking a step back" and planning the garden plots for 2010 instead of rushing into it for 2009. . Establish the "terms of operation" of the garden plots for the planning commission to consider. PROJECT STATUS AND INTERIM GARDENING USE After further consideration of this proposal, and the limited time available to get this project underway by planting season, staff has decided to slow the pace and get all the planning elements handled this summer. If approved by council, the garden plots would be ready for rental and use in the spring of 201 0 as a city-sponsored operation. Staff is anticipating having this issue back before the planning commission in Mayor June this year. In the mean time, First Evangelical would like to use the northwest corner of their property for gardening. This would not be a joint venture with the city. Staff does not see a problem as long as they manage the parking by not violating the "no parking" limitations along County Road C and do not overburden the neighborhood with parking on side streets. APPLICATION DATE & REVIEW DEADLINE The city staff initiated this request. Therefore, we are not obligated to complete this review under the usual 60-day timeframe. p:sec10\Garden Plots C and Hazelwood PC Update 3 Og te Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Site Plan 2 KOHLMAN AVE o ~3 D O~ o o~ m [2J :J D o o ::J o o i tJ o E1 o EEl ~ D Q ~ .D o :! [],EJ ~ :! ri1 ~ ~ ~ COUNTY ROAD C N l3J " '" PROPOSED PROPOSED GARDEN PLOTS PARKING LOT o D ~[] o o r1 o o ~13 l2lli R!L ~Q9 .IIP ~ D :t ~ ~ BROOKS AVE ~01 I 26 ~ ~ I- '" o o ~ W N <( X ..Q . ..ll. ,"'-, - II . .. " 2588 0 o Fl LOCATION MAP AND LAND USE PLAN Attachment 2 () o s:: s:: s:: 0 c~ Z"U -l r ----.- -< fT1 '" ~ 0 G>O ~O ::00 0 o 0 fT1 Z U1 ~iEPARTMEm OF PUBLIC WORKS - "''f5!t) ENGINEERING DIVISION ~~ (651) 249-2400 FAX (651) 249-2409 COMMUNITY GARDENS ON COUNTY RD C MEMO TO: DuWayne Konewko, Community and Park Director Planning Commission FROM: Jennifer Haskamp, Pulse Land Group DATE: RE: March 7, 2009 Comprehensive Plan Update INTRODUCTION On December 8, 2008 the City Council recommended the Draft Comprehensive Plan Update allowing the plan to be distributed to adjacent and affected communities for review. This action was the first step in moving the document forward to ultimate adoption and therefore the policy direction of the City over the next ten years. Although the Draft was adopted, there remains a bit of time in which the Council and other Commissions can review the document to ensure that the information in the document accurately reflects the goals and objectives of the community moving forward. At the direction of the City Council, staff brought the Comprehensive Plan Draft to each commission for an update and for the opportunity to comment and make any additional recommendations. The following information summarizes the responses from each of the commission meetings and also affords the same courtesy to the Planning Commission to offer any additionai comments and recommendations to the City Council. BACKGROUND AND TIMELlNE The Planning Commission is the responsible body for reviewing and recommending the Comprehensive Plan Update in its entirety. Part of the reason for revisiting the other city commissions was to give them the opportunity to review the document in full so they could understand how the chapter they worked on through the process fit into the larger document. The following schedule and meetings were attended, and a summary of any significant recommendations the body had is provided for your reference/review: Communitv Oesiqn Review Board (CORB) JanuaIY 13, 2009: The CDRB was responsible for reviewing Chapter 3 Sustainability and any other aspects of the document that related sustainability and design standards. At the meeting, the board recommended some minor changes that were not substantive and overall felt comfortable with the document. Staff will make the minor changes to the chapter based on the recommendations. Housinq and Redevelopmenf Authoritv (HRA) JanuaIY 14,2009: The HRA was responsible for reviewing and drafting Chapter 4 Housing and other aspects of the document related to housing. The HRA recommended that staff add in a few statements to address small business owners and home occupation opportunities in the community, as well as the inclusion of some discussion about mixed-use opportunities in the city. Staff will add in these items if acceptable to the Planning Commission. In addition, the HRA had some minor grammatical changes that staff will address administratively. Parks Commission - JanuaIY 28, 2009: The Parks Commission was responsible for reviewing and drafting Chapter 6 Parks, Trails and Open Space. The Commission also reviewed the information in Chapter 7 Natural Resources with an emphasis on how the two chapters work together. The Parks Commission did not have any additional recommendations and were comfortable with the chapter. Historic Preservafion Commission (HPC) JanuaIY 29, 2009: The HPC was responsible for reviewing and drafting Chapter 9 Historical Resources. The HPC made recommendations with respect to clarifying roles and responsibilities identified in the Historic Preservation Plan, staff has made the applicable changes to make this section more clear. Additionally, the HPC was preparing their goals and objectives for 2009 and made some changes/recommendations. The HPC will be setting its 2009 goals at its March meeting and could also suggest revisions or additions to Chapter 9. Environmental Natural Resources Commission (ENR) Februarv 3, 2009: The ENR was responsible for reviewing and drafting Chapter 7 Natural Resources. The Commission also had the opportunity to review Chapter 6 Parks, Trails, and Open Space because the two chapters were so closely related. The ENR did not have any significant changes or recommendations and made only grammatical or small changes. Staff will take care of those changes administratively. The Comprehensive Plan Update process was structured to allow each commission to comment and develop the chapter that most directly related to the responsibilities of that commission. The Planning Commission was an exception because the Commission is responsible for the document in its entirety. As a result, the Council wanted to provide the opportunity to each commission, ending with the Planning Commission to revisit the plan. The Planning Commission had specific responsibility for the Land Use Chapter (Chapter 5). Since the Commission reviewed the Chapter and the entire document, the City Council reviewed the document and also provided additional opportunities for the public to comment. Since the public hearing and any associated changes, there have not been any significant changes to the document. CHAPTER AND DOCUMENT HIGHLIGHTS The biggest change to the entire document is the focus on sustainability and natural resources as a common thread throughout all of the chapters. The document includes a sustainability and natural resources chapter that are new to this update and introduce a green emphasis for development and redevelopment moving forward. Specific changes to the Land Use chapter included the revision of the Land Use classifications that will help solve some of the current land use and zoning issues. Additionally, special areas were planned for including South Maplewood, the highway business districts along Highways 36 and 61, and the Gladstone area. REQUESTED ACTION Staff is requesting the Planning Commission rElview Chapter 5 once again to ensure that the chapter addresses the issues, concerns, or goals for the next planning period. Staff would also like the Planning Commission to review the entire document once again to identify if there are any additional issues to address prior to submitting the update to the Metropolitan Council. Please come to the meeting prepared to discuss the Land Use Chapter and bring any other comments you might have about the document. It is our intent to pass along all comments/concerns to the City Council for their consideration and potential action.