Robert’s Rules of Order

By John Powell

Robert’s Rules of Order were first published in 1876 and were named for Colonel Henry Martyn Robert, a military engineer in the United States Army. Robert developed the rules after being asked to conduct a meeting at his church. Due to his inexperience in this role and no shared understanding among the attendees as to how a meeting should be conducted, the outcome was unproductive and disappointing. Robert recognized the need for a uniform understanding of parliamentary procedures and went about developing a reference document.

Robert’s Rules of Order provide a basis for the conduct of public meetings and a framework for the decision-making process. This guide to parliamentary procedures helps ensure that the rights of all participants in the process are recognized and considered. Having a set of rules to follow for decisions can be particularly useful in very contentious situations where there may be very differing and heated opinions.

How to apply Robert’s Rules of Order

The chair or other designated leader of the meeting should have a familiarity with Robert’s Rules of Order as well as any other rules specific to the organization. Even if an organization adopts Robert’s Rules of Order for the proceedings, other rules of the organization may still take precedent. While the specific rules are very detailed and extensive, in most cases conducting business first involves someone putting forth a motion for the assembly to take some sort of action. Most motions require a second, meaning another member agrees that the motion should be considered; this is to prevent a single member from consuming the assembly’s time with matters of importance only to them. Once seconded, the issue is debated and can be amended before a vote is taken.

During debate, assembly members should focus their comments and discussion on the question at hand, address their comments to the presiding officer (chair, mayor, etc.), and leave out remarks related to the personalities or motives of others. On occasion at City Council meetings, the City Attorney may be consulted to provide guidance regarding specific steps that must be taken, as they generally have the most in-depth understanding of statutes and other local rules.

Parks, Open Space, and Trail System Planning

by Candace Amberg
Feb. 6, 2015

Quality of life in any community is dependent on that community’s character, physical environment, and personal living space. These can all be improved when a community includes parks, natural open spaces, trails, and recreational opportunities.
The most successful approach to developing a park system plan – or any comprehensive planning project – is through a robust public engagement process. This will achieve the best understanding of constituent needs, resulting in local confidence that planning decisions align with and are relevant to the interests of the population being served. It is particularly important to engage the public when considering a referendum. The graphic below illustrations how a public engagement process can avoid wasted resources or community dissatisfaction.

Modern park system planning should be based on the specific needs of the community and citizens that the parks will serve. The process of developing and maintaining public space is costly and time intensive, and should be conducted through a thorough and transparent needs assessment and public process. This routinely involves hosting several input and review meetings with a wide variety of individuals, committees and stakeholders. Digital communications, social media, and other survey techniques may be effective ways to reach the right audiences.

The goal is ultimately to ensure that the findings and recommendations are a synthesis of the input from the residents, elected officials, city staff, and other community members. Following is a partial list of considerations that are typically explored when considering long-term improvements to a community’s park system.

• History of the system
• Previous planning studies and reports
• Demographics
• Recreation trends
• System-wide property and facility assessment
• Public input/needs and desires of the community
• Active/programmed recreation, as well as passive uses
• Community image, tourism, and economic development
• Trail network – internal and external connections
• Natural resource management
• Budget
• Safety and accessibility
• Flexibility of spaces to create a variety of experiences
• Operations and maintenance

Planning and the “Smart City”

By Karina Martin
March 4, 2016

What is a Smart City?

Monumental advances in technology and data management over the past two decades coupled with a global increase in the urban area population have paved the way for integrating more technological networks into the built environment and public engagement processes. There is a demand for increased public accountability, constant access to real-time data, and a growing awareness of the need to develop cleaner and more cost-effective infrastructure systems. A Smart City systematically incorporates data and technology into existing frameworks to efficiently operate local systems, reduce costs, enhance quality of life, and invite more sharing of ideas.

Why a Smart City initiative?

Planners will play an important role in the future of Smart City development and are already facing important questions related to technology deployment, data collection, and overcoming technology access and equity concerns. The American Planning Association (APA) developed its Smart Cities and Sustainability Initiative to affirm the relevance of Smart City technology to the field of planning and to identify what critical technologies planners will need to pay attention to in the decades to come. The main goal was to gauge the knowledge and interest level of planning professionals in different aspects of Smart Cities and to make recommendations about how to support the interests of planning professionals going forward.

Overview of Smart Cities components

The concept of Smart Cities can seem intangible. The Smart Cities and Sustainability Initiative report gives a broad overview of the key components of Smart Cities and provides a framework for understanding and tying the concept to the planning profession.

Broadband network expansion – High-speed broadband networks will become a staple of Smart City technology. The definition of “high-speed” is continuously changing, and the demand for streaming services and cloud computing are pushing the limits of what is considered fast and reliable access. The FCC National Broadband Plan has a goal of delivering 100 mbps broadband to anchor public institutions like libraries, schools, and government centers by 2020.

Smart Cities will need to balance investments in both broadband and wireless network access to meet the needs of a diverse customer base.

Technology and data applications – Smart Cities require incorporating more data into existing systems. Smart Cities put data to greater use, which requires enhanced points of data collection integrated into infrastructure. The Smart City is adept at “collecting, communicating and crunching” data (Smart Cities and Sustainability Initiative, page 12), as well as using data to optimize systems and anticipating problems before they occur.

Sustainability, resiliency and energy – Much optimism surrounds the idea of using Smart City technologies to improve the energy efficiency of local and regional systems. Deploying “smart grids” will allow for automated and adaptable energy delivery systems. Green building technologies will help improve the energy efficiency of buildings, the single-largest carbon emissions source in the world. Planners can influence code and ordinance development to help usher in these changes in the built environment.

Equity and the digital divide – While Smart City technology has the potential to be transformative, the increasing role of technological services raises the important question of access and equity. The potential exists for certain populations to be systematically excluded or underserved by Smart City technology, including seniors, low-income families, minority households, and individuals without a college education (Smart Cities and Sustainability Initiative, page 14).

Governance and the planner’s role – Smart Cities implies an increasing reliance upon technological applications for public feedback and engagement. The hope is that increasing the access points for public engagement through technology will reach more people than traditional methods. Planners will need to use this technology in a transparent fashion and ensure that public trust is maintained.

Findings of the Smart City initiative: What is of most interest to planners?

The APA Smart Cities Initiative Task Force incorporated a listening phase, which directed outreach to APA members through a survey including 14 different Smart City topics, asking participants to rank the importance of these topics, their interest and their desire to learn more about each topic. The listening phase also included an ideation tool online forum, and an innovation portal hosted by an APA-based LinkedIn portal.

Green building and site design, socio-economic disparity, and renewable energy and efficiency were ranked as the top three areas of importance by survey respondents. Public safety and freight supply were ranked as the least important. Interestingly, public safety also ranked as the subject area that most planners want to learn more about. The full list of topics and the results matrix is included here:

Photo Credit: Appendix (page 30) of APA’s Smart Cities and Sustainability Initiative report

Moving forward

The report concludes by observing that planners have an interest in Smart Cities, and recommends that APA develop strategic actions, including:

Centralize innovative information surrounding Smart Cities for use by planning professionals
Develop comprehensive plan Smart City guidelines
Partner with research entities to increase the body of knowledge on Smart City technologies
Utilize APA’s National Planning Conference as an opportunity to teach about technology
Work with AICP to train planners on integrating technology systems
Create a divisions council initiative for Smart Cities
Offer ethics training related to big data
Advocate for policies that bridge the digital divide

Sustainable Design

By Steven Foss
Feb. 6, 2015

Our environment – natural and built – is a complex network of components, creating unique and dynamic landscapes. Sustainable design focuses on maintaining and improving environments through a collaborative approach, considering how they fit within the greater ecosystem, and employing devices that are environmentally conscious and friendly. Sustainable design strategies typically include reducing carbon footprints; improving energy efficiency; and enhancing or protecting natural habitats while still providing economic, environmental, and social benefits.

Environmental benefits of sustainable design

The major goal of sustainable design is to preserve and improve our environment while reducing our carbon footprint and minimizing the use of natural resources. When sustainable design solutions are incorporated through project development, communities and the environment benefit through one or more of the following scenarios:

Protecting/conserving the ecosystem
Improved air and water quality
Reduced volumes of waste
Conserving natural resources

Social benefits of sustainable design

Implementation of sustainable design not only provides environmental benefits to our communities, but also improves our quality of life, health, and well-being. Improving the environment and integrating sustainable practices can have the following results on individuals and communities:

Improved active and passive spaces for social interaction and circulation
Improved emotional function
Reduced stress
Improved work effectiveness
Stronger sense of belonging and connection to the environment

Economic benefits of sustainable design

Incorporating sustainable design, through integrated design processes and innovative use of sustainable materials and equipment, can also generate economic benefits such as:

Reduced infrastructure needs
Lower annual costs for energy, water, and maintenance/repair
Reduced “heat island” effect
Improved ability to attract new employees/residents
Reduced time and cost for project permitting
Improved use of former sites (such as brownfields)
Reduced construction costs through reuse of construction materials
Increased property values

Summary

Sustainable design transforms conventional thinking about our landscape, infrastructure and buildings. It presents significant opportunities to improve our quality of life through environmental, social and economic benefits.

The following is a list of materials and tactics that can be incorporated into sustainable design practices:

Preserving existing tree cover and biodiversity
Vegetated swales/rain gardens
Dry and wet ponds
Green roofs
Underground storage and permeable pavement
Enhanced tree plantings (Silva Cells)
Infiltration devices
Alternative energy (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric)
Conversion of mowed/maintained turf to low-maintenance native grasses
Stormwater capture and reuse for irrigation
Use of recycled construction materials

The Alphabet Soup of Minnesota Environmental Review: EAWs, AUARs and EISs

by Andi Moffatt
Feb. 6, 2015

Acronyms

AUAR: Alternative Urban Areawide Review
EAW: Environmental Assessment Worksheet
EIS: Environmental Impact Statement
EQB: Environmental Quality Board
MEPA: Minnesota Environmental Policy Act
NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act
RGU: Responsible Government Unit

Introduction

The Minnesota Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and Minnesota Rules 4410 require some projects to undergo environmental review prior to obtaining permits or approvals. The purpose of this review process is to avoid and minimize damage to environmental resources (Minnesota Rules 4410.0300). The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) promulgates rules and provides guidance to the state’s environmental review program. This article provides information about the Minnesota environmental review process, discusses some triggers for environmental review, and discusses general timelines for the process.

Background

The MEPA was enacted in 1973. It was modeled after the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), but written to specifically address other projects the state, public, and agencies deemed to need environmental review.

Three documents are the basis for Minnesota’s environmental review program:

Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)

All three documents generally analyze similar topics for a given project, including stormwater management; wetland, habitat and fisheries; water and wastewater; traffic; air; noise; cultural resources; pollutant sources; and impact to infrastructure and the environment. The main difference between the documents is the extent and level of analysis needed.

The EAW is the heart of the state’s environmental review program. The purpose of the EAW is to determine if an EIS is needed. The EAW is intended to be a basic document, while an EIS goes into much more detailed analysis and investigation and is required if a project meets a mandatory EIS threshold or if the EAW cannot adequately gauge the possible environmental impacts of a project.

An AUAR can be thought of as a hybrid between an EAW and an EIS. While an EAW and EIS are used for specific projects (e.g., a big-box retailer proposing to develop within a city), an AUAR is used to analyze different development scenarios where a specific development is not known. Cities can use AUARs to analyze general development of a section of their city, understand possible impacts of the development, and identify specific mitigation measures. An AUAR can also be used for certain specific development plans that may trigger an EIS as an alternative to the EAW; however, there are additional review steps in these unique cases. Additionally, some types of development, such as heavy industrial development, cannot use the AUAR process.

The table below generally summarizes when to use each document.

EAW	EIS	AUAR
Project with a specific development plan Required by Minnesota Rules 4410 If petition for review is granted RGU discretion	Project with a specific development plan Required by Minnesota Rules 4410 EAW determines it is necessary Projects with significant impact	Projects with undefined development plan Large tract of land anticipated to develop Can be used in some cases if EAW or EIS is required (check rules beforehand)

Environmental review triggers

There are many different triggers for a mandatory EAW or EIS, which depend on factors such as the location of a project, the type of project, and the city where the project is located. Common EAWs or AUARs include reviews for new residential development, construction of light industrial or commercial areas, new sanitary sewers of a specific capacity, some road projects, and projects that have large impacts to wetlands or water bodies. A full listing of the environmental review triggers can be found here.

The public can also petition to have an EAW completed for a project. In this process, a petition must be submitted to the EQB with at least 100 signatures. The EQB reviews the petition for completeness and submits it to the RGU for technical review and a final determination.

Timeline

Timelines will always depend on the specifics of an individual project or review. A general rule of thumb, however, for the time it takes to develop these documents is as follows:

EAW: 3-5 months
EIS: 1-3 years
AUAR: 1 year

Who completes the document?

The rules specify the RGU for each type of project. It is often the land use authority (a city or county) but could also be the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or another agency. The project proposer is required to supply certain information to the RGU to complete the document. The RGU is responsible for making sure it is accurate and complete. We have seen this process work in one of two ways: sometimes, the RGU prepares the document with information provided from the project proposer; in other instances, the project proposer prepares the document and then the RGU reviews and finalizes it. Both ways are acceptable.

Review process

Once a document is complete, it is submitted for a 30-day public comment period and is sent to the required review agencies. After the comment period, responses will be prepared.

For an EAW, a Findings and Conclusions document is prepared for the RGU decision-making authority, such as a City Council, which is tasked with reviewing the document and preparing a Record of Decision on the Need for an EIS.

For an EIS or AUAR, a final document is prepared that includes revisions based on the comments received prior to going to the RGU decision-making authority.

What does this mean for you?

Check the required triggers for an environmental review early in the project proposal process. A project’s timeline may be impacted by required reviews. Additionally, there is a prohibition on governmental approvals and construction until the environmental review process is completed.

Complete information can be found at the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board website.

Planned unit developments: Easing zoning ordinances in exchange for creative development

By Addison Lewis
October 21, 2016

What is a Planning Unit Development (PUD)?

A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a zoning designation used to ease the strict application of a zoning ordinance in exchange for creativity in development. A PUD is often used to provide deviations from standards such as setbacks, height, density, uses, and other regulations. A PUD is used when planning for larger areas (one acre or more), planning for multiple contiguous sites, or accommodating multiple buildings on one site. The area should be under unified ownership at the time of a land use application for a PUD. In exchange for deviations from the zoning requirements, benefits such as additional greenspace, pedestrian or transit amenities, enhanced energy efficiency or stormwater management, affordable housing, mixed use, or enhanced architectural features are usually provided by the developer to achieve a higher quality development that might not otherwise occur.

When to use a PUD

A PUD is used to implement development goals identified in a community’s comprehensive plan. PUD process is not just an alternative to variances – it should be considered for unique development projects where the public benefit or development goal is clearly understood, and when the project would not otherwise be permitted through strict application of the zoning ordinance.

What to consider when developing a PUD

When developing a PUD ordinance, be sure to identify amenities or conditions that will help achieve the goals and objectives of the community’s comprehensive plan. A PUD ordinance should only be used if these amenities or conditions are offered by the developer. You may want to specifically list in the ordinance which specific zoning standards were deviated from.

A PUD designation is a similar process to rezoning. Think of each PUD as a customized zoning district that specifically identifies the location of buildings, uses, architectural design, etc. A PUD is a great tool for encouraging creativity and providing flexibility from the zoning ordinance, but once it is adopted any future change could require an amendment, depending on whether it is a major or minor change. A minor change can be approved administratively, while a major change would need to follow the same process as a rezoning. The community’s ordinance should identify which changes are considered minor or major.

Integrated Design Approach

By Robert Slipka
Feb. 6, 2015

Integrated design brings together a diverse team of design professionals on one project. Projects benefit from this approach because a wider range of experts is contributing throughout the project as a team, rather than acting independently.

Early integration is crucial to reduce the potential for expensive conflicts as design progresses or implementation begins. The integrated design approach involves all parties, including design professionals, clients/owners, permitting agencies, and others. Involvement may also include cost analysis specialists, construction managers, and contractors.

No matter what that project type, an integrated approach helps ensure a holistic outcome rather than a culmination of interdependent elements. Below are two examples of what teams could look like.

Example 1

A site development project is led by a landscape architect or civil engineer with direct integration of specialists such as environmental scientists, ecological specialists, engineers, building architects, electrical engineers, irrigation designers, and the client (including their operations and maintenance staff).

Example 2

A roadway corridor project is led by a transportation engineer and/or a planner. The team for this type of project may integrate urban designers/landscape architects, engineers, environmental scientists, right-of-way specialists, and representatives from numerous government agencies.

Design charrettes and brainstorming sessions are often utilized heavily in the beginning phases of project planning and design. This helps the team identify key goals, strategies, and desired outcomes of the project while also establishing areas of conflict or design implications. Including a diverse range of professionals means a better likelihood of achieving creative solutions that might not be explored in a conventional, non-integrated approach. As the project develops into the construction documents phase, continued collaboration is required to ensure compatibility of spatial character, uses, spaces, materials, and other factors. This approach can also identify conflicts that might not otherwise be identified until late in design or into construction, avoiding unanticipated costs or redesign.

Although an integrated approach provides better results, it is important for consultants and clients to judge how extensively integration needs to occur based on costs and benefits. Some projects are smaller in scale or fee, which can make an elaborate integrated approach difficult to justify. Clients should also be aware that the term “one-stop shop,” often utilized to describe multi-disciplinary firms, does not necessarily mean that an integrated design approach is used for projects. If it is unclear or unproven, clients should ask the consultant to describe how the various team members will be integrated throughout the design process. The ultimate goal is to achieve higher quality projects with increased cost effectiveness to clients.