|
The only information required on Bellevue’s signs is a
<br />five- or six-word description of the proposal, the date of the
<br />application, and a municipal phone number to call for
<br />further information. Letters and numbers must be rwo to
<br />four inches in height. The city provides a detailed drawing of
<br />the required sign.
<br />Redmond, Washington. Like Seattle, Redmond requires
<br />onsite signs for land-use actions to be relatively large (usually
<br />eight feet by four feet), a requirement of the statute in the King
<br />County land-use code. The signs must provide a site map or
<br />written description of the site boundaries, the t) pc of pending
<br />land-use application, the date of the public hearing, and the
<br />Getting Notified
<br />i lillbborough County, Morida. niaintaini a rcgistr%‘ of
<br />neighborhood orgxni/aiions \Nith an inicrc!>t in land-use
<br />changes, all of which are notified when such changes occur.
<br />The county requires the applicant to mail these notices 20
<br />da\s before the hearing to all properu owners within one mile
<br />of the site. In cases where more than 200 owners require
<br />notification, an alternative method may be emplos ed to
<br />rclicsc staff of adrninistratise burdens.
<br />Santa Cruz, California, also oilers an altcrnatisc plan to
<br />notifv the public of an impending I iiid-use change.
<br />Procedures in that communir) change when more than
<br />I.OOO persons are in need of notifuacion. I he alternate
<br />plan typlcall) includes a nevsspaper adveriisment of onc-
<br />eighth page minimum.
<br />Ann Arbor. Michigan, notifies registered businesses and
<br />neighborhood groups with .1 stake in land-use actions.
<br />I hesc groups, and all property owners within 300 fed of
<br />the sire, are notified of such changes csen thougli
<br />Michig.m state l.ws requires onl\ tliat utility and railroad
<br />companies .uljaccm u: the properts be notified. .Ann .\rlnir
<br />planners sa\ that a wider distribution ol information is the
<br />most appropriate and fairest protnwol.
<br />name and telephone number of Redmond ’s department of
<br />planning and community development.
<br />Like other communities in the sample, the applicant is
<br />responsible for the cost and administration of the sign
<br />(including installation) at least 10 days prior to the hearing and
<br />for its removal immediately pending a decision. The cit)* of
<br />Redmond provides detailed instructions and a drawing of the
<br />information required on the sign. The planning department
<br />notifies all property owners within 300 Icet of the site of the
<br />hearing by first-class mail and then charges the developer an
<br />application fee. A local newspaper also carries a notice of the
<br />land-use change at least 10 days before the hearing.
<br />Shoreline and Mercer Island, Washington. Shoreline and
<br />Mercer Island have foregone the eight-foot-by-four-foot sign
<br />seen in other King County municipalities in favor of signs with
<br />better aesthetics and lower costs. Neither communic)' feels that
<br />visibility or availability of information have been compromised
<br />in the process.
<br />Shoreline ’s and Mercer Island ’s weather-resistant signs are
<br />two feet by four feet in dimension, made of white plasticized
<br />material, and inscribed with blue lettering. An 8/4-by-l 1-inch
<br />plastic pocket placed on the sign contains flyers that identify* the
<br />location of the propcrc)*, the name of the applicant, a
<br />description of the proposed new land use, and the telephone
<br />number of the cir/ department where additional information
<br />can be obtained. The planning department supplies the signs,
<br />which the applicants may install themselves or have the
<br />maintenance department do for a fee of S50.
<br />Notices are mailed co all property owners within 300 feet of
<br />the propcrc)' and to citizen groups upon request. Shoreline ’s
<br />local newspaper publishes the notices; on Mercer Island, they
<br />appear in a weekly bulletin with a smaller circulation.
<br />Conclusion
<br />Communir)' residents have a right to hear the information
<br />about a pending land-use change accurately and in a clear,
<br />timely, and informative fashion. Inaccurate information;
<br />vagueness of time, date, and place of the public hearing; or
<br />inadequate identification of the affected propert)* can lead to
<br />costly court cases.
<br />User-friendly regulations should be written in ordinaiy
<br />language rather than legal jargon, and requirements are most
<br />effective when listed consecutively rather than burving them in
<br />different sections of the ordinance. Including neighborhood
<br />associations, local businesses, condominium and apartment
<br />building managers, and local property owners on the list of
<br />notification recipients is the most comprehensive way to
<br />disseminate information.
<br />Onsite signs should be weatherproof and large enough for
<br />the information to be visible to passing motorists. They are
<br />most effective when able to convey all the details regarding the
<br />location of the site and the proposed rezoning. The municipal
<br />regulations should state the precise location of the sign to avoid
<br />confusion. \'aguc instructions, such as requiring that the sign be
<br />placed “prominently ” on the site, are not adequate information.
<br />To ensure that requirements and standards have been met,
<br />some communities ask the applicant to provide proof of
<br />compliance. Others require that the applicant be responsible for
<br />the ongoing maintenance of the sign.
<br />The ordinances chosen by Zoning News represent the qualities
<br />that make public notice regulations easy to comprehend and
<br />eft'ective in application. Ordinances were consulted from
<br />communities around the count)', but Arizona and Washington
<br />municipalities appeared to have a disproportionately high
<br />concentration of good examples. Such a pattern supports the theor)’
<br />that ideas are often borrowed from neighbors.
<br />Chicago Wins
<br />Landmarks Case
<br />In what may seem like a reversal of tj'pical roles, the city of
<br />Chicago has won a case before the U.S. Supreme Court by
<br />arguing in favor of federal judicial intcr\’cntion in a local
<br />administrative decision concerning historic properties. The case.
<br />City of Chicago v. International College of Surgeons, No. 96-910
<br />(U.S., Dec. 15, 1997), involves rwo buildings owned by the
<br />International College of Surgeons (ICS).
<br />In 1988, acting under the city ’s landmarks ordinance, the
<br />Chicago Landmarks Commission designated a landmark district
<br />of seven lakefront properties, including rwo buildings owned by
<br />ICS. Before the cit>- council passed an ordinance approving the
<br />designation, ICS contracted to sell its property to a developer
<br />that intended to demolish the structures, saving only their
<br />facades, and build a high-rise condominium building.
<br />5*.:
<br />‘•■'j
<br />*
|