2013-05-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 1, 2013 Page 19 Member Daire questioned if, in an attempt to be proactive or following the apparent 914 encouragement to be proactive, those things he suggested were inappropriate for the 915 Planning Commission to become involved with, to avoid losing their objectivity or focus; 916 and whether that particular portion should be excluded from a work plan. 917 Mr. Paschke advised that he would encourage all individual members to be involved in 918 their community, whether park renewal or HRA activities, however, he advised that he 919 wouldn’t encourage the body as a whole to seek a more prominent role at the table. Mr. 920 Paschke cautioned that limits were indicated, and some activities may be appropriate and 921 others inappropriate; and suggested that community could be discussed at meetings of 922 the body, but need not be considered as part of an annual work plan. 923 Member Olsen, specific to the body being proactive, and the second bullet point related 924 to the body’s process and recommendations to the City Council, Member Olsen 925 expressed his previously-noted frustration in going through the meeting and public 926 hearing process, including research, staff reports, and subsequent recommendations of 927 the body based on those components; but then repeated at the City Council level. 928 Member Olsen questioned why the same questions were asked and answered again at 929 the City Council level; and questioned why the Planning Commission existed at all if that 930 redundancy continued. If the Commission was being encouraged to be proactive, and 931 continued to be reactive to what it heard and its rationale in making recommendations to 932 the City Council, Member Olsen suggested that those recommendations should be taken 933 seriously by the City Council or there was little need for the body to exist. Member Olsen 934 suggested a better definition by the City Council on what was intended by “proactive” and 935 if they became proactive, would their recommendations be listened to when they came 936 forward. 937 Member Cunningham concurred with Member Olsen. 938 Mr. Paschke suggested that these were good discussion points, and spoke directly to the 939 efficiencies of the Commission’s time as well as that of the City Council; and the process 940 established by state law. Mr. Paschke advised that it would be helpful in the process for a 941 clear understanding of those rules. 942 Chair Gisselquist suggested that part of the redundancy may be due to the political 943 nature that the City Council, as elected officials, needed to deal with, since the Planning 944 Commission was appointed and not elected. Chair Gisselquist opined that the 945 disillusionment of the Commission regarding their role should provide for a spirited or 946 th robust discussion with the City Council on May 13. 947 Based on tonight’s discussion, Member Daire opined that the proposed work plan 948 seemed counter-productive; since it was only possible if and when time allowed; and 949 should not be documented to provide fodder to point out lacks of the body in achieving its 950 goals. 951 Mr. Paschke continued to support having an annual list of goals for the body beyond its 952 normal role in formal approvals of various applications, with the work plan items 953 eventually working forward to action items. 954 Chair Gisselquist encouraged all members of the Planning Commission to attend the joint 955 meeting with the City Council on May 13, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. 956 8. Adjourn 957 Chair Gisselquist adjourned at approximately 10:09 p.m. 958