2017-01-04_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes – Wednesday, December 7, 2016 Page 5 Ms. Perdureferenced the conceptual schedule identified by WSB (page 30 of the plan 174 update document; with Chair Boguszewski asking that for future iterations, a larger plan 175 be provided for better visibility, duly noted by Ms. Perduafter it was further refined form 176 tonight’s discussion and that additionaldetail provided in a more readable format. 177 Ms. Perdunoted the preliminary plan called for kicking off with public engagement 178 specific to land use and housing issues, followed by economic development, resilience 179 and updating the Park Master Plan.Ms. Perdunoted the intent for a considerable 180 amount of public engagement in different forms throughout the process. 181 Chair Boguszewski asked is the conceptual schedule with its sequences and elements 182 had been approved by the City Council, or if the PC could add or omit items. 183 Ms. Major advised that the schedule was very preliminary, and the intent of presenting it 184 was to obtain PC feedback and their perspective of what would or would not work as 185 everyone was on the same team and to ensure a collaborative effort. 186 Ms. Perduconcurred, noting the purpose of showing the PC this preliminary effort was 187 simply to show what the team was attempting to accomplish throughout the process. 188 While the overall scope had been approved by the City Council, Ms. Major noted that the 189 City Council had encouraged the PC’s involvement in how best to accomplish the goals 190 of each component. 191 Since this is the first look at the comprehensive plan update since last discussing in June 192 of 2016, Member Kimble asked that was and was not before the PC as far as the 193 components to be updated.Member Kimble asked if there was another consultant 194 chosen for the chapters simply needing technical updates. 195 Mr. Perdureviewed those chapters: infrastructure, transportation, water, wastewater, 196 and surface water; with the technical chapters required by the Metropolitan Council 197 intended to be updated by city staff and the WSB team in-house.Ms. Perduadvised that 198 there were at least two other consultants involved throughout the process to assist staff 199 with technical updates.Once those separate processes and timelines were completed, 200 Ms. Perduadvised that those chapters will be integrated into the complete document for 201 the PC’s final review and recommendation to the City Council. 202 As noted by Mr. Lloyd, the ParkMaster Plan would only be updated, with few revisions 203 anticipated through this process; with Chair Boguszewski in agreement that little debate 204 would be needed on that aspect. 205 Member Murphy asked what was intended for public safety components (e.g. fire and 206 police). 207 Ms. Perduadvised that, as the process moved forward, the team would like to discuss 208 that in more detail.Ms. Perdunoted that their impression from city staff and the City 209 Council was that the team should include public safety as a lens throughwhich to review 210 all elements of the plan and consult with city staff accordingly, and to learn from the PC 211 based on their input. 212 While recognizing that updates were ongoing by both departments, Member Murphy 213 stated he wasn’t sure how to capture it in the comprehensive plan update or if and when 214 it was appropriate to do so. 215 As part of that housekeeping or logistics issue, Chair Boguszewski asked if the team had 216 a website linking all documents for the project.Chair Boguszewski noted that this would 217 then allow document control for the City Council, CEC, PC or other groups involved to 218 review those documents throughout the process. 219