2017-02-01_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

wĻŭǒƌğƩtƌğƓƓźƓŭ/ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓaĻĻƷźƓŭ aźƓǒƷĻƭΑĻķƓĻƭķğǤͲWğƓǒğƩǤЍͲЋЉЊА tğŭĻЌ While that process would be largely outside the context of the Planning Commission initially, Mr. 100 Lloyd advised that direct communication and coordination with the city’s engineers would occur 101 for their planning process that would ultimately come to the Planning Commission for information 102 and seeking input from the planning perspective. Mr. Lloyd noted that much of that chapter may 103 be more technical in nature, with input also given by the Public Works, Environment and 104 Transportation Commission and the city’s professional staff. 105 Member Daire stated his rationale in asking was the emphasis on community participation, and 106 given the technical nature of that portion, wondered how public reaction to proposed changes or 107 system arrangements (e.g. designation of collector and arterial streets) would be accomplished. 108 While the Request for Proposals (RFP) has yet to be finalized for a consultant for that aspect of 109 the comprehensive plan, Mr. Lloyd stated that staff anticipated a similar public engagement 110 process somewhat more concentrated within that context. Mr. Lloyd advised that the city engineer 111 or Public Works staff would probably be visiting with the Planning Commission to talk about any 112 proposed changes, but later in the overall process. 113 Based on his planning experience, Member Daire advised that he was thinking about the 114 relationship between land use and transportation, thus his concern that communication between 115 establishing land uses and anticipated traffic generation in that area needed to be involved in the 116 process. 117 Chair Boguszewski noted the intent for past identification and appointment of Planning 118 Commissioners Bull, Kimble and Gitzen as liaisons to attend meaningful meetings and 119 discussions outside this setting, but when involving anything to do with the comprehensive plan 120 update. Chair Boguszewski noted that, even though discussions may not be land use specific, 121 this should provide a way to raise any flags or identify whether or not additional public 122 engagement is needed. As commission representatives participate in those other meetings, 123 sessions or phone calls, if something was identified that needed more representation from the 124 Planning Commission as community representatives, Chair Boguszewski advised that those 125 members could then provide their feedback to note areas that warranted some broader 126 engagement, at which time that feedback could be provided. As the RFP comes in, Chair 127 Boguszewski emphasized the intent that the Planning Commission serve as the conduit for 128 whatever involves the comprehensive plan update. 129 Ms. Collins stated, as part of the transportation plan and when a consultant is hired, public 130 engagement will be part of the process as well as invitations for the Planning Commission to 131 attend and participate in those sections. Ms. Collins also noted that staff intended to have those 132 chapters brought to the Planning Commission for review to determine if something is missing or 133 awkwardly written before it proceeds; but overall to ensure that synergy throughout all chapters 134 and the process itself. 135 Chair Boguszewski emphasized that staff involves one or more of the available representatives to 136 attend any and all meetings; whether or not staff thinks it may involve a significant revision. 137 Given the intent for separate engagement processes for those chapters outside the land use 138 realm, Member Bull expressed concern that there may be too many meetings for residents’ 139 participation; suggesting that it may be better to merge those meetings instead of having two 140 different engagement processes and public meetings. 141 Regardless of the Community Development Department having control over those specific 142 chapters or not, Ms. Collins assured the Commission that no matter how they were integrated into 143 the plan, consideration of avoiding engagement fatigue would be part of the process going 144 forward. 145 Returning to Member Daire’s previous comment on integration of land use and infrastructure 146 contents of the plan, Ms. Purdu noted the advantage of having the Planning Commission involved 147 in the overall vision of the comprehensive plan and setting those priorities and goals; with all the 148 other elements meant to be consistent with that overview. Ms. Purdu assured the commission 149 that what it decided in the first 2-3 months of the process would serve to inform the infrastructure 150 and all other chapters as well. 151