pm_061206 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 06, 2006 Page 7 status of the Community Development Department reserve fund; the self-funding nature of the department based on permit and fee revenues, with no General Levy dollars; impacts for using the reserves, and need for maintaining a healthy balance in reserves to provide consistent public service. Commissioner Doherty noted the incredible challenge in receiving meaningful public participation in the visioning process, and the frustrations experienced by the various subcommittees. Additional discussion included appointment of Planning Commission subcommittees to review and analyze various sections of the Comprehensive Plan, particularly those with statutory requirements, and those higher on the priority list; Commissioners Gasongo and Boerigter shared their concerns that, in order to solicit public participation, sufficient monies would be needed for meetings and to encourage public involvement. Commissioners concurred. Mr. Stark noted that some communities had spent up to $140,000 for the process; and that he had suggested a lower amount initially. Additional discussion included availability of quality consultants and their current workloads; and the need for interaction between the consultant and staff in getting a consistent end product, with specific needs for the land use and economic development portions, in addition to the more department-specific sections already underway. Mr. Stark noted that the Public Works Department had completed substantial work on the Shoreland Protection Ordinance when laws were changed; and other environmental issues were addressed by the department during those detailed processes, reducing the work needed on those portions. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has also already done substantial work on the housing portions. Mr. Stark advised that he was not as concerned with the other portions as he was with the land use and economic development sections. Commissioners and staff discussed the needs of the land use and economic development sections, with their vast amounts of data but without analysis or conclusions for that data, without historical rationale, or past practices, or best use observations. Mr. Stark opined that a lot of land use/development happened on an ad hoc basis, with Master Plans adopted by reference into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stark suggested that the cost of the Comprehensive Plan Update should be viewed as a city-wide liability, with one point-person (i.e., City Manager or Community Development Director) responsible for the document in its entirety to ensure the coordination of independent chapters and to prevent a segmented document whose chapters don’t relate to one another. Chair Traynor, with Commission concurrence, directed Mr. Stark to make sure to convey to the City Council the need to identify and support ways to provide public participation, and to make sure additional participation beyond the visioning process was provided, given the more challenging and targeted discussion needs of the technical portions of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Commissioner Bakeman, with Commissioner concurrence, noted the success of going to the neighborhoods (like the HRA has done) rather than holding meetings at City Hall; while recognizing the additional costs, staff time and resources required to schedule meetings off- site; in addition to getting all demographic ranges of the public involved.