Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer reiterated his position that if the City really wants to encourage <br />development, then it should move with more expediency on the wetlands and <br />other planning issues. <br /> <br />Mr. Gleason said he would very much like to increase the pace of the <br />industrial and commercial lands studies, but staff is already pressed just <br />trying to deal with existing development requests. He added that the high <br />level of development activity does not leave many resources for long-range <br />planning. Mr. Gaydos agreed. <br /> <br />Mr. Gaydos said the commission is very concerned about its inability to <br />engage in long-range planning because of the more immediate demands. Mr. <br />Gaydos said he feels the commission should be concentrating on long-range <br />planning, rather than on implementing plans as Mr. Holmer suggested. He said <br />another concern of the commission is that the planning staff is overburdened. <br />Mr. Gaydos said that the inability to process issues more quickly stems in <br />large measure from budgetary constraints. <br /> <br />Mr. Rutan asked what the focus of the City's annexation program is. Ms. <br />Decker said that is a policy decision which the council will need to make <br />soon. Ms. Nathanson said at various times, the Planning Commission has <br />discussed the possibility of adopting special regulations to make annexation <br />more palatable. She said the commission is ready to discuss whatever the <br />council suggests. Mr. Rutan said the City's annexation policy has been <br />attacked at the Legislature from every possible angle. He felt this makes it <br />imperative that the council reconsider its policy and decide if changes are <br />needed. ' <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Ms. Bascom said she was glad the commission had included the LTD study as one <br />of its high priorities; she said this is an issue of significant concern to <br />the council. Mr. Rutan asked why the LTD study is on the agenda of both the <br />Downtown Commission and the Planning Commission. He felt that only one of <br />the commissions should process this issue so that there is not a duplication <br />of efforts. Mr. Farkas said the Downtown Commission will approach the study <br />primarily from a site development perspective, while the Planning Commission <br />will approach it from a transportation perspective. Mr. Rutan pointed out <br />that the Downtown Commission deals with other transportation issues. He felt <br />that time and resources could be saved by giving the Downtown Commission <br />responsibility for the full study, and pointed out that this would also help <br />to relieve some of the pressure the Planning Commission is experiencing. <br /> <br />Mr. Holmer noted that many members of the planning staff are involved in a <br />number of studies at anyone time. He questioned whether this is the best <br />way to process issues. Mr. Holmer said that this method forces staff members <br />to divide their attention and may slow down the planning process as a result. <br />Mr. VanLandingham said that the commission tried to limit the number of <br />issues it would address, so that the work level would be manageable for <br />staff. He added that staff has estimated the hours associated with each <br />project and believes that this commission1s work program is manageable. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />MINUTES--City Council/Planning Commission-- <br />Dinner/Work Session <br /> <br />May 22, 1989 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br />