Planning Commission Minutes 2015 07 09

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 9, 2015 Page 16 of 17 Russ says as one of the contributing authors to that document, there are goals and objectives and action items. A policy is an implementing action, a nuance to the principle. The principles are generally broad and the policies start to zoom in a little bit in terms of focusing a lens on one of the many aspects of the principle. O'Connell says I am trying to tie this back to the specific aspects of the Comp Plan that give us the authorization. Not to say this is a good thing for the City overall. We have lawyers in the audience and they are gearing up for fight, so we need to make sure that if we move forward and recommend this to be sent to Council, we know exactly where under the Comp Plan we are pinning this to. I am looking at Principle ED-3 and Policy ED-3.1. When you look at them in the context of possible powers of eminent domain, they are somewhat in conflict. We are looking at responsive to market opportunities versus actively competing for quality economic. Policy ED- 2.1 where the City is striving to achieve complementary land uses versus competing. There is the potential for disagreement and could be argued either way. As this discussion goes further, we as the PC look at those things in the Comp Plan and it could ultimately feed into a greater battle down the line. I am trying to focus us back so we can make sure in going forward, we approve this for specific reasons than saying it is good for the City. Russell says why it is good for the City is what makes it compliant with the Comp Plan. We should be responsive to market opportunities, place the City in a competitive position, actively compete for quality economic development, and consider strategic public investments. This is a tool to allow that. We have to deal with whether it is complementary or conflicting land use. In the future, we will deal with a roomful of people if we have residential development. All that stuff is going to happen in the future. We don't know. My view, core to community interest, is economic development and fiscal health. Core consideration is what is a blighted area? Is it a social or financial liability for a community? I feel we have solid footing. I agree with a couple people that we are getting pulled either too far in the future or way off to the side of what is really germane to the discussion. Would a tool like this be compatible with the Comp Plan? O'Connell says the key terms I am looking at are promoting an economically healthy community. The discussion of what is done by the City to promote an economically healthy community will come down the road. Looking at the Comp Plan and looking at this policy which informs the principle, it will be up to the City down the line to make the decision whether or not its actions are going to promote an economically healthy community. Moving forward, my opinion is that it is compatible with the Comp Plan because of that statement. Closed Public Hearina and discussion by Commission: Pritchard says he agrees with Russell and Rice. I think we are taking it too far down the line. The issue before us is the compatibility of using tools down the road. Russell says there is nothing being done here that reduces the ability of the PC and City Council to make judgements about future land use. This does not exempt people from City policy; it doesn't create a black box that gets shaken and something pops us to every one's surprise. Whoever develops this will be back in here making future land use proposals to the PC and the City Council. I think it is relevant because if we reduce our capacity to control it, then I would want a much more specific plan at this stage. We are opening a field of opportunity to the City and the owners and citizens if we adopt this. Russ says any commercial development has to come through a Planned Unit Development and the PC would be the recommending body to City Council.