Online Services Government Employment Education Business Tourism Need Help
City Council Heading City Letter Head
COMMON MEETING MINUTES
Monday, September 11, 2001- 8:30 a.m.
County-City Building
Conference Room 113

COUNCIL MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Jon Camp, Common Chair; Jonathan Cook, Glenn Friendt, Annette McRoy, Coleen Seng, Ken Svoboda; COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Terry Werner
MAYOR WESELY: In Attendance

COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Kathy Campbell. Larry Hudkins, Ray Stevens, Bob Workman; COUNTY BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Bernie Heier, Common Vice-Chair.

OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Kathleen Sellman, Kent Morgan, Steve Henrichsen, Mike Brienzo, Mike DeKalb, Planning Department; Allan Abbott, V. Singh, Roger Figard, Public Works Department; Bruce J. Bohrer, Lincoln Chambers of Commerce; Jon Carlson, Planning Commission, Peter Katt, Pierson Fitchett Law Firm; Richard Meginnis, Liz Gray, FMA Realty, Inc.; Members of the Comp Plan Committees and Task Forces; Gwen Thorpe, Kerry Eagan, Office of the County Board; Darrell Podany, Aide to Council Members Camp, Friendt and Svoboda; Joan Ray, Council Secretary; John Cutler, KFOR News; Chris Hain, Journal Star Representative.

Having just learned that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York City had been hit by airplanes, and not knowing the extent of the tragedy, Chairman Camp asked for a moment of silence before the meeting began.

MINUTES

  1. Minutes of Common Budget Meeting of June 28, 2001
  2. Minutes of Common Meeting of July 2, 2001
  3. Minutes of Common Meeting of August 6, 2001

    Chairman Camp called for separate motions for approval on each of the above-listed minutes. Mr. Larry Hudkins moved approval of the minutes of the Common Budget Meeting of June 28, 2001; Ms. Seng seconded the motion which was carried by the following vote: AYES: Mayor Wesley, Jon Camp, Kathy Campbell, Jonathan Cook, Glenn Friendt, Larry Hudkins, Annette McRoy, Coleen Seng, Ray Stevens, Ken Svoboda, Bob Workman; NAYS: None: ABSENT: Bernie Heier, Terry Werner.

    Mr. Bob Workman moved approval the minutes of the Common Meeting of July 2, 2001 which was seconded by Ms. Seng and carried by the vote shown above.

    Ms. Coleen Seng moved approval of the minutes of the Common Meeting of August 6, 2001 which was seconded by Mr. Glenn Friendt and carried by the vote shown above.

    Before the Meeting continued with the Comp Plan Update from Planning, Common Chairman Camp took a moment to congratulate everyone in attendance today. Since the last meeting and update, we have, of course, had the decision on the Beltway. That was another forward step in completing our Comprehensive Plan

    This Meeting was Scheduled to Address:

    PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE:

    COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE - Ms. Kathleen Sellman noted that this was the day the Planning Department had been waiting for. They had prepared a quick presentation outlining the schedule and process for the Comp Plan. There would also be discussion on the recommendations of the Economic Futures Committee; a look at the Green Print plan and how that fits into the overall Comprehensive Plan; and a look into what the recommendations were at the September 7th meeting of the Comp Plan Committee. They were very ambitious and met their dead-line for making some recommendations for a preferred Future out of the three Futures that were presented. Those three Futures that were the starting point in the planning process will also be reviewed.

    Ms. Sellman stated that they would unveil for the Common the "Preliminary Rough-Draft First-Cut Preferred Future". [Laughter] She noted that what they had received from the Committee was some direction as far as policies. Also, there had been direction as to what the Urban Form of the City and County will all work into. Because the Committee did not get to look at those policies applied to those mapped, Ms. Sellman felt the Committee members here today will be seeing that for the first time, noting that it may or may not have turned out as they anticipated. She indicated that there will be some refinement as we move through the process.

    Because of that, she proposed that as a part of this process, the Common may need to add a step. None of the findings are final at this point. We have a lot of work still ahead of us and there will be refinements and modifications; there is no doubt about that.

    Ms. Sellman stated that Planning Department is scheduling a public meeting with the Comprehensive Plan Committee. She noted that they had not discussed this with the Comp Plan Committee, but planned to put it together within the next four weeks. It would allow the public to respond directly to the Committee with their reaction to these Preferred Future Policies and Urban Form. She indicated that the meeting would be broadcast on Channel 5 [5City-TV].

    The community would also have the opportunity to provide comments in the other normal channels already set up - such as through the website, phone lines (which are set up in multiple-languages) as well as in writing submitted through the `snail-mail' [U.S. Postal Service]. She felt this meeting would encourage some additional community discussion at this early point on the Preferred Futures concepts. Ms. Sellman stated that if this is something the Common believes would work for them, the Planning Department will proceed in working with the Committee to set up just such a meeting.

    Mr. Camp asked Common members for thoughts on this suggestion. The general consensus of the Common was to proceed with the planned public meeting.

    Ms. Sellman introduced Mr. Morgan for a detailed presentation on the Comp Plan. He gave a brief presentation on what has been done, the various elements of the Plan and what has been accomplished and where we're headed. He reviewed the schedule which had been set up and which had been discussed at each Comp Plan Update.

    Mr. Morgan noted that the hope was to have a formal document to present to the Common in January of 2002 for approval.

    He talked briefly about some of the things that had been done with committees and community out-reach, with jurisdictional participation with other communities, with the local governing bodies, and also how Departmental Staff is being involved.

    There were four working committees involved in the process. Two remain in effect and two have basically completed their work. The Comp Plan Committee will continue their work; the Economic Futures and Green Print committees have concluded their work; and the Mobility and Transportation Task Force is really just beginning their effort.

    The Comp Plan Committee: This is the focal point. This committee is working on bi-weekly basis to look at policies. They are the ones who will be forwarding the recommendations. It is a fourteen member group appointed by the City and County elected officials, plus two members of the Planning Commission.

    The Economic Futures Task Force: This was a group set up early this year with 17 members. One of the members was from the Comp Plan Committee as a liaison. The others were people representing different businesses outside of the Comp Plan Committee. Their charge was to look at the long-term economic viability of the community and how it relates back to the Comp Plan. They were to bring forward recommendations relative to the economic elements of the next Plan. They have been working with the Mayor and County to coordinate some interests there.

    The Green Print Cabinet: This was a smaller group with 10 members representing various resource agencies such as the NRD, UN-L, and other state agencies as well. Their focus was to look at various environmental issues relative to the Plan. The Environmental Foundation, the National Resource Foundation looked at the Plan. The Cabinet met over a three month period between April, May and June. They've completed their work and their recommendations are being forwarded to the Common.

    The fourth group is the Mobility and Transportation Task Force. They are very recent in terms of genesis. They're a 16 member working group consisting of six die-hard members of the Comp Plan Committee who volunteered for this group as well. There are also 10 members from the community. This group is designed to look at the transportation element of the Plan - particularly the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) which is an element that is required by Federal Law and is a part of the over-all Comprehensive Planning Process. They started meeting in July and they will meet about every other week between now and December. Their charge is very ambitious in terms of time and skill because thinking about transportation, there is a very broad range to cover.

    The Out-Reach Aspect of the Planning Process: These are the things we've done to make sure we've involved the community in the decision making process in order to know what the community wants. We did a community survey, looked at broad Plan issues, did over 700 telephone surveys across the City and the County. That became the basis for what we're doing in terms of Comp Plan Committee and the work various Staff Members are doing. We did a follow-up survey on Transportation issues in early 2001, because one of the main issues that came out of the earlier survey was transportation. That has been completed. We have included special target surveys to members of minority and low-income communities so we'll have expanded understanding of their transportation needs. We've had three rounds of community workshops. About every quarter we have five-seven workshops going on in both the City and the County. We've also done some special target workshops with both the minority communities and with other interest groups such as the environmental groups and business and farming groups. We have a very active internet website where you can see everything the Comp Plan Committee does. There is an e-mail comment point on the website for the public to submit comments. We've also made available phone lines in various languages for taking comments from the public. These comments are posted on the web and made available to the Comp Plan Committee. The newsletter is being sent to over 1000 people. We're doing everything we can to make sure that the people know what is going on in the Comp Plan process.

    Other Jurisdictions: We've contacted all of the incorporated jurisdictions within Lancaster County. We've met with the Boards that have been contacted. We've explained to them what we're doing and we go back to them. We've contacted all of the surrounding counties and gotten their plans and talked with them about what their objectives and growth patterns are. We've mapped all of the Comprehensive Plans that we received; we've put together what the surrounding communities' plans are relative to our development.

    We've also contacted single-purpose governmental entities such as school districts, fire districts, and water districts, to let them know what's going on.

    We're also working with the Joslyn Castle Institute in both Lincoln and Omaha to look at inter-regional issues related to both Lincoln and Omaha. We've also included the southeastern Nebraska area.

    We've kept the elected and appointed officials advised. We have two Planning Commission members on the Comp Plan Committee. We do bi-weekly briefings with the Planning Commission. Every week when they meet, we try to spend the lunch hour prior to their meetings briefing them on where we are. We've given periodic briefings for all of the Common members. As we move forward we'll probably have workshops and other events that will involve the Common Members as we get into this in more detail.

    At the Staff Level: We've established what we call the Technical Resource Team (TRT). This is basically representative of all the pertinent departments in the City and County. We meet monthly and go through all the different things that are going on with the Comp Plan. On a more active basis, with certain departments that have specific issues, we work with them, making sure that we're coordinating our efforts.

    Mr. Morgan continued, briefly discussing the Economic Futures Task Force. Their charge is to look at how changes in the economy may influence the future of the Plan. We all know that as information technology evolves, it may have implications for the Comprehensive Plan. They've also looked at the needs and location standards for industrial and commercial sites. They consider any of the dynamics of the economy that will influence the development of the new Plan.

    There is a brief summary which Mr. Morgan passed out to the Common Members which presented the list of the membership and the dates that they have met and a copy of their vision statement and some of the recommendations that they have made. Mr. Morgan reviewed those recommendations. [Copies on file in Council and Planning Offices]

    The Green Print challenge began several months ago. Their report will be released in the next week with information and recommendations. Their focus is the natural resource issues as they relate to the formulation of the new Comp Plan. Their recommendations basically included issues such as incorporation of an environmental component in the Comp Plan; conducting a City Parks forum, (which is a program through the Mayor's Office and the Parks & Recreation Department where monies are obtained from the American Planning Association) and do some additional follow-up research relative to spending on the environmental component of the Plan. They looked at ways that natural resources can be incorporated into other City/County Plans as well - and not just the Comprehensive Plan.

    They looked at the out-reach to owners, developers and the environmental community and tried to bring all of these groups together, because right now, it may appear that the groups are rather divergent in their opinions on the environment. We try to make sure that they all understand the needs of maintaining the environment. We also want to explore the "twice green" results which is the idea that when the environment is physically green, it also is "green" in the sense that it provides economic benefits. People like to be near open spaces. So we can benefit twice from preserving and maintaining the environmental areas.

    They looked at funding opportunities, trying to develop capital programs for acquisition. It is not an idea to go out and regulate environmental areas, but to provide for ways where we can acquire other things to protect the environment.

    Mr. Allan Abbott reported to Chair Camp that a plane had just crashed into the Pentagon. Mr. Abbott asked if Mr. Figard had any more details. Mr. Figard reported that there were no details, but the Pentagon is on fire, as well as the World Trade Center. There is little detail at this time. He reported that the White House and the Capitol were being evacuated.

    Mr. Morgan continued the report. He stated that the last area discussed by the Green Print group was regarding four environmental imperatives, those being: Wetlands, both Saline and Fresh; Native Prairie; the Stream Corridor; and Endangered Species.

    [The Comp Plan Committee Vision Statement ("B") is attached to this report and is on file in the Council and Planning Offices. The major points touched in the Vision Statement were: The One Community Vision; Quality of Life Assets; Downtown Lincoln as the heart of the community; Environmental Stewardship; Economic Opportunity; Interaction between the Comprehensive Plan and the Citizens].

    Mr. Morgan continued reporting on the Futures Evaluations. This information is outlined in the Executive Summary ("C") which is attached to these minutes. He emphasized that the Three Futures ( A, B, and C ) were not individual alternatives, but are elements from the several Futures to be used for consideration.

    Future A: - A more compact City area. A total of 18 square miles in a 25 year time horizon. It channels 10% of the new dwelling units into new multi-family redevelopment in older portions of Lincoln. Newer areas develop at densities of 5 dwelling units per acre, compared to 3 to 4 dwelling units per acre found in Futures B & C. Beyond the Year 2025, additional urban expansion occurs to west, southwest and east.

    Future B: Unidirectional - The Lincoln city limits expand by 30 square miles by the year 2025, with most of this growth toward the East ( Stevens Creek), with some development in other growth areas already identified in the current Comp Plan to the south, north and west. Development occurs at typical suburban densities with all of the new dwelling units located in suburban areas. Long term growth continues to east and south, with growth beyond the year 2050 (Tier III) significantly expanding along Salt Creek to the south.

    Some small towns to the east and south grow (Waverly, Roca, Hickman, Bennet and Panama) while others have stagnant populations. Substantial acreage development occurs at the eastern and southern edges of the County in areas far outside the potential Lincoln service limits. A greater percentage of development outside of Lincoln would happen on acreages than in small towns in this Future.

    Future C: - Multidirectional - The Lincoln city limits expand by 30 square miles (by 2025) in several directions around the city. In the long term, the "multi-direction" growth pattern continues, with significant growth to the southwest, west, north and east and south.

    Most small towns have stagnant populations. Almost all development outside of Lincoln would happen on acreages rather than in small towns in this Future. Some acreage subdivisions cluster in long-term to the southwest and east. Many other acreages are scattered throughout the County. The scattered acreages range from "Very Low Density" of one dwelling unit per 60 to 80 acres to the north, to "Low Density" of 1 dwelling unit per 40 to 60 acres in the south.

    [Detailed information on the Futures Evaluations are included in the "Futures Evaluation Report on Draft Futures For Lincoln & Lancaster County" dated August 29, 2001. Copies of this Document are on file in the Council and Planning Offices. An "Executive Summary" (Labeled "C") is attached to these minutes.]

    Mr. Morgan stated that the Committee liked Future A because of the efficiency involved. But C was also liked because of the Multi-directional growth option. On the whole, they rejected B, so it came down to A and C. They talked about how much should be included in Tier I area and the density. They also looked at where the multi-directional growth should go on the fringe.

    So they asked us to develop of Future that would: 1) Be multi-directional; 2) provide for 20 square miles of "developable" area, which is not quite the same as the 18 and 30 square miles we discussed earlier. This is a more refined concept. This includes 20 square miles that is ready and available for development. It is not in the flood plain and it is not in some kind of acreage sub-division or golf course lands, but actual "developable" land. They want to try to make maximum use of existing infrastructure when possible; and recognize the long term need of the growth based plan that would look at prohibiting the development of acreages within the path of future urban growth area. This would include not allowing any new acreages within the Three-Mile area, though everything there now would be grandfathered in. This would protect the City's future growth.

    They wanted to look at higher density with 5 dwelling units per acre rather than the 3-4 that we have now. They wanted to make greater use of the infrastructure in the Plan assuming little or no development in the flood-plain. They want to make sure that we locate in areas outside of the flood-plains. They want to make sure that there is commercial and industrial expansion.

    Mr. Camp reported that the World Trade Center had collapsed, according to CNN News reports. Mr. Figard reported that the one that had been hit lower had collapsed. He believed the other one was still standing. Mr. Camp noted that it had been a 110 story structure. The Mayor reiterated that there had been an attack on the Pentagon in Washington, D.C.

    Mr. Morgan concluded that the Committee Members' recommendation had lead to the final Future which the Planning Department presented. It would be a multi-directional, no flood-plain development; higher density with industrial expansion included. The Committee will have to decide if this is their vision for the Futures. Planning had taken A and C. and combined them to fulfill the Committee's recommendations. He opened the meeting to questions from the Common Members

    The Mayor asked about the 20 developable acres, versus the 30 over-all acres. Mr. Morgan stated that the earlier Future Plans had 30 square miles of growth area, but this one had 27 square miles for growth area. This would make it fairly comparable to Plan C, which is what the Committee really leaned toward - then added options as they continued their recommendations.

    Mr. Friendt asked about the Economic Futures Task Force assumptions. He asked what the time frame was and what the annual percentage of increase in acreage would be. Mr. Morgan noted that what they did was look at job growth over the last 30 years, then tried to project into the future, based on trend lines and the economic council. So, they looked at future growth rates for different employment sectors. They settled, basically on 2% for those elements that relate to commercial development and 2.5% for those that relate to industrial development. That employment base then was translated into land use. With "x" number of employees in this market segment, we need about "y" much land to accommodate those; that was the progression as to how they got to those figures.

    Mr. Friendt noted that you end up with a lump sum increase of 86% over 25 years. Mr. Morgan responded that that was correct. Mr. Friendt asked how that 86% compared to the previous 30 years. Mr. Morgan noted that right now we're at about 30,000,000 square feet of commercial space and we'd be adding 21.5 million; so this is adding over a million square feet per year which is fairly aggressive.

    Mr. Cook asked, regarding percentages, if we have the 1.5% growth rate population, 2% for commercial and 2.5% for industrial, does this reflect historic trends? Why were those numbers chosen for commercial and industrial? Mr. Morgan replied that they looked at both population growth rate and employment growth rates, by sector, from 1972 to 2000. In all cases employment has always outstripped population growth. We've always had a higher growth in employment than we have in population. So we felt comfortable saying that the employment will continue to grow at a somewhat higher rate than the population. We'll have more people in the work force drawing from a broader area as we bring people in from other areas. They felt it was a reasonable ratio between the two - population and employment.

    Mr. Cook asked if there were factors during that time period [1972-2000] that would not necessarily repeat now such as women joining the work force? Mr. Morgan noted that that was right. But our demographic, starting in 1970, was a 40% ratio of population in the work force - we're up to about 60% now. Over 25 years, it will rise to nearer 70%; it will edge up slightly, but not at the same rate as before. The immigrant population has added a lot to our employment base. No one knows for sure what will happen with information technology. Mr. Morgan felt the baby-boomers probably thought they could retire early, but now we may all be working longer. There are a lot of different things influencing those numbers, but, they were comfortable with them.

    Mr. Friendt stated that the other connection with those growth rates to the population growth rate have an effect on housing and housing costs. He asked what the sense now was with that issue? Mr. Morgan stated that the whole issue on housing costs has so many different factors involved (such as the market place, interest rates, availability of land, and so many other things), but in not getting too disproportionate between what the employment needs are and what our population base might be, the feeling was that there would still be a balance. We might still have to draw in some employees from outside of Lancaster County, but we could do that with the "bedroom" communities around Lincoln. The ratio is within a reasonable balance, so we're hoping that we're not doing anything that will effect the housing economy too badly.

    Mr. Camp asked, with the certain trends that we've seen over the last 30 years, might that not change over the next 25 years. He noted that a 2% growth in commercial space was being estimated, but with a lot of technology, if you look at office space uses now, we're getting a higher density of people in commercial space, and consequently, organizations will require fewer square feet. It seems like these figures are going in just the opposite direction. He noted that telecommuting might have an impact in the future as well. Mr. Morgan stated that there were two dichotomies. One is making better use of office space, but in some instances, automation also allows for fewer workers in a larger space in industry. With so many different factors to examine, we're trying to look at something that balances out all of these different forces. He noted that 25 years is a long time - especially the way things change.

    Ms. Campbell stated that the report takes into account the fact that we have people who live in Omaha and come to work in Lincoln. We've looked at all of those factors. So, it's not just every person that is projected [in the work force] is going to live here.

    Ms. Campbell further noted that some of the technology and future...if you read the report...some of those companies will be more like what we would call a "Corporate Woods", such as you see in Kansas City. That is the type of space we believe our community will be needing. Maybe our technology groups will need that kind of space - and our needs will not just be in terms of "hard" industry. Maybe that need was greater in the Industrial area. They really felt that over a 25 year period, this is what the community would need.

    Another thing Ms. Campbell wanted to add regarding the economic group is that there will be segments added on which will relate to Agri-business. That was discussed (but is not necessarily included in this draft that you have) based on some discussions with the County Board to try to meld more with Agri-businesses and regular businesses.

    Ms. Campbell continued, noting that it had been an extremely interesting Task Force. She emphasized to the Common Members that the population number is not necessarily tied to the employment number. Don't get confused trying to make those figures dove-tail, because they're all over the chart in their relationship to one another.

    Ms. Seng stated the she wanted to go back to the Transportation and Mobility piece. She asked if this group had tied in with that transportation group working with C-SIP and StarTran? Mr. Morgan answered that the Mobility and Transportation Task Force has only met three or four times, and they're still early in their process. He stated that there was a liaison with the C-SIP group and we are also working with StarTran.

    Ms. Seng asked if public transportation and alternatives were really discussed in making this draft? Mr. Morgan stated that it will be, reiterating that the Task Force is just starting, so they're the last group to provide input. We wanted to get some land use information to start the draft.

    Mr. Hudkins stated that in the presentation, outlying school districts were mentioned. He noted that Malcolm probably has more of a border with Lincoln and he asked if the Committee seeks their reactions to the Plan? Mr. Morgan stated they had, but did not recall if they had gotten a letter back from them. Mr. Henrichsen commented that a mailing had been done to surrounding school districts, but Waverly was the only one, so far, that had responded. All were contacted, but only one has responded.

    Mr. Mike DeKalb noted that Norris School District had attended the last meeting that had been held. Also, Norris Public Power District had sent comments. [Mr. DeKalb's other comments were inaudible] Mr. Morgan noted that that had been the only one on which they had received formal written comments.

    Ms. Campbell added that when Norris School had a special meeting on the Comp Plan, they had invited her to visit with them. Their comments would have [inaudible].

    Mayor Wesley asked to take a moment to commend Kent and Kathleen and all of the Planning Staff, and the countless number of volunteers and Task Force members who have put in a lot of time on this. We've been "on task" and on time on this very important subject.

    Ms. Campbell noted that all the Common Members need to read the Draft Report in order to incorporate all of the input and information the Planning Department had gathered.

    Mr. Cook asked if it had been proposed to have no new acreages in the Three-Mile Limit. He asked if that meant that the C.U.Ps that Council now approves would be eliminated? Mr. Morgan stated that basically, at this time, this should limit any new acreage development in the Three-Mile Limit. It was with the understanding that would help protect the future expansion on the fringe.

    Mr. Cook asked if they didn't have a discussion on the merits of clustering and leaving large areas open? They want 20 acre minimum, period? Mr. Morgan agreed, adding that it would be kept "clean" so the City can grow in the future. They had spent an entire, very long, meeting just on acreages...and he felt sure the discussions would continue.

    Mr. Cook stated that another thing mentioned had been squeezing 25 years of infrastructure into 20 years. He was not sure what that means, exactly....if you need 25 years of infrastructure in 20 years, then it's 20 years of infrastructure. Why is it explained that way?

    Mr. Morgan responded that the concern was two-fold; if you don't build enough, then you're not allowing growth to occur. The other extreme was what if you build all this infrastructure and they don't come? All of a sudden, you have a huge investment - literally hundreds of millions of dollars in the ground and the development doesn't occur. The City then has the liability (the City being the community and the taxpayers) of paying for that. So they were looking for ways to avoid both extremes - so if we look at 25 years, then do it in 20, what would the cost be. We looked at triggers as development occurs, so we can keep ahead of that growth curve. This will continue to be monitored. That was just the starting point as far as infrastructure growth was concerned.

    Ms. Campbell stated that they had looked at the concept of the trigger mechanism under which you write certain criteria into the Comp Plan. So, if you reach a benchmark, the trigger mechanism will fire and, if necessary, changes to the Plan can be made more quickly and efficiently. We probably would have had fewer problems with the Roadway Corridors and the Beltway decision [if these mechanisms had been in place].

    Mr. Stevens asked, once the Plan is adopted early next year, what is the plan then for review...what is the interval for reviewing and making modifications every few years? Ms. Sellman answered that what we would be looking at would be a five-year schedule for a thorough review of the Plan. Not that a review would start every five years, but it would get us to a point where we would have another Plan to review at that five-year point. We would not be quite so re-active to conditions.

    Ms. Sellman noted that an important point which Ms. Campbell had raised is the issue of the triggers. Looking at market place, absorption rates for developable land, and to see if we're close in what we projected to what is actually happening in the market place. That way we can adjust for any major inconsistencies and not have to have an arbitrary point where we say "this is the only time we want to do this." This provides a little more flexibility.

    Mr. Cook asked if this would be changing the annual review process? Ms. Sellman stated that they had not looked at that at all. She felt there would be some short-term interval where we would continue with that. She noted they had not discussed that issue.

    Mr. Camp stated that we are in such an evolving world, he wondered if the annual review is sufficient. He felt it might be better to make an error in commission rather than omission otherwise we get back to the reactionary mode rather than being pro-active in the planning process. Ms. Sellman stated that during this process, they had placed everything on the table; not only the content, but also the way and the process in which we've used the Plan. She thought that we now have access to a lot more information on a more "streaming" basis than we had in the past. That will enable us to use the Plan differently.

    Mr. Camp observed that, when it's all boiled down with all of these planning projections, it comes back finally to the market place. How do you think this approach will be more responsive to the market place than prior approaches have been? Ms. Sellman stated that she could not answer that until we figure out how we will relate to that. What we're looking at is using additional data sources....maybe private data sources at this time. What we've used in the past is the projection numbers from the Census and building permits and other criteria. There are other data bases now which might be something that we can access now that we could not in the past. So we can know a little more about what is happening in the market place - earlier on than we could tell by reviewing such things as the number of building permits.

    Mr. Friendt asked if the trigger mechanisms, is they're plotted correctly, provide some market responsiveness? Ms. Sellman stated that that was the goal of the trigger mechanisms.

    Mr. Cook asked for some clarifications on the maps that had been used in the presentation. Mr. Morgan gave him that clarification information.

    Mr. Camp thanked the Planning Staff for keeping the Planning Process on the appropriate time-path. He noted that the next Common meeting would be in October. Mr. Morgan stated that they can have a status report on where the Comp Plan Committee is at the next Common meeting.

    Ms. Campbell announced that the County Board has set a work session for next Tuesday, from 9-11:00 a.m. in this room (Conference Room 113) since Mr. Heier is not here. Planning Staff is willing to do a repeat of this presentation. If there are any Council people who want to sit in on that session, you're more than welcome to come. Mr. Cook suggested that Mr. Werner be notified of that meeting. (The Planning Department e-mailed Mr. Werner with that meeting schedule)

    OLD BUSINESS- None

    NEW BUSINESS - None

    ADJOURNMENT - Mr. Camp asked if there was any further update on the tragic events of the morning. No one had further information and Mr. Camp announced, at approximately 9:45 a.m., that the meeting was adjourned.

    Submitted by
    Joan V. Ray
    Council Secretary

InterLinc Home Page

History