11/19/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5.2 General Plan Process Council discussed the proposed review process for the General Plan. Casey commented that residents really wanted to participate and suggested reviewing the land use element first. She also reiterated her suggestion that a Town survey be done separately. She did not think it worked in conjunction with the General Plan review. Dauber recommended that the circulation element be reviewed first. Since this dealt with the private/public road issue, there would be quite a bit of public input. Siegel recommended reviewing the General Plan section by section. Hubbard noted that Casey continued to recommend a Town Survey. He stated that the majority of the Council had agreed not to undertake such a separate survey and therefore the issue required no further discussion. Council agreed on the following steps in the review process for the General Plan: 1) Establish a subcommittee of the Council, Planning Commission, Environmental Design and Protection Committee, Finance Committee, Pathways Committee and Safety Committee to provide oversight for the Circulation Element, to meet with the consultant and to review draft materials as needed; 2) Present an outline of the topics to be considered in the Circulation Element as well as an overview of the entire project to the Council at a regular City Council Meeting; 3) Sponsor workshops regarding the Circulation Element as well as an overview of the entire process with a newsletter notice to all Town residents and property owners; 4) Conduct a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission with the consultants to provide direction as a result of the workshops and to decide whether to initiate a Town -wide survey; 5) Conduct subcommittee meetings; 6) Conduct public hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council with notices sent to all residents; and 7) Follow a similar process for each of the elements of the General Plan. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To appoint William Siegel and Carol Gottlieb to the subcommittee on the Circulation Element and to request the committees to make recommendations for appointments which shall be made at a January Council Meeting. 5.3 Off -Road Pathway Plan Process Casey stated that she had asked that this item be put on the agenda so that she could request input from Councilmembers and residents as reference information for the recommendation she would be bringing to the Council on this issue after the first of the year. Dauber made the following recommendations: nexus and amount of pathway taken should be related; set how much path for 900 square feet; if giving a path a resident should not have to pay; use in lieu fees - equalize giving of pathway easements; re -think taking sections of paths; and make it clear that the Council is looking for input - the decisions have not been made. Dauber also publicly apologized to the Chairman of the Pathways Committee, Les Earnest, for the conduct at the last Council Meeting when the pathways were discussed. The entire Council was remiss in not speaking up to ensure that such disturbances (clapping, yelling out) did not occur at the meeting. Hubbard believed it was an unwieldy process. He suggested that smaller sections be addressed with neighborhoods being looked at one at a time. Siegel noted that the Pathways Committee was looking at an abstract pathway plan and the Council dealt with the public. If a neighborhood did not want a path and the Council agreed with them, this should not imply that the Council did not support the Town's pathway system. Council met with the Pathways Committee to hear their justification for paths: what easements were already there? Future subdivisions? Already developed?. The Pathway Committee should provide prioritization of paths to the Council. Casey stated that the residents were upset at not being asked for their input on the pathway issue. November 19, 1997 Regular City Council Meeting