Planning Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

Mass transit, right? Whatever that may be. And unfortunately, things are moving quickly. So what today may not be applicable may be applicable in five years because technology continues to increase and speed up this new opportunities of mass transit. So I think there needs to be some sort of consideration for probably a phasing of that. Because it's almost like the chicken and the egg, right? If you don't create enough density along the quarter, you'll never be able to justify the transportation. So if you put no density along the quarter, that will never have transportation. So I think that's a good point to bring up. And I think it's a point that the planning staff should take into consideration in which some of this stuff should be phased, right? That we meet certain milestones. And if there's a milestone that we say we have need to have certain number of, you know, homes or ridership to meet that, that we don't trigger the next, you know, phase of that until that's achieved. And we do it smartly.

I appreciate the feedback. And I think if you look at the TPO's work from almost 10 years ago, uh, It's basically what you've described. They're saying we need X number of people in order to qualify for federal funding. And that's why I think it cascades down into the various aspects of code and planning. But I think it's fairly obvious that some of the fundamentals have changed. To your point, technology is changing. We're looking at air taxis at some point. We're looking at all kinds of things that are different than a decade ago. And that rate of change is happening faster and faster. So I think it would be appropriate, again, to, like you say, perhaps look at a phased approach. But I don't want to get into having recommend to the staff what they should do. I just think we should look at it.

Mr. Rowe.

Yes, Mr. Chair. And, you know, the PAB, I'll say the PAB will have the opportunity to discuss some of these questions when you receive the evaluation and appraisal of the comprehensive plan, right? So that's going to be due to the board in the coming months. You know, on the question specifically, how It is that age-old question of parallel with the chicken and the egg, which one comes first, land use or transportation? Because if you're planning for transportation, you need the densities to support the transportation, the motor transportation. Do you bring the densities first or the transit service first? So we grapple with that question quite a bit as planners. I will say, though, that with the allowances in the CDMP for the various corridors and the development that the CDMP ultimately allows, one key um criteria that's inherently built in into the allowance is that compatibility with the neighborhoods is a significant um consideration so you know it the development should be right-sized based on the neighborhood that is happening in and you know we are as we evaluate um these applications from that perspective in determining you know essentially Can it take advantage of the allowances for these corridors or not? So we are involved in that process. But as far as the PAB is concerned, you will have an opportunity to get into some of that discussion when you have the ear before you.

I think what I'm asking for, knowing that we're going into those discussions, it would be great to have this information so that we can make an advised recommendation. And so that's what I'm asking for is if it's possible, like we can't direct you to do it, but we certainly can ask, can we have this information so that we can make informed decisions when it comes time to review the CDMP changes that will be coming in the next couple of months? In addition to your previous comment, the way in which staff is involved is in the form of an interpretation letter, correct? That's one way. Yes. So it really, all it is, is it's reviewing the text. It's saying, yes, you're conforming with the text and reminding you that you need to be compatible with it. It doesn't have the full scope of the work that you do to present to us to make a recommendation. It bypasses us when it bypasses that work and go straight to zoning.

I guess the context is appropriate to consider in that the allowances that are already in the comprehensive plan don't need to come back to this board whenever there's a project. So I guess that's what you're speaking to when you say it bypasses you guys. Yes, the comprehensive plan was already amended to include those allowances, then the appropriate path for any projects to seek the development rights or zoning. They go through the zoning application process. But there's a determination of consistency with the CDMP that we will evaluate and ultimately issue a position on.

Absolutely not our concern. That's at the BCC level for them to make that determination. I don't want to step on their toes at all. That's not the point here. Right. The point is we've made a change to the plan a number of years ago that was based off of underlining assumptions that arguably are not the same today. And I think we should have the information to understand what those underlining assumptions are so that we can make a thoughtful recommendation when it comes to changing the CDMP.

Yeah, and we can certainly follow up with you at any point. We're always welcoming to whatever questions you have, information requests. We're here to help you make your work easier on this board. So certainly, we'll be following up with you.

I'm giving you a heads up.

Yes, yes. So we're here. We're here.

More than we're here, I would love for you to come back to us with the information I described.

okay so and i guess um what i'll do is to ensure that we're fully responding to the questions that you have we'll have a follow-up with you before your next meeting with the board in the next board meeting so that we we ensure that we're hitting all the points that you're concerned about these things take time i realize this is a complex ask uh

before we have to review the cdmp changes that are coming is when we would need that information so i'm not asking for it right away i think it would just be good for myself and my colleagues to have this information in hand so that we can make a thoughtful recommendation

yeah we you know i commit to working with you to making sure that you know whatever information we can provide we will all right so yeah okay thank you thank you mr chair no problem did we have any discussion or any other uh new business any old business all right i think we might have missed uh staff announcement my apology staff mr roe do you have any announcements

we did have an announcement we passed out the flyer for the shenley park workshop and that's going to be this saturday um september 19th from 10 o'clock till noon at 80 dance a.d barnes park so if you're interested in that please pick up the flyer and then uh the next PAB meeting is going to be in three weeks on Monday, October 5th. And as we have a lot less agenda items than we have expected, we're going to be moving the time back from 10 o'clock to the regular 2 o'clock time. And I'll send you out the email reminder about that and for the time change. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, seeing no further business. Board Member Morris moves we rise. Adjourned? All right, meeting's adjourned.