Hi all, FYI and attention. Hopefully we will get a better picture of the discussion items for the next few meetings based on this response from Mitchell. Paul paulbrant(a)mindspring.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Silver, Mitchell To: paulbrant(a)mindspring.com Cc: Bowers, Kenneth; Thomas A.Bartholomew Jr.; Rodger Koopman; Stephenson, Russ; Nancy McFarlane Sent: 4/1/2009 4:50:30 PM Subject: RE: COW Review of the 2030 Comp Plan Paul, I believe the agenda was clear. We made a special note, which we underlined, of the subject matter of the COW meeting. CP-1-09 The 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Raleigh. The proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan update existing System Plans as Plan Elements; add new Elements addressing Land Use, Environmental Protection, Urban Design, Arts and Culture, and Regional and Inter-jurisdictional Coordination; replace the Urban Form Map and related guidelines with a Future Land Use Map; and reduce the number of Area Plans from 67 to 21. (NOTE: Land Use and the Future Land Use Map will be the focus of discussion at this meeting.) I will take your issues one at a time. 1) The list was not �staff recommended� changes to the Land Use map, but staff offered a recommendation to changes recommended by someone else (citizen, community group, land use attorney, developer, etc). The changes to the land use map came from two sources: comments submitted as part of the public review process where staff recommended �no change� and changes recommended during the March 19th public hearing. I don�t know about the specific knowledge from land use attorneys you are referring to, but staff was contacted by a variety of people to find out what part of the comp plan would be discussed on the COW agenda. Once the agenda topic was posted, staff received calls from land use attorneys, planners, developers and citizens. 2) Staff sent a draft list of recommendations to the PC late Friday upon their request, but the final draft list of recommendations was not completed until Monday afternoon (3/30). As you know, staff generally brings COW material to the meeting the day of the meeting. 3) Staff or the PC could not predict how many items would be addressed at the 3/31 COW, so the �Land Use and Future Land Use Map� was listed as the agenda item. We were aware that all items staff reviewed may not have been discussed at the COW due the number of items. Someone who came to the COW meeting may have been upset if an item was listed on the agenda, but not discussed due to time constraints. I will defer to the COW Chair on how he would like the agenda to be listed in the future. 4) The City does not require property owners to be contacted on comp plan amendments. Since the land use maps and policies affect every citizen, the City would have to contact every property in the City, which is not practical. 5) The list of land use changes with staff recommendations presented at the COW meeting on 3/31 will be posted to the Planningraleigh2030.com website along with the minutes after the full PC approves the minutes at their next meeting. 6) As you know, the City has been committed to transparency throughout the process and that commitment continues. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The COW chair has been copied on this e-mail and I will discuss how we should list items on future COW agendas. There are likely 3-4 remaining meetings the PC will hold on the Comp Plan. Each one is important and therefore, I would encourage attendance at each one. Mitchell Silver, PP, AICP Director, Department of City Planning One Exchange Plaza, PO Box 590 Raleigh, NC 27602-0590 919.516.2625 phone 919.516.2684 fax e-mail: mitchell.silver(a)ci.raleigh.nc.us Department: www.raleighnc.gov/planning Comprehensive Plan: www.planningraleigh2030.com From: paulbrant(a)mindspring.com [mailto:paulbrant@mindspring.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:16 PM To: Silver, Mitchell Cc: Bowers, Kenneth; Thomas A. Bartholomew Jr.; Rodger Koopman; Stephenson, Russ; Nancy McFarlane Subject: COW Review of the 2030 Comp Plan Mitchell, I was very surprised to find out when I attended the PC COW meeting yesterday that there was such specificity in the items being discussed concerning the staff recommended changes to the Land Use Map. While the agenda notification of the meeting indicated a discussion on the Land Use Map would take place there was no indication that I could find on the web site of the specific areas of the map under review and recommendation. Since I did see a number of lawyers at the meeting with seemingly specific knowledge of the items under discussion as they affected their clients I am concerned that the general public and those property owners nearby and directly affected are not likewise aware of these staff recommendations prior to these meetings. As you know I have spent considerable time in this update process, reviewing documents, making comments and following up with staff and others in my CAC to ensure they are aware of the opportunities to input to the process. However, I do not believe that any member of the general public was made aware of the agenda details that were behind the CP-1-09 agenda item as published on the city's web site. If such detail is available I have not been able to locate it. Since each of these items are important to all concerned I would appreciate having a copy of the specific items to be discussed published on the web site. I know it is a monumental task to have you advise all affected property owners of these recommendations and yet I think it is important that there be a completely open and transparent process in which at least those who have provided comment concerning the affected area as well as the CAC Chair be notified when their item of interest is to be addressed within a Planning Commission or Council Committee. At least the agenda and the detailed list of items to be discussed need to be available in e-mail notifications or on the city's web site. It was more by accident than good planning that I happened to attend the PC COW meeting yesterday. I thought it was merely to map out the work program and discuss how the various recommendations would be discussed and the process approved. It was obvious that other people at the meeting knew that there was a long list of specific recommendations that were to be discussed and decisions made. I can find no reference in any information available to the general public informing us of that process or the items addressed. Please keep all interested parties informed of the details so we can be certain every opportunity for feedback on these recommendations is provided to the general public. Sincerely, Paul paulbrant(a)mindspring.com