MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE
SPECIAL MEETING FOR COMPREHENSIVE
WHICH TOOK PLACE ON
Present:† Gaynor, Rapanos, Eyre, Senesac, Svenson and Mead
Councilmen Present:† Joe Rokosz and Jim Myers
Absent:† Kozakiewicz and Jocks
Others:† Jon Lynch (Assistant City Manager), Cheri Standfest (Community Development Specialist), Daryl Poprave (City Planner), Patty Young (Midland Board of Realtors), Gary Hughes (Midland Public Schools), Cliff Miles (Midland Tomorrow), Denise Spencer (Midland Community Foundation), Sid Allen (Midland Area Chamber of Commerce), Bradd Maki (Assistant City Engineer), and John Palen (Midland Issues)
I.††††††††† Interview with CARLISLE/WORTMAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
An introduction of Carlisle/Wortman Associates, Inc, by R. Donald Wortman, Vice President, began at † Donald Wortman and Mr. Carlisle will oversee the project.† Douglas Lewan will be the project leader.†† Jennifer Coe will also assist on the project.† Kezziah Watkins will be handling the public participation component.
The Planning Commission recessed at for a short break.
The Planning Commission reconvened
at to interview the firm of
Hamilton Anderson Associates.† Hamilton
Anderson Associates was involved with the circle project.† Zac Brandon grew up
The Planning Commission recessed at for a lunch break.
The Planning Commission reconvened
at to interview LSL Planning,
Inc.† Brad Strader, a managing Partner of
LSL Planning, introduced the firm and explained that Tom Dabareiner would be
the project manager.† Pete LaMourie, from Progressive AE, out of
††††††††††† The Planning Commission recessed at for a short break.
The Planning Commission reconvened at to interview McKenna Associates.† Phil McKenna introduced the firm.† The project manager will be Chris Duzen.† The Corradino Group will be the transportation planners and Kezziah Watkins will conduct the public participation component.
V.† Planning Commission Discussion & Combined Meeting Discussion:
Denise Spencer and Sid Allen requested to abstain from the voting due to conflicts of interest with members of one of the firms.
Patty Young, from the Midland Board of Realtors, thought both presentations this afternoon were very good.† She would choose LSL.
Gary Hughes, from Midland Public Schools, liked LSL the best this afternoon.† They seemed to be a good match and they knew the community well.† He was very comfortable with them.
Cliff Miles, from Midland Tomorrow, liked LSL the best this afternoon.† They were prepared.† The only thing they didnít have was a comment on the Midland Urban Growth Area.
Daryl Poprave, City Planner, liked LSL the best this afternoon.† Knowing that the owner of the company is the project manager for us means they are taking a stake in the project and not just passing us off.† They know they have to engage the public in this process.
Brad Makki, Assistant City Engineer, liked LSL better this afternoon.† LSL had a more defined package.† He understood where the limits were.†
Scott Gaynor like both presentations.† McKenna was very heavy on implementation.† They have also done a lot of work in this area.† LSL had a very impressive proposal and an impressive presentation.† They want public involvement.† He liked LSL the best.
Bill Eyre thought both presentations were good.† Regarding LSL, Brad sort of took over the entire presentation.† He seemed to dominate the presentation.† Their transportation man, Pete Lemoire, was indecisive in his direction of the plan.† Bill thought McKenna Associates did a better job with their presentation.† He is concerned that Kezziah Watkinsí fee is so much less in the proposal from McKenna.
Joe Rokosz stated that Phil McKenna said he cut the fee from Kezziah Watkins in half so Joe is not sure exactly what we are going to get in the way of public participation.† LSL gave a philosophical presentation for corridors.† McKenna has been here before.† They have been involved in a tri-county five-year plan and they have written our zoning ordinance.† Joe does not really have a preference.†
Ray Senesac liked LSL the best.† He felt they were much better than either of the groups this morning.† Both groups this afternoon seemed willing to work with Kezziah Watkins.† McKenna was also comfortable with Kezziah Watkins so this did not seem to be a big issue.† Ray thought McKenna had a better plan than the other three, and that they presented it very well.† We spent a lot of time with McKenna on the zoning ordinance and they did a great job there.
Jim Myers was a little confused by LSLís presentation.† He did not see a continuity in their staff and questioned how well they would work together.† Jim thinks the most challenging part of this plan will be the infrastructure and transportation.† He wants to know which of these four firms have the best approach to looking at the transportation, infrastructure, and public participation.† He liked McKenna Associates the best of all due to the transportation and public participation issues.
Steve Rapanos leans toward LSL.† They stood a little bit above the rest of them.† The most important thing is public participation and LSL seemed to have the best grip on working with Kezziah Watkins.† He also likes the fact that Brad Strader is working on the project.† He feels this shows a personal interest in this project.
Carol Svenson stated that she had higher expectations for McKenna Associates.† They actually put in some specifics when they interviewed for the zoning ordinance.† LSL seemed like they were eager and happy to work with Kezziah Watkins.† McKenna seemed like they had some issues with that.† LSL was looking at future strategies and had some new ideas.† She liked LSL the best this afternoon.
Roger Mead thought McKenna had a lot of information and they went through it very well.† The enthusiasm shown by LSL and Dow.Howell.Gilmore was much better.
Cheri Standfest also liked LSL the best this afternoon as they generated a lot of excitement about this project and Brad Strader is taking a personal interest in this project.† This indicates a willingness by the firm to produce their best quality product.
Jon Lynch noted that McKenna Associates stated in their proposal that the economic development portion of the plan would be extremely important.† Later on in the presentation, they stated they would use data from a tri-county economic study that was done five years ago so that data is already five years old.† LSL stated their process philosophy up front and they tried to match that to the character of our community.† They talked about performance monitoring, and were the only firm to discuss this.† They also discussed neighborhood traffic calming.† LSL also stated their sensitivity to the multi-generational aspects of the plan and public input.† Their last statement pertained to a continuation of the public input process and keeping the people engaged to help implement the plan.
Motion to direct staff to develop a work
program with LSL a contract for the master plan for the City of
Motion to adjourn at made by Mead, seconded by Svenson.† Motion passed unanimously.
Jon Lynch, AICP