The most pressing topic at the meeting was traffic management and safety, particularly the implementation of traffic calming devices such as speed bumps and speed humps. The differentiation between these devices emerged as a key point of confusion, with a participant noting that speed bumps are the city’s responsibility and can be installed quickly in areas experiencing high-speed issues. This participant suggested that all traffic calming devices should be presented to the commission for approval.

An introduction to traffic calming measures was read aloud, explaining that these devices slow vehicle speeds in commercial and residential neighborhoods. The commission acknowledged the benefits of well-placed safety devices, which include increased safety for pedestrians and cyclists, and a reduction in vehicle speeds and cut-through traffic. Various categories of traffic calming devices were discussed, including bumps, humps, yield signs, and street closures. The city’s process for approving these devices involves the Traffic Safety Committee, which includes various city officials, and ultimately, the city manager makes recommendations to the commission.

Concerns were raised about the existing policy, with a participant noting that the current documentation does not adequately address speed bumps and the responsibilities associated with them. The need for updating the policy was acknowledged, emphasizing clarity regarding who is responsible for what in terms of speed bumps. The participant also emphasized the importance of involving the initiator of a complaint in the process to help mitigate conflicts within neighborhoods, as seen in some areas like MO Highlands.

The conversation then shifted to stormwater management, highlighting recent flooding events and the need for the commission to understand ongoing stormwater projects. A participant suggested that updates on these projects should be formally documented and presented periodically, possibly quarterly. The city manager mentioned that reports on stormwater projects had been conducted previously and updates would be provided in the first meeting of October. The manager detailed a specific case involving a resident who experienced water issues, explaining that the matter required permits before proceeding with repairs. The discussion also included a proposal for creating a reserve fund for unexpected stormwater issues, noting that many unpredictable situations, such as improperly dug ditches, can arise.

The status of a resident’s property on New Jersey, where water issues had been reported, was also highlighted. The city acknowledged that surveys would be conducted in that area to determine the cause of the flooding. The conversation touched on broader themes of accountability and proactive measures for stormwater issues. Additionally, discussions about backflow prevention inspections were brought up, with participants expressing frustration over the state requirement for inspections every two years. The city manager clarified that these inspections are mandated by the state, and while there are many opinions on the necessity of such regulations, compliance is required.

Another topic discussed was the comprehensive plan and the Unified Development Code (UDC). Commissioners referenced a prior workshop led by Dr. Chap and had previously agreed to allow staff to make necessary updates to the comprehensive plan. This led to discussions about public input methods, including a proposed survey costing approximately $7,000. However, hesitation arose regarding the value of such an investment if community interest was low. The need for direction was emphasized, as commissioners weighed whether to continue seeking public input through traditional means like meetings and emails or to proceed differently.

The conversation revealed differing opinions on how to tackle the comprehensive plan and UDC updates. One commissioner suggested dividing responsibilities among members based on their interests in specific sections, while another stressed the urgency of addressing outdated components of the comprehensive plan before moving on to the UDC. The challenge of reaching a consensus on timelines and priorities was noted, acknowledging the lengthy process involved in reviewing city policies.

The commission also discussed zoning regulations, with one member expressing that a zoning map could provide clarity and specificity regarding development. This was juxtaposed with the Community Redevelopment Agency’s (CRA) current reliance on broad land use designations. The absence of a zoning framework was noted as a significant gap in city planning.