City Council urged to update planning process

A plea was made to the Commerce City Council meeting Monday night to provide training for those tasked with advising the council on development within the city. The city’s Planning Commission, according to one of its members, Dennis Cammack, has not been able to live up to the task its members have been appointed to do. 

“I don’t know that we have served the council in the way that we are really required to,” Cammack told council members. The solution begins with training, and more specifically, by a third-party provider. 

The commission serves as the rudder that steers new development through zoning and analysis — informed by a 25-year comprehensive plan — before a project heads to the City Council for final approval. 

The city’s current comprehensive plan was created in 2010, 14 years ago. A new Comprehensive Draft Plan for 2020 exists but has not yet been given the attention it needs by the commission to provide well-informed advice to the council on whether to adopt it or not, Cammack said. 

Cammack said direction has historically come from city staff, with the council not being aware of what was being contemplated. 

“We can do a much better job with training,” he reiterated. 

The request for a third-party training provider is, in part, because of a historical lack of guidance by council with city staff picking up the slack. 

At-large council member Charles Dukes asked, “What is the root cause of the historical lack of guidance? Prior members? Habits?”

Commack surmised that perhaps it was a lingering “mentality” in which, “the old guys downtown just did what they want.”

Newly hired City Manager Jason Rogers stated support for the training, echoing the consensus among council members for more “sophistication” in practices. 

Ward IV council member Susan Noble agreed, saying, “We need this kind of professionalism moving forward for planning a community that’s on the move.” 

The council approved the appointment of a council member to be on a committee to find training for the Planning Commission. The time frame for the training, Dukes urged, should be sooner rather than later.

Dukes quipped, “bureaucracy can sometimes be slower than expected.” 

It was decided by the council that the training provider should be identified within 90 days.