Agenda - Council - 05/10/1995 - Reconvene from 05/09/95

Home

Comprehensive Prl~n There has been significant consternation over the Comprehensive Plan. The concerns that I have heard include: 1) The 1993 ~submittal did not have Council approval or a public hearing prior to submittal. 2) The EDC overstepped their authority in review of the 1995 plan. 3) Data submitted by Staff was either in error, non-responsive or non-existent. 4) Staff manipulated decision-making. 5) Staffs handling of the whole affair was not as professional as it should have been. Regarding the initial concern, Council will recall that in 1993, the old "Metropolitan Council Develop[-nent Investment Framework" was being changed '.to the "Regional Blueprint". Our concern was that the "new" development process that would result would be negative to Ramsey, given the influence of State Representative Myron Orfield and his legislative propos.fi.ls since 1991. We were told that decisions would be made prior to year- end and most likely in October or November. As it turned out, decisions were not made until 1994, but ¢;e had wanted to get our plan in the works so that we could be grandfathered into the old process. Hence, once the draft was completed, it was skipped to the Met Council. A few days later, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the document followed by Council action on 11/9/93. Council expressed concern that the transportation pl~ needed further review. Therefore, upon Council direction, we informed Met Council Staff that a further update of the plan including transportation would be submitted upon completion. In fact, Council had previously hked the consultant to update this plan but actioh on it was delayed to after submittal of the 1993 plan. Given the above, in December 1993, RLK and Biko started work on the 1994/1995 update. Our problems with this update almost entirely can be boiled down to one thing. Staff attempted to[respond to requests made by any individual as opposed to a Commission as a whole or the,entire Council. If someone thought it would be important to provide a certain analysis Wre would attempt to do that. What has been learned from this is that the ground rules must be set early on. It did seem that things were going fairly smoothly for the first six months of this update. Concerns after that point are often attributed to EDC involvement. However, the EDC is generally involve41 in these things as was the case in the Highway #10 study and the 1989 Comp Plan revision. It was appropriate to include both the EDC and the Park and Recreation Comni/ssion, even though commission personalities vary widely. It could be argued that an eve~ larger group should have been invited into the process. Alternatively, I believe that had there not been a bridge location discussion in this amendment, the l~rocess would not have been a difficult one. The concerns listed as 3, 4 and 5 above relat~ to that discussion. Both sides of the bridge location issue picked apart Staff analysis if itldid not point to their particular conclusion. Hence, Staff found itself in the middle of an i~sue that would ultimately be determined by the policy board, not Staff. Further, I have personally always been very open to a two-bridge scenario to provide options for the fu~re. I also stated a position early on that a connection to County Road #116 made sense, Staff, however, was continually criticized for being in support of a Ramsey Boulevard connection because of the Anoka County Transportation Plan and the City Transportation Plan map that had been developed in March 1990. I have enclosed 9_ time line of Comprehensive Plan actions since 1988. I have also enclosed memos from Jim Gromberg (March 10, 1995), Ben Deemer (April 10, 1995), Dave Bawden (Agril 20, 1995) and Terry Hendriksen (May 2, 1995).