My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 06/13/1995
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1995
>
Agenda - Council - 06/13/1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/1/2025 3:38:16 PM
Creation date
9/26/2003 11:23:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
06/13/1995
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
302
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />CASE <br /> <br /> COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCERNS <br /> [By: Ryan R. Schroeder, City Administrator <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />On May 10, 199~5, Council directed that I contact Planning Commissioners Bawden, <br />Deemer and Htndriksen regarding concerns they had expressed regarding the <br />Comprehensive ~!an process. My memorandum and their responses to it are attached. <br /> <br />I received the la'est three responses on May 23, 1995, after review by City Attorney <br />Goodrich. Mr. ~romberg, Economic Development .Coordinator, was then asked to <br />respond to theseimemorandums. His response is dated May 31, 1995, and is attached <br />herein with exhibits. <br /> <br />I have reviewed 21 of these materials and the original memorandums from May 9, 1995 <br />Council meeting ~ltnd May 10, 1995 special meeting. The three Commission members have <br />aired valid concerns regarding a very frustrating and difficult planning process. However, <br />I do not see anytljing in these materials that warrants initiation of disciplinary procedures <br />for any Staft medlber. <br />The primary concerns expressed in these materials is that two different Commissions <br />arrived at two di['~ ferent conclusions. The assumption is that this occurred due to Staff <br />manipulation. I believe this occurred due to the nature of the two Commissions, not the <br />Staff involved. <br /> <br />Second, there is ~ assertion that the EDC overstepped their charge. If this occurred, they <br />did so with the fiall knowledge of the City Council. The City Council requested their <br />involvement; St~f did not. <br /> <br />The three members of the Planning Commission, I believe are requesting Council to <br />conclude this ma~ter in some manner. My recommendation, given the attachments, is to <br />close the matter vltithout further action. I would suggest, however, that prior to initiation of <br />a similar process,! that a workshop be held including all parties to agree on process ground <br />rules. If the Gommittee/Council agrees, I will forward a letter to the Planning <br />Commission, Ec6nomic Development Commission and Park and Recreation Commission <br />with that suggestion. <br /> <br />Committee Action: <br /> <br />Motion to direct ~e City Administrator to thank the three Commissions for their assistance <br />through this process and also the three Planning Commissioners for their additional input, <br />with a summary Of status and future direction. <br /> <br />Reviewed by: <br /> <br />Copies also distributed to: <br /> <br />City Administrator <br /> <br />PC: 06/13/95 <br /> <br />Economic Development Coordinator <br />City Attorney <br /> <br />/jmt <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.