Agenda - Council - 06/13/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I May 19, ITo: From: ISubjech ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 1995 Bill Goodrich, City Attorney Ben De6~mer, Planning and Zoning Commissioner Compreh, ensive Plan Inpul In RESPONSE to Mr. SchriCeder's Memorandum of May 11, 1995. My firsl lhought is, why were only lhree members of the Planning qommission addressed in the memo? I don'l believe my inpul is more impodanl than the four members who are pot aware of this memo, and I am sure they would have relevant Ihoughts. I am going to do Ibis as o b~'ief hislory documenl, and furnish o conclusion at the end. In Nov, 1993, Mr. Gromberg inlroduced ConsiJllonls thai were hired by Ihe City Council 1o help the commission with lhe Comprehensive Plan updat.le. Mr. Gromberg's Title on the inlroduction document was Projecl Direclor. The Planning Commission proc~.eded and formed o subcommiltee to work between regular meelings wilh the Consullanls. Al lhe June 11~94 Planning and Zoning Commission meeling, I1 was unanimously decided what 1o present to the Cily Council ~t a yet Io be scheduled, joinl meeting. The commission had decided on a Transpodalion overlay ~hal l'il any land use the Cily Council would care ~o direc~ us lo apply. This was lhe basic No Bridge Overlay, (fig. 4) c~l lhal lime. The Commission also choose to recommend the Weslern most Bridge crossing for approval (fig 7.,) al Ihot time During lhis process Mr Oromberg had hal been presenl, although some documenls appearedlwilh his name on them. ' At lhe Joint meeting of July ~6, 1994, Mr. Gromberg was presenl wilh lhe Economic development Commission, and a new version of Ihe Bcisic Transpodalion Overlay (fig 7A) al that lime, and lhe meeling proceeded. The minutes of the meeting indicate Ihat EDC was directed lo furnish a land use 1o the P and Z, for a Public Hearing in August. In Sept., when ffie land use was furnished, it was a complele rework of Ihe underlying No Bridge Overlay, and made lhe recotnmended weslern bridge oplion unworkable. Mosl of you know the rest of the stow. Now for lhe Hindsight: Durir~g Ihe Subcommitlee meelings it was difficull to gel Changes drawn on lhe maps as directed. We finally drew lin~s and it was done. Al lhe Firsl joinl meeting, EDC was not invited by the P and Z, bul someone on STAFF did iinvile lhem, and Ihey showed up with their leader, Mr. Oromberg and a new plan. This clouded lhe issue and riolhing was resolved. At the next EDC, P and Z joint meeting Mr. Oromberg was asked by the P and Z Chairr~an what his inlenlion was. Mr. Oromberg replied that EDC would do fha whole comprehensive plan and giv~ il fo lhe Cily Council. That brings us Io the Preseni, and I don'l believe lhe new plan is in place yet. My own opinion about this is. " The P and Z arrived al a plari amendmen! in a timely fashion, but someone on Staff didn't like the conclusions reached. Mr. Gromberg arrived with a new plan, and proceeded beyond council direclion to recreale the whole thing, using all of slaffs resot~rces and !he consullanls. He refused to furnish informalion to the P and Z when requested, and even made c~ financial model, of a Plan he atlributed to Ihe P and Z. I believe he went beyond the scope of direction given him and far beyond whal the EDC's slalulory direction includes. He should be held accounlable for the excesse~r he created. lng and Zoning Commissioner SUBSET: It has always beer~ P and Z policy to not diclate Io another commission, when they make a recommendation, we don't al!er it. If we disagree we appear as cilizens al lhe appropriate meetings and voice our concerns in the proper far, mat. WE win some and we loose some. Members of EDC always had lhis option open to them if they choose if,.