The CdA P&Z meeting was tonight and they were hearing the zoning prior to annexation request for parts of the DeArmond Mill site next to NIC. I didn’t see the whole thing, but I watched about 20 min. during their deliberations. Gotta say, I was embarrassed for them.
These are all nice people. I was on the commission for 6 years with many of them, but this was a poor showing tonight, in my opinion. It was a Lovefest for the Education Corridor. Every single one of them openly expressed their, not only support, but emotionally intense feelings of love for the corridor. The kept looking at certain people in the room for… approval?
I think they forgot something essential: Their job is to defend the rights of the citizens of CdA and do what is best for the long-term interest of the public, not the power players. I don’t care that they favor the corridor, that’s fine, but they should be asking questions about the requested zoning and not just giving in to whatever the top dogs ask for. “We wouldn’t want to put any restrictions on whatever they might want to do in the future”, they said. Are you kidding me? A blank check? Do whatever you want with riverfront property?
Assist. City Attorney Warren Wilson and Planning staffer John Stamsos looked befuddled when they were asked a simple, direct question they should have known. They were asked about whether a restaurant is allowed in any of the more limited zones rather than a full C-17. They bumbled around and said they weren’t sure. Not a stellar moment for highly paid city staff.
Heather Bowlby and Peter Luttrop asked some good questions and reminded everyone that the C-17 commercial zone right next to the river would allow any kind of tall, commercial development–there would be no restricitions on uses or height.
But they didn’t have much strength behind their questions and were quickly overtaken by Chairman Brad Jordan (aslo a member of LCDC’s board) and others. I had to turn off the TV, it was making me queasy, but the vote was obviously going for full approval.
Mary, Don’t tell me that not one commissioner mentioned the Shoreline Protection Ordinance. Warren Wilson and John Stamsos surely know about it but failed to mention it? Peter and Amy might not know about it; however, the other commissioners are aware of it. I wonder if it was included in the staff report. If not, I would consider the staff report incomplete.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — May 12, 2009 @ 9:30 pm
Susie,
I’ll review my DVD of the meeting. I watched nearly all of the meeting and do not recall hearing any mention of a shoreline protection ordinance. The word “shoreline” appeared three times in the staff report, but nowhere in the staff report was there any mention of a “Shoreline Protection Ordinance.”
Comment by Bill — May 13, 2009 @ 7:11 am
Pardon my obvious cynicism, but this surprises you because…? I would be surprised had anything different occurred. And can anyone explain to me just why the chairman of P&Z is also on the LCDC board? Has the concept of “conflict of interest” never been raised? Okay, admittedly a stupid question. This is CDA after all. It seriously boggles.
Comment by Faringdon — May 13, 2009 @ 8:35 am
Faringdon, you hit the nail on the head! Brad Jordan should have stepped down for this decision. I know he didn’t actually vote last night on P&Z because as chairman he only votes to break a tie, but he participated in the hearing and talked at length during the deliberations, voicing his strong support. He has a conflict of interest because he’s on LCDC and has already voted, on that board, to give money to the Ed. Corridor project; he was NOT an objective representative for the citizens!
Comment by mary — May 13, 2009 @ 8:44 am
I was happy to see some discussion on it, far more than we get from our elected city council. I was disappointed in the lack of logical follow-through. E.g., when someone on the board asked about traffic, there was a numb response given. Where was the follow-through question? Where was the report that demonstrated the answer?
Why wasn’t the Education [sic] Corridor master plan presented? Why weren’t the terms of the transfer agreement presented as good faith evidence of future intent? We’ve just handed a non-profit carte blanche to do with 17 acres of prime real estate as they please. That smells too iffy.
The sad thing is that these are all legitimate questions and people who ask them are attacked for asking them. If the proponents of the commercial development dubbed the “education” corridor really wanted us to work together as a community, they would put out the effort. They choose not to. That says a lot about their true motives here, and explains why rational people are suspect. Yet until we get rid of the culture of intimidation, many voices will remain silent.
Comment by Dan — May 13, 2009 @ 9:12 am
The vote on the matter of the proposed rezoning to C-17 was:
Bowlby – No
Luttropp – No
Evans – Yes
Rasor – Yes
Soumas – Yes
Comment by Bill — May 13, 2009 @ 9:16 am
Faringdon, Brad was supposedly appointed to bring Planning expertise to LCDC. I thought that he should at least keep the commission informed on LCDC items of interest. I did as chair of the Downtown Design Review Commission. Brad would discuss items only when asked – and that was rarely.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — May 13, 2009 @ 10:28 am
I would say appointment to the LCDC requires that a potential commissioner not be known as a blabbermouth.
Comment by Dan — May 13, 2009 @ 1:33 pm
The Ed. Corridor “plan”, you know the one that is a slick advertising piece that doesn’t mention Education buildings?, well it says that they plan to sell just under 7 acres to COMMERCIAL development. Guess how many acres were in the two triangular pieces the P&Z was asked to re-zone to a full C-17 maximum commercial zone? 3+ acres each…totals out to just under 7 acres! Hmmmm. So some potential commercial developers wanted to be reassured that they would get the zoning they want before they finalize the deal. 3+ acres of C-17 on NW Blvd. is one thing, but 3+ acres right on the river, given C=17 with NO restrictions?…the fix was in.
Comment by mary — May 14, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
Follow the money – always.
Comment by Gary Ingram — May 15, 2009 @ 9:22 am