Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969 02-14 } CONFIDENTIAL MEMO TO: Don Poss FROM: Bob Haarman DATE: February 14, 1969 As you know, my interpretation of the events during the Planning Commission meeting of February 10, 1969, were due to unfortunate procedural actions: Robert Grosshans acting as Chairman in the absence of Robert Jensen; a motion for denial that got on the floor (passed 4 to 3) before a motion for approval (which would have passed 4 to 3 or 5 to 2). While sound planning and logic dictate acceptance of the "Dalgren Report ", I don't believe a Planning Commission majority really wanted to approve this re- zoning - for various untenable reasons. The Ausen motion for denial found an outlet, i.e., it really said "to hell with it ". At the same time I maintain that sound planning and logic would have prevailed had a motion for approval (which was forth- coming) gotten to the floor first. The following are some general comments on the actions of the individual commissioners as seen by myself, Schieffer and VanEeckhout: Paul Ditter: Mr. Ditter wasn't prepared to discuss the appli- cation meaning that he hadn't done his homework. AtAone point he said yes, he would vote for the amended application, the "Da.lgren Report ". Apparently he was a little unsure as to the eoneensus of the Planning Commission so that when the Ausen motion for denial came on the floor, he felt that this would be the general direction of the Planning Commission, i.e., to vote in favor of Ausen's denial. Paul Ditter referred to the original denial made by the Planning Commission on this application, pointing out that the reason for denial was basically a traffic question. He went on to say then, that because the traffic question had apparently been solved in the "Dalgren Report ", he would give it a yes vote. �E qF �o p Ao-9 tisr , J -2- Vernon Ausen: Vernon Ausen mentioned that apparently the traffic problem had been solved and apparently this report provides for a neighborhood park, but he was critical of the planning approach and he felt it should consider the whole neigh- borhood here not just this particular segment o f it. He did say he would favor the "Dalgren Report if consideration had been given to the rest of the neighborhood. A motion was made by Ausen, seconded by Nichols, to not endorse this,as it amounts to a repudiation of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Ausen reluctantly accepted the fact that his motion would have to be more specific and should read a motion to recommend denial of amended Application No 68018 along the concepts outlined in the Midwest Planning and Research, Inc. Report because ...", and he stated he was reluctant to use the terminology "recommend denial ". His final motion read like this: A motion by Ausen, seconded by Nichols,to recommend to the City Council the denial of amended Application No. 68018 along the concepts outlined in the Midwest Planning and Research Report because it amounts to a repudiation of the Comprehensive Plan for a. single family community in this area and therefore a study should be made to consider the desirability to change the entire neighborhood to R5 zoning. Ausen did not see the "Dalgren Report" as an expansion or ernbcllishment of the Comprehensive Plan. Adrian Dorenfeld: Adrian Dorenfeld'indicated that he was in agree- ment with the concept of the "Dalgren Report ", but implementation of the report was his primary concern, real or imaginary. He felt that the staff or the City Attorney should work out some certainties so as to make the "Dalgren Report" a part of re- zoning approval which would "explicitly innumerate" what should happen to this property after it is re- zoned. -3- Charles Nichols: Mr. Nichols indicated that there were too many "ifs" - everything was contingent upon if this, or if that, and he said yes to the concept of the "Dalgren Report ". However, because there was no implementation guarantee this was his excuse for saying he would vote no. As spokes- man for these neighborhood residents, he would have found any number of reasons to vote no. Henry Bogucki: Basically, 1.1r. Bogucki felt that the "Dalgren Report" was i reasonable. Generally, he was in favor of the amended application and said he would vote yes for it. Commissioner Bogucki voted against Ausen's motion. Robert Grosshans: Robert Grosshans was chairing this application when an expression of the feelings of the individual Commissioners was taken, so that he did not express his general feelings at this time. Commissioner Grosshans voted against Ausen's Motion. Robert Jensen: Had not arrived. Commissioner Jensen voted against Ausen's motion. Additional Comments: The City Attorney, City Engineer, and myself agree that the Planning Commission did not direct itself to the problem a recommendation on the merits of the "Dalgren Report ". Sympathetic with the residents of this isolated neighborhood (one of their own members) the Planning Commission, in general, ignored the substance of the "Dalgren Report" and concerned itself with its probable imple- mentation.