
February
2009 | from Brooke
Eisenberg-Pike,
Hoska |
|
The
composition of the
Form Based Code Committee
(FBCC) that
was recommended at
your last council
meeting could have
some unfortunate ramifications
for the community.
Twenty-five years
ago the Planning Commission
was comprised pretty
much as has been recommended
for the FBCC. There
was a “design
professional” (a
very aggressive architect),
three “citizen
planners” (3
contractors and developers),
a real property professional
(a real estate agent).
They represented a
very pro-growth council
that was overwhelmingly
defeated in 2 elections
(1986 and 1988). Actual
residents with no
dog (potential economic
gain) in
that fight were excluded
from representation
on the commission.
We have not seen the
likes of that kind
of land use committee
until now with the
most recent recommendations.
I will not belabor
the point, but it
was exactly that kind
of committee and attitude
that gave
way to Measure B,
the very ordinance
you would like to
repeal. Many residents
among us have been
accused of living
in the past; unfortunately,
and ironically, the
committee representation
that was recommended
will take us back
to the past.
At
the very least the “design
professional” should
be a DRB member, the “planning
professional” should
be a member of the Planning
Commission and the “financial
expert” should
be a member of the Finance
Committee and there
should be, at the very
least, 2 residents at
large. It has already
been stated that the “traffic” seat
should be filled by
a TPAC member. Members
of Boards and Commissions
generally have some
knowledge of the Community
Plan and for the most
part are not trying
to receive economic
gain from changes in
zoning.
The
plan as presented did
not include review by
the Design Review Board.
This level of review
should not be omitted.
The
Council has given voice
to the desire to give
developers incentives
and certainties rather
than the vagaries of
Measure B. No one mentioned
that Measure B gives
a certain amount of
security and certainty
to the community. That
certainty is the ability
to have input into the
uses of the property
and benefits to the
community in exchange
for the bonuses given
to the developers. Measure
B has the ability to
ensure that the benefits
(services and amenities)
offered to the entire
residential community
offset the impacts of
the development. These
assurances, though equally
important, are broader
than just protection
of the adjacent neighborhoods.
It appears that you
may be stacking the
deck against residential
interests in your quest
to give developers incentives. |