Comment history

Family Pass Fee

Rob: Sorry I had to be such a smart a$$ about it. I accept your apology, thank you.
I obviously speak for the majority of the voters in our community (see the election results) when I say that I supported the school bond, and the efforts of those on the School Board to remain forward thinking and progressive when the vocal minority are slinging arrows. Amy's efforts to promote the improvement of education in our community are completely appropriate, and much appreciated by the silent majority of us who really care about Baldwin's future and the future of our youth. Amy is a smart, well spoken, and energetic leader. She is an asset to the Council and community and she does not deserve to be railed upon and personally attacked. It is idiots like Torch that keep good people from seeking elected offices.

February 25, 2009 at 1:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Family Pass Fee

Chill out RobC. Do you read much? Show me where I was critical of Cleavinger.

Since sarcasm isn't your strong point, I will spell it out for you: I was being sarcastic when I suggested that Torch was, in fact, Amy Cleavenger. The joke is centered on the fact that I think Torch has taken his attacks on Amy a little too far, and my suggestion that Torch is actually Amy might be taken as a bit of a jab at Torch.

I know, it's a lot to digest all at once. Sorry about that. Next time I will type slower, just for you, RobC.

February 25, 2009 at 12:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Family Pass Fee

I've got a theory:
Torch is Amy Cleavinger.

February 24, 2009 at 4:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

City, school board talk about streets

I agree with greyghost. It should be done right if we're going to do it.

One thing that wasn't discussed was the intersection of 56 and Lawrence Ave. With the new primary center on Lawrence Ave, that intersection will see a marked increase in traffic. It is basically totally blind to the east because of the hill. Fixing that is big bucks. All the more reason to connect Elm with Bullpup.

I do think that the School district shoulod pay 100% of any and all costs associated with the plan. That includes the roads, sewers, waterlines, electrical distribution, etc., plus any upgrades to existing infrastructure that will be needed to support the school. The City should bear zero cost for this entire proposal.

I am in favor of the new school facilities (most of them), but their costs should be distributed evenly to all the patrons of the school district. If the City has any costs for the school's proposal, the City residents will be paying more than those living outside the city. It is hard for me to see that the City residents will recieve more of a benefit from the school facilities than will those who live outside the city.

I don't mind paying. I just don't think I should pay more than my share.


April 30, 2008 at 5:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Arrowhead given nod from commission

Circumventing processes? nOzpe, please. Obviously the on-line courses on zoning laws I have been providing you are not sinking in. Wagner and Jardon were the only ones at the Council meeting who even talked about the proper procedures. That is why Jardon was waving the code book "like a Southern Baptist preacher on a Sunday morning", and he was right to do so.

All legalities and site plan technicalities aside, the thing that bothers me the most about this entire thing is the behavior of our building inspector. She was totally disrespectful and combative toward the Council. These are the people who we all elected to represent us. Frankly I was offended that she would treat out elected officials like she did during an open meeting. She was also very unprofessional toward the applicant's architect, bringing up nitpicky typos on the plans as evidence that they could not be trusted. I can only imagine how she acts toward builders, developers, and business people when she has them one-on-one.

Baldwin is not a big enough town to be chasing out good businesses and developments. I am as strong a supporter of high quality development standards as you will find, but there is a right way and a wrong way to implement those standards. Treating everyone like garbage is the wrong way. Making up the rules as you go along is the wrong way. Getting into shouting matches with Council members at an open meeting is the wrong way. To a professional business person (the type of person we want to attract here) it makes the entire town look like a bunch of clowns.

For some, the only contact they will ever have is with the local government is through the building inspection department. It disturbs me that we have such an inhospitable representative for this encounter.

April 24, 2008 at 8:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Conduct UNbecoming

This is your blog, nOzpe, not mine. You were the one calling out a council member by name and calling him a bully for trying to do the right and legal thing.

Don't blame us for ranting when your bluff is called.

April 24, 2008 at 7:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Arrowhead given nod from commission

Amen Jayhawker1!

The second approval was an illegal approval of an already approved site plan. Nicely put.

April 24, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Conduct UNbecoming

Your assertion that the applicant refusing to meet an approval condition nullifies the entirety of the approval is completely off-base. No, they would not be entitled to a building permit until they met the condition. But the approval (with the condition) still stands and can't be taken back. The application before the Planning Commission at the April 08 meeting was not to consider a revised site plan, or to consider removing the approval condition. It was a re-plat of the property. Had the Planning Commission really intended the approval condition to require the combination of the two lots, then why in the world would they approve that plat (which they did)?

So, the planning commission had not seen a single picture of what the building was supposed to look like until 4-22-08, yet there was a picture on the site plan in July of 07? How does that work? And if there was no picture of the building presented to the Planning Commission in 07, why on earth would Staff allow them to approve the site plan? Isn't that the job of staff to make sure all the information is present before it even goes to the planning commission?

I do not doubt that there is an audio recording of the 07 meeting somewhere. Unfortunately, the written minutes are the legal record of the proceedings, and are legally binding. If they did not accurately reflect the motion for approval, then they should have been changed before they were approved.

April 24, 2008 at 12:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Arrowhead given nod from commission

Jayhawker1 is correct, nOzpe. Jeff Dingman read the four conditions of July 07 approval at the Council meeting the other night. None of them required that the two lots be combined. The approval condition that brought about the re-plat had to do with shared access for the parking areas across the lot line, restrictions on the access for the southeast entrance, and the dedication of additional right-of-way. The re-plat was just the best way to address those items. It could have also been accomplished with deed restrictions, covenants, and right-of-way dedication documents without a re-plat. The Site Plan did not change.

April 24, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Conduct UNbecoming

I couldn't disagree with Nozpe more. Jardon was the only one in the room who seemed to have a desire to read, understand and FOLLOW the City's own zoning regulations. And that includes City staff, who is paid our tax money to know the Zoning Code and see that it is followed. Jardon was absolutely correct when he asserted that the Council had no authority to even consider a site plan. Don't take my word for this, the Zoning Regulations are posted on the City's web site at:
http://www.baldwincity.org/pdf/cityco... .
See Section 16-2, 180A for the particulars. Unless it is part of a re-zoning request (which this was not), the authority to approve a site plan lies only with the Planning Commission. The fact that the Council even considered the site plan and directed the Planning Commission to hold a special meeting to "reconsider" a site plan that was already approved in July was illegal. Jardon and Wagner were absolutely correct to question staff about that. The only one wanting to bypass procedures was the building inspector/zoning administrator.

And as for Wagner "baiting" the city employee into an argument, it was clear to me that all the "baiting" came from the employee. I was frankly shocked with the disrespect she showed toward the City Council. All Wagner asked her to do was respect the fact that there were council members who had a different opinion than hers. Instead, she got extremely defensive and argumentative.
The fact here remains that the Planning Commission APPROVED the site plan in July of 2007. Once the site plan is approved, you cannot take that back. All the talk about the look of the building is ok, but it should have occurred BEFORE the approval of the site plan. The minutes from that meeting are clear that the Planning Commission approved the site plan. If City Staff really felt like the minutes did not reflect the discussion at the July Planning Commission, they should have corrected the minutes before they were approved. For Staff to now say, eight months later, that she remembers something different occurring at that Planning Commission meeting holds no weight at all. For her to argue with a council member about that in front of a room full of people is simply not acceptable.

This plan has been approved since July. Jardon and Wagner are correct here, the City has no authority to take back that approval. I am glad everything has seemed to work out, but the entire episode leaves me wondering about the competence of our city building and zoning staff (Dingman not included, I think he does a good job).

April 23, 2008 at 8:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )