HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-74 COMSTNED SPECIAL MEETING OF COUNCIL, PLA~I~ING COI~Si~ISSION, PAR. & REC,
wAT ER ~ SEWER .aPRZS, 1? , 17 74
Chairmen of :the Planning Commission, H. 'Lau, introduced City Planner Les
Starr. Mr. Starr explained the purpose of the meeting was to try to evaluate some
of 'the procedures that the two committees and planning.eoramission are involved in as
to .presenting material to the council. He had .prepared charts on suggested land
subdivision procedures as being a common example of what is needed. ,
Mr. Starr thought-that there are, presently, twa mayor probl~ns--one lies:.
in communication, or the lack of it, betwe~ the ..advisory bodies,. The other major
problem evolves around the sequencing of material to the council.,.': Remedies suggested:
1- acquaint the developer with procedures he is to follow, i.e., a detailed
"time rr :schedule--,preferably a sheet of paper, handed to him.
2- time of meetings bs in, sequence for the three 'advisory boards,..-or, "
perhaps, one member go to all the meetings and give reports.
• At the present .time, the Council is not getting a whop.picture of a prelim-
inary plat at one time. It has happened that. Council-receive,ideas and views from
the committees even before the Planning Commission has`held the public hearing on a
pre~.iminary plat--and the Planning commission is completely unaware of what the
Committee's findings were. Thus the Council has<to devote :time at two of their
meetings,,, at least, when they might have had a complete Npicturerr at one. It is
also a possibli.tythat each member of a committee or a commission feels .that he or
she might have.. acted or thought mare wisely, if he or she had known other members'
.'thoughts beforehand. It ma`y have been that percolation and soil `conservati.on tests
should have been made or asked.
..The feeling was that the going would be a whale lot smoother if the Counci3.
would consider the suggestion for prelininaxy'-plat: hearings as listed below-,.which
are also on the accaznpariy3ng charts,. As to final plat procedures,.they would proceed.
in the same manner as in the pasta
APRZL 17, 197
PTGE 2
Ten days before regular Planning 'Commis`sion meeting, the. developer would,
conceivably, have submitted a sketch.plan to the city clerk, with no filing fee at
this point. He would then bring sketch plan to regular Planning Commission meeting..
for discussion and advice. After preparing preliminary plat, including additional
data he had been asked to gather,. he would submit. preliminary plat to city clerk and
pay $15 filing fee and review costs, Mere there would be twenty days far reviewal
time by whatever committees and boards, the planner,' state and eounty'offiees, spl
conservation office, engineer-_whatever and whoever is involved. When this material
is all complete,, (20-day maximum}, 'it all goes to the Planning Commission_for their
reviecaa7.--time limit being twenty-five days. Of these twenty-five days maximum,
the last,ten days have to be Npublication days" for preliminary p1.at public hearing,
acid. $15 fee is paid. by the developer. Within fifte~ days after the public hearing
• by the Planning Gommission, all the material--one package-..is sent to the Council
for its action.
The next time sequences ;remain the same as they have been--ninety..days to
`prepare final plat containing any recommended changes,--or back to preliminary
submission if plan was disapproved.
Fbll~ these ninety. days, the developer would submit final plat to city
lua ~~+5 for public hearing.
clerk, paying $2s filing fee and $2.,50 per lot,/pThere would be thirty days for the
Planning Commission to review the final plat plan, county surveyor to give technical
advice and review, county board approval, if.necessary,--allowing the last ten days, ,
at least, for npublication notice days~~ before public hearing on final plan before
Planning Commission.. After the hearing, ,there would be .thirty days, maxzmiun, before
council action'an final plat., Following council action, there wouldbe a maximum of
sixty days for. recording with the register of deeds and miscellaneous costs, ,park
• cash donations, etc. A7:I these time limitations are the maximwn permitted by law.
APRIL 17, 197
PAGE 3
t was the out o
I e me of this meeting that .the above ~.nformation be sutxnitted
to the Council. The reeommenclation is made, also, that the meeting dates'of the two
Committees and the Commission be held on consecutive days--Toes,, `Wed. ,'and Thurs.,
of the 2nd and: 4th meek of each month. (The- only di.ffereness in meeting dates from
::.the .present would be Parks,,which'would now meet on Tues. of these 2nd and 4th weeks,
and W/S would change from 1st and 3rd Wed. to 2nd and 4th Wed.} It is asked that the,
minutes should -be typed and copied on the following day of the meeting and made
available to subsequent W®d. and Thurs. meetings. Tt was specified. that these
minutes should contain facts and reasonings. It was noted. however, that these
minutes would not be "legal" as they would not have been read and approved by the
committee members--but they would act as a guide-line as to intent and.-reason for
submission: to the Planning Commission and Cour~e.e.I..
Respectfully suhnitted,