HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-74 ~ ~
SUY~iMARY RBH NOTES
PLANNING COMMISSION .SPECIAL MEETING/CITY AFINIINISTRATOR
SEPTEP~ER 18, 197
1. Timely legal and engineer opinions are needed by Commissioners. {Items No.'s 10 & 12}
2. Improvement in agenda cut-off dates is desired by the Commission because the members
would like more time in which to study, review, consult--before making decisions.
(Item's No.'s 8, 15, & 18}
3. The Planning Commission is concerned with commercial building plans being changed
after the Commission's initial approval,without`their knowledge. Possible problem:
Incomplete total concept description by applicant to Planning Commission.
Present workflow process is cumbersome, which leads to submission of incomplete
information to Planning Commission and Council. (Item No.'s 8, 11, 18)
5. Inspection and enforcing of ordinances involving speekal and conditional use permits
is not satisfactory to Planning Commission members, especially on conditional use.
permit renewals.
6. Suggested changes in Comprehensive Municipal Plan of 1968, particularly zoning,
should be incorporated soon, along with changes already made through rezoning.
( Also No. 17)
7. A report on Planning Gorrnnission budget at stated intervals is desired.
8. More discourse as in Item No. 2.
9. Program budgeting will be tried within the next few years.
10. Authority of Planning Commission needs to be defined. The Planning Commission feels
it needs more and timely engineering and legal advice. (Item No. 1)
11. Further stating as in Item No.
12. Further stating as in Item No. 1.
of
13. The Planning Commission questions the taking/so much developable :land for parks;
perhaps more cash donations should be required.
1~+. A close follow
up on special and conditional use permits having time limitations
is desired. Anew format for renewing these permits is suggested as a need.
15. Further discussion as in Item No. 2.
16. Plats are desired by the Planning Commission for industrial and commercially zoned
property, particularly Airlake.
17. Further discussion as in Items No.'s 6, 8, and 10. The Planning Commission would
also like copies of Council meetings' minutes and Commission agenda before meetings;
this is especially desired to keep track of Council policy decisions.
18. Starr's suggestion: alter timing sequence to take care of premature presentation
when adequate data is not available.
. 19. Review needed of sub-division ordinance in accordance with new laws.
PLANNING CON(MISSION SPECIAL MEETING/CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CITY PLANNER PAGE 1
WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 18, 197+
LAKEVILLE MUNICIPAL BUILDING--AIRT.AKF: INDUSTRIAL PARK 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM
• Members present Henry Lau, John Antolik, Joel Haglund, Karl Lutgens, Duane Zaun,
Rod Pikus and City Administrator Richard Hogan. Bill Campbell absent.
This was an informative, "getting to know you" type of meeting. The following items. were
discussed:
1. Questions on legality of certain items, from time to time, with no answers being
returned to PC members. (Haglund)
2. Agenda cut-off dates desired. Members would like more time to review, study, and
make decisions on the matters that come before the Co~ttni.ssion. (Haglund and Lutgens).
3. Commercial building plans--changed from what had been o.k.'d previously--Leibfried
Shopping Center as an example. (Antolik) --also Liquor Store re modeling?
Method, or plan, in which developers come before other Committees and the Planning
Commission. (Antolik, Haglund} Administrative procedure desired. (Zaun, Lau)
5. Inspection and enforcing the ordinances, occupational-type of things, especially
beauty shops, ceramics, etc.; how to answer telephone calls received on this type
of thing? (Haglund, Lau) --also auto repair in residential area. Answer: this
is building inspector area.-
6. Would like to make some changes in comprehensive plan. (Haglund} --zoning, primarily.
• 7. Would like report from time to time on Planning Commission budget. (Haglund)
"what was spent and what is left", specifically. Council has tried to remedy this type
of reporting by use of accounting machine. Also (Hogan) has been working to get.
programming on the machine; then they will have monthly reports, or quarterly--but
who was the staff person that was responsible for Planning Commission budget reports?
Answer--Building Inspector.
8. Commission feels that they have not really been doing too much planning--more on
defensive, "catch as catch can" basis, so to speak, (Haglund) --wish more
informational meetings, give Corrunissioners time to catch their breath. (Refer to
Item No. 2 above.) (Antolik, Lau) Situation is better than it used to be (Lau)
also there have been instances in the past where park lands were designated before Comm-
ission had approved plat.
9. (Hogan) Hope to accomplish in a couple of years--program budgeting--"you define what
you want to do--problems this year in getting information for budget when he only
came in August. (Refer to above Item 7.)
1C. "What powers does Planning Commission have--in the way of planning?" "That authority
do we have, if any? I know we are a suggestive and recommending body to Council, but I
am talking about attorney and engineer matters. When does it become feasible to have
legal and engineering advice on the staff?" (Haglund, Lau, Lutgens) "There is not an
inspection of contract beforehand by legal and engineering authorities." (Haglund)
(Hogan) "extend the legal end. Up until this time, I understand attorney was
acting as administrator. As time goes on, the attorney will be giving us more legal
advice."
• "as I understand, the engineer does inspect city projects, (Hogan) but does not
inspect projects being done by developer. This inspection has been done by our
own departments, Building and Public Works."
~
PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING/CITY' ADMINISTRATOR,/CITY PLANNER PAGE 2
WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 18, 1974
Concensus of opinion that attorney and engineer should attend Planning Commission
meetings, when requested, to obtain their opinions in order for Commissioners to
have a guideline in some areas. Presently there is no thorough review by the
engineer and attorney on items prior to their going to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission would be better able to get information to Council with
attorney and engineer opinions being given the Planning Commission prior to or
at their meetings.
11. Reiteration of Item No. 4--a basic plan or form is needed by developer to appear
before each committee. (Pikus and Lutgens and Lau) Hogan repeated he would study the
matter and develop something along this line of thinking--and what Council also desires.
A simple form, general, application form is needed, to be different for each ease.
Question was raised if there is a possiblity of determining financial responsiblilities
of applicants? (Haglund)
12. Motions in past have been made "subject to approval of engineer", and"subject to
legality of matter"--but the attorney and engineer have not been made aware of these
motions. 6~ihen they attend Council meetings, they will state, "I wasn't aware of
that", etc.
13. "When do we quit making parks?" (Haglund) Co-ordination problem of transmitting data
to other committees, particularly regarding Brookview development. "Any more
purchase of lands will have to be under capital improvements", (Kogan),"based on
where the people are involved, etc." Feasibility study covering 1800 acres had been madE
on Brookview. Development had been agreed on that it should be done in phases--and
attorney was supposed to look at it, i.e. Brookview Plat. Soils tests should be
required of developer more often to avoid problems. "P and R can elect to take land
• or cash donation, let's take some cash once in awhile," (Haglund}.
(end of tape )
14. Antolik wished more closer follow
up on conditional and special use permits by
staff, to make sure renewals are made. Initial fee of $45 O.K., but Concensus
of opinion that renewal should have a fee, perhaps $200 or $300. (Haglund)
Antolik believed Ardmore trailer permit expired May of 1974, and should be renewed.
He was told that it was a matter or renewal for Oct. meeting. Wishes equal enforce-
ment of expirations, (Antolik) and also restriction of "tin sheds".
15. Lutgens expounded on Item No. 2, regarding time limit on making Commission decisions.
16. (Haglund) '"asked two years ago for plats at Airlake."
17. Zaun wished more definition of responsibilities of Planning Commission--organizational
chart, and policies--"where are they?" Would also appreciate a copy of Council minutes,
more communication. Is aware that 1968 Comprehensive Plan is in need of changes.
(Item Na.'s 6, 8, and 10)
18. R. Lee Starr, Planner, made suggestion to alter timing sequence, to take care of
premature presentation when adequate data is not available,. and co-ordinate with
county plats.
19. Review subdivision ordinances in accordance with new laws.
•