Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Raudio stated that he would like to see the City provide a checklist of v,'ha~ ~s required <br />for projects and a tim: schedule for accomplishing same; there should also b~ a City Staff <br />person that developers can contact to get answers and solutions te problems. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson stated that developers claim they come to meetings ill-prepared because the,,, <br />were not informed of what information the), were to provide and that is why they would <br />like to see an engineer/planner on staff that can inform them of all that will be required. <br /> <br />Mr. Gerald Bauer noted that in 1986 the City paid $250,000 for consulting engineering <br />sen,ices and $367,800 in 1987 and $422,000 in 1988. Mr. Bauer stated that he opposes <br />developers ~.:aving to m',g:e a deposit into ap escrow account wilh nc) control over how me <br />funds are distributed. Private industry also uses the se~'ices of consulting engineers but <br />there is a sunrisc and sunset to a project. Mr. Bauer 'also noted that thc City's consulting <br />engineers also also involved in the writing of ordinances and that could mad to a conflict of <br />interest issue. Mr. Bauer stated that he believes the City is expending a sufficient amount <br />of funds on consulting engineers to justify placing an engineer on staff. <br /> <br />Mayor Reimann stated that the Personnel Committee has discussed the possibility of <br />placing an engineer on staff and made a decision to discuss it further in the 19,~'9 budget <br />sessions. <br /> <br />Mr. Bauer stated that if the City contracted v,4th two consulting en~neering firms, it would <br />tend to keep the costs for sen, ices more competitive. ~ ', <br /> <br />Dennis Peck stated that there have been at least 5 instances where Northfork 3rd and 4th <br />Additions have been on the Planning and Zoning agenda and have not been heard; instances <br />like these have never happened to him in other cities; the Commission can only gain respect <br />by returning some of that respect. To adjourn a meeting wi~en applicants have been wa/ting <br />to be addressed for 3 hours is bad planning and poor agenda planning. Mu'. Peck stated <br />that a resolution might be to plan extra meetings and priority given to those cases with <br />applicants present versus cases of an internal nature. Another alternative is for' the <br />Commission to announce which cases are doubted to be addressed and that another meeting <br />date will be scheduled. Applicants should also be informed of insufficiencies in their cases <br />prior to the day of the scheduled meeting so that the)' have sufficient time to provide the <br />additional information and avoid being tabled the night of the meeting. Mr. Peck noted that <br />for the applicants, time is money and he is not sure that people in community service <br />(volunteer commissioners) recognize that. Mr. Peck also stated that the Planning and <br />Zoning Commission and Park and Recreation Commission ask developers to do certain <br />things that may not be appropriate or considered overkill. For instance, the environmental <br />impact statement for Northfork provided detailed information with respect to the excavation <br />of a lake; Planning and Zoning inquired if the CiD' En~neer felt fne ElS was adequate; the <br />City Engineer replied, in an unforceful manner, that the EIS appeared to be adequate; as a <br />result, North Fork had to spend another $4500 for additional soil borings to satisfy the <br />Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Peck sited another example of City Council <br />entering into a contract with North Fork in 1987; a contract which the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission indicates they did not participate in and will therefore hold up other North <br />Fork issues until that contract can again be addressed by City Council, Planning and <br />Zoning and Park and Recreation. Mr. Peck stated that when he signs a contract with the <br />Mayor, he assumes he can rely on that contract; Mr. Peck added that he can appreciate <br />Planning and Zoning's concerns but there should be a staff person noti~'ing the <br />Commissions of what City Council is doing, l~'[r. Peck stated that developers also leal that <br />City Staffs interpretation of the park dedication ordinance is not appropriate. A former <br /> <br />City Council/APril 3, 1989 <br /> Page 3 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />