Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 05/11/1989

Home

comprebt-nsive the checklists are, there will always be areas of interpretation and the need for communication. Mr. Hartley stated that if there is a problem accessing City Staff, he needs to tmow the specifics so he can correct the problem. Mr. Hartley also noted that City Staff prepares agendas, almost on a weekly basis for 0~e various boards and commissions, that contain a substantial amount of information that includes a staff recommendation and a typical motion; a fair amount of time is spent on structuring the meeting so that cases with applicanL~ present will tie placed at the front o£ the agenda. Mr. Hartley confirmed that in 1988, City Coun:il agreed that the implementation of an on-staff Cig' Enginzer and supi,vn personnei would be reviewed in 1989. Currently, charging engineering costs to thc escrow account is one of the most convenient ways to bill the cost of development; the City is aware of cases where charges that ma)' not be related to the development have been passed through and Staff hopes to correct those problems. In a sense, the city at large is paying for most of the cost of development in the sense that on-staff personnel do not charge their time for projects to the related escrow account; makers of the City Charter sugges~ that this is in conflict with the City's governing document. The concept of an engineer/city planner/economic development director position is novel and will not be ruled out. Mr. Hartley stated that he feels such a position would be poor management. The idea of combining the economic development director function into that of the engineer/planner position, has been discussed but an economic development director do:ts not always shepherd land use applications but rather encourages applicants to come to a particular city. City Staffd~s review issues from both the Ci5"s side and the developer's side. One thing that is frustrating to staff is that individuals do not supply the information or follow the process in accordance with ordinances and choose to take a different approach to seeking approvals; the more this avenue is used, the more confusing the process becomes. City Council determines the policies; when policies are in conflict with the way in which developers choose to do a development, a request to change those policies should be directed to City Council. An example of this is the park dedication ordinance; the format was to review the ordinance in detail, prepare a draft ordinance and forward it to the members of the development community for review. Mr. Raatikka stated that it has been the City's past policy to accommodate developers, even if it meant waiting until the day of a meeting to receive the information and approving the request with contingencies. The City is moving away from this philosophy of approving issues with contingencies. Mr. Raati'kka stated that he has always been accessible to the developers. A few years ago, City Council set a policy of consulting staff not being accessible without prior authorization from the City Administrator. I~'. Raa ' 'ukka stated that he has tried to keep charges to developer accounts to a minimum. One thing that will increase the engineering fees is substandard applications that require 2 or 3 reviews. Another reason for rising engineering costs is the fact that contractors wor'ldng for developers have not been very efficient on ~ading streets, etc. and physical inspections of the property is required. In many cases, a contractor spends 3-4 times longer than necessary to pave streets; this in turn increasgs the City's inspection costs for the project. /~r. Otto stated that it is aggravating to al/involve, d to have cases tabled and he a~ees that things can be done at a staff level to bring the cases to the commissions in a better form but it will require discipline on the part of the city and the applicant. Incomplete applications submitted days before a meeting don't do anybody any good and end up being table& /~@. Otto stated that he advocates the City providing a chec 'k_list indicating what the applicant must provide and not accepting the application until it is complete. An engineer, a community development director and a park commission all bring forth different perspectives when reviewinz an issue and it xxould be difficult to fm~ on,~ p~,son th,,t could address all o. th~s,, p,.~spec~ es. Th~r~ are a number of ordinances that need revisin~ that CiD' Council/Ap~ 3, 1989 Page 5 of 7