06-17-1996 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Request for Council Action continued Page 7 of 8 May 21, 1996 Report Regarding Expediting the Planning Application Review Process improve nonconforming properties involves a significant amount of discretion in the decision process, i.e. in terms of determining exactly what level of conformit}’ or non-conformit>' is acceptable for each individual application. Although these decisions tend to generally involve a certain amount of discretion, it is important that Council, Planning Commission and staff have a policy framework to provide parameters within which the discretion can be exercised. Without this framework, problems can result at both the staff level and the Planning Commission level. Without policy guidelines, it is difficult for staff to provide guidance to applicants in terms of the level of conformity necessary in their ptoposal. This sometimes results in the Planning Commission sending an applicant back to the drawing board to increase the conformity of the proposal. This can result in customer relations problems for two reasons: First, the process gets extended significantly. Second, although staff have not provided any encouragement to an applicant regarding the probability of a successful application, simply being involved in the process leads to an expectation of approval. When the applicant is sent back to the drawing board after waiting for a month to get to the Planning Commission, the applicant has a negative view of the process. B. Development of a Set of Policy Guidelines A partial solution is to develop a set of policy guidelines that provide guidance to applicants, staff. Planning Commission and Council Members for planning application review. The city needs to be clear on its overall goal or vision in relation to land use issues, for instance, on lakeshore development or redevelopment; so that the city moves toward that vision continuously as properties develop or redevelop. The decisions on individual applications need to be made within that overall framework to ensure that over time the totality of the decisions on individual applications result in the city achieving its overall vision. This may be happening currently because the current City Council and Planning Commission are in sync in relation to their land use goals or perspectives. However, currently there are no specific policy guidelines, other than the broad guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan, that explain the general thinking, philosophy, and policy that undergird the decisions the Counci’, akes regarding each specific application. This potentially could result in iia 'dual decisions beginning to move inadvertently in a different direction, or nev cji*. .1 members moving decisions in a new direction, because there are no explicit written policy guidelines to keep things moving in the current direction. i