Laserfiche WebLink
21489.2 <br />mm <br />C/TV OF iV- ■■' <br />TO: Mayor emd City Council <br />FROM: Hark E. Bernhardson, City Administrato <br />DATE: February 14, 1989 <br />SUBJECT: Joint Council/Planning Conunission of February 6, 1989 <br />Attachment: A. Planning Commission Minutes Excerpt 2/17/89 <br />At the joint Council/Planning Commission of February 6, 1989# the <br />Planning Commission members raised a number of issues that were <br />of concern to them. Below is an attempted summary of those <br />issues with response to the major items. <br />I. ann_in£ Commission Information - The Planning <br />Commission outlined a number of issues related to <br />information provided to them in advance of the Planning <br />Commission. These included: <br />a. Completeness of information <br />b. Level of information (too much verbage) <br />c. Recommendations <br />d. Initial communication of upcoming applicatipna <br />e. Information sheets outlining the basics <br />f. Receiving the Information only two to three days in <br />advance. <br />These issues have been reviewed by the Building and <br />Zoning staff and myself and commencing with this Planning <br />Commission they will transmit a copy of the legal notices <br />together with a sketch of each of the applications to the <br />Planning Commission two weeks prior to that meeting. In addition <br />the staff will continue to try to get the bulk of the information <br />to the Planning Commission members by delivery on Wednesday with <br />the follow up delivery on Friday. A review by the staff <br />indicated everyone should have the bulk of the information four <br />to five days In advance of the Planning Commission meeting. In a <br />review of previous Planning Commission meetings there are only a <br />few applications in the last year that have been delayed because <br />of lack of information. For the most part those were items that <br />were delayed as a result of changes the applicant desired during <br />the review process and which staff attempted to accommodate in a <br />timely manner. <br />II. Comprehensive Plan #2 - Highway 12 - The Planning <br />Comm isTionr a rse<r an umber of issues related to this <br />including: <br />a. Dislike of the process <br />b. Piecemeal report <br />c. Complaints about the author <br />d. Persons not listened to during the review process <br />e. Feeling that issues that came up in the Rebers <br />application should have been resolved in the