My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4.4. SR 03-20-1995
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1995
>
03-20-1995
>
4.4. SR 03-20-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/18/2007 9:12:35 AM
Creation date
12/18/2007 9:04:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
3/20/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
f. Developers would welcome user-friendly written materials, with no jargon, clear <br />explanations, and consistency between documents. <br />g. Developers find it difficult to work effectively with the Planning and City <br />Councils because Commission and Council members appear to .act on <br />personal preferences rather than from a consistent plan or philosophy for the <br />City. <br />2. CITYDEPARTMENT MANAGERS AND ADMINISTRATORS <br />Interviews indicated that the Concept Review process is sound and only. needs only a little <br />fine tuning. Participants appreciate the opportunity to critique the plans together and gain <br />insight into the inter-relatedness of various city functions. They like the opportunity to <br />analyze the plans honestly without having to debate with the developers. <br />There are some indications, however, that there does not seem to be total buy-in on the <br />Concept Review process, as evidenced by insufficient preparation for the meetings, a basic <br />philosophical difference about the City's role vis-a-vis the developer, and last minute <br />"surprises" that should have been identified in the Review meeting. <br />1. Specific concerns <br />a. The people involved in the Concept Review process (Chief Building Official, <br />City Engineer, City Planner, Economic Development Coordinator, Building <br />and Zoning Administrator, Fire Chief) are generally satisfied with the Review <br />and Permitting process. They like the opportunity to analyze proposed plans <br />together in private, without having to defend their opinions to the developer. <br />They spot problems early in the building process which helps the developer. <br />b. They perceive two quite different schools of thought represented at the <br />Concept Review meeting: one approach seeks to provide a fair and <br />predictable process to every customer; the other approach seeks to provide <br />personalized service to make development and business expansion in Elk <br />River easy and attractive. This difference of values may make the Concept <br />Review discussions strained. <br />c. Some people mentioned a perception that there can be political ramifications <br />to the Review process, intimating that people with political influence might <br />be treated differently from "ordinary people". <br />• page 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.