CCP 03-24-2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ppra>ved ,, Baker asked staff to clarify if staff's time would be billed. Gundlach replied that currently Me ordinance would be for extra ordinary costs; however there is interest by Council to possibly bill for staff's time if the ordinance works well. Baker stated the ordinance should be linked with specific land use events with clearly defined items that are needed for submittal. Gundlach replied that under the current site plan regulations, staff can request any additional data as needed to process the application. She added that staff could never fully anticipate concerns that citizens may have regarding an application and is trying to create an ordinance that would not create a burden to the applicant or to cause a delay. This ordinance would allow staff to recoup costs for other land use applications, which is currently not allowed. O'Keefe voiced concern that the genesis for this ordinance was a TIF application, which is not a land use application. That type of application is investments by the community, while land use applications don't necessary require that same type of community investment. Zisla objects to the applicant having to pay a staff member to do the job that they are hired for versus the City having to hire an expert that is not already on staff. Baker stated he would like to see how other cities, who charge these fees, have their ordinances written. Danger would also like to know what kinds of experts those cities have on staff. O'Keefe stated that we should consider the communities that are similar to ours when conducting this research verses researching the communities that already have these ordinances in place. Planner Gundlach added that, generally speaking, communities similar to New Brighton do not have these types of ordinances in place, or if they do the scope is much more limited. • Motion by Zisla, second by Schiferl to TAB1E THE PUBLIC HEARING. 7 ayes, 0 nays. MOTION APPROVED. Miscellaneous Adjournment: 7:45 PM r� U