For our planning commission meetings, the acceptance the plans at the meeting when they accept the agenda. Everything before is voluntary. The staff comments in question where from the county, the city planning staff is not in favor of this going in at this location. The CD director is not happy with us. But we have to be ethical.Mike D. said:PA Municipalities Planning Code gives the planning commission 30 days upon receipt to review the plans. If no comments are offered at the end of the 30 day window the submission is deemed approved.
We CD Directors are often put in a tight place by the needs of companies on one hand, and the regular review process on the other. It is not unusual for us to have to perform on very tight schedules because a company has specific timing needs. This has meant that I have had to request special meetings of my board and the common council, and to bring in plans or documents at the last minute. We have even approved incomplete plans, leaving some minor details subject to staff approval.SGB said:The question that immediately came to mind is:
Why didn't the planning commission receive the staff report earlier?
The delay in the staff report getting to the commission seems odd, considering the city's CD Director seems clearly behind the project.
A standard rule we use is to approximate a 1:5 ratio of building to land. A 120,000 square foot building would ideally have 13-14 acres of land, allowing it ample room to double in size and still have room for parking and truck maneuvering. [/B]
Very true. We require plans to be in 11 business days prior to a scheduled meeting in order to be "eligible" to be on the agenda. However, the Plan Commission has directed staff NOT to put something on the agenda for consideration until it has staff approval, conditional staff approval, or staff denial. (We get around the action deadlines like donk's by placing them on a special section of the agenda that id's them as items not meeting standards and considered for deferral, and action is taken without substantial discussion). They want to review the finished version along with their color renderings and material samples, and not the first draft.Michael Stumpf said:We CD Directors are often put in a tight place by the needs of companies on one hand, and the regular review process on the other.
Amen brother! I just had a senior housing facility come in with their plans. Staff went through three revisions, and each time I supplied a comprehensive list of what needed to be addressesd. The latest revision still had a HUGE list of things that were missing and/or incorrect. They needed to get on the July agenda because they were applying for state tax credits, and they needed approval. I did put it on the agenda, but let the PC know the situation and left it up to them. The developer ended up supplying a 4th revision the day of the meeting, and PC wasn't happy that they hadn't had time to review it.It leaves staff to tell petitioners that their chances of approval are only as good as their architect's skill in getting it done right the first time. Not very business friendly, but it leads to short night meetings!
In my expereince, those statements are usually made by project managers that were overly agressive and their job is now on the line if it falls behind the schedule their boss was presented.SW MI Planner said:Also, I've noticed that a lot of these companies will say that they need approval right NOW, or they're not coming to town. 95% of them still come in.
Or even more aggravating - you bypass internal processes to meet their deadline and then find there is some hitch at their end that meant there was never any urgency.SW MI Planner said:Also, I've noticed that a lot of these companies will say that they need approval right NOW, or they're not coming to town. 95% of them still come in.