Laserfiche WebLink
OCT 12 1983 <br />55 me 2, 2 <br />Administrator Wright noted that the days set represent <br />the maximum timeframes, and in addition, not all these items <br />may occur. If you come in with a poor plan, you may run <br />into all this, but if you come in with a good one with no <br />problems, it will move right on through. <br />Commissioner Scurlock believed timing is one of the <br />biggest complaints we have had in the past and anything that <br />will expedite getting through the process in a timely <br />fashion should be encouraged. <br />Planning Manager Keating stated that he wished to <br />provide the applicant with an indication of maximum time- <br />frames, but also wanted to be sure staff is given adequate <br />time so they wouldn't constantly be violating the prescribed <br />timeframe. He agreed that the procedure could be reduced <br />substantially if everything comes in in a timely manner and <br />is done well. <br />Commissioner Scurlock then inquired about the minimum <br />amount of time that would be involved, if everything went <br />perfectly, and Attorney Brandenburg noted that depends how <br />quickly the applicant moves. This scenario is where he <br />files his preliminary plan, proceeds to construct all the <br />improvements, and then comes back in for final plat <br />approval. On the other hand, if the applicant doesn't want <br />to construct the entire project to get final plat approval, <br />then he comes in and bonds the project out. This would <br />result in a substantially shorter period of time between <br />preliminary and final plat approval. Actually the applicant <br />can use the process to meet his construction schedule. <br />Commissioner Lyons complimented staff on setting up the <br />proposed procedures and working out this chart which he felt <br />will help them understand their workload. He believed this <br />eventually could be put on computer, and Commissioner <br />Scurlock concurred. <br />22 <br />