Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />FEBRUARY 12, 2004 <br />recommendations of the City Planner and the Public Works Director, and <br />stating that the Commission had no concerns with the request for Vacation <br />of Fifth Avenue. <br />Motion seconded by Duray. <br />Motion carried 5 - 0. <br />AMENDMENTS The City Planner presented three proposed amendments to the City's <br />TO Subdivision Code which will strengthen the Code with regard to the <br />SUBDIVISION processing of Preliminary and Final Plats. <br />CODE <br />The Plainer indicated that the first amendment would add a clause to the <br />Code that lists specific reasons why a preliminary plat may be denied or <br />the rationale for adding conditions to an approval. The Planner felt the <br />Code would be stronger by specifically listing reasons for denial; for <br />example, failure to comply with the City Engineer's recommendations <br />would be reason for denial. <br />The second amendment adds a clause stating that designs or materials that <br />are not specifically addressed in the design standards section are <br />considered to be prohibited, unless specifically approved by the Council. <br />This holds plats to the design standards spelled out in the Code. <br />The third amendment adds a clause that prior to submission of an <br />application for final plat, a revised preliminary plat must be submitted for <br />review and approval that is completely consistent with the conditions of <br />approval This is an additional step in the approval process given that <br />currently the City's position has been to ensure all conditions are met as <br />part of the final plat process. The amendment would force a developer to <br />complete the process as par of the preliminary plat phase, and may add <br />some time to the process. <br />Keis asked if the City has typically had problems with final plats being <br />inconsistent with the conditional approvals of a preliminary plat. The <br />Plainer indicated that typically this has not been a problem, but there have <br />been some instances when it has. Keis indicated that he would not want to <br />add steps to the process that were not needed and which would make the <br />process too difficult. I{eis indicated that he was supportive of the first and <br />second amendments, but was not sure of the need for the third. <br />13arraclough suggested that the third amendment contain a provision <br />allowing the developer to request a waiver of this portion of the process. <br />-S- <br />