03-24-2004 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2004 AMENDMENTS TO SUBDIVISION CODE recommendations of the City Planner and the Public Works Director, and stating that the Commission had no concerns with the request for Vacation of Fifth Avenue. Motion seconded by :Duray. Motion carried 5 — 0. The City Planner presented three proposed amendments to the City's Subdivision Code which will strengthen the Code with regard to the processing of Preliminary and Final Plats. The Planner indicated that the first amendment would add a clause to the Code that lists specific reasons why a preliminary plat may be denied or the rationale for adding conditions to an approval. The Planner felt the Code would be stronger by specifically listing reasons for denial; for example, failure to comply with the City Engineer's recommendations would be reason for denial. The second amendment adds a clause stating that designs or materials that are not specifically addressed in the design standards section are considered to be prohibited, unless specifically approved by the Council. This holds plats to the design standards spelled out in the Code. The third amendment adds a clause that prior to submission of an application for final plat, a revised preliminary plat must be submitted for review and approval that is completely consistent with the conditions of approval. This is an additional step in the approval process given that currently the City's position has been to ensure all conditions are met as part of the final plat process. The amendment would force a developer to complete the process as par of the preliminary plat phase, and may add some time to the process. Keis asked if the City has typically had problems with final plats being inconsistent with the conditional approvals of a preliminary plat. The Planner indicated that typically this has not been a problem, but there have been some instances when it has. Keis indicated that he would not want to add steps to the process that were not needed and which would make the process too difficult. Keis indicated that he was supportive of the first and second amendments, but was not sure of the need for the third. Barraclough suggested that the third amendment contain a provision allowing the developer to request a waiver of this portion of the process. -8-