Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~~f'I 'feo(!~ rtAiJ. C&{);t. ~~~ <br /> <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br /> <br />f. Plannin{! File 3531: Request by the City of Roseville to amend City Code <br />Sections l102.01E through G by eliminating the requirement for a second <br />public hearing by the City Council prior to final plat review and approvals. <br /> <br />Chair Duncan opened the hearing and requested Dennis Welsch present a verbal summary of the <br />staff report dated October 1, 2003. <br /> <br />Dennis Welsch explained that the City Council has requested that the Planning Commission and <br />staff review the current requirement within Title 11, Chapter 11, Section 11 02.E through G <br />which states that the City Council must hold a hearing on a "Final" plat. The discussion at the <br />Council meeting was this hearing is not needed as long as the Council retains authority to approve <br />the final plat. The subdivision process already has one formal hearing, which the Planning <br />Commission holds on the preliminary plat. (One hearing is required by state statute.) The Council <br />then takes action on the preliminary plat. Once the developer has completed all the work required <br />by the preliminary approvals and conditions, the developer returns to the City Council for final <br />approvals. It is rare that the public has interest in the "Final" plat since the final plat process is <br />used primarily to ascertain that the developer has complied with the details of the preliminary plat <br />and to approve contacts/agreements for public infrastructure improvements. <br /> <br />This amendment, if passed, would eliminate one set of mailed and published notices, and move <br />the Council agenda item (a final plat) from "Hearings" to the "Land Use" or "Consent". The <br />Council procedurally and at its discretion, can continue to recognize a resident for comments on <br />the final plat without holding a hearing. <br /> <br />Eliminating the second hearing would reduce the cost and time that must be spent on preparation <br />for the second hearing. <br /> <br />A second hearing is not required by state statutes. <br /> <br />There was no public comment offered. <br /> <br />Chairman Mulder closed the hearing. <br />Motion: Member Peper moved, seconded by Member Stone to approve the amendments to City <br />Code Title 11, Chapter 11, Sections 1102 E through G, eliminating the second hearing during <br />Final Plat reviews. <br /> <br />Member Bakeman said she is concerned about reducing required Council hearings. Reducing <br />hearings reduces citizen input. <br /> <br />Member Stone said a final plat hearing is not required and is redundant. <br /> <br />Chair Mulder said that there should only be one public hearing, to focus input at the hearing with <br />the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Member Bakeman said the public should be able to comment on changes in the final plat. This <br />could be disenfranchisement of the voter. Could the terminology be changed, not calling it a <br />hearing, but allowing for public comment? <br /> <br />Thomas Paschke explained that he knows of only Roseville that requires a second hearing for a <br />final plat. <br />