My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
02/05/91
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Planning and Zoning
>
Agendas
>
1990's
>
1991
>
02/05/91
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/22/2025 9:10:20 AM
Creation date
2/23/2004 8:18:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Document Title
Planning and Zoning Commission
Document Date
02/05/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
170
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
'DISCUk~SiI~iN OF PLATTING <br /> HILLS <br /> <br />9~B 010)).t~ By: City <br /> akkground: <br /> <br />PROCEDURES RELATING TO <br />2ND ADDITION P.U.D. <br />Engineer Steven Jankowski <br /> <br /> CASE #3 <br />FLINTWOOD <br /> <br /> Recently I (Sylvia Frolik) was approached by Art Raudio with a request to plat Outlots M and N of <br /> Flintwood Hills;12nd Addition P.U.D. In accordance with our Subdivision Ordnance I informed <br /> Mr. Raudio that ihe procedure to platting unplatted land is to submit a subdivision application to the <br /> City along with i. he required escrow deposit. The proposed subdivision is then processed through <br /> sketch plan, preliminary plat including public hearing and final plat approval. Mr. Raudio <br /> contended that the proposed subdivision of Outlots M and N received preliminary plat approval in <br /> 1984 under Flirt!wood Hills 2nd Addition P.U.D. and therefore should proceed right to the final <br /> plat stage. I confirmed that the subdivision plan for Outlots M and N did receive preliminary plat <br /> approval but W~hen the developers recorded the 2nd Addition, it did not show M and N being <br /> subdivided, but rather designated that particular area as an outlot. Therefore, I concluded that it <br /> was unplatted land that should follow subdivision procedures from the point of application. Mr. <br /> Raudio asked tt~at I i~esearch the Flintwood Hills 2nd Addition case file further. I found that the <br /> final plat approval of Flintwood Hills 2nd Addition P.U.D. encompassed the total area and <br /> indicated that the P;U.D. would be a 2-phased development. However, when the developers <br /> recorded the ritual plat it only included an area they intended to develop immediately and the <br /> remainder of th",e area was designated as outtots. Subsequently, future phases of 2nd Addition <br /> P.U.D. were pt~ttted and developed as Fhntwood H~Ils 3rd and 4th Addmons and those plats <br /> received final plfi. t apProval based on the preliminary plat approval granted in 1984. <br /> <br /> All of this led to~lmyself and Steve Jankowski researching whether or not the proper procedure had <br /> been followed in. the past as Flintwood Hills 3rd and 4th were phases of of Flintwood Hills 2nd <br /> Addition, but final p!at approval to 3rd and 4th was granted years after preliminary plat approval· <br /> City Ordinance i~ effect at the time the Flintwood Hills P U D was platted states that the developer <br /> must file for fin~l plat approval within 6 months of the preliminary plat approval. The text that <br /> follows summarizes the research of subdivision ordinances. <br /> <br /> Wording of Sub;tivi$ion Ordinance Regarding Procedure. <br /> <br />: ~ major memeni or uncertainty stems from the fact that the wording of the subdivision ordinances <br />! states that final plat approval must be preceded by preliminary plat approval. Preliminary plat <br />I approval on the plat in question had been obtained over six years ago. Until Fall of 1990, the City <br />! Ordinance reqUii'ed the final plat to be filed within six months of preliminary plat approval. The <br />I wording of the O, rdinance was amended to extend the recording period to one year. However, a <br />strict literal interpretation of either of these ordinances leaves doubt as to what the appropriate <br />procedure is in this particular situation. For example, the original ordinance read as follows: <br />'[ ('~ ~x, Within six months fOllowing approval of the preliminary plat, unless an extension of time is requested in <br />. Y,~Y writing by the :§ubdivider and granted by the City Council, the subdivider shall file six copies of the final <br />". '~/plat, together With any necessary supplementary information, with the Zoning Officer The final plat <br /> · ~: . shall <br /> ~ncorporate al.~ changes required by the City Council. If a final plat covering all or a portion of the <br /> i preliminary pl~t is not filed within six months following approval of the preliminary plat, the a~,~,al of <br /> , the prclirninar); plat Shall be considered void· _ l ~} .I <br /> [~ ~~ __~ ~ 1{ ~ ~l( [~T l/ <br /> ould this meari if a portion of a preliminary plat is final platted (as was the case with Flintwood <br />i H~lls 2nd Add,ti/on) then ~s the remainder of prehmmarv plat valid forever? Similarly, the new <br />[ wordine also is SDmewhat ambiauous in this case: <br /> <br /> Following approval of the preliminary plat by the Council, the Zoning Officer shall promptly notify thc <br /> subdivider of sh~d approval and furmsh him with a certified copy of the resolution approving preliminary <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.