2015-04-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 1, 2015 Page 3 through an administrative process with notice to neighbors within the particular notice 96 area versus a formal public hearing; and legality concerns for such a process as well as 97 appeals and public record of those administrative hearings outside normal meeting 98 minutes while addressing the historic purposes of any and all appeals. 99 Chair Boguszewski noted that the original concern about the legality of administrative 100 hearings versus a more formal appeal to the Planning Commission or City Council had 101 been raised by Member Daire, with members Stellmach and Cunningham concurring, 102 and also expressing concern with public transparency and inclusiveness for citizens. At 103 the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had incorporated language 104 in the draft to accommodate those previous concerns. 105 Member Gitzen asked if correction action was being addressed for Torrens and/or 106 abstracts and legal description corrective actions, and whether Ramsey County got 107 involved in them. 108 Mr. Lloyd responded that typically Ramsey County became involved when recording 109 deeds and/or plats; with the present code not having differentiated between those 110 different property types, and to-date the proposed revised language did not proscribe any 111 different processes either, including whether or not there needs to be mention of Torrens. 112 Mr. Lloyd advised that this was not a preferred documentation type beyond a metes and 113 bounds legal description; with Ramsey County preferring plats. Mr. Lloyd noted that this 114 could be addressed upon further review in addressing whether registered land surveys 115 are to be facilitated or avoided. 116 Attachment B 117 Chapter 1004 Procedures, Line 20 (C. Kinds of Type 1 Subdivision; 1. Correction) 118 Member Gitzen suggested better defining or revising the term “inadequate,” with staff 119 duly noting that additional revision, particularly if and when a survey and legal description 120 do not agree. 121 For the benefit of new Members, Chair Boguszewski advised that this document 122 remained a work-in-progress, and this type of review was typical of staff periodically 123 seeking updated or revised language for existing ordinances, allowing the Commission to 124 make the documents more consistent and brainstorm with staff ways to make them more 125 user-friendly while protecting the interests of all parties in land use issues. Chair 126 Boguszewski noted that revisions will come forward in various iterations prior to 127 finalization, a public hearing to seek public testimony from residents, and then the 128 Commission’s recommendation to the City Council for approval and adoption. In addition 129 to this public review as a body and as commissioners were able to review documents in 130 more detail outside the meeting, Chair Boguszewski encouraged individual 131 commissioners to send their thoughts or questions directly to staff for their response and 132 consideration. 133 Mr. Lloyd clarified that such a procedure from individual commissioners was appropriate 134 as long as those e-mail comments were directed to staff, and there were no serial e-mails 135 among or between commissioners outside the public meeting environment to avoid any 136 Open Meeting law violations. 137 Chair Boguszewski thanked staff for that clarification; and noted upcoming Ethics 138 Training opportunities for commissioners would also address those issues. 139 Staff Report, Page 2, lines 69 – 81 140 Member Daire asked staff to elaborate on solar energy issues and potential easements 141 as they pertained to the revised Subdivision Ordinance. 142 Mr. Lloyd advised that a solar access easement would be similar to a drainage 143 easement; and would most likely serve to restrict height, structure mass, or trees 144 encroaching into a three dimensional space in order to preserve neighboring properties 145 and that property’s access to solar energy. Mr. Lloyd noted that not all properties were 146