My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-05-06_PC_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2015 Agendas
>
2015-05-06_PC_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2015 10:36:43 AM
Creation date
5/8/2015 10:36:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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
Regular Planning CommissionMeeting <br />Minutes –Wednesday, April 1, 2015 <br />Page 3 <br />through an administrative processwith notice to neighbors within the particular notice <br />96 <br />area versus a formal public hearing; and legality concerns for such a process as well as <br />97 <br />appeals and public record of those administrative hearings outside normal meeting <br />98 <br />minutes while addressing the historic purposes of any and all appeals. <br />99 <br />Chair Boguszewskinoted that the original concern about the legality of administrative <br />100 <br />hearings versus a more formal appeal to the Planning Commission or City Council had <br />101 <br />been raised by Member Daire, with members Stellmach and Cunningham concurring, <br />102 <br />and also expressing concern with public transparency and inclusiveness for citizens.At <br />103 <br />the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had incorporated language <br />104 <br />in the draft to accommodate those previous concerns. <br />105 <br />Member Gitzen asked if correction action was being addressed for Torrensand/or <br />106 <br />abstracts and legal descriptioncorrective actions, and whether Ramsey County got <br />107 <br />involved in them. <br />108 <br />Mr.Lloyd responded that typically Ramsey County became involved when recording <br />109 <br />deeds and/or plats; with the present code not having differentiated between those <br />110 <br />different property types, and to-date the proposed revised languagedid not proscribe any <br />111 <br />different processes either, including whether or not there needs to be mention of Torrens. <br />112 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that this was not a preferred documentation type beyond a metes and <br />113 <br />bounds legal description; with Ramsey County preferring plats.Mr. Lloyd noted that this <br />114 <br />could be addressed upon further review in addressing whether registered land surveys <br />115 <br />are to be facilitated or avoided. <br />116 <br />Attachment B <br />117 <br />Chapter 1004 Procedures, Line 20 (C. Kinds of Type 1 Subdivision; 1. Correction) <br />118 <br />Member Gitzen suggested better defining or revising the term “inadequate,” with staff <br />119 <br />duly noting that additional revision, particularly if and when a survey and legal description <br />120 <br />do not agree. <br />121 <br />For the benefit of new Members, Chair Boguszewski advised that this document <br />122 <br />remained a work-in-progress, and this type of review was typical of staff periodically <br />123 <br />seeking updated or revised language for existing ordinances, allowing the Commission to <br />124 <br />make the documents more consistent and brainstorm with staff ways to make them more <br />125 <br />user-friendly while protecting the interests of all parties in land use issues.Chair <br />126 <br />Boguszewski noted that revisions will come forward in various iterations prior to <br />127 <br />finalization, a public hearing to seek public testimony from residents, and then the <br />128 <br />Commission’s recommendation to the City Council for approval and adoption.In addition <br />129 <br />to this public review as a body and as commissioners were able to review documents in <br />130 <br />more detail outside the meeting, Chair Boguszewski encouraged individual <br />131 <br />commissioners to send their thoughts or questions directly to staff for their response and <br />132 <br />consideration. <br />133 <br />Mr. Lloyd clarified that such a procedure from individual commissioners was appropriate <br />134 <br />as long as those e-mail comments were directed to staff, and there were no serial e-mails <br />135 <br />among or between commissioners outside the public meeting environment to avoid any <br />136 <br />Open Meeting law violations. <br />137 <br />Chair Boguszewski thanked staff for that clarification; and noted upcoming Ethics <br />138 <br />Training opportunities for commissioners would also address those issues. <br />139 <br />Staff Report, Page 2, lines 69 –81 <br />140 <br />Member Daire asked staff to elaborate on solar energy issues and potential easements <br />141 <br />as they pertained to the revised Subdivision Ordinance. <br />142 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that a solar access easement would be similar to a drainage <br />143 <br />easement; and would most likely serve to restrict height, structure mass, or trees <br />144 <br />encroaching into a three dimensional space in order to preserve neighboring properties <br />145 <br />and that property’s access to solar energy.Mr. Lloyd noted that not all properties were <br />146 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.