2014-10-08_PC_Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, September 3, 2014 Page 2 Member Boguszewski reviewed subdivision typesfrom section to section on the 46 displayed table, noting that it became apparent that each type successively required a 47 greater degree of administrative analysis and oversight, with clear distinctions for an 48 applicant to follow.Member Boguszewski opined that he found no real distinctions in 49 requirements of type 1 or 2 subdivisions unlessburied in the details and therefore 50 questioned why the distinction. 51 Mr. Lloyd responded that there were no other distinctions buried in the details, and 52 Member Boguszewski’s question was reasonable for discussion.Mr. Lloyd advised that 53 the main distinction was that type 1 subdivisions are reserved for single-family 54 homeowners, and the process less expensive with Ramsey County to seek revised legal 55 descriptions and new deeds.However, for type 2 subdivisions, requiring a plat, Mr. Lloyd 56 advised that the process was for administrative review and potential approval was not 57 much different between the type 1 and type 2 plats beyond documentation requirements 58 for recording purpose with Ramsey County.Mr. Lloyd advised that practical ramifications 59 over time included the long and confusion metes and bounds legal descriptions versus a 60 more simplistic legal description with a plat. 61 At same time, Mr. Lloyd noted that the “on ground”impact may not be that different 62 betweensubdivision types 1 and2, with a simple understanding of lot and block 63 numbers,but not providing property boundaries unless iron monuments can be found 64 and verification that those monuments are actually located in the correct place, otherwise 65 requiring the services of a land surveyor.Mr. Lloyd advised that the intent of the 66 proposed language was to indicate that type 1 subdivisions aresimpler and less 67 expensive to accomplish; and whether for multi-familyor business properties, the plat 68 process didn’t necessarilyincrease expensesproportionately,but resulted in something 69 simpler over time. 70 Based on his understanding of the revisions themselves, Member Boguszewski sought 71 verification that there were simply a lot of details in current code that were proposed to be 72 removed from this section; not lost, but covered in other parts of code, thereby simplifying 73 the subdivision code.Member Boguszewski questioned if those changes included any 74 changes in the level of burden or cost or administrative oversight; in other words, was the 75 revision a simplification and clarification, or did the displayed table also represent a shift 76 between what is in various sections and subdivision types. 77 Mr. Lloyd responded that the intent was to ease the review and approval process for 78 minor subdivisions without the need for aformal public hearing at the Planning 79 Commission orCity Council level; but via an administrative hearing and approval process 80 due to those simpler and smaller scale applications not involving any deviations from 81 standard requirements, and limiting the area of impact versus larger proposals. 82 Mr. Lloyd advised that the expectations for applicants in any of the subdivision types 83 would be more appropriately addressed as part of the application forms and process, in 84 detail, but not changing that process as part of the subdivision code itself.Mr. Lloyd 85 advised that is the Planning Division’s goal to work with the Public Works Department to 86 move metrics more sensibly into the part of the code to which they apply (e.g. 87 engineering or land use); and for those not smaller subdivisions not involving any zoning 88 or other code changes or review.Mr. Lloyd clarified that, as usual, plan documents would 89 need to be provided for Preliminary and/or Final Plat approvals as part of the application 90 process, but without the subdivision code actually dictating the format of the plat 91 (compass directions) or how the plats are scales to a certain level.Mr. Lloyd advised that 92 those details and requirements would be carried forward to the application forms 93 themselves, allowing for periodic changes to the application forms versus the entire 94 subdivision code by ordinance. 95 At the request of Member Boguszewski, with additional administrative approval or denial, 96 Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the standard appeal section would be incorporated intothe 97 subdivision code, allowing recourse for the applicant or any other party before the Board 98 ofAdjustments (City Council). 99