PL PACKET 02182020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 3 that states “or rear and front lot lines.” She thought it was in the setback where it indicates 1 adding something about rear and front lot lines. 2 3 Commissioner Westrick appreciated the Commission wanting to define everything but was 4 concerned because she did not think every unique circumstance can be defined. 5 6 City Planner Grittman explained one way the Commission might think about addressing this 7 is to state “walkways, as defined in the ordinance, should not encroach closer than one foot to 8 any internal side lot line”. He noted the code distinguishes between internal side lot lines 9 which abut other peoples side properties or corner lot lines. This would allow the 10 encroachment onto a corner side street “side”. Commissioner Rude asked if the wording 11 should be referencing a public right of way versus the rear lot line or stop one foot short with 12 a sidewalk. Commissioner Socha did not think the City would want to make people stop one 13 foot short. City Planner Grittman indicated the City could. 14 15 Commissioner Rude asked if an alley would be considered an internal lot line. City Planner 16 Grittman indicated it would be. Commissioner Rude asked if any alley is considered a public 17 right of way. Commissioner Socha explained the way this language is proposed, it would be 18 one foot to any internal side lot line so even though it is an internal rear lot line the one-foot 19 setback would not be an issue once it is applied. It would still be allowed because it is an 20 internal side both. If it said within one foot of any internal lot line, then that would be an 21 issue but since it states internal side it is restricting just to that. She thought that would solve 22 the corner lot issue. 23 24 Chairperson Papatola directed the Commission back to the definition of sidewalk and 25 walkway. He noted City Planner Grittman presented one set of language and Commissioner 26 Rude sent in similar language. He asked Commissioner Rude to explain the differences he 27 saw. 28 29 Commissioner Socha indicated she had another comment to raise on Section K. She 30 explained when she read the following “…provided that the property owner controls 31 drainage”, she was thinking about adding “reasonably controls” because it is hard to 32 absolutely control anything. Commissioner Westrick indicated she was not thinking 33 reasonable but does the sentence mean the property owner has to prove that drainage is not 34 increasing. City Planner Grittman thought practically if someone were to propose a sidewalk 35 or walkway that is within the one foot setback, staff would ask them also to show that they 36 have identified where drainage goes on the property and if it became complicated the City 37 would employ the services of the City Engineer to look at it more closely if there appeared to 38 be a problem. Usually on language like this the City wants to keep it easy in order to avoid a 39 problem. He thought that is how it would be practically applied. 40 41 Commissioner Rude thought there was a body of law in this that the State runs and that the 42 courts have interpreted. He thought the City should leave it alone and the courts and State 43 determine these issues. Commissioner Socha wondered how this would change it because the 44 law basically indicates nothing can be done that would negatively effect change or make water 45