PL PACKET 02182020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 4 go onto the neighbor’s yard. Commissioner Rude did not believe that is what the law is. He 1 believed the law is that it flows naturally. 2 3 Commissioner Neumann indicated she was familiar with a case where there was an argument 4 over literally two inches. She thought the piece about where the City wants to have their 5 hands in it, she was confused about that part as well. She did not understand the rationale 6 behind it. It seemed to her that if she was having an issue with a neighbor, she would be more 7 comfortable pursuing a civil process with that and spending the money rather than having to 8 worry about who has a prior relationship with the City. She thought it seemed really messy to 9 her and not sure about how many people would be comfortable with that. Chairperson 10 Papatola asked for clarification on whether her comment was on the entire amendment or 11 what is currently being discussed. Commissioner Neumann stated she was specifically talking 12 about what was currently being discussed, which is sidewalk. 13 14 Chairperson Papatola asked for clarity from City Planner Grittman on this paragraph and 15 consistency with other similar municipalities codes. City Planner Grittman stated the reason 16 he included it in the format proposed was that if the City is going to establish a rule about 17 walkways and allow them to be in the City, even though in practice the City has allowed them 18 to be here, now the amendment is specify what a walkway is and where it will be allowed. He 19 noted the number one issue that will be found is whether it will obstruct the course of natural 20 drainage. He thought it was prudent to have some language in the amendment to give the City 21 the ability to say the applicant needs to change the sidewalk proposal, so it does not obstruct it 22 or allow the City to say no. He thought it was useful to have that standard in this rather than 23 just dump everything into the court system. 24 25 Chairperson Papatola indicated that while he acknowledged the legal expertise in the room, he 26 was not comfortable in making the determination on a legal determination and he did not 27 think that was the Planning Commission’s charge. It feels like the Commission should get 28 some agreement on the language which can then be reviewed by the City Attorney to make 29 sure the City is in conformance with any other Statute’s the City should be in conformance 30 with. 31 32 Commissioner Socha did not think anyone was in disagreement because she agreed it is 33 supposed to be the natural course and the resident is not supposed to do anything to alter it. 34 She thought this amendment language is consistent with what the law is as she understands it. 35 As far as reasonably, that was just a thought she had as well and did not need to be changed. 36 City Planner Grittman indicated he would not have a problem with that standard. 37 38 Commissioner Payne asked if other communities had similar language to the drainage clause 39 because in addition to what Commission Neumann was talking about, he saw it as a way to 40 provide notice to people who would be adding the walkways indicating it is an issue that the 41 resident needed to be aware of. It sounded more like the City would be the arbiter of whether 42 or not the plan is sufficient to deal with the drainage problem and if the City Council makes 43 that decision is the City exposing themselves to liability for wrong. City Planner Grittman 44 indicated he was not sure if that is something he could answer but the definition of walkways 45 and this kind of encroachment language probably does not exist in his experience but his 46