PL PACKET 02182020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes October 15, 2019 Page 5 intent was the City is going to create a clause allowing something in that space that City Code 1 never allowed to happen before. He thought it was reasonable to suggest that the resident did 2 not have unfettered right to do in that space and there are some constraints. He thought it was 3 useful to have that cautionary clause. 4 5 Commissioner Westrick indicated she appreciated the language that was added for the reasons 6 staff indicated. She noted she was concerned it would become over burdensome. 7 Commissioner Socha indicated she was going to take the topic off the table and not propose 8 that “reasonably” be added to the amendment. 9 10 Commissioner Rude thought the sentence could be changed to “Provided that the property 11 owner meets the law in respect to drainage…”, somewhere along those lines so the City is not 12 defining what the law is but indicating the City is not the arbitrator and to be aware of it. 13 Chairperson Papatola indicated he would be more comfortable with something like that. 14 Commissioner Neumann agreed. 15 16 Commissioner Socha suggested “The property owner controls drainage in a manner consistent 17 with existing State and Municipal Law”. Commissioner Neumann thought Commissioner 18 Rude’s suggestion was simpler. 19 20 Commissioner Westrick asked if most residents are going to know what “meets the law” 21 means. Commissioner Rude assumed there were some State Statutes, but most is common 22 law, meaning it has been established by judges in the courts over many years. 23 24 Commissioner Socha liked the idea of staying consistent but she liked the noted aspect of 25 “controls drainage” versus “meets the law” which does not put people on much notice. She 26 asked if the Commission would be ok to leave the sentence exactly has it is proposed to read 27 “controls drainage impacting adjoining property in a manner consistent with existing law.” 28 29 City Planner Grittman indicated he was comfortable with that wording and provides the 30 warning that was his original intent. 31 32 Chairperson Papatola referenced the sidewalk/walkway definition. Commissioner Rude noted 33 in the packet there was site to the MN Statute 169.011 that defined pedestrian and wheelchair 34 and he thought for clarity if there could be reference to a law that is statewide that judges can 35 interpret and people have debated over, he tweaked the language a little bit to read more 36 consistent with that definition. He proposed as an alternative to just site to that Statute instead 37 of even putting it in the amendment. Chair Papatola indicated he would be in favor of putting 38 in the language where someone could take a look at it as opposed to referencing it somewhere 39 else. 40 41 Commissioner Rude indicated the one substantial change he added was “…being used by a 42 disabled person” in the red part. Commissioner Neumann explained she would prefer “person 43 with a disability”. Commissioner Socha indicated she preferred the language Commissioner 44 Rude proposed which more closely mirrors the Statute because there is a time where this 45 could be interpreted, and that interpretation could be used by the Planning Commission or 46