Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />OCTOBER 22, 2008 <br />RESOL UTION N0.2008-10-271-CONTINUING THE PUBLIC <br />HEARING AND TABLING ACTION ON THE TEXT AMENDMENT <br />TO THE ZONING CODE ALLOWING OPENAND OUTDOOR <br />STORAGE OF PERSONAL RECREATIONAL EQUIPMENT BY <br />CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IN THE LIGHT-INDUSTRIAL (I-1) <br />ZONING DISTRICT UNTIL THE NOVEMBER 24, 2008 REGULAR <br />COUNCIL MEETING <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Allan. <br />Ayes (5). <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />ADOPTION Blesener opened the continuation of Public Hearing to consider the <br />OF UPDATED adoption of updated Zoning and Subdivision Code regulations. It was <br />ZONING noted that the City Planner and the Planning Commission have <br />AND recommended approval as submitted. Blesener noted that the only <br />SUBDIVISION open issue is the minimum size of senior housing units. <br />CODES <br />The City Planner reviewed his report dated October 22, 2008 relative to <br />unit sizes for multiple family housing. He noted that the ordinance <br />amendment leaves out specific housing sizes and refers to compliance <br />with the International Building Code (IBC). The current ordinance uses <br />Housing & Urban Development (HUD) standards which HUD eliminated <br />once the Americans With Disabilities Act was adopted. The Planner <br />indicated that he checked several sources, including a prominent market <br />research firm, Met Council housing staff, the local HUD office, and <br />numerous local ordinances. Other than the City of Roseville, none of the <br />sources has recommended standards, and the Planner indicated that Little <br />Canada is free to revise its floor area standards as desired. <br />Keis asked about the IBC standards. The Planner indicated that the IBC <br />contains a formula based on square footage per occupant. The Planner <br />indicated that the IBC is fairly lenient. The Planner indicated that HUD <br />feels the ADA has the more reshictive requirements given the need to <br />have adequate square footage for occupants to get around within a housing <br />unit. <br />Keis felt that there should not be reduced unit size standards for senior <br />housing, and noted that there may be instances where senior housing is <br />converted to regular apartments. McGraw agreed and pointed out that the <br />minimum unit sizes for senior housing are very small, and felt that <br />developers would build the minimum unit size they were required to. <br />12 <br />