11-26-1985 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES Planning Commission Nov. 14, 1985 Metal The Building Inspector also recommended deleting Item 2 of the proposed Buildings ordinance as he felt that the Council would be picking and chosing under this provision. The Building Inspector also felt that there was no way to name all the different types of exterior siding. Also, what may be compatible to one person is not to another. The Planner felt that with a conditional use permit the City would open itself up to lawsuits as if a proposal meets conditions imposed by the ordinance, a conditional use permit would have to be approved. The Planner stated that the intent of Item 2 was to make it compatible with the I -P District. The Planner agreed that it was not possible to name every type of siding. Mr. DeLonais recommended that Item #2 be deleted. The Building Inspector explained that the Minnesota Building Code does not require a permit for any construction 120 square feet or less. As far as Item #3 is concerned, the Building Inspector felt that if the Building Code were followed, quality and value would be taken care of. .....` Mr. Davison asked how the City could even enforce Item #. Mr. Perlinger commented that the value of a building is very vague and could not be based on the size of the building alone. Mrs. Timmons felt that this item referred to the aesthetic value of a building. Mr. Herkenhoff felt that many times the code was the minimum standard and felt that the Planner was trying to put more emphasis on quality. The Planner agreed and stated that the Council wants to encourage a higher quality than just the minimum. The Building Inspector reported that the Building Code is concerned with life safety and structural stability and is not concerned about the outside of a structure as long as it is built according to the building code. The Planner pointed out that if the Council disallowed a building because of Item #3 the burden of proof would be on the Council. The statement encourages people to build a higher quality development. The Planner stated that Item #4 gives the Council a measuring stick. The Building Inspector expressed concern for doing his job with Item #4. Mr. Nagovsky felt that with Item #4 on the books every permit for a garage would have to go before the Planning Commission and the Council. Page -3-