PL PACKET 08162005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 7 1 2 Commissioner Young referenced the guidelines used by other Cities and asked if the balconies 3 would be masonry or wood frames. Mr. Charles stated that when he read through the various 4 City Ordinances he did not see anything that specifically addressed masonry or wood-frame 5 balconies. 6 7 Commissioner Galyon stated that he did a bit of research himself and asked if the balconies 8 would be waterproofed. He indicated that charcoal could be used in gas grills for smoking foods 9 and expressed concerns that the coals could fall to the floor and burn. He asked if the sprinkler 10 systems would be installed throughout the building. Mr. Charles stated that the Homeowners 11 Association has outlined and stipulated that any other type of fuel source other than natural gas 12 would be prohibited and enforced. 13 14 Commissioner Jenson asked if the stoves in each unit would be gas or electric. Mr. Charles 15 stated that he is under the impression that the stoves would be gas. Commissioner Jenson 16 suggested that they make a decision and remain consistent in all units. 17 18 Commissioner Jensen noted that if they plan to pipe gas to the buildings the units would also be 19 piped for gas. He stated the stove type would be an option for each tenant to choose from. 20 21 Chair Stromgren asked Commission to differentiate between how the property would be 22 maintained and protected if it is a rental unit versus owner-occupied property noting that an 23 owner would be more apt to maintain and protect the assets of the unit. 24 25 Commissioner Jenson stated that his overall concern is the design of the structure and 26 implementation of the process and guidelines. 27 28 IX. PUBLIC INPUT 29 30 9.1 NONE 31 32 X. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION. 33 34 10.1 Zoning Ordinance Revision Discussion 35 36 Ms. Moore-Sykes noted that there has been a lot of interest in this over a long period of time. 37 She stated that the ideas to look at, as far as revisions to the ordinance, vary noting that she 38 received an email from the City Attorney dated May 24, 2005, that discusses non-conformity of 39 uses and states that second paragraph of Section 1660 of City Code probably should be amended 40 to conform the section because it still has the provision of prior Minnesota law that if more than 41 50-percent of fair market value of non-conforming use is removed or destroyed that the permitted 42 non-conforming use would then end. She stated that there has been some discussion about non- 43 conforming uses,what is a non-conforming use and how stringent the City's control should be 44 over non-conforming uses. She stated that this is one item that should definitely be reviewed and 45 discussed. She indicated that she found a file that contained several copies of ordinances from