Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Council Liaison Broussard Vickers indicated that she did not see language for the zoning <br />permit that Mr. Palzer had suggested and indicated she would like to see a list added of <br />everything Staff can think of that should be reviewed. <br /> <br />2. Zoning Map Modifications <br /> <br />Ms. Moore-Sykes explained that the Conservation District was not intended for the <br />protection of waterviays but was created for future recreation and parks. She then <br />explained that the Metropolitan Council does not recognize Cl zoning but does recognize <br />the flood plain designation and that is what governs the development process. She <br />further explained that she had discovered that the Cl zoning was done to provide a <br />recreation area around Clear Water Creek back in June of 1991 at the request of the <br />resident at 1759 Main Street. <br /> <br />The Commission discussed the pros and cons oUhe conservation district and determined <br />that it would be appropriate to solicit input from the City Attorney and the consultant <br />who assisted with the changes to the Comprehensive Plan before detemtining how to <br />rezone the C 1 district. <br /> <br />Ms. Moore-Sykes indicated that a resident had applied for a variance from Rice Creek <br />Watershed District to be allowed to build a tour-season porch in the tloodplain. She then <br />indicated that Rice Creek had told the resident that it would grant approval if the City <br />granted a variance and, since the resident applied for the variance, the 60 day time limit is <br />ruuning. <br /> <br />The Commission asked Ms. Moore-Sykes to call the resident and ask her to waive the 60- <br />day requirements because the City needs to research whether or not a variancerrom the <br />City is required. <br /> <br />V. NEW BUSINESS <br /> <br />I. Consideration of Cablecastin~ Meetings <br /> <br />After discussing the matter, it was determined that the Commission did not tee! it was <br />necessary to cablecast its meetings. <br /> <br />2. Extension Requests - Non-compliant Sheds <br /> <br />IV!:r. l'v.!ichaels addJ:essed the Commission and explained that he had been doLl1g extensive <br />remodeling on his house because it was purchased as a HOD home and needed repair. <br />He then indicated that the roof of the shed was not in very good condition and last winter <br />a heavy load of snow slid onto it from the house and collapsed the shed. <br /> <br />!vir. Michaels indicated he had come to City Hall to ask severai questions concerning the <br />work he was doing and specifically asked whether he needed a permit to rebuild the shed. <br /> <br />Page 40f9 <br />