Thought this was interesting from the upcoming planning commision meeting:

Introduce and set for Public Hearing on March 22, 2012, an ordinance relating development
regulations in the Downtown Design Districts by providing for materials placed, used or stored
on balconies.

I. BACKGROUND

This ordinance amendment comes at the request of Councilperson Meg Salyer.

As a result of recent multi-story residential developments planned in and around the
Downtown area, neighboring residents have voiced concerns regarding the possibility of
placing or storing unsightly items on outdoor balconies.

The attached ordinance will make it unlawful to place or store any items on balconies,
visible from a public street, that are not designed for outdoor use and made of weather
resistant material.

The regulations will only apply to the three Downtown Design Districts.

II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Set for public hearing on March 22, 2012.


Does this seem like it could be anymore restrictive than what people are allowed in suburban apartments? I'm not too familiar with what most complexes allow. "Not designed for outdoor use" could be ambiguous and broad; I just hope it doesn't get to be where some downtown residents are trying to be too overzealous in their ideas of "proper neighborhood appearance".

The fact that we may need this ordinance in the first place is a good sign.

Are they afraid someone is going to cookout on their patio?

This proposal is a result of the recent issues between the developers of The Edge apartments (on NW 13th and Walker) and the Heritage Hills neighborhood association, and their concerns of multi-story rental units within eyesite of their neighborhood.

Even on the south side of 14th (one's backyard/balcony in HH), can one even see much on the south side of 13th through the trees and businesses/offices?

Unless the actual language is way way more restrictive than the summary of it, some items that wouldn't seem to run afoul of the ordinance, as all are intended for outdoor use and are made of weather resistant materials:

beach towels
rafting tubes
bicycles
fake trees in rubbermaid tub filed with gravel
stop signs
flashing yellow lights
swim suits on weather resistant lines

Not that there's anything wrong with any of those items on their own, but several balconies full would look somewhat icky. Just a guess on my part, but I do suspect folks paying upper level rents for DT living aren't really going to be highly prone to use their smallish balconies as storage areas for a lot of silly junk.

All complexes have their own rules about such things...

Do we really need legislation -- and yet more government control -- over this?

This is a stupid ordinance and a waste of time, not that this Council is going to use their time effectively and to good use to begin with...

But luckily we are all still able to keep our fake plastic trees in a rubbermaid tub filled with gravel, which by the way, is no worse than things that this City Hall has given executive approval to become semi-permanent fixtures along the Bricktown Canal, which IMO destroys the city's credibility on the issue of appropriate outdoor items.

Meg Salyer has lost the respect that she once had with me, and this ordinance is continuing down that slope...

Sounds similar to the restrictions at my apt complex (but it is an owner restriction and not a government one).
Furniture that is designed for outdoor use is ok (sold as "patio furniture")
Placing the living room couch outside, not so much
A wood picnic table is ok
A wood dining room table, not so much

I'm surprised Salyer would push this. She must be getting a lot of flack from her neighbors in HH.

Does anyone know on how this compares to what can go on a porch?

For the love of Pete - what a bunch of panzies in HH. They should have just said "no telescopes" and left it at that.

And no walking around naked on your balcony,unless......

Talk about pandering to the special interests!

All complexes have their own rules about such things...

Do we really need legislation -- and yet more government control -- over this?
Pete is correct. Why is govt. getting involved on this one?