2001-02-13 P & Z WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

February 13, 2001 Planning and Zoning Workshop Meeting Minutes Permits contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. March stated that he would contact Attorney Hoeft in regards to the proper procedure for amending the current ordinance in regards to mini-storage with Conditional Use Permits. Commission Member DeVine questioned the difference between Conditional and Special Use Permits. Mr. March stated that basically they are similar. Commissioner DeVine questioned whether the City allowed Special Use Permits. Mr. March also stated that Special Use Permits were allowed under the old zoning ordinance under “Uses Allowed and Uses Allowed with Special Use Permits”. Mr. Hoeft suggested having just “Allowed Uses” and if it were not an “Allowed Use”, the ordinance would need to be amended. Mr. March felt that this was the first example that would have to be allowed that is currently not allowed in the zoning district, and how is same obtained with special restrictions. Mr. March stated that the City of White Bear Lake’s ordinance contained language regarding mini-storages being allowed in conjunction with buildings for lease/office warehouse. Mr. March stated that this may be an avenue in securing additional business or warehouse space while increasing the market value of the property. Commissioner DeVine stated that it was not the Commission’s intent to make it so restrictive that mini- storages would not be a viable option for the community, but could make fair restrictions for facilities of this nature. Mr. March stated that other possibilities could be; no outdoor storage, on site manager, on site sanitary facilities open to the public or ratio for office space comparative to building size. Commissioner DeVine questioned Mr. March in regards to the language contained in Ordinance #4 regarding exterior, masonry, building products. Mr. March stated that he lacked the possession of the current ordinance at this time. Commissioner DeVine stated that construction of the facility would have to comply with the current ordinance. Mr. March stated that the City would probably desire security cameras at the building and office. Discussion ensued in regards to fencing and requirements for same. Commissioner DeVine questioned whether the City would rather have a building similar to that mentioned earlier with an overhead door and business being conducted within the interior of the building. Discussion ensued regarding the different types of buildings the City could require. Commissioner DeVine stated that several items needed to be determined; fencing around the structure, the size of the building that would be required or allowed, the amount of units per building and the required parcel size for the site. Commissioner Sheppard requested the lot dimensions of the proposed site the facility is to be built on. Mr. March stated that he believed the purchase agreement contained language that included the purchase of four (4) acres. Consensus was to begin the proposed requirement discussion starting from the exterior of the building going in. Chair Hanson stated that consensus was that an eight (8) foot, masonry column, rod iron, fence be placed around the perimeter of the facility. Discussion ensued in regards to entrance, exits, sliding gate, etc. Consensus was one (1) entrance/exit or a combination of one (1) entrance/exit, security cameras for monitoring the office and interior of the facility, and require an on site manager during regular/normal business hours. Mr. March stated that he would discuss the definition of regular/normal business hours with Mr. Hoeft. Mr. March suggested the addition of language pertaining to the valuation per square foot of the building must conform to the average valuation per square foot of the existing buildings in the Industrial park. Mr. Page 3 of 4