2012_0827_Packet as amended - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PLANNING FILE 12-010 1 Request by MidAmerica Auctions for approval of outdoor storage of motor vehicles as 2 an INTERIM USE at6 2755 Long Lake Road 3 Vice Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for File 12-001 at approximately 6:48 p.m. 4 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly summarized the request by the applicant for approval of 5 outdoor storage for motor vehicles at2755 Long Lake Road via an INTERIM USE; as detailed 6 in the Request for Planning Commission Action dated August 1, 2012. Mr. Lloyd noted that 7 this location is a former automobile dealership; and that the request for outdoor storage of 8 vehicles was for up to a maximum of five (5) years. 9 Mr. Lloyd reported on the public information open house held by the applicant, with a 10 representative from a neighboring business attending, and seeking clarification, but having no 11 significant issues. Mr. Lloyd advised that the only other response received was from Magellan 12 Pipeline Company, L. P. as noted in the staff report attachments and their lack of any issue as 13 long as there would be no interference with their pipeline easements or locations. Mr. Lloyd 14 advised that this was not an issue. 15 Mr. Lloyd advised that the only remaining issue, since distribution of the staff report was the 16 height and type of fencing; as well as approval of the location of a portion of the outdoor 17 storage and screening as addressed in Condition C (page 4 of the staff report). Mr. Lloyd 18 noted that the owner of a portion of the area is NSP and the applicant must provide written 19 documentation from NSP supporting this application or otherwise limit the boundaries of the 20 outdoor storage. 21 Staff recommended approval of the INTERIM USE, based on the findings of Sections 4-6 and 22 the recommendations of Section 7 of the staff report dated August 1, 2012. 23 Member Boguszewski referenced the timing of the present request for five (5) years (page 2, 24 Section 4.3) and comments related to growth, and ramifications if the business doesn’t 25 continue to grow as anticipated or if they outgrew the space before the five years. Member 26 Boguszewski questioned the “for up to five years) addressed in Section 5.1 and questioned 27 whether an actual end date would be more appropriate, unless the actual end date was five 28 years from the City Council action. 29 Mr. Lloyd responded that the five years was a maximum possible term in accordance with the 30 City’s Zoning Code; and if a shorter time seemed appropriate to the Commission they could 31 condition their approval accordingly. Short of that, Mr. Lloyd advised that the Interim Use 32 would expire five years from the City Council action date, and would be made more explicit in 33 the formal resolution for City Council review and approval. 34 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that an Interim Use did not pass 35 from one owner to another and would not be grandfathered in for a any new owner or different 36 ownership structure; but would require an entirely new Interim Use application, even if for the 37 same purpose. 38 Member Boguszewski opined that, in his visual review of the property this afternoon, an eight 39 foot (8’) fence would look better from Long Lake Road than the current situation. 40 Member Lester expressed his understanding of the end of the Interim Use if the business was 41 sold; but questioned the situation if it was leased and whether the Interim Use would remain 42 intact. 43 Mr. Lloyd responded that the intent of the Code is that if any different person is running the 44 business, they do not have approval to do so, since this applicant making the request for an 45 Interim Use is the one authorized to run the business under that Use. After the five (5) year 46 term, Mr. Lloyd noted that even this same owner would be required to reapply for approval of 47 a new Interim Use for additional time beyond that period. 48 At the request of Member Lester regarding the applicant’s request for a six foot (6’) versus an 49 eight foot (8’) fence height, Mr. Lloyd advised that this request had been made by the 50