2012-08-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 1, 2012 Page 3 Mr. Lloyd advised that the only remaining issue, since distribution of the staff report was the 98 height and type of fencing; as well as approval of the location of a portion of the outdoor storage 99 and screening as addressed in Condition C (page 4 of the staff report). Mr. Lloyd noted that the 100 owner of a portion of the area is NSP and the applicant must provide written documentation from 101 NSP supporting this application or otherwise limit the boundaries of the outdoor storage. 102 Staff recommended approval of the INTERIM USE, based on the findings of Sections 4-6 and the 103 recommendations of Section 7 of the staff report dated August 1, 2012. 104 Member Boguszewski referenced the timing of the present request for five (5) years (page 2, 105 Section 4.3) and comments related to growth, and ramifications if the business doesn’t continue 106 to grow as anticipated or if they outgrew the space before the five years. Member Boguszewski 107 questioned the “for up to five years) addressed in Section 5.1 and questioned whether an actual 108 end date would be more appropriate, unless the actual end date was five years from the City 109 Council action. 110 Mr. Lloyd responded that the five years was a maximum possible term in accordance with the 111 City’s Zoning Code; and if a shorter time seemed appropriate to the Commission they could 112 condition their approval accordingly. Short of that, Mr. Lloyd advised that the Interim Use would 113 expire five years from the City Council action date, and would be made more explicit in the formal 114 resolution for City Council review and approval. 115 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that an Interim Use did not pass 116 from one owner to another and would not be grandfathered in for a any new owner or different 117 ownership structure; but would require an entirely new Interim Use application, even if for the 118 same purpose. 119 Member Boguszewski opined that, in his visual review of the property this afternoon, an eight foot 120 (8’) fence would look better from Long Lake Road than the current situation. 121 Member Lester expressed his understanding of the end of the Interim Use if the business was 122 sold; but questioned the situation if it was leased and whether the Interim Use would remain 123 intact. 124 Mr. Lloyd responded that the intent of the Code is that if any different person is running the 125 business, they do not have approval to do so, since this applicant making the request for an 126 Interim Use is the one authorized to run the business under that Use. After the five (5) year term, 127 Mr. Lloyd noted that even this same owner would be required to reapply for approval of a new 128 Interim Use for additional time beyond that period. 129 At the request of Member Lester regarding the applicant’s request for a six foot (6’) versus an 130 eight foot (8’) fence height, Mr. Lloyd advised that this request had been made by the applicant 131 after the preparation and distribution of the staff report and staff’s recommended conditions. Mr. 132 Lloyd advised that, apparently after the applicant’s receipt of various bids, and the intent to store 133 mostly passenger vehicles rather than higher profile vehicles outside, the applicant was seeking 134 that deviation. However, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff’s recommendation stood at eight feet (8’), 135 but was at the discretion of the Commission. 136 At the request of Member Lester as to type of vehicles proposed for outdoor storage, Mr. Lloyd 137 suggested verifying that with the applicant. Mr. Lloyd noted that the Police Department likely 138 received a broad range of vehicles through forfeiture and needing storage, although most are 139 probably passenger cars and trucks, since the Use period was for up to five (5) years, the type of 140 vehicle became an unknown. 141 Applicant’s Representative, Ron Christenson 142 Mr. Christenson advised that they were in agreement with staff’s report other than for the 143 condition regarding height of the screening fence. Mr. Christenson advised that the cost for a six 144 foot (6’) fence would be approximately $60,000; and eight foot (8’) fence well in excess of 145 $100,000, prompting their request for a shorter fence. Mr. Christenson noted that a wooden fence 146 would be in excess of $250,000. 147