Laserfiche WebLink
11 <br />PLANNING REPORT <br />DATE: <br />CASE NUMBER: <br />APPLICANT: <br />LOCATION: <br />ACTION REQUESTED: <br />PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: <br />4 May 1988 <br />`tIffil <br />City of Roseville <br />Industrial Zones <br />Amendment <br />Ordinance to <br />Storage" Use <br />to the Zoning <br />Add a "Mini <br />1. <br />The City of Roseville Ordinance as adopted in 1959 does not include <br />"mini -storage" as a permitted or Special Use in any zoning district. <br />The City does not have any "mini -storage" facilities in the City, and a <br />proposal to develop one is now tentatively in process. <br />2. <br />Whether or not a "mini -storage" facility is built in the City, it would <br />appear that it would be appropriate to add the use as a S-)ecial Use in <br />each of the Industrial Districts. "Mini -storage" is a unique use not <br />typically like a warehouse or a wholesale outlet. We suggest that the <br />City consider adding a "mini -storage" use as a Special Use in the <br />Industrial Districts and that a description for "mini -storage" be added to <br />the Ordinance as follows: <br />"A building or group of buildings of one or more levels <br />with usually, but not limited to the following <br />characteristics: controlled access and secured areas which <br />contain varying sizes of individually compartmentalized and <br />controlled access stalls or lockers for the dead storage of <br />the customer's goods or possessions." <br />This definition is in use in the City of Bloomington and appears to <br />define the use well. The actual wording would be subject to the <br />review of the City's legal counsel, who may be in a position to approve <br />t',e definition. <br />3. <br />The action as requested by the Council for the Planning Commission to <br />consider is: Should the use be added as a Special Use in the Industrial <br />Districts? If so, is the definition as proposed appropriate for this <br />purpose? <br />4. <br />The request for this proposal is prompted by an inquiry on the part of <br />Mark E. Casci who, with others, is the owner of a piece of land which <br />was partially occupied by the Ashback Construction Company some years <br />ago. The location of that property is indicated on the attached sketch. <br />Also attached is a copy of the letter from Mr. Casci outlining his basic <br />interest and request for amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. <br />5. <br />The issue at hand, of course, is not whether or not the property in <br />question should be approved for such a use. No specific plans have <br />been nrpnareri nt this time. The ouestion. however. is whether or not a <br />