Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, January 07, 2009 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br />Mr. Livingston advised that he had worked hard over the last year with Metro Transit on <br />the public good and design aspects desirable to the City, and motivating them to <br />complete this project and hopefully precipitate other development in the Twin Lakes area. <br />Commissioner Boerigter clarified that outside storage was not part of this IUP request as <br />he understood it; and was only allowed under City Code under certain circumstances. <br />Commissioner Boerigter opined that the IUP didn’t really change that circumstance, nor <br />allow for outside storage of materials other than in the trailers. <br />Mr. Trudgeon advised that the applicant’s original request was for outside storage and <br />trailers; but that it hadn’t been discussed in depth. Mr. Trudgeon noted that, while outside <br />storage was often allowed as an accessory use, this site didn’t qualify for that, since there <br />was no primary use of the site since demolition of the previous buildings on site. Mr. <br />Trudgeon noted that the primary use was outside storage, and while not allowed as a <br />principal use, the trailer storage was being proposed for an interim period, in addition to <br />the applicant seeking storage of outside materials. Mr. Trudgeon noted the distinction <br />that outside storage on that site today would not be allowed as a primary use. <br />Discussion ensued regarding Section 4.5 of the staff report dated January 7, 2009, <br />related to specific uses allowed with other storage units not allowed even within that <br />category. <br />Further discussion included the duration of the proposed IUP. <br />Mr. Livingston advised that his goals for use of the site were intended to be from today <br />forward, as indicated in his discussions with staff and from his perspective. Mr. Livingston <br />advised that the proposed interval of time was of concern to him, as Metro Transit would <br />be accessing their site and utilizing it for storage of construction materials throughout <br />their construction process in 2009, and for maneuvering to their construction site. Mr. <br />Livingston sought assurances that, following that construction phase, the applicant would <br />be allowed to park storage trailers; and sought clarification on how to define a “trailer.” <br />Mr. Livingston advised that he had sought potential users of the site for storage trailers to <br />calculate their potential need, and they had provided the number “225,” and noted his <br />intent to meet screening requirements; and noted the intent in the application was to <br />indicate that no more than 225 trailers could be located on site. <br />Discussion ensued regarding storage of containers outside trailers; number of proposed <br />trailers; different perimeters for trailers and/or storage containers; reiteration by Mr. <br />Livingston of the need for flexibility, and request for five (5) years for the term of the IUP <br />to allow sufficient marketing of the site after construction of the infrastructure and <br />completion of the Metro Transit facility, anticipating that it would take a minimum of two <br />(2) years to make the property marketable. Mr. Livingston asked that, before the parties <br />became ensconced in minutia, that construction of a fence for screening would not prove <br />functional or financially feasible, or prove to fully screen the site. <br />Further discussion included City Code related to screening of outdoor storage; fence <br />height in commercial areas of eight feet (8’); market driving discussion for container <br />height and sufficiency of City Code on screening; recognizing capital investment for <br />installing a fence for a two (2) year IUP and potential for renewal of the IUP after the <br />proposed two (2) year term and uncertainties or a waiver of requirements, and <br />dependence on the mercy of the Planning Commission and City Council on moving <br />forward at that time in extending the term. <br />Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing at this time, with no one appearing to speak. <br />Chair Bakeman expressed concern with extending the IUP term beyond the two (2) <br />years; opining that following completion of the Metro Transit facility, it would have ugly <br />trailer storage surrounding it and would not be conducive to area aesthetics. <br />Commissioner Doherty advised that he had considered a term of one (1) year specifically <br />related to those concerns raised by Chair Bakeman; opining that he hadn’t seen a site <br />plan and didn’t want the proposed use allowed in the IUP to be extremely economically <br /> <br />