My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-13-2002 Planning Comm. Minutes
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
06-13-2002 Planning Comm. Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2008 12:04:23 PM
Creation date
7/23/2008 11:40:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MIN U TITS <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JUNE 13, 2002 <br />Kloskin noted that during the summer the business is mainly retail sales of <br />marine accessories. During the winter the business centers on repairs and <br />storage. <br />Knudsen stated that the issue is not whether the City wants Mr. I{loskin's <br />business in Little Canada, but rather the outdoor storage of boats and <br />pontoons on this particular property. <br />Barraclough noted that the action relative to the B-W Zoning District was <br />the result of proposed development of the Knox property. Barraclough <br />pointed out that the property in question is a relative small piece of <br />property that is tucked up against the freeway. Barraclough asked if there <br />were distinctions that could be made between the two properties that <br />would justify the rezoning of this property to PUD so that outdoor storage <br />would be allowed. <br />1'he City Planner indicated that the properties are different and it would be <br />up to the Planning Commission to decide if the differences justify a <br />rezoning. <br />Gatzke pointed out that he was not on the Planning Commission when the <br />change in the B-W District was made. Gatzke felt the Kloskin proposal <br />was a reasonable use of this property and indicated that he could support it <br />with the proper screening. <br />Keis felt there was nothing unique about this property that would justify a <br />change to allow outdoor storage. Keis questioned the practicality of <br />considering whether or not to allow outdoor storage on a case-by-case <br />basis. <br />1'he City Planner noted that once of the considerations oi'the Council was <br />that outdoor storage area takes up land that could othe,wise be used for <br />building space. Maximizing building area and value typically results in <br />more people employed and higher taxes. Outdoor storage has not just <br />been an aesthetic issue, but also interferes with the City's objective of <br />getting buildings built. <br />Roycraft pointed out that this property is an existing structw'e with an <br />existing parking lot that would not be changed regardless of whether <br />outdoor storage is allowed or not. <br />The City Planner indicated that iPthe Commission is inclined to <br />recommend in favor of the rezoning, it should base the rezoning on <br />tindings that show this site is unique and distinct from others. <br />-7- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.