Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Historically, the City has approached outdoor storage more restrictively on the square footage <br />allowance in our other commercial districts and in the PUD District. The City Council has set a <br />precedence of denying similar type requests to allow rental outdoor storage on a broader scale in the <br />case of R&S Automotive with Figg Masonry (Little Canada resident with home occupation) and Buck <br />Blacktop (tree contractors, semi-truck owners who lived in Little Canada). The factors that were <br />considered in these previous instances were: <br /> <br /> Renting of outdoor storage area becoming the prominent use of the property. <br /> The desire for a business to occupy building space to become vested in the community <br />versus only renting storage space. <br /> Congestion of the property (i.e. traffic flow with tenants of building and non-tenants <br />circulating on the site; and parking requirements because that is factored based on uses of <br />the building, but now there is the potential employees of outdoor storage only businesses <br />coming to the site to get trucks/equipment). <br /> Clutter, junk, and debris of outdoor storage area if the business is not located in the building <br />and may not be monitoring outdoor storage on a regular basis. <br /> Eligibility of who is renting the outdoor storage area and verifying/monitoring compliance. <br />Note: This discussion as examples was handling if a homeowner moved; or would a renter <br />of a residential property be allowed to rent outdoor storage or we would require a <br />homeowner only; or should a business be allowed to rent an office space only at one <br />location, but have all their outdoor storage on another. <br /> <br />It is staff’s belief that the above points are still applicable concerns today with Mr. Schwalbach’s <br />request. Staff does not recommend amending a provision that would be applicable only to one <br />property. Therefore, if consideration is to be given to this request then staff believes that a text <br />amendment should be processed for both I-1, Light Industrial and PUD District D. Staff did not <br />prepare an example of amended Interim Use Permit language given the precedence set by the City <br />Council on non-occupant rental outdoor storage. If this is deemed a viable option, staff can draft an <br />ordinance to address this request. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br />Based on the above, city staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Sign Plan submitted <br />by the applicant subject to the conditions stated within this report. City staff recommends denial <br />of the PUD Amendment as requested by the applicant based on the following factors – <br /> <br /> Non-tenant outdoor storage rental becoming a prominent use of the property. <br /> The desire for a business to occupy building space to become vested in the community <br />versus only renting storage space. <br /> Congestion of the property and limitations on future building tenants. <br /> Concern for clutter, junk, and debris associated with outdoor storage area. <br /> Enforcement concerns over eligibility of business renting outdoor storage only. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />