Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Recommendation <br />City staff has had multiple conversations with Mr. Meyer and his realtor regarding the City’s previous <br />issues and concerns over outdoor storage especially within the Ryan Industrial Park. In addition, staff <br />provided the applicant a copy of the current outdoor storage approvals (site plan attached) and a <br />variance request by the former owner to expand the outdoor storage which was denied. While city <br />staff acknowledges the limited rear yard, the applicant’s plans as submitted are determined to be a <br />variation of code that is inconsistent with the intent of the PUD District and neighboring properties. <br /> <br />As a result, Planning Staff is recommending denial of the PUD Amendment as submitted based on the <br />following findings: <br />• The PUD Permit as requested does not comply with the City Code for outdoor storage as an <br />accessory use and does not comply with the off-street parking requirements. <br />• The PUD Permit as requested is inconsistent with the overall intent of the PUD District due <br />to the variation for the location of outdoor storage in the required front yard setbacks, fence <br />height, and screening. <br />• The PUD Permit as requested is inconsistent with the neighboring properties due to the <br />variation for the location of outdoor storage in the required front yard setbacks, fence height, <br />and screening. <br /> <br />If the Planning Commission believes that additional consideration should be given to the applicant’s <br />submittal it would be our recommendation that the proposal be tabled. This would allow Mr. Meyer an <br />opportunity to address the concerns noted above and resubmit a site plan that more closely meets the <br />objectives of the PUD District and includes the additional details staff has requested within this report.