My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-11-2018 Planning Commission Packet
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2018
>
01-11-2018 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2019 9:22:27 AM
Creation date
2/12/2018 12:46:16 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
<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.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.