My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-14-08 Planning Comm. Minutes
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2008
>
08-14-08 Planning Comm. Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/20/2008 7:56:09 AM
Creation date
8/20/2008 7:55:39 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.
/
8
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
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />AUGUST 15, 2008 <br />issue for the Council was proving that a hardship existed in order to grant <br />the Variance request. Council directed staff to report on options relative to <br />determining the number of storage containers for individual properties. The <br />Planner noted that there had been some earlier discussion relative to using a <br />percentage of outdoor storage area to determine number storage containers. <br />It was felt that this would not be an efficient calculation method for City <br />staff. <br />The City Planner then reviewed his report dated August 8, 2008 which <br />outlines an alternative that would pro-rate the allowance for shipping <br />containers based on parcel size. The Planner recommended one shipping <br />container per 7,500 square feet of property. He pointed out that this would <br />approximate the 5% threshold that was requested by On-Site Air Temp. <br />The Planner pointed out that a 2 acre parcel would be allowed 11 storage <br />containers. The On-Site Air Temp parcel is approximately 1.8 acres, <br />therefore, would be allowed 10 storage containers. <br />Duray noted there was a great deal of discussion on this issue, and when the <br />4 storage containers per parcel was decided on, it was also felt that this on a <br />trail basis. Duray felt the formula suggested by the Planner was more <br />equitable, as larger parcels would be allowed more storage containers than <br />smaller parcels. <br />Socha asked about the size of the containers. The City Planner reported that <br />a large storage container is typically 10 feet by 40 feet. It was noted that <br />these are storage containers used for shipping and not semi-truck boxes. <br />Pechmann noted that under this formula a small lot would not be able to <br />have four containers as would be allowed now. Pechmann asked if this <br />would be an issue. The City Planner indicated that the minimum lot size in <br />the I-1 District is 20,000 square feet. Two storage containers would be <br />allowed for a lot that size. He pointed out, however, that most of the I-1 <br />lots are 30,000 square feet in size, therefore, would still be allowed 4 <br />containers. <br />Duray noted that if this text amendment is adopted, the allowance for 4 <br />storage containers goes away. The Planner replied that that is correct. The <br />number of storage containers allowed would then be based on 1 for every <br />7,500 square feet of property. The Planner pointed out that it will be an <br />easy calculation to determine. <br />Dave Holm, On Site Air Temp, stated that he is in support of the Text <br />Amendment as proposed. He felt this calculation was a more equitable <br />situation for everyone involved. <br />-2- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.