Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JULY 9, 2009 <br />Knudsen asked for a review of the differences from the original plan <br />submitted and the plan received today. Pasching replied that the <br />difference is the elimination of the outdoor storage along the fence. <br />Pasching reported that she is still requesting an outdoor storage area in the <br />southwest corner of the site. <br />The City Planner noted that outdoor storage regulations were amended last <br />year, and staff's report applies those new regulations to this proposal. 'fhe <br />new Code sets up a series of conditions related to outdoor storage and its <br />screening. The Planner pointed out that outdoor storage is not allowed in <br />front of the building line toward the street. As a result, the outdoor storage <br />proposed in the southwest corner of the property would not be allowed. <br />Duray asked about the option of complying with the existing PUD Permit <br />for this property and whether that permit provided for outdoor storage in <br />front of the building. The City Planner indicated that he was not sure <br />there was a specific Code prohibition on outdoor storage in front of the <br />building for this property, but noted the 1999 Site Plan which indicates <br />outdoor storage areas adjacent to the buildings. That site plan also <br />includes plan notes from the previous Code F,nforcement Officer, and <br />there is no indication that outdoor storage was allowed beyond the front of <br />the building. 'The Planner indicated that the property is currently not in <br />compliance with the existing PUD Permit or with the new outdoor storage <br />regulations. Knudsen pointed out the need to become compliant with one <br />or the other. The P1am~er noted that if the property were in compliance <br />with its existing permit, it would exist as a legal non-conforming use. The <br />alternate is to change the site plan and come into compliance with the new <br />outdoor storage regulations. The applicant is seeking a new PUD Permit, <br />but asking for more flexibility than allowed under the new outdoor storage <br />regulations, i.e. outdoor storage in the southwest corner of the property. <br />Knudsen pointed out that the Code Dnforcement Officer has laid out two <br />options in her June 3, 2009 report. The first option is for denial of the <br />application and enforcement of the existing PUD Permit for the property. <br />The second option is for approval of a revised PUD Permit which <br />complies with the new outdoor storage requirements. <br />Pasching suggested that the only advantage to amending the cw•rent PIJD <br />Permit would be to add the outdoor storage area at the southwest corner of <br />the property. Knudsen stated that he would not support that given all the <br />work the city has done relative to outdoor storage regulations. Those <br />regulations prohibit outdoor storage on front of the building. Duray <br />pointed out the need to treat all businesses equally, and allowing outdoor <br />storage in front of the building for the property would open the issue up to <br />other properties. <br />-3- <br />