02-10-11 Planning Comm. Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 2011 are stored empty and unlocked. Materials are stored within the building. Kromroy also reported that his insurance company has requested that he install security cameras, which he has done. The City Planner reported that a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage was originally issued for this property in 2006. At the same time a Variance was approved for the location of the outdoor storage area. The Planner noted that the Zoning Code defines front yard on a corner lot as the narrow side of the property. Therefore, this outdoor storage area is technically in the side yard, even though it is on the east side of the building and the front entrance of the building is on the west. The Planner noted that since the CUP was issued, the City has adopted a series of additional outdoor storage requirements which relate to improvements to the storage area and a size limitation on the amount of outdoor storage based on a relationship of building size to lot size. The application before the Commission this evening meets those new conditions. The Planner noted that the applicant is requesting 6,000 square feet of outdoor storage, and the Code would allow up to 7,000 square feet for this particular property. The Planner noted that the Variance criteria has remained the same since 2006. Given it is not practical to have an outdoor storage area on the north side of the building (technically the rear yard) because of traffic flow and access to the neighboring property, a hardship exists. The Planner noted that staff is recommending approval of the Amendment to CUP and the extended Variance. Knudsen asked about the landscaping requirement put in place at the time of the 2006 approval. The City Planner indicated that a condition of approval was that the south side of the outdoor storage area (facing Yorkton Court) be landscaped. That condition has not been met, and the Planner recommended that the applicant be required to have landscaping in place by June. Knudsen asked why the landscaping was not installed. Kromroy replied that it was an economic hardship to do so, but indicated that he would do the landscaping as part of this approval process. Duray asked what would happen if Kromroy did not install the landscaping. The City Planner indicated that that would be a violation of the CUP. The Planner noted that the City Code allows the City the ability to require financial security to ensure that the landscaping is done. This is requirement can be enforced on a case -by -case basis. Duray stated that he would hope the City would not have to require the financial security. Kromroy pointed out that his temporary outdoor storage permit expires at the end of April and that he had to pay $250 for that temporary permit. Kromroy stated -2-