04-23-08 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Kathy Glanzer From: Joel Hanson Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 2:28 PM To: Okeis @aol.com); Barbarajoallan @aol.com; Bill Blesener; John Keis (john.t.keis @ampf.com); Michael McGraw; Rick Montour (rickmontour @wasserstrom.com) Cc: Stephen Grittman; Kathy Glanzer; Jessica Jagoe; Chuck Pechmann (flydoc62 @cs.com); dan.knudsen @lacek.com; Jeffrey Helmeke (jeff.helmeke @att.net); Jon Hall (jon.hall @state.mn.us); katie socha; sbarraclough @cbburnet.com; Tom Duray (tomduray247 @msn.com) Subject: FW: Off -site outdoor storage Attachments: Zoning Ordinance Ch 914- revised (13).doc; 100_2517,JPG; 100 2518.JPG; 100_2520.JPG; 100_2521.JPG • Zoning Ordinance 100_2517.JPG (697L00_25183PG (600 t00_2520.JPG (700t00_2521.7PG (667 Ch 914- revis... KB) KB) KB) KB) Mayor & City Council: Here is the redraft of the I -1 language based on the direction of the Planning Commission from last meeting. Kathy will forward it out to the owners of I -1 zoned property. We will also inform them that given past comments of the City Council from previous workshops, they should not assume passage of this revision will be automatic. From our past workshops, the Council noted its opposition to storage by others on properties where they were not a legitimate tenant in a building. Specifically, on January 10th, "Stanke noted that Lee Rossow is in support of being able to rent a portion of his property to outdoor storage as a principal use. The Council did not support that concept." At the December 3rd workshop, "McGraw pointed out that another problem is the outdoor storage that is occurring from businesses that have no space within the building. McGraw noted that few metropolitan cities allow outdoor storage, and it seems that Little Canada has become a dumping ground for this storage." Another issue you should be aware of is staff's internal struggle with the use of storage containers. Historically, we have chased a number of "trailers" that were being used solely for outdoor storage. In our revisions, we are now allowing storage containers based on the premise that it is better to have stuff stored within an enclosure rather than be openly stored on the property. However, we also discussed the goal of having people construct buildings for storage versus these temporary arrangements. Further, if a container isn't currently allowed (or grandfathered), they will be subject to the new standards meaning most /all existing containers will require an amendment to CUP's. Further, we are not allowing storage in trailers that do not leave the property. This is consistent with past practice, but staff is struggling with "what is the difference between a storage container and a trailer from a practical standpoint ?" It seems we should either allow both or prohibit both. If we are to allow them, some standards as to appearance /quality would seem to be warranted as both could look very bad if there we just allow them on a blanket basis. (See attached photos for some examples.) Also, a limit on the number would seem appropriate to control their usage, i.e. one'''»" This info is for your consideration and can be discussed next Wednesday if you are so inclined. JH Original Message From: Stephen Grittman [mailto: sgrittman"Gnacplanning. com] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 9:06 AM 1 11