My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-23-2007 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
05-23-2007 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/8/2011 11:15:10 AM
Creation date
11/8/2011 11:06:37 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
109
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
Moreover, the construction of a second residential -style garage structure would not <br />appear to be in character with the intent of this PUD district. If additional storage <br />building space is required for the site, staff would recommend that the existing <br />accessory building be removed and a single accessory building that matches the <br />commercial architecture be constructed. <br />As noted above, the applicant also has requested the ability to erect a gazebo as a <br />display in the building parking lot. Planning staff believes that this development was <br />intended for use as office and office - warehouse. To the extent that retail activities occur <br />on the site, they are typically conducted within the buildings as a part of the showroom <br />aspect of the business. It would not appear compatible with the intent of this zoning <br />district to begin an allowance for outdoor display of retail goods, even though this <br />particular display is likely to generate only a lower volume of traffic. <br />Summary and Recommendation <br />The purpose of the development district in which the applicant's building is located was <br />to provide for a high - quality office and office - warehouse project area. The construction <br />of an additional residential -style storage garage and a gazebo display would not appear <br />to be consistent with the goals of this district. As such, planning staff recommends <br />denial of the request, based on the following findings: <br />• Residential garages are not consistent with the style of construction or architecture <br />in the district. <br />• A second residential garage would contribute to a concern over a clutter of small <br />accessory buildings on the property <br />• The additional storage space would occupy parking spaces that were programmed <br />to serve potential office occupancy of the building, and would not be available if the <br />building use changes to a more intense use. <br />• The outdoor display of retail goods is not consistent with purpose of the district as a <br />site for office and office - warehouse uses. <br />• The display of the gazebo would occupy parking spaces assigned to the building <br />based on the zoning ordinance, and would occupy space in the front yard area <br />which is inconsistent with the purpose and aesthetic objectives of the district. <br />Pc: Kathy Glanzer <br />Steve Westerhaus <br />Lee Elfering <br />Country Drive Partners, 2905 Country Drive, Little Canada, MN 55117 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.