09-27-2006 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JULY 26, 2006 building would not alter the character of the area. He noted that there are seven buildings in Yorkton Industrial Park. He also noted that United Scientific, which is immediately east, supports the CUP and Variance. Resources for Child Care, immediately south, are also in support. Blesener asked how many loading docks AMR has. Kromroy replied that he has one loading dock and would like to enclose it within the fence storage area he is proposing. Allan asked if moving the outdoor storage area to the north end of the property would interfere with United Scientific's access of the property. Kromroy replied that it would, noting the access area is only 25 feet wide. Blesener suggested that he would support AMR's outdoor storage area on the east side of the building provided that it was moved north about 20 to 30 feet. Kromroy stated that he could move it back about 15 feet and would be willing to landscape the outside of the fence Blesener stated that he can understand Kromroy's position, and noted that he does not oppose outdoor storage for AMR or for Retrofit Recycling. Blesener felt, however, that pushing the AMR storage a few feet to the north would lessen the impact. The City Planner noted the Code limitations on the amount of outdoor storage allowed which is 10% of the lot or 25% of the building area. The total amount of outdoor storage proposed by both AMR and Retrofit Recycling falls within those limitations. The only issue is the location of the AMR outdoor storage. Allan noted Kromroy's comment at the Planning Commission meeting that he would be willing to put up a masonry fence. Kromroy felt the fence would look better as a wood fence. A masonry fence would just appear to be an extension of the building. Keis stated that he supports the CUP for outdoor storage, it is the Variance that is the issue. Keis was concerned that granting the Variance would set a precedent. Kromroy felt that the property was unique, therefore, lessening the potential impact of a precedent. Keis felt the issue was the Code's definition of the front of a building. Kromroy pointed out that the building is comprised of four office suites, three of which have Yorkton Blvd. addresses. Kromroy again outlined the postal delivery issue relative to the addresses, and noted that the legal address of the property is 2958 Yorkton Blvd. He further pointed out that approximately 300 feet of the building faces Yorkton Blvd. while 80 feet faces Yorkton Court. 4 6-