07-26-06 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUT)JS CITY COUNCIL JULY 26, 2006 parking situation, and as a result, AMR was told by Che City that a Conditional Use Permit was needed for the outdoor storage. Kromroy reported thaC he applied for the Conditional Use Permit and just prior to the Planning Commission meeting learned that a Variance was also needed given the definition of front yard caused his outdoor storage area to be in what the City considered to be the side yard of the property. Kromroy indicated that he would consider his Yorkton Blvd. frontage (west) to be the fronC of his building, noting that truck docks are on the east side of the building. Kromroy pointed out that he has maintained an outdoor storage area on the east side of Che building since AMR has occupied the building in 1999. Kromroy indicated that he would like to fence this area to secure it, and noted that he averages two thefts from vehicles and equipment each year. Kromroy fe1C Chat a reasonable person would view the east side of the building as the back of Che building. Kromroy again noCed Chat the 2958 Yorkton Blvd. address is the official address of the building. He noCed discussions with the City in obtaining a Yorkton Court address for the AMR business as the access door for this business faces Yorkton Court. This address was, however, for mail delivery purposes. Kromroy pointed out some ambiguities between the Zoning Code and the Municipal Code, in that the Municipal Code states that a property owner must post the building address on the side of the building facing Che street on which it fronts. Kromroy again noted that the official address is Yorkton Blvd. and the building faces Yorkton Blvd. Kromroy stated that he appreciates the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the CUP, but is frustrated with the recommendation to locaCe the outdoor storage to the north end of the property. Kromroy pointed out Chat this would not work well for his business. Also there is limited room at the north end of the site. He further noted Chat he wants to fence in the area where he parks vehicles for security reasons, and including the outdoor storage within that area makes sense. With regard to a ha~•dship to warrant the Variance, Kromroy noted ehaC the physical circumstances of this properCy are unique, the north end of the properCy is not large enough to accommodate outdoor storage needs, the properCy cannot be put to a reasonable use withouC the Variance, and the location of outdoor storage to the north would impede access to the Retrofit Recycling loading docks. Kro~m~oy also noted that he has a private easement with United Scientific for shared access of Che area between the two buildings. Relocating the outdoor storage to the north end of the property would violate this access easement. Kromroy felt that allowing outdoor storage for the AMR business at the southeast end of the 3