07-26-06 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL JULY 26, 2000> building would not alter the character of the area. He noted that there are seven buildings in YorkCOn Industrial Park. He also noted Chat 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 iC within Che 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 Che property. Kromroy replied that it would, noting the access area is only 25 feet wide. Blesener suggested that he would supporC AMR's outdoor storage area on the east side of the building provided thaC iC was moved north abouC 20 to 30 feet. Kromroy staled Chat he could move iC back abouC 15 feet and would be willing Co landscape the outside of Che fence Blesener staled 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 Co 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 masomy 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 thaC is the issue. Keis was concerned ehaC granting the Variance would set a precedent. Kromroy felt that Che property was unique, therefore, lessening the potential impact of a precedent. Keis felt the issue was Che Code's definition of the front of a building. Kromroy pointed out thaC Che building is comprised of four office suites, three of which have YorkCOn Blvd. addresses. Kromroy again outlined the postal delivery issue relative to Che addresses, and noted that Che 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.