05-10-07 Planning Comm. Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION May 10, 2007 2. A second residential garage would contribute to a concern over a clutter of small accessory buildings on the property. 3. The additional storage space would occupy parking spaces that were programmed to serve potential office occupancy of the building, and would not be available if the building use changes to a more intense use. 4. The outdoor display of retail goods is not consistent with purpose of the district as a site for office and office-warehouse uses. 5. The display of the gazebo would occupy parking spaces assigned to the building based on the zoning ordinance, and would occupy space in the fiont yard area which is inconsistent with the purpose and aesthetic objectives of the dish•ict. The Planner stated that it was his opinion that it was not the City's intent to allow the proliferation of detached structures in this PUD District. The site in question is developed with an office warehouse building. If storage is required for this business, the Planner indicated that it should be confined to within the principle building. To add another detached building is not consistent with the intent of the district. With regard to the gazebo, the Planner indicated that the display of a gazebo for sale is consistent with retail, and this district was not set up as a retail district. Knudsen noted that Temo has a sunroom addition on the front of their building, and asked if this would also be considered as outdoor display. The Planner indicated that the sunroom is part of the principle building, and not a detached display. T•he Planner indicated that the applicant has submitted a letter dated May 5"' responding to the five findings of fact for denial. The Planner reviewed the applicant's response as follows: 1. & 2. The applicant pointed out that the property immediately to the north has two separate garages on their property with no fencing to screen from the adjacent neighbors. The Planner replied that this was true, but pointed out that the two structures are not garages, but rather trash enclosw•es. The Planner thought that the building on the Temo property was originally designed as a trash enclosure, but was modified into a garage. The Planner again commented that detached garage structures are inconsistent with the intent of this PUD. 3. The applicant indicated that his business does not need the parking spaces that these detached buildings would occupy. The City Planner -4-