My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
01-06-14 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2014
>
01-06-14 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/6/2014 2:40:30 PM
Creation date
1/3/2014 3:28:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
01/06/2014
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
<br />In addition , staff questions the lawful use of the property by several of the of the property <br />tenants that are bein g used to justify continuation of the legal non -conforming status of <br />the property. <br /> <br />BHS Roadrunner was solely leasing exterior storage space. Pomp’s Tire is an automobile <br />and truck repair service. Automobile and Truck repair requires a Conditional Use Pe rmit <br />within the Light Industrial zoning district (Pomp’s has a CUP for their facility on Apollo <br />Drive). No CUP was applied for or granted for Pomp’s Tire Service at this location. At <br />the September 3, 2013 City Council work session MiniMobile described t heir use as a <br />rental business. Rental businesses are not listed as a permitted or conditional use in the <br />LI, Light Industrial District. Nitti Rolloff would fall under the same category. <br /> <br />Section 1, Subdivision 2..E of the Zoning Ordinance addresses u ses n ot p rovided for <br />w ithin z oning d istricts as follows . <br /> <br />In any zoning district, whenever a proposed use is neither specifically allowed <br />nor denied, the City Council shall determine if the proposed use is comparable in <br />potential activities and impacts to a use listed within the zoning district and is <br />acceptable related to land use compatibility, traffic, and/or nuisance issues and <br />established conditions and standards relating to development of the use. Where <br />such a determination is made, the requirements es tablished for the listed use shall <br />apply as minimum standards for the proposed use. Additional requirements may <br />be applied to address differences between the listed use and the proposed use. <br /> <br />In such cases where, in the judgment of the City Council, th ere is no comparable <br />use listed, the City Council or Planning and Zoning Board, on their own <br />initiative or upon request from the property owner, may conduct a study to <br />determine if the proposed use is acceptable and, if so, what zoning district would <br />be m ost appropriate and what conditions and standards should apply to the <br />proposed use. The City Council, Planning and Zoning Board, or property owner, <br />on receipt of the staff study, may initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance <br />consistent with Section 2, Subd. 1. of this Ordinance to provide for the particular <br />use under consideration or shall find that the proposed use is not compatible for <br />development within the City. <br /> <br />No such determination was requested or made by the City regarding this specific use <br /> <br />In 2011 , the City Council initiated a review of our industrial district requirements <br />specific ally related to outdoor storage. This review resulted in the amendment of the <br />zoning ordinance to allow additional flexibility for outdoo r storage as an accessory use <br />but stopped short of allowing it as a principal use. <br /> <br />The amended ordinance adopted in 201 1 eliminated the probation on storage areas <br />abutting residentially zoned property and schools. However the outdoor storage area to <br />building ration was reduced to 2.5:1. <br /> <br />City staff along with the City Attorney met with the representatives of the owner and <br />Mini Mobile on December 5, 2013 to discuss options for c ompliance . The owner ’s <br />representatives disagree with the City ’s posit ion and are seeking options for settlement as
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.