Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />April 10, 2002 <br />Page 3 <br />APPROVED MINUTES <br />Bald Eagle was in, it would be difficult to keep fully one-half of the site unusable. Staff <br />noted even assuming the property owner properly requested expansion of the storage, the <br />City would have created for itself a diffi cult situation where an intended buffer was <br />threatened. <br />Staff noted that the school district was sent a letter stati ng it did not oppose the <br />application for outdoor storage. Staff stated while they appreciated th e district’s input, it <br />did not erase staff’s concerns. <br />With respect to the standard Conditional Use Permit requirements, staff stated most types <br />of conditional uses in the zoning ordinance had specific conditions, such as those <br />discussed above. In addition, th ere were general requirements that applied to all CUPs. <br />Staff explained one of those was the proposed use “will conf irm to specific standards of <br />his ordinance applicable to the particular use.” Staff noted as previously explained, the <br />property abuts a residential z oning district. This would not conform to the specific <br />standard of the zoning ordinance that pr ohibited outdoor storage on such a site. <br />Staff noted full site and building plans were required for CUP applications. He stated <br />staff had received only sparse information in the submittal. He indicated staff had <br />received grading, utility, and landscaping pl ans on April 3, 2002, which did not allow for <br />a complete site plan review for the P & Z meeting. <br />However, he stated, as a courtesy to th e applicant, staff had reviewed the CUP <br />application without the site and building plans. He noted it was staff’s understanding that <br />the applicant wanted to find out if the ou tdoor storage was possible before committing to <br />designing the building, grading, utilities, a nd other elements. He stated since the <br />proposal clearly did not comply with outdoor storage requirements, staff was comfortable <br />making a recommendation on the storage CUP alone. <br />With respect to the surrounding nonconforming uses, staff noted properties on the north <br />and south of the subject site had outdoor stor age. These were nonconforming uses. This <br />meant that the uses existed prior to the cha nge in zoning requiremen ts that would prohibit <br />such uses. He stated they had a right to continue as they were before the change. <br />However, the City was not obligated to, nor s hould it allow, new uses that did not comply <br />with its Ordinances. <br />Staff recommended denying the CUP applica tion because it did not comply with City <br />requirements, as explaine d in the staff report. <br />Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment. <br />Dave Biese, Bald Eagle Construction, and Greg Hayes, Shingobee Builders. <br />Mr. Hayes stated applicant wanted to store a boom truck and a trailer with mats on it that <br />would not be able to be stored inside. He indicated they understood that the School <br />District and the Church potentia lly were in conflict with th e CUP. He stated the Church <br />and school did not have any objection to that ty pe of outdoor storage. He stated they had