05/08/2002 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Planning & Zoning Board April 10, 2002 Page 3 noted even assuming the property owner properly requested expansion of the storage, the City would have created for itself a difficult situation where an intended buffer was threatened. Staff noted that the school district was sent a letter stating it did not oppose the application for outdoor storage. Staff stated while they appreciated the district's input, it did not erase staff's concerns. With respect to the standard Conditional Use Permit requirements, staff stated most types of conditional uses in the zoning ordinance had specific conditions, such as those discussed above. In addition, there were general requirements that applied to all CUPs. Staff explained one of those was the proposed use " his ordinance applicable to the particular use." ; ffiaf property abuts a residential zoning district. T standard of the zoning ordinance that prohibi rm to specific standards of s previously explained, the orm to the specific a site. Staff noted full site and building plans were re staff had received only sparse information in,tthe subm received grading, utility, and landscaping pril 3 a complete site plan review for the P & SUP applications. He stated e indicated staff had 2, which did not allow for However, he stated, as a courtesy toi application without the site and b the applicant wanted to find o designing the building, grading, proposal clearly dig ®y wi making a reco sto ad reviewed the CUP g pl. w` $ted it was staff's understanding that outdoor was possible before committing to , and other elements. He stated since the or storage requirements, staff was comfortable ra b JP alone. With respe and south o meant that the us such uses. He stated However, the City was r with its Ordinances. surrounding ct site had dnrio onforming uses, staff noted properties on the north oor storage. These were nonconforming uses. This the change in zoning requirements that would prohibit ght to continue as they were before the change. ated to, nor should it allow, new uses that did not comply Staff recommended denying the CUP application because it did not comply with City requirements, as explained in the staff report. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Dave Biese, Bald Eagle Construction, and Greg Hayes, Shingobee Builders. Mr. Hayes stated applicant wanted to store a boom truck and a trailer with mats on it that would not be able to be stored inside. He indicated they understood that the School District and the Church potentially were in conflict with the CUP. He stated the Church and school did not have any objection to that type of outdoor storage. He stated they had modified the site plan to include a screening berm along Lake Drive, as well as a DRAFT MINUTES