Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1982 Page 10 <br />Mary Butler, Council representative, was asked by the <br />Planning Commission to give her opinion on the pending <br />MARTIN (CONT) <br />jQgplication. She stated that in past applications by <br />,dividuals with warehousing their own materials, most <br />were denied finding it not compatible with the zoning <br />district. She noted that the Council was not addressing <br />the "mini-storage” at that time. She felt that "mini-btorage" <br />is different. She noted that she would like to see it <br />all in one building rather than five detached buildings. <br />She noted that the zoning code does not address itself <br />for this type of use. <br />Kelley noted that this type of storage should be for <br />residential use only. For excunple, apartmeni: dwellings <br />with no storage facilities. <br />Callahan noted that he too would rather have one continuous <br />building rather than the five detached buildings. <br />Rovegno moved to deny Erwin Martin's request to build <br />five "mini-storage" iheds based on the following findings: <br />w <br />1 - This type of use can't find a home in the B-1 district. <br />2 - Council should examine storage in the B-1 district <br />for residential use as a possibility since it <br />doesn't fit in the code. <br />Qammerel seconded. Vote: Ayes (6), Nays (0). (1) Abstention. <br />McDonald abstained because this was only a sketch plan review. <br />Opheim noted that staff should research on such a storage <br />use and also the limitations to storage^such as fleunables. <br />Applicant was present. Applicant noted that Sullivan's <br />had two drainfields put in and that he would check with <br />them to confirm this. <br />Opheim asked about the existing drainfield on Lot 2. <br />CHARLES KROGNESS <br />185 Brown Road So. <br />Subdivision <br />«685 <br />Applicant stated that there was no problem with access. <br />Mabusth stated that Hennepin County would be submitting <br />a report on location of access for Lot 1. <br />Applicant stated that if they ran an access into Lot 2 <br />that it might destroy the turnaround from the garage. <br />Callahan strongly concurred with the applicant. <br />Planning Commission found no futher problems with the <br />application and scheduled a public hearing for July 19, <br />82. <br />uM