Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 01/10/1991

Home

outside storage was significant enough to bring It to their attention. Because it abuts a resiOentla] zone, he felt the Commission may want to Include a condition prohibiting exterior storage. Commissioner Deemer was willing to allow exterior storage with screening because It is allowed on adjacent property. Mr. Rychner stated he will need an outside area to coo] ingots, but he felt that area could be under some enclosure. He asked for limited storage In the area bhind the building which would be out of view from the public. He would also completely screen it. He pointed out the proposed storage area on the site plan. Commissioners LaDue and Thorud yielded to the Attorney's position that exterior storage is not permitted. Chairman Zlmmerman and Commissioner LaDue thought it would be acceptable to have storage In the back corner of the building If It had a roof over it or some sort of enclosure, and It is screened. Mr. Rychner stated he has a structure available that he could put in there that would be enclosed and would have a roof. Commissioner LaDue said that would be acceptable to him. Commissioner Hendrtksen didn't want to see storage dumped in the back. If there is some effort to organize it in an orderly fashion or put it under a carport, he would be agreeable. Mr. Rychner agreed to that stipulation. Commissioner Deemer noted the adjacent property has storage in semi-tractors, Chairman Zimmerman then summerized that the majority of the Commission feels outside storage Is appropriate. In reviewing Items 1-9 of the Findings of Fact, Mr. Otto noted the legal description in Item 3 is subject to change depending on the outcome of the description on the purchase agreement. Also, Item 7 is a new item. Commissioner Deemer questioned the accuracy of Item 7, again pointing out there Is a highway between the lot line of this lot and the residential area; therefore, it was his opinion that the lot technically does not abut a residential area. There were no changes to Items 1-9. Mr. Otto reviewed some of the changes on Items 10-21. Commission discussed Item 14. The MOTION by Zimmerman, Seconded by Deemer, that the item simply state "That the current business has operated for eleven years on unGeve]oped ]and in the City of Anoka. FURTHER DISCUSSION: Chairman 2J m merman felt the wording now ]n the document implies Mr. Rychner was doing something wrong, when it is not known what the requirements are in the City of Anoka. Commissioner Hendriksen argued the facts are as stated and should not De altered, disagreeing that there is any inference that a permit was needed° Planning and Zoning Commission/December 6, 1990 Page 4 of 12