My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Planning Commission - 07/10/2019
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Planning Commission
>
2019
>
Minutes - Planning Commission - 07/10/2019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 2:59:47 PM
Creation date
8/26/2019 3:19:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
07/10/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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 />City Planner Anderson explained that the shared access agreement would solve that problem. He <br />noted that conceptual drawing showed an access onto Bunker but advised that would need further <br />discussion and approval from the County. <br /> <br />Bob Mikulak, applicant, stated that the previous owner owned the entire parcel and has many <br />ideas. He stated that his idea is to develop the self-storage and sell the corner lot. He stated that <br />he is not interested in a phased access and would rather place the access in its final location to <br />begin with. He highlighted the differences between this request and the previously approved <br />request which includes elimination of the garage doors, elimination of the fencing, no site <br />lighting, less blacktop and hardcover, increased greenspace, and downcast LED lighting on the <br />building and along the entrance/exit. He stated that the previous request was roughly 125,800 <br />square feet which would be constructed in several phases while this facility would be completed <br />in one phase with similar square footage. He stated that this building will be much more efficient <br />in terms of energy and technology. He stated that loading and unloading would all occur inside <br />the facility rather than having outdoor units, which will make the site quieter and cleaner. <br /> <br />Chairperson Bauer asked the size of the interior loading/unloading space. <br /> <br />Mr. Mikulak replied that the doors would be 12 feet high and therefore could accommodate <br />typical moving vans but would not accommodate a U-Haul type vehicle. He noted that the <br />unloading section is 40 feet by 60 feet. <br /> <br />Ron Powell, architect representing the applicant, stated that his firm has experience with self- <br />storage buildings and their experience is that most zoning laws do not provide for self-storage <br />facilities in terms of parking requirements. He stated that a list of six buildings in the metro area <br />was provided that range from seven to 12 parking stalls and therefore they feel the 25 required <br />stalls would be excessive. He stated that they would be proposing 13 parking stalls. He noted <br />that he also included national examples, which range from five to 12 parking stalls. He noted <br />that one city has an updated zoning ordinance that bases the number of stalls on the number of <br />storage units and using that calculation this facility would require 12 stalls. He stated that they <br />would have 13 exterior parking stalls and four interior stalls, which they feel would be more than <br />adequate. <br /> <br />Chairperson Bauer asked the basis of the staff request to add additional parking. <br /> <br />City Planner Anderson stated that recommendation was based on the recommendation of the civil <br />engineer of the applicant, which stated 25 or 26 parking stalls. He clarified that the City does not <br />have self-storage minimum parking standards within the zoning code. He stated that the City <br />would typically look to see how others have addressed the issue and there are not a lot of <br />standards out there specifically related to self-storage facilities. He stated that he did review the <br />ordinance of Portland, Oregon and the parking proposed by the applicant would meet the parking <br />proposal of the applicant. He stated that there is more greenspace on the site than existed in <br />previous proposals. He noted that proof of parking could be accepted, as there would be space <br />for additional parking on the site, should that become an issue in the future. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/ July 10, 2019 <br />Page 11 of 13 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.