|
| | 1. | | Roll Call
Minutes note: Present - Roberts, Richardson, Mukamal, Medhin
Also present:
Jeff Osterman, Legislative Reference Bureau
Chris Rute, Development Center
Greg Patin, Department of City Development | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
| | 2. | | Call to Order
Minutes note: Meeting called to order at 2:37 p.m. | | | |
|
Not available
|
|
141537
| 0 | 3. | Ordinance | A substitute ordinance relating to the zoning classification of indoor storage in the mixed activity (C9G) downtown zoning district.
Minutes note: Mr. Patin said that the intent of the legislation is to prevent new warehouse buildings from being constructed in the mixed activity (C9G) downtown zoning district, which was created to transition areas that were formally manufacturing and industrial zones to mixed-use zones. Newly constructed warehouses are not in sync with the direction of C9G areas. The legislation will not affect existing buildings with upper level indoor storage.
Mr. Rute said that he did not understand provision “o. Storage Facility, Indoor” and the emphasis on the term “constructed”. He suggested revising the first portion of provision “o.” to reflect “The space to be occupied has been occupied by this use prior to the effective date of this ordinance [city clerk to insert date] and has been occupied by this use within the past 12 months” in lieu of “The structure to be occupied was constructed prior to the effective date of this ordinance [city clerk to insert date]”.
Atty. Mukamal said that the 12 months occupancy clause of Mr. Rute’s suggested revision is illegal and does not fit with legal nonconforming use standards. The intent is to exempt legal nonconforming indoor storage places.
Mr. Patin said that the intention is to create a limited use standard and not a nonconforming standard. Legal nonconforming buildings with first floor storage can still exist but new nonconforming buildings, like new warehouse buildings or new buildings with first floor indoor storage, should be prohibited. The term “indoor storage” is meant to mean that indoor storage is a predominant use.
Mr. Richardson suggested revising provision “o.” to reflect three separate clauses for ease of readability and clarity.
Mr. Osterman said that these three clauses, as revised, should be numbered “o-1, o-2, and o-3”. Otherwise, the original provision can be amended to substitute “or” with “and”.
Atty. Mukamal moved that the proposed ordinance meets the standards of legality and enforceability, administrative efficiency, and consistency with the format of the zoning code, subject to the following amendment to provision “o. Storage Facility, Indoor.”:
“o-1. The structure to be occupied was constructed prior to the effective date of this ordinance [city clerk to insert date].
o-2. The indoor storage facility is not located on the first floor of an existing structure.
o-3. If the standards of subds. 1 and 2 are not met, the use shall be prohibited.”
Mr. Roberts seconded. There were no objections. | | | |
Action details
|
Not available
|
|
| | 4. | | Adjournment
Minutes note: Meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m.
Chris Lee, Staff Assistant | | | |
|
Not available
|