Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974 04-04 PCP RrGTjL..R IyiEM:' `TNC April 4. 1974 • 1. Call to Orders 8 s OO P.M. 2. Roll Calls 3. Approval of Minutes: March 21, 1974 4. Chairman's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Com- mission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions on these matters. BOARD OF ADJ S IONTS AND APPEALS 5. lDavA Brandvold 74015 • variance from Section 35-400 to permit construction of single family home on substandard ?width) lots 5433 4th Street North. 6. Lucious Howard 74017 Variance from Section. 35--440 to permit house addition encroachment into sideyard setback area, 2218 55th Avenue Nortb,. PIANN1NG COMSSIMT 7 Wieman Slechta Builders 74012 Site and Building Plan Approval for Speculative industrial ftild.ing at 67th Avenue north at Shingle Creek Parkway. S Egan, Field, Nowak 74016 Preliminavy Plat for Eger King Additionp 61st and Brooklyn Boulevard. • 9. Nob{l Oil Corparaticn 74018 Special Use Site Amondment Approval for 69th Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard Page 2 • 4 019 a tnirc-i PIIIC A for. kei�.icral n A '6(3V b J 0 f A I e f'l,U e�, No r U -Ind Plar,-, Apprcival !'�Tbbled 6/'7/73,i facility at bs�,L ind V,C approved for B.C.I.p. (Office Tower II) i�al 1-was3.ng moratorium and dy LIIAW S , W. Neighborhood Devple:Ment Sites. A A A 114- ist fJ o.ujr nmc�-!r • PYLAIMNING COMMISSION INP094ATION SHEET Application No,. 74015 vn / ',0 �0 Applicant:g David Eranovold Location% 5433 4th Street North Regtuest; variance The applicant seeks a variance fray Section 35-400, requiring a minimum 75 feet building line front yard wi.d-h, to permit n construction of a single family home on the parcel which is 65.5 feet wide. There is substantial precedent for this type of action in this area of the City. The land has been platted and neigh--- baring .lots, with homes,, are of comparable width. • A public hearing has been scheduled. Recoraraendation is for approval, noting that the variance is for permission to builds no other variances are implied or endorsed. • • �S Nt1lN' l Sts Sol 1 4 To i a PLhNNING COMMISSION INFORMATION SHM Application NO. 74016 App1:}.-,ant a Egan, Field, Nowak for Burger King Locu-J-Ons 61st Avenue North and Brooklyn Blvd Rec.zests Preliminary Plat Approval Teas application is in response to a condition of approval fc>- Application Nov 74003 which required that the former M� oil Station site be combined with the restaurant site into C>se JL)areel ,ihe 'Arector of Public Works will be prepared to comment in Beta:- 1. Approval would be subject to the following conditions • 10 Final plat is t;ubject to requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance; 2. Final plat is subject to review by the City Engineer. • AVENUE' C� 4 l ,...� W) a`'c PO a Q, U • PLANING CMMSSION INFOMATION SHEET Application No. 74019 Applicants U.S. Postal Service Locations East side of 6800 Block of Lee Avenue North Requests Site and Building Plan Review and Approval The Postal Service has submitted site and building plans for review after many months of site selection and project design. Bids have been let on the project and construction should commence shortly. We have worked with the contracted architect as well as the Postal Service construction officials relative to ordinance and policy requirements, and numberous revisions have been made to original plans. Primary concerns have been with site design, landscaping and parking. The plans are in order and approval is recommended. incidentally, a building permit will not be taken on the project# in that Federal, projects provide "in house" inspection services. Other service related charges and permits will be issued as appropriate. A site work performance bond is being provided to the City in addition to a complete bond to the Postal Service, by the con tractor. V ®st `Y4'Yi 1^f .Pet's-r -„ 7 -4/o/ 9' dL i rraa ee��v, • PLAMUNG COMMISSION INFOrEATION SHEEP Application No. 73019 Applicant: E-Z Hini Storage Locations 68th and Lee Avenues North Request: Hseo Site and Building Plan Approval Analysis and background of the request are outlined in a separate memorandum. The application was considered March 1, 1973 and June 70 1973 and tabled, in lieu of recor=ended denial, to permit development; of plans consistent with ordin$nce requirements. The central question, which must be resolved before site and building plans can be reviewed for recommendation isa • is the proposed use similar in nature to the other per- mitted C--2 uses, to be deemed a permitted C-2 use itself? We will be prepared to discuss the site and building plans in detail, and to offer a recommendation, once the above zoning matter has been resolved. • >� X115 XV b, LL F ' t E t o VEVUE. P, 431 43 N • PLANNING COMMISSION INFOWATION SHEET Application No. 74017 Applicant: Lucious Howard Location: 2218 55th Avenue North R.equestc Variance The applicant is requesting a variance from Section -35-400, which requires a 10 ft. side yard setback for single family dwellings, to permit extension of his living area to within 7 ft. of the side lot line. The variance is for 3 ft. The applicant's house is similar in design to many other rambler . type dwellings throughout the City. It has an attached "single garage which extends 3 ft. as permitted, into the sidey)rd. There is an open porch or patio from the rear of the garage to the rear line of the duelling. The patio is a permitted accessory area, and it is covered by the dwelling-garage roof. • The applicant proposes to enclose the open patio in order to ex- pand his kitchen area. He wants to align the kitchen wall with , the garage wall, thereby encroaching into the sideyard. The contention, with regard to ordinance variance standards, is that this is a reasonable and appropriate use of property, and a hardship is realized due to setback standards. While there is an apparent dispute as to whether the variance criteria are literally met, there is an established precedent for ' S anting similar requests. A very comparable application No. '71002) 7as ranted on the bases P g that: the proposed additon would not be detrimental to surrounding erries; would allow a reasonable and proper use of the propertyt rap d, there had been precedent established. The Council in that gam- al;gra aatio,a. tha* -w analysis be made of the si ua ion and that recommendations as to alternative procedures be develop , ,e., ways ofne—r-than variance we will pig present such an alternative, apart from this apalicatinn. . A public hearing has been scheduled. Approval of the request would be consistent with past actions, as rued in the case of the above application. • ij a � 9 0 •� ti 74 Af pLtcA700dV Ally, PUt,'LZ�!XN!G CQ�4MISSJOIJ INFORTOTION SHRET i-pPlication _alo. 74012 L. Terzich for INTieman, Slechta Builders, Inc. 67th Avenue N. and Shingle Creek Parkway corner) Lequest- .- Site and Building Plan Approval i King approval of site and building plans for ,�he applicant is see— a 35,000 sqr ft. genezal industrial building on the southeast ::orner parcel at 67th Avenue tiorth and Shingle Creek Parkway. 'his parcel is not being developed by B.C.I.P. , Inc. Plans indicate that 4, 200 sq. ft. will be used for office space and 30,800 sq. ft. is designed for general industrial uses'. The :'ar'k-ing has been calculated on this basis for a total of 60 spaces; 38 spaces have been provided. • have reviewed the plans with the architect noting the following concerns; site layout, landscaping, drainage, and exterior finish of the building. We will be prepared to comment on revised plans which have been prepared. Particula-r tttention to the aesthetics of the site is warranted, given the 'quality of the improvements of the neighboring Johnson Controls and Nortkk*,jyestern Bell sites. Approval would be subject to the following conditions: I Building plans are subject to review by the Building. Official with respect to applicable Codes, prior to the issuanc.,� of a permit. 2. Gradihg, drainage, utility and berming plans are sub- ject to review by thsCity Engineer prior to the issuaac* of Permits. 3. A per2orniance agreement and financial guarantee (in an amouni.- to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site im- proven.ents, IL (sub C_ 0 V-euk< tOO A V S, A10- 1 171.1• � �(b',1� / \ P.1;84A STEitN • PLANNING COMISSION INPOP14ATION SHEET Application No. 74018 Applicants Mobil Oil Corporation Location$ 69th Avenue No. at Brodkiyn Blvd. Requests Special Use Site Amendment The applicant has proposed certain site and building improvements and amendments which require approval as conditions of the station's special use permit. Included are removal as relocation of pump islands (resulting in two) ; removal and rennovation of the building exterior finish; striping of parking spaces; and, development of 15 feet boulevard green areas ;as required under current ordinance provisions) . • The Director of Public Works will be prepared to comment as to possible need for sidewalk easement agreements. .A public hearing has been scheduled. .Approval would be subject to the following canditions s 1. Required site improvements shall be those indicated on approved plans, including installation of required green strips, permanent M.H.D. B-612 curb and gutter, and parking stalls. 2. A performance agreement and financial guarantee (in an am*unt to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements. 3. Approval is exclusive of any sigrnery. • MEMORANDUM: U]3dated Analysis and Comment Relative to Planning Commission Application No. 73019, Submitted by Mr. Charles Nolan for E-Z Mini Storage. TO: Brooklyn Center Planning Commission FROM: Blair Tremere, Secretary DATE: March, 1974 The subject application is tentatively scheduled for review and possible disposition at the April 4th meeting subsequent to its conceptual re- view on March 1, 1973 and first formal hearing on June 7, 1973 at which time it was tabled. I. BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing the construction of several approximately 500 feet long buildings on the parcel of land at 68th and Lee Avenue North, westerly of Iten Chevrolet and easterly of the N.S .P. Service facility. The buildings would run north and south with the parcel which abuts Interstate 94. Under the applicant 's E-Z Mini Storage concept the buildings would be divided into a number of garage-like bays or compart- ments ranging in a variety of sizes. Entrance to the compartments would be through overhead doors . In addition, the applicant is proposing a small office space at each end of each of the buildings which would also be rented. The concept is to provide the general public with, as the advertising brochure puts it, "an ideal way and convenient place to provide storage for both your business and personal requirements" . It provides self- service, small scale, general storage or warehousing. The applicant contends that the facility is commercial in nature (vs. industrial) for zoning purposes, and that while it may not be specifically recognized under the C-2 provisions of the ordinance, it could be cate- gorized under Section 35-322 (j) : "Other uses similar in nature to the aforementioned (C-2) uses as determined by the City Council" . The � applicant' s response as to why the facility was not proposed on a site in either the industrial Park or the General Industrial Zone is that the land costs in those zones compared to the cost of the subject parcel were j "prohibitive" . The zoning of the particular site is an important issue which must be resolved with respect to the disposition of this application. Other • Planning Commission Page 2 concerns include the site planning and improvements as well as the nature of the proposed use. II . CONCERNS A. Zoning: The following factors, among others, should be weighed with respect to the zoning. 1. The C-2 provisions of the ordinance do not specifically compre- hend this type of facility as a permitted use in the C-2 zone with the exception of offices. The proposed facility is not specifically recognized as a "special use" in the C-2 zone, either. It should be noted, however, that such a facility is not specifically comprehended in the I-1 or I-2 districts either and thus, if it is to be considered in any zone, C-2, I-1, or I-2, it would be as "other similar uses (to those permitted in the zone) as determined by the City Council" . 2. The Commission last year concluded that such a project could only be deemed appropriate in this particular zone and location, if the plans indicated the project was compatible with C-2 type uses in general and with area commercia uses specifically. In • addition, the staff and Commission indicated to the applicant that substantial consideration would be given to the potential commercial use of this site and the proposed buildings, should the E-Z Mini Storage cease- The applicant has, during the past year, developed a conceptual plan which comprehends a possible commercial "mall type" arrangement, requiring the removal of portions of the buildings. He has also located the buildings on the site in such a manner that adequate space would be available for appropriate walkways, curbing, parking and driveways for uses other than the E-Z Mini Storage 3. Other uses in the C-2 zoned land in the area include: Iten Chevrolet, which abuts the subject property to the east, and Brookdale Pontiac, both of which include outside storage (auto- mobile dealerships being recognized as special uses in this zone) ; the proposed regional postal. facility which includes loading dock and distribution facilities; two additional automobile dealerships to the east, across Brooklyn Boulevard; and, the recently approved American Bakeries Distribution Center and Retail Outlet, located on 69th Avenue North, easterly of Brooklyn Boulevard. 4. While there would appear to be some basis for considering the proposed E-Z Mini Storage project as being compatible with area type C-2 uses, the crucial factor with respect to zoto.ng is the Planning Commission Page 3 • nature of the proposed use. This is discussed in further detail 1 / below. While certain similarities or compatibilities may be found with other C-2 uses in the area, it can also be n hat there are definite similarities between the E-Z Mini tore con- cert and the type of uses more commonly found in the istrict. 5o A telephone survey was recently made of planning and/or building officials in some other communities in the Twin Cities area where the applicant has constructed or is constructing the same type of project. in all instances the E-Z Mini Storage facilities are located in areas which are designated with the zoning category "I"e which generally includes types of uses which, if located in Brooklyn Center, would be permitted or special uses in the I-1 or I-2 districts. in some communities "I" districts also include a variety of commercial type uses as in Burnsville, for example, where the E-Z Mini Storage facility is located in the same zone as Levitz Furniture, Knox Lumber, and a variety of truck terminals. A parallel could be drawn with the recently adopted special use commercial uses permitted in Brooklyn Center's I-1 district. . When this matter of zoning in other communities was noted to the applicant he responded that in seeking development sites, he was not so concerned with the zoning as he was with the exposure, size, and accessibility of sites . If this is to be taken literally, one would have to conclude that the established zoning in the various communities matched the nature of the E-Z Mini Storage use with an extraordinary degree of coincidence! ! B. Site Planning and Improvements, This factor was of prime concern because of the design of the proposed structures and the location of the site. 1e Luring the past year the applicant has developed a site layout which includes a master plan for intended development consisting of two phases , a set of site and building plans for Phase One and a potential conceptual master plan showing a possible use of the structures and the site for other more typical commercial uses. Numerous meetings have been held between the applicant and the staff relative to ordinance setback, parking, and other site im- provement requirements and policies. 2e Phase one would consist of three long buildings running north and south the length of the site leaving a large greenstrip on the west side which could contain another such building compre- hended as Phase Two. The proposed plans indicate area between the building and property lines and between the buildings Planning Commission Page 4 Themselves to comprehend minimum setback, driving, and parking areas which would be required for a typical c-2 development using this type of structure. 3. it should be noted, however, that the applicant's contention is that the amount of parking calculated on the gross floor Q area of the buildings, would not be needed for the E-Z Mini Storage use, and thus, implicit in the applicant's proposal is a request for a deferral of a portion of the parking. In fact, the Master Plan showing both phases comprehends that some o� the required parking, based upon the general commercial 1 to 20 patio, would actually be inside of the buildings, i.e. , use could con- ceivably be made of a certain number of garage stalls throughout the project for parking, if all of the calculated parking were needed for the E-Z Mini Storage--something which, in our opinion, would be unlikely. However, the conceptual Master Plan for other types of com- mercial uses calls for the demolition of portions of the ulti- mate four buildings in order to provide outside off-street park- ing for the mall concept consisting of many small shops-and offices. • 4. One of our concerns has been the single purpose nature of the structures. The construction consists of steel and concrete block, thus representing substantial and rather permanent facilities, which, notwithstanding the potential conceptual Master Plan, could be difficult to relate to more standard commercial type uses. In other words, given the long design of the buildings a more economically feasible use perhaps would be large scale storage or industrial type manufacturing activities requiring long assembly line facilities. This concern relates to the zoning question as to whether an undesirable precedent would be estab- lished, should the E-Z Mini Storage concept be unsuccessful in this area. On the other hand, the applicant' s plans show that the end units of these buildings are being modeled in such a way as to provide office spaces which are intended for lease. It could thus be con- tended that the remainder of the buildings could be converted to office spaces and, since adequate parking has been provided particularly for C-1 purposes, conversion of the building would be feasible. There is a major question of aestheetttcs,, The buildings have a definite regimented, massive warehouse-like affect, primarily Planning Commission Page 5 • because of their length and construction. .I Furthermore, other projects have an exterior finish consisting of plain exposed breakoff block with an anodized aluminum and redwood board facia trim (with exception of the office units at each end which in- clude plate glass and additional anodized trim) . The applicant has expressed strong objection to our suggestion that the break- off block exterior should be painted in a similar fashion to the speculative industrial buildings in the B.C.I.P. In short, there is very little in the way of design of these buildings which would suggest an imaginative or interesting approach to the architecture. It is clear that the project is being de- veloped under a "form-follows-function" philosophy. 6. While green areas and landscaping in front of the office build- ings have been provided, particular attention must be given to requiring substantial landscaping on the site. This area will become a relative focal point, particularly with the erection of the post office across the street. The subject site has a high visibility from the freeway as well. The applicant has in- dicated verbally his intent to provide "tasteful landscaping" and it is our recommendation that substantial improvements be required to help in off-setting the massive uniform appearance • of the structures, if they should be approved. 7. The applicant has been informed of the ordinance requirements for providing automatic fire extinguishing equipment In the buildings and we have se M nary sprinkler layout plan for the structures. We have indicated to the applicant that the plan must be included in the site and building plans before they will be reviewed by the Commission and Council. He has responded that they will be. C. Nature and features of the proposed used This is perhaps the most crucial factor in the entire consideration, and obviously has certain parallels with the zoning issue. There are a number of aspects of this use, as described by the applicant, which have left doubt in our mind as to its desirability in this location and zone. 1. Attached to this memorandum is a photo-copy of the advertising brochure which has been distributed by the applicant relative to his other facilities in the Twin Cities. Whereas, the initial impression we had of the E-Z Mini Storage concept was one of pure storage facilities available to the general public, the literature indicates a promotion of the facilities for "pro- sduct fabrication, assembly work, refinishing furniture, build- ing a boat, creatinq an invention" , which together represent Planning Commission Page 6 uses totally not permitted in this zone. The applicant has also indicated that a very likely use could be a tenant renting one of the end office spaces as well as adjacent storage spaces, thus comprising a "manufacturer's representative" facility, such as those found in the I-1 district. The applicant has indicated a tendency to disclaim general re- sponsibility for the activates of his tenants, short of things which would represent infringements upon the business or general safety. Tenants have their own locks to the units, and thus the activities within those units are not subject to regular scrut- inization. This has been the applicant 's response to our state- ment that, should this project be permitted in Brooklyn Center, the applicant will be held with all responsibility for assuring that the use of the facility is restricted to those uses either permitted by ordinance or limited by conditions of approval. Specifically, we have indicated that this facility is to be used in its proposed form (i.e. , with possibly deferred parking, walk- ways, etc.) , as a storage facility only. in response to his questions as to how he could control that, we indicated for one thing the advertising literature, at least for • this facility, would specifically describe the permitted use, namely storage, and that perspective tenants would be so informed at time of rental. However, we entertain no illusions that the interior uses would or even could be limited to storage only. 2. The issue here is that if total C-2 type parking and other im- provements are not provided, because of the nature of the E-Z Mini Storage, then few, if any, permitted C-2 uses are possible (with exception of the indicated office uses) . While the appli- cation represents unique type of use, it is not representative of a permitted special use in this zone, according to current ordinance provisions . If it is to be approved as a standard C-2 type activity ("similar in nature to other C-2 type uses") there is some question as to the extent the uses can be limited or re- stricted, as would be the possible case if it were approved by special use permission. 3. This concern also relates to the zoning considerationo even though the E-Z Mini Storage concept is not specifically compre- hended in the I-1 or I-2 zones, it might be more appropriately located there as an approved use ("similar in nature to other uses in those zones") because the range of activities permitted is in those districts seems to be more compatible with the range of activities the applicant conceives as appropriate for his bus- iness. - v Planning Commission Page 7 4. Another concern discussed in some detail by the Commission last June was the applicant's original proposal for an on-site resi- dent caretaker who would be housed in an apartment unit at the end of one of the buildings. Such a residential use of a com- mercial zone is not permitted and can not be tolerated in any manner. As a matter of fact, the Commission took definite consensus action "to reaffirm the ordinance and City policy pro- visions regarding the prohibition of residential uses in non- residential districts and to acknowledge that a variance in this matter was neither technically possible or desirable from a Planning Policy perspective" . The applicant 's current plans do not indicate an apartment, per se, but one of the office-type units indicates a roughed-in bathroom and patio facility. It is the applicant's contention this area would be used for the rental management office and that there would be no residential use made of the premises. III . SUMMARY 1. The applicant was instructed almost one year ago that, before the feasibility of his project could be considered, proposed plans in conformance with C-2 ordinance development requirements must be prepared. Such plans are now available. 2. The use, 11E-Z Mini Storage" self service storage and warehousing (plus a limited amount of office space) , is not specifically com- prehended as a permitted or special use in the C-2, I-1, or I-2 districts. Under current ordinance provisions, it has been classified as and considered under the "permitted use" category (which appears in the C-2, I-1, I-2 districts) : "other uses similar in nature to the aforementioned uses, as determined by the City Council" . i 3. The central question then is whether the application, as revised, and considered on its merits, represents an acceptable "com- mercial" use, similar in nature to the other permitted C-2 uses. 4. While the site and building plans may be deemed acceptable, the crucial issue, about which there is some doubt, is the nature of the proposed use and the ramification upon the zoning require- ments and policies of the community. The use is unique and thus is subject to special interpretation and approval. However, under current ordinance provisions, it is not a "special use" subject to a special use permit. Thus, if approved as a unique, but similar permitted use, to what degree Planning Commission Page 8 can the actual use of the facility be restricted? it is our recommendation that the only plan acceptable in this location for any commercial use other than self service storage and the proposed 5 to 8 office areas is the conceptual master plan based upon an open mall concept. 5. Approval of the storage concept must be conditioned to re- strict the use. The feasibility of this approach may be sub- ject to legal review and opinion. 6. Other alternatives would perhaps be: 1. Rezoning, which is not recommended as a matter of policy consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and undersirability of "spot zoning" ; 2. Denial of the request, in terms of this site, with possible reconsideration of the use as appropriate on an I-1 or I-2 site. it is apparent that the latter would be unacceptable to the applicant; • 3. Ordinance amendment to comprehend this as a "special use" subject to special use permission and restrictions. 7 . If you would like to make an on site inspection of an existing E-Z Mini Storage project prior to the meeting, a map is en- closed (the closest and newest completed project is in New Brighton on 35-W at County Road E-2) . 8. We have calculated the consumer rental costs, based upon current rates and possible storage needs. These data are compared to other square footage rental rates found in commercial and in- dustrial developments. Depending upon individual priorities and needs, the annual rates are not particularly economical. Current Rates 10 ° x 30 ° _ $62.00 per mo. _ $744.00 per yr. _ $2.48 per sq. ft. 10 ° x 20 ' = $42,00 per mo. _ $504.00 per yr. _ $2.52 per sq. ft. 51 x 101 _ $14.50 per mo. _ $174.00 per yr. _ $3.48 per sq. ft. Examples • 10 ° x 301 = 300 sq. ft. - usable for boat, car, camping trailers (travel type) , camping trailers (tent type) , etc. Planning Commission Page 9 10 ° x 30 ° = 200 sq. ft. - Probable uses - car, boat, camping trailers, snowmobile and trailer, household furnishings, etc. 5 ° x 101 = 50 sq. ft. - Probable uses - motor cycles, bicycles, snowmobiles (etc. without a trailer) , household furnishings, etc. Comparison General warehousing rates for commercial and industrial approximately $1. 50 to $1.75 per sq. ft. I 1 m � I o Z STORAGE.MIN I SELF-SERVICE STORAGE . 4 (�I01 ��11 IT'S A NEW IDEA! An ideal way and a convenient place to provide storage for both your business and personal requirements. YOU STORE IT! YOU KEEP THE KEY! Individual units in varying sizes to suit SOLID, SAFE, SECURE your storage needs. Each unit with self-service outside door and lock. a Complete construction of concrete and steel. • Fireproof, Clean, Dry. OUR SIZES * . . • Full time resident manager. Available in different lengths and widths • Outside area lighting. with varying ceiling and door heights. Sizes from — 5' x 10'; 10' x 10'; 5' x 15'; • Your own lock, (no other keys). 10' x 15'; 10' x 20'; 10' x 30'; 20' x 20'; and up. Ceiling heights from 9 to 14 feet. • Heated units available. STORE THINGS LIKE . . . OR RENT SPACE FOR . . . BUSINESS: • Product Fabrication • Truck load Inventory • Assembly Work • Business Records • Refinishing Furniture • Over-stocked Items • Building a Boat • Equipment • Creating An Invention HOME: • Furniture • Mowers, Snowblowers • Sports Equipment ACCESSIBLE -- CONVENIENT • Snowmobiles Your Storage space is always accessible • Seasonal Items to you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. NO LONG TERM COMMITTMENT LOW RENTAL RATES Our two month minimum permits you to E-Z Mini Storage rental rates start at less rent your storage space for as little or than 50c a day. long a time as you need it.