Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Minutes <br />April 3, 2017 <br />Page 6 <br />be governed the same as an RV, per state laws, or as a business/personal home in a <br />zoning district. <br />Mr. Carlton noted the city would require restrooms for the business so they would <br />need a septic system or be tied into city sewer and water. <br />It was noted the applicant is proposing a rain water collection process and alternative <br />systems as means of providing potable water to the site. This system will need to <br />receive state approval <br />Councilmember Westgaard stated he is not opposed to the concept but would like <br />more information regarding the residential requirement. He further stated it doesn't <br />make sense for every business. He noted examples where it would make sense for <br />residential such as a bait shop or above a pub in the downtown district. <br />Mr. Carlton agreed and questioned why a residential use would be allowed in an <br />industrial district in the first place. <br />Councilmember Wagner expressed concerns with allowing residential use in this <br />zoning district due to unintended consequences that could occur. She expressed <br />concerns with living on the site and effects to surrounding neighbors. She also <br />expressed concerns with the water system. She stated she would be willing to review <br />further. <br />Councilmember Olsen stated fencing should remain in place but questioned why the <br />septic and well couldn't be shared with the models. <br />Mr. Hagelberg stated maintaining a green footprint is important to him. <br />Councilmember Ovall stated he struggles with having the living component in the I3 <br />district due to the different dynamic it would bring to the area. He questioned if the <br />use could be forced to go away if this business sold at a future date. He stated he is <br />undecided but would be willing to review further. <br />Mr. Carlton explained the conditional use process and how it is tied to the property <br />and not the owner so the use would remain with the land if the property sold. He <br />stated if the conditional use were inactive for 6 months, then the use goes away. <br />Councilmember Westgaard noted the Council can set a limit for having one person <br />residing at the site, which may alleviate a concern for suddenly having 15 people <br />living in various tiny homes. <br />Council consensus was to move forward with a review of the ordinance for a <br />possible amendment noting it would be non-binding. <br />10.2 Blight and Code/Permit Enforcement <br />P0VIAEA R1 <br />NATURE <br />