7.3 SR 10-16-2023 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Background/Discussion Case No. CU 23-19 - The applicant, Jeremiah Shank, has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit authorizing the operation of a home occupation business. The applicant operates a utility equipment painting company and proposes storing three work trucks and two trailers with traffic control devices in his driveway. He notes that neither the home nor the garage will be used for material or product storage. The subject property is in the R-1b zoning district and is 3.48 acres in size, however, much of the property is unusable due to the location along the Elk River and topography. The proposed storage area will be on the driveway along Yankton Street. The applicant was a previous employee of the company Bullfrog Industries but recently purchased the business from the previous owner. Public Hearing Two residents and the applicant spoke during the Planning Commission Public Hearing. The first neighbor expressed several concerns with the property dating back many years. Here is a summary of the concerns:  There are materials left around the property and the garage, including old paint cans, pallets, and temporary shed structures.  Maintenance of vehicles has occurred on the property, beyond the basic maintenance of headlights.  He believes home occupations should serve as a transition during a growth phase and states that the subject business may have grown beyond the capacities of a home occupation at a single-family home.  Referenced alleged environmental concerns from 10+ years ago.  He has concerns with the proliferation of vehicles and trailers that have at times been located on the site. Notes that up to nine vehicles have been there before.  Notes the current driveway work may have impacted required setbacks and ordinance standards related to the proximity to the river and environmental standards.  Believes the applicant should have received a grading permit for the driveway.  Notes that the applicant may live out of state and believes a rental permit may be required. The applicant spoke and responded to the previous comments. The applicant’s responses are summarized as follows:  Vehicle maintenance, like oil changes, were done on his personal vehicles and not work vehicles. He stated that all maintenance is done at dealerships.  Acknowledged that trailers have been parked on his property in the past and asked to update his request to allow two trailers and associated traffic control devices (cones and barricades).  Stated that his driveway work was not deeper than 1-foot as stated by the resident.  Acknowledged that city staff visited the site with him 8-10 years ago to address grading and environmental concerns around the home. He said the work requested by city staff was addressed.  He does have plans to grow the business, possibly relocating the operation, but would prefer to discuss that outside of a public meeting. A second resident spoke and noted that she lives directly across the street from the subject parcel. She noted that her property is the closest to the applicant’s and said she does not have any concerns with the operation. She stated that she has not seen excess vehicles on the property, nor has she seen the street blocked by work-related vehicles. She finished by saying that she has no issues with the proposed use nor with the appearance of the site. Staff reviewed the project with the city’s environmental consultant, and she stated that, based on the information presented, the only concern at this time is the driveway extension and the setback from the river. Sec. 30-2024