Laserfiche WebLink
stated that she has not seen excess vehicles on the properttr, nor has she seen the street blocked b�r work-related <br />vehicles. She finished b�r saying that she has no issues with the proposed use nor `vith the appearance of the site. <br />Staff reviewed the project with the cinT's environmental consultant and she stated that, based on the information <br />presented, the onl�r concern at this time is the drivewa�r extension and the setback from the river. Sec. 30-2024 <br />notes that driveways must meet the structure setbacks foY pYopeYties along the riveY. She noted that the applicant <br />can app1�T for a variance from the required 100-foot setback for unse`vered lots along the Elk River. Unless the <br />drive`vayT is removed, this variance will need to be processed b�r the cit�T regardless of the outcome for the current <br />CUP application or the drivewa�T relocated. Staff informed the applicant of this standard and he is currentl�T <br />�vorking on the variance application. The application will likelyT be reviewed b�T the Board of Adjustments on <br />November 28, 2023. <br />Additionally, the applicant plans to meet with the cityr's environmental consultant Friday OctobeY 13, 2023, to <br />review the site and identify any possible concerns related to the environmental standards. Staff will provide an <br />update during the council meeting. <br />The home occuparion Yequest has been updated to include the tt�o traileYs and the associated traffic control <br />devices. <br />Staff spoke `vith the applicant regarding the possible need for a rental license and the need to address an�T <br />outstanding code violations. Based on staff's reading of the rental ordinance standards, the current operation of <br />the household would not require a rental license as one tenant cohabitates with the o`vner in a shared living space. <br />The Planning Commission expressed concerns `vith the aesthetics of the residential propernT due to the parking of <br />commercial vehicles and trailers. The commission felt this `vas a violation of the first standard, detrimentally <br />affecting the use and enjoyrment of other pYopeYtyr in the aYea. Theyr also took issue with the size of the current <br />operation and the possibilit�T of relocating to a commercial/industrial site. FinallyT, theyT noted concerns regarding <br />environmental compliance, resulting in the propertyT not meeting standards five and six of the CUP standards. <br />The Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend denial of the home occupation CUP. <br />Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has continued to `vork to address staff comments regarding <br />drivewayT removal, turf establishment, and environmental compliance. <br />Financial Impact <br />None <br />Mission/Policy/Goal <br />■ Support the residential and business communities. <br />■ Meet changing needs - Agile <br />Attachments <br />■ Planning Commission Packet dated September 26, 2023 <br />