06-17-2024 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Minutes June 17, 2024 --------- Page 6 of 8 problem is any ground pollution that could happen and the outdoor storage. Katie Lehmann, 10170 208th Ave NW, is concerned about noise, light pollution, and other pollution. She would like to keep their neighborhood as a residential area. Deann Wells, 10296 209th Ave NW, asked the Council to deny the application. She has an issue with the effects the business would have on their property value. She is concerned about deliveries that take place for the business. They have had deliveries go down their driveway, and she is very concerned about the safety and the neighbors and the big trucks stopping and backing up on the county road. She is concerned that the applicant is already violating the codes. She respectfully asked the Council to consider the neighbors. Mayor Dietz closed the public hearing. Councilmember Wagner wanted to clarify that the Planning Commission feels the IUP has enough conditions in it that if the conditions are not met the IUP can be revoked and that is why they passed it. Councilmember Westgaard concurred. Councilmember Wagner explained that residential occupations should never get to the point of being industrial and posed the question: at what point does this become an industrial business? She is also concerned with the hours of operation being 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. Monday - Saturday in a residential area. She questioned conditions 15 and 16 stating, "Business delivery vehicles shall not back into the site from 209th Avenue/County Road 33 and signage identifying the business/deliveries shall be installed per county and city requirements" and wondered if it is a reasonable expectation that delivery vehicles would not back down the driveway and the fact the sign is needed at the end of the driveway shows it is a bigger business. She stated this is blurring the line between being a reasonable residential occupation versus becoming an industrial property. Mr. Leeseberg clarified the ordinance was recently codified and the hours of operation and the approved outdoor storage were approved per these types of requests. Councilmember Beyer wanted to clarify the difference between a CUP and an IUP. Mr. Leeseberg explained the difference is that with a CUP the business stays with the process and the property, and IUP ends when the property is sold. There are different rules and regulations for approving them. IUP is time-based with deadlines. They both allow use but the IUP has a sunset date and CUP can continue. Councilmember Beyer explained that the Council agreed that home occupations should consist of small businesses and explained that a bigger business is more difficult to approve. Councilmember Westgaard explained a residential occupation can be anything from piano lessons, and tax accountants to larger industrial uses that borders on what should be allowed in a residential district. He thinks the IUP process is more appropriate than a CUP, and it allows monitoring and revoking the IUP. There are a lot of these residential occupations that exist and the IUP is an attempt to get some control over what happens in the residential districts, so the quality of life for residents can be maintained. He further explained they have the responsibility to lay out a specific set of conditions to maintain a rule and to allow him to operate his business and thinks it comes down to the impact of the adjoining properties. Councilmember Grupa agrees regarding the IUP process to control the situation. He also explained he doesn't agree with how this happened regarding doing something first and asking for forgiveness later and stated that is not how you should do it. He has concerns regarding the deliveries, and the size of