7.4 SR 06-17-2024 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Described the types of work his business does and how he plans to utilize the property. • Understands that the building needs to meet commercial building codes. • He noted that his operation is consistent with several other businesses operating with outdoor storage/accessory structures near his property, most without a CUP/IUP to an extent greater than what he is asking for. • Noted that he installed 220 feet of privacy fencing along the west property line to help screen the storage area. • He noted he now lets his employees drive company vehicles home, so there are fewer business and employee vehicles on site. • Clarified that he spoke with staff before purchasing the property to discuss his options and that he was told a CUP would be required for a home occupation. o Staff did speak with him before he purchased the property, as they do many times a year with people seeking to purchase land or a building and want to know their options, whether for a home occupation on a residential lot or a retail business on a commercial lot. • He has requested that his suppliers now make deliveries with a box truck rather than a semi -truck. • He owns a semi -truck which he is allowed to have on the property. o Section 30-991 states tractor -trailer parking (only in the R-1 A district on parcels five acres or larger) is allowed as an accessory use. • Stated that when code enforcement was on his property in early 2023, his accessory building was under construction and that his employees did most of the work, contributing to the large number of people observed on -site. • Has no concerns with the recommended conditions. The Planning Commission had concerns about the proximity of the outdoor storage area to the house to the east but understood the updated residential occupation ordinance codified a 50-foot setback. While the commission had concerns about the proximity of the outdoor storage area to the neighboring house, they unanimously recommended approval as there are conditions in place to mitigate impacts on neighboring properties. Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff spoke with Ms. Wells at City Hall. Staff agreed the request (proposed use) has not changed but that the ordinance did change as it relates to the review and approval of residential occupations. After numerous discussions with the Planning Commission and City Council regarding changes to the residential occupation standards, the Council approved the amendment in late 2023. Staff reviewed the major changes within the ordinance amendment, including codified hours of operation, an IUP vs. CUP, and outdoor storage with lot size and distance requirements. Regarding her concerns that were noted during the public hearing and related to staffs role in advising applicants before and during the land use process, staff reiterated that their role includes guiding applicants through the public review process - including relevant application materials, documents, and likely conditions. Lastly, after speaking with Sherburne County, staff added two additional conditions per their request. Financial Impact None Mission/Policy/Goal Meet changing needs - agile. Opportunity to live, work, and play. Attachments Page 229 of 372