Laserfiche WebLink
<br />• Described the types of work his business does and how he plans to utilize the property. <br />• Understands that the building needs to meet commercial building codes. <br />• He noted that his operation is consistent with several other businesses operating with outdoor <br />storage/accessory structures near his property, most without a CUP/IUP to an extent greater than <br />what he is asking for. <br />• Noted that he installed 220 feet of privacy fencing along the west property line to help screen the <br />storage area. <br />• He noted he now lets his employees drive company vehicles home, so there are fewer business and <br />employee vehicles on site. <br />• Clarified that he spoke with staff before purchasing the property to discuss his options and that he was <br />told a CUP would be required for a home occupation. <br />o Staff did speak with him before he purchased the property, as they do many times a year with people <br />seeking to purchase land or a building and want to know their options, whether for a home occupation <br />on a residential lot or a retail business on a commercial lot. <br />• He has requested that his suppliers now make deliveries with a box truck rather than a semi-truck. <br />• He owns a semi-truck which he is allowed to have on the property. <br />o Section 30-991 states tractor-trailer parking (only in the R-1A district on parcels five acres or larger) is <br />allowed as an accessory use. <br />• Stated that when code enforcement was on his property in early 2023, his accessory building was <br />under construction and that his employees did most of the work, contributing to the large number of <br />people observed on-site. <br />• Has no concerns with the recommended conditions. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission had concerns about the proximity of the outdoor storage area to the house to the <br />east but understood the updated residential occupation ordinance codified a 50-foot setback. <br /> <br />While the commission had concerns about the proximity of the outdoor storage area to the neighboring <br />house, they unanimously recommended approval as there are conditions in place to mitigate impacts on <br />neighboring properties. <br /> <br />Since the Planning Commission meeting, staff spoke with Ms. Wells at City Hall. Staff agreed the request <br />(proposed use) has not changed but that the ordinance did change as it relates to the review and approval of <br />residential occupations. After numerous discussions with the Planning Commission and City Council regarding <br />changes to the residential occupation standards, the Council approved the amendment in late 2023. Staff <br />reviewed the major changes within the ordinance amendment, including codified hours of operation, an IUP <br />vs. CUP, and outdoor storage with lot size and distance requirements. Regarding her concerns that were <br />noted during the public hearing and related to staff's role in advising applicants before and during the land use <br />process, staff reiterated that their role includes guiding applicants through the public review process - <br />including relevant application materials, documents, and likely conditions. <br /> <br />Lastly, after speaking with Sherburne County, staff added two additional conditions per their request. <br /> <br />Financial Impact <br />None <br /> <br />Mission/Policy/Goal <br />Meet changing needs - agile. <br />Opportunity to live, work, and play. <br /> <br />Attachments <br />Page 65 of 389