Agenda - Council - 05/10/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

manufacturing of products. Drivers are dispatched from the location for deliveries. Staff completed an onsite inspection of the premises on April 13, 2022,where the Applicant gave a tour of the inside of the accessory structure used for the business. Most of the items were used for personal storage,with about 25%of the space devoted to warehousing operations for the business. An aerial outline of the areas devoted to the business is attached to this case. The Applicant also stated in their questionnaire that the home will be used for general office work related to the request. Since the Applicant stated their business is moving from Elk River, Staff did contact the City of Elk River about the previous business location listed on their Minnesota Business Filing,which was another residential address. The City of Elk River stated they did not have any code enforcement records,nor CUP's or HOP's for the business at the Elk River address. Ordinance#22-06 The request must be reviewed with standards set in Ordinance#22-06, which was adopted earlier this year. Staff has concerns about the proposal with regard to three (3) items noted in the ordinance: 1. The number of allowed employees cannot exceed three (3) employees for parcels larger than five(5) acres in size. The Applicant has proposed four(4)regular employees, and has mentioned hiring more during the summers. 2. The business cannot operate as a dispatch center. The Applicant has vehicles entering and exiting the property with drivers coming to the site to deliver the corrugated boxes. 3. The business cannot exceed accessory structure space allowed in City Code. The Applicant is proposing to utilize the entire structure for the business,which is larger than what's allowed through the CUP from 1999. City Code Sections and Ordinances •City Code Chapter 30. -Nuisances •City Code Section 117-111. -R-1 Residential District •City Code Section 117-351. -Home Occupations •Ordinance#22-06 regarding Home Occupations Planning Commission The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing which received many responses from neighboring property owners. The Planning Commission had a failed motion(3-4 vote)to recommend approval the request for manufacturing and warehousing operations. The Planning Commission ultimately voted to recommend approval the request for warehousing operations only,with a 4-3 split vote. One concern expressed by neighboring residents and discussed by the Planning Commission was related to requirements for a fire suppression system. It has been determined that use of this structure as part of the home occupation business would constitute commercial use. Therefore, commercial requirements related to fire suppression systems would need to be applied to the structure. This requirement would fall under condition#5 of the approving resolution. Alternatives Alternative#1: Approve the requested Home Occupation Permit for warehousing operations of the container business. The proposal exceeds standards set in Ordinance#22-06 regarding the allowed number of employees, and the "dispatch center" nature of the business. The Planning Commission supports this alternative. Alternative#2: Deny the requested Home Occupation Permit. Funding Source: The Applicant is responsible for all costs related to this request. Recommendation: