1988.05.25 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Senkler at 7:00PM. PRESENT: Henry, Jesinski, Barnes, Sonnenfeld, Senkler, Adm. Huber, Carole LaBelle Motion made by Jesinski, seconded by Henry to approve the minutes of April 27, 1988 as amended. All aye, motion passed' SUP FOR HOME OCCUPATION (M. PERRAULT Chairman Senkler requested the city administrator review the application with the planning commission. Mr. Huber stated that the public hearing had been scheduled for this evening to consider the application of Mr' Mike Perrault for a special use permit and variance involving a home occupation. The property in question is zoned agricultural, and is approximately 1'16 acres in size. The site is generally identified as 17803 Henna Avenue North, and is located in the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 3, T31N, R21W, Washington County, Minnesota. The home occupation issue involves only a request to store band equipment in the proposed storage building, and use his home telephone for answering questions involving his entertainment activities. The variance requested would allow Mr. Perrault to construct his storage building within 8' of the north property line (20' required), and within 27' of the road right-of-way (40' required). The Hugo City Council did grant a similar variance request to Mr. Perrault in 1983 allowing the 3 -car garage to be constructed within 27' of the road right-of-way (see enclosed mjnutes). Mr. Perrault has assured the city, in his narrative letter, that all activities on site will be limited to those requested in his application. With regard to Mr. Perrault's variance request, he states that because of the location of the existing, personal workshop, it would be very difficult to attach the storage building in an alternate location without cutting down some trees and locating the storage building farther from the road than is maintainable and usable for the purposes intended. It should be noted that the existing personal workshop identified on the site plan is currently located closer to the property line than required by ordinance. We would suggest, however, that Mr. Perrault consider locating the proposed storage building no closer to the property line than the existing personal workshop. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the home occupation, we would recommend that said approval be subject to special conditions. Mr. Perreault stated he has an office in Roseville for his entertainment business and only the band equipment would be stored at his home with an occassional phone call from potential clients. Mr. Perreault stated that his property had been surveyed and the proposed building location staked by the contractor to assure the setbacks requested would be correct. The distance was measured from the existing center line of the road. The building would be similar in appearance to the home and would not be a pole barn. Mr. Perreault stated that he has two drainfields located in the northeast corner and southeast corner of his lot which prohibits him from locating the storage building behind the home. Mr. Perreault noted that there are currently three rows of pine trees along the north property line. Two rows of trees would have to be removed but one would remain.