Laserfiche WebLink
2. There shall be no outside display of merchandise. <br /> 3. There shall routinely be no more than two patrons on site at any one time. <br /> Facilities to accommodate more than two patrons shall not be constructed. <br /> 4. The applicant is encouraged to incubate and grow a successful home-based <br /> business with the understanding that, if it is necessary to expand in the future to <br /> accommodate additional walk-in patronage, the operation will need to be <br /> relocated to a commercial area. <br /> Mr. Hallan stated he will abstain from the vote and that he had been contacted by a <br /> neighbor for clarification between a home occupation and a commercial basis. Mr. <br /> Burshe stated that the primary use would need to be residential and the business <br /> secondary. This intended use would fit the Home Occupation definition. <br /> Mr. Hallan further stated that the Staff Report and Finding of Fact Number 4 refer to <br /> attached garages. Neither of the garages is attached to the principal structure. They are <br /> both stand alone. Staff was directed to make that change to Finding of Fact Number 4. <br /> When Ms. Painter asked about the 6' allowable signage, Mr. Burshe stated that both sides <br /> of the sign are counted. <br /> All members voted"aye". Motion carried. Mr. Hallan abstained. <br /> ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA: None <br /> OPEN FORUM: None. <br /> NEW BUSINESS: <br /> a. Review of Non-Conforming Structure Ordinance <br /> The Planning Commission discussed whether the Ordinance should be amended so the <br /> homeowner knows there is structural integrity of the existing structure, prior to applying <br /> for a 50% addition. They further discussed the possibility of allowing a 50%addition, <br /> then the homeowner demolishing the existing structure to build new at a later date. The <br /> Ordinance could be amended or this could become a Conditional Use Permit. <br /> Staff was directed to bring back recommendations next month. <br /> b. Violation Letters,Discussion <br /> Staff explained the Planning Commission had been asked to review the violation letter <br /> format as it may be too harsh. The Planning Commission suggested eliminating the <br /> reference to the City Code and the potential violation language. The letters could be <br /> nicer for first time offenders. Staff was directed to bring back an example next month. <br /> MINUTES 3 <br /> Pequot Lakes Planning Commission <br /> October 20, 2011 <br />