Laserfiche WebLink
I Wayzata <br />m 1377 approved <br />r produce market. <br />' 1983. Per <br />lercial use of <br />:y must revert <br />ise permit of <br />> and the <br />i a new <br />rpes of items/ <br />.se sold by <br />msification <br />ia does not <br />ind decorative <br />«'■ r.: * • - * • •• - i <br />#826 - Lowell Schaper & Glenn Nellist <br />April 13, 1984 <br />Page 2 <br />Items 2 & 3 - no problem with removal of canopy - indeed, it will provide <br />more area between road and structure. Once again with signage, there <br />is no clear direction from code for residential property used as commercial. <br />Signage must be limited and not create traffic hazards; limit signage to <br />specific area allowance and placement should be reviewed by staff. I <br />see no problem with two-sided sign on building or with traffic directional <br />sign; staff must have more information on sign to be attached to split-rail <br />fence. <br />Item 4 - If new entrance is approved, the old one must be closed-off. This <br />modification does not appear as an intensification of use but more as a <br />move to create better flow and circulation within structure. <br />Item 5 - The old porch was enclosed and made part of the interior commercial <br />use. I see no problem since the front canopy area used for seasonal sales <br />will be removed with greater outdoor sales concentration on the east side <br />of structure. <br />Item 6 - The major modification sought in this new use is the request to <br />removed the apartment and use the area for both storage and as a work area. <br />As the applicants relate, the past two operations never used the apartment <br />(Wisegarvers & Brokls). The Building Inspector never issued a Certificate <br />of Occupancy for the apartment. The applicants point out the following <br />draw-backs to the rental issue: <br />1. <br />2. <br />3. <br />4. <br />Not an attractive area for living quarters <br />A responsible agent would never want to live in such quarters <br />If persons had to be involved with the business, this would limit <br />available persons <br />Owners each live on and operate well established farms in the necurby <br />western suburbs and plan to share in the operation of the sales end of <br />their business <br />Item 7 - No problem with 3*s' split-rail fence as long as it is located on <br />property and not in County right of way. Fence ties in with overall <br />farmers market decor and would also identify the access to parking lot. <br />The 6' high privacy fence is allowed because it will satisfy all accessory <br />structure setbacks from lot lines and does not create safety hazards in <br />addition to defining the outdoor sales area of 20* X 25*. <br />Item 9 - No concern. <br />-A. <br />ir. <br />u: <br />V. <br />In <br />The real issue in this current review is the removal of the residential <br />unit. This was the major concern for Council in the review of the Wisegarver <br />application where the old apartment was replaced with storage, employee <br />restrooms, and lunchroom. Council insisted that the last vestige of <br />residential use remain because the apartment would limit the intensification <br />of commercial use of the residential property and formally identify the <br />primary use of the property as residential. <br />#826 - Lowel <br />April 13, 19 <br />Page 3 <br />The applicar <br />with landscc <br />area, merely <br />their posit; <br />plan of the <br />any interio; <br />Planning Coi <br />for non-con <br />acting on c <br />Issues for <br />1.How do <br />conditi <br />5 (H) <br />2. Are all <br />accepta <br />Staff views <br />to approval <br />do not resi; <br />decorative <br />exterior ui <br />the future <br />Are th< <br />valid? <br />If app: <br />use of <br />an int< <br />change <br />septic <br />remain