Request for a Home Occupation Permit to Operate an Auto Body Repair Business on the Property Located at 17441 Baugh St NW; Case of Lawrence and Paula Ferber

On April 11, 2011, the City received an application from Lawrence and Paula Ferber to operate an auto body repair business on the property located at 17441 Baugh St NW.

In accordance with State statute, Staff attempted to notify property owners within 350 feet of the subject property of the public hearing via Standard US Mail.  The Public Hearing was also published in the Anoka County Union, the City's official newsletter for public notices.

In March of 2011, the City received a complaint concerning the potential operation of an auto body repair business being operated at 17441 Baugh St NW. Upon initial inspection, no evidence of a business was seen from the road. However, an auto body repair business was found online that matched this address and thus, Staff sent a notice of violation to the property owner regarding home-based businesses.

The subject property is approximately ten (10) acres in size and is zoned R-1 Residential (Rural Developing).  There are two (2) detached accessory buildings on the property (behind the home) and the auto body repair business is currently being operated in the larger of the two detached accessory buildings.  The business operation consists of minor repairs to the bodies of motor vehicles, such as doors, fenders, bumpers etc, including painting.  The detached accessory building is equipped with a spray booth where the painting occurs.  The hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.  The applicant has stated that he does not have any employees and does no advertising; his business is strictly by referrals.

The detached accessory building is setback approximately 300 feet from Baugh St. and is screened partially by the home and a stand of evergreen trees.  The only exterior evidence of the business operation is a small, fenced enclosure where various parts are stored until they can be disposed of properly, which is situated within the evergreen trees and is virtually unnoticeable from the road and adjacent properties.

The property to south of the subject property is approximately nine (9) acres in size and the properties to the north are all approximately 1.30 acres or larger.  The nearest neighboring principal structure is approximately 275 feet from the detached accessory building housing the business operation.
 
City Code restricts the number of vehicle trips to two (2) vehicle trips per hour per standard eight (8) hour business day or sixteen (16) trips within a 24-hour period.  However, since the subject property is located on county road (CR 83), City Code allows for an increased rate of twenty-five percent (25%) or twenty (20) vehicle trips per 24-hour period.  According to the applicant, during his busiest weeks, he would not anticipate more than sixteen (16) vehicle trips per week, including deliveries, pick-ups, and clientele, clearly within the provisions of City Code.

The applicant has provided documentation verifying that the business operation complies with various federal requirements and that he has completed certain training requirements of the EPA with regard to spray painting.

All costs associated with reviewing the application are the responsibility of the Applicant.

Planning Staff has consulted with both the Building Official and Fire Marshal regarding this request.  The following factors were discussed and considered:

• Size of property (ten [10] acres)
• Screening
• Virtually no exterior evidence (other than the small, fenced enclosure)
• Relatively short duration remaining for the business operation (applicant has stated that he plans to retire in a couple years)
• Low level of intensity and frequency concerning actual repair and refinishing that occurs on the property
• Steps that the applicant has already taken, such as completion of EPA training requirements, documentation showing passing a paint arrestance filter test and use of a functional spray booth for painting.

Based on these factors, it is Staff's opinion that this business operation, in its current state, it appears that the use is not a nuisance to nor does it pose a safety concern for the surrounding properties.  Therefore, Staff would recommend approving the request for a home occupation permit, provided that there shall be no exterior evidence of the home occupation, including but not limited to, outdoor storage of vehicles being serviced.

Motion to recommend that City Council adopt Resolution #11-05-___ adopting Findings of Fact #____ relating to the Applicant’s request for a home occupation permit.

-and-

Motion to recommend that City Council adopt Resolution #11-05-___ to approve the request for a home occupation permit based on the findings of fact.