06-13-2002 Planning Comm. Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 13, 2002 The City Planner replied that people can own more than one house. however, the Zoning Ordinance regulates the use of the property. The primary use of a house must be residential. Goff stated that he is considering moving his business to his Dianna Lane address rather than pursue the issue of operation of the business from 865 Aspen Circle. The City Planner noted that home occupations are allowed under certain restrictions and provided that they are the accessory use of the property and not the primary use. Knudsen pointed out that the location of the home occupation to a Dianna Lane address is a separate issue that will require a separate public hearing. Knudsen indicated that to continue to run the business from 865 Aspen Circle is a problem given that the house is not a residence. Goff reported that his company built the houses on Aspen Circle and have operated their business from 865 Aspen Circle since 1989. Keis asked if GofTlived in the home at any time. GotT'replied that he spends many days per week at the house. I-te did note, however, that his Dianna Lane house is homesteaded while the Aspen Circle house is non-homestead. Goff reported on the nature of the business itself noting that it involves the use of the telephone, he and his wife are the only employees, there are no customers coming to the house, there are no parking issues. Knudsen pointed out that the Planning Commission must consider precedent and noted that if Goth is given the right to conduct a business as a primary use fi'otro a residential house, others will want the same right. Goff suggested that the nature of the business and the fact that there is no impact on the neighborhood should be considered an unusual or unique condition that would warrant allowing the business to remain. 'The City Planner noted that the reference to unusual or unique circumstances in the Ordinance relates to whether there can be employees that assist in the operation of a home occupation. The City Planner explained that the purpose of the requirement Chat a home occupation be an accessory use of a residential property is to discourage unfair competition with legitimate business sites. The Planner noted that commercial buildings are subject to more sU'ingent building codes, higher property taxes, etc. To allow the primary use of a residential home to be a business could be argued as circumventing those responsibilities. Mr. Roycraft recommended the denial of the Special Use Permit to allow a home occupation at 865 Aspen Circle based on the recommendations of -2-