07-10-2014 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 10, 2014 AMENDMENT The City Planner reported that Pallet Services has submitted in writing TO PUD — their withdrawal of their application to Amendment the PUD Permit for 3213 permanent outdoor storage of construction materials at 3213 Country COUNTRY Drive. Therefore, no action is required of the Planning Commission. DRIVE — PALLET SERVICES HOME The City Planner noted that in the June planning cycle consideration OCCUPATION was given for a Special Use Permit for a home occupation for a person ORDINANCE operating a home-based office with one non-resident employee. The Planner noted that there are two classes of home occupations, those that are permitted by right and those requiring a Special Use Permit. The Planner indicated that the purpose of the Home Occupation Ordinance is to accommodate limited home-based activities without disruption to the residential character of the neighborhood. Another purpose is to provide a general protection for the City's businesses that take on the additional expenses of locating in commercial districts. The Planner indicated that in reviewing the home occupation request in June, there was discussion that some cities allow a home occupation to have one non-resident employee without requiring the Special Use Permit process. As a result, there was discussion that the City should review its Home Occupation Ordinance to determine if modifications were needed. The Planner reported that relative to the issue of the SUP for home occupations with non-resident employees, depending on the nature of the business, a non-resident employee could raise issues of concern. He also noted that the requests the City has received for SUPs for home occupations are rare, but have been dealt with well and the City has a good track record with these home occupations. Therefore, the Planner felt that no modifications to the ordinance were needed. Fischer pointed out the issues of whether a home occupation competes with brick and mortar businesses resulting in a hardship for the traditional business as well as whether a home occupation can be conducted within the confines of the home. Fischer felt that the provision relative to needing some level of hardship in order to justify the home occupation was lacking a little. Fischer indicated that given SUPs for home occupations are rarely requested, as well as the fact that the process provides neighbors with the opportunity to voice an opinion, he supported retaining the Home Occupation Ordinance as is. -6-