Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 23, 2014 <br />*AWARDING 2014 CRACK SEALING QUOTE AS <br />RECOMMENDED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS SUPERINTENDENT; <br />*ACCEPTING VETERANS MEMORIAL DONATIONS THAT HAVE <br />BEEN MADE TO DATE PER THE SCHEDULE INCLUDED IN THE <br />AGENDA PACKET; <br />*APPROVING THE COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR THE <br />VIKING DRIVE -RICE STREET PROPERTY SALE AS <br />RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND <br />AUTHORIZING THE ACTING MAYOR AND CITY <br />ADMINISTRATOR TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY; <br />*APPROVING WATER TOWER VALVE REPLACEMENT AND NEW <br />HYDRANT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY ENGINEER <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by McGraw. <br />Ayes (4). <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />HOME The City Planner noted that based on discussion of a recent request for a <br />OCCUPATION Special Use Permit (SUP) for a home occupation having one employee, <br />ORDINANCE Council directed review of the Home Occupation Ordinance to determine <br />whether the Ordinance needed some modification. In reviewing the SUP <br />requested recently, it was indicated that many cities do not require a SUP <br />for a home occupation with one employee. The Planner indicated that it <br />was noted at the Planning Commission meeting that SUP requests for <br />home occupations are very infrequent. The Commission felt requiring the <br />SUP provided a good review of the circumstances specific to the home <br />occupation. As a result, the Planning Commission did not feel it necessary <br />to amend the Home Occupation Ordinance. <br />Keis stated that his only concern was that the applicant must prove <br />unusual or unique conditions or need for non-residential assistance in <br />order to warrant the SUP. The City Planner indicated that this standard is <br />not as difficult to meet as the standards for granting a Variance, as an <br />example. The City has much more flexibility in evaluating unique <br />conditions that would warrant a SUP for a home occupation. Keis asked if <br />a home occupation grew to the point that an employee was needed, if that <br />was enough justification for a SUP. The Planner stated that a growing <br />business would not meet the condition of having an unusual or unique <br />condition. <br />11 <br />