06-21-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Planning Commission June 21, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 10 Planning Associate Ericson stated there are Code requirements pertaining to Home Occupations, and the City has historically allowed people to work out of their home, so long as they meet certain conditions. He explained that such a venture must not create a nuisance or generate traffic, no outdoor storage is permitted, no employees can come to the premises to work, and there are other similar restrictions. He advised that some cities do not allow for Home Occupations in a garage or accessory structures, however, Mounds View does not make that distinction at this point. He pointed out that if the City allows residents free reign over 1,400 square feet of accessory space to do with as they will, they may desire to institute a requirement that the space not be utilized as a business, however, they might wish to consider if they would desire to prevent someone from setting up a woodshop to make decorative wood carvings. He indicated the City has not received many complaints with regard to this at this point, and therefore, staff was not extremely concerned. Commissioner Johnson stated he believed the City’s Nuisance Code effectively addresses this issue at present. Commissioner Thomas indicated she would be very uncomfortable with creating further regulations in this regard, simply for the sake of those property owners who make small crafts and so forth. She stated these types of projects are typically done in accessory buildings, as opposed to inside the home. Commissioner Johnson stated that whether these pursuits related to small crafts or computer repair, they would not be a significant concern. He pointed out that in the past, the trend was more toward auto repair and restoration, however this was no longer commonplace. Chairperson Peterson commented that in light of the economy, fewer teenagers are working on their vehicles, as they can probably afford better cars and there is less need to learn how to repair them. He stated he believed that the Conditional Use Permit was necessary at the upper limit of the garage requirements, particularly if the definition of a garage is expanded and a secondary structure could be utilized in the same manner. He advised that there were issues with regard to expansion of the preexisting structure, as well as the appropriate threshold. Planning Associate Ericson inquired if Chairperson Peterson would be uncomfortable allowing 1,400 square feet accessory storage space without any restrictions. Chairperson Peterson stated he would be, adding that up to a certain point, those property owners who do not have a garage, or would like to replace their existing garage with a larger garage should be allowed to obtain their building permit and proceed, however, beyond this, there is still a point at which review is necessary. Commissioner Hegland requested clarification regarding what the City would desire to control beyond this point. Chairperson Peterson stated these would be the same issues that the current Code safeguards against.