Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council November 13, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 7 <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Marty. To Waive the Reading and Approve the Introduction of <br />Ordinance No. 675, an Ordinance Rezoning the Mermaid Parcels from B-3 Highway Business to <br />PUD Planned Unit Development. <br /> <br /> Ayes – 4 Nays – 0 Motion carried. <br /> <br />D. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 672, an Ordinance Amending <br />Chapter 1106 of the Zoning Code Pertaining to Home Occupations; Special <br />Planning Case SP-083-00. <br /> <br />This ordinance has been drafted to clean up Section 1106.03 of the Mounds View Zoning Code <br />pertaining to Home Based Businesses. The Planning Commission reviewed this ordinance at its <br />last two meetings, adopting Resolution 641-00 on November 1, 2000, which recommends <br />approval of the ordinance. <br /> <br />There are two housekeeping changes to the ordinance and two changes of substance. The first <br />change of substance relates to allowable signage. The Code currently allows for one-square foot <br />of signage, which was felt to be too restrictive. This has been increased to four square feet, <br />placement of which can occur either on the house or garage, or within five feet of a street right of <br />way. The other change contemplated by this ordinance is that the limitation of no more than two <br />cars for either on or off street parking has been changed to no more than two cars for on street <br />parking, dropping the off street limitation. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission also considered an amendment to the Code which would have added <br />an item “h” to the ordinance, stating that home businesses involving automotive sales, service or <br />repair would be expressly prohibited. In the end, the Planning Commission felt this was too <br />broad a restriction and that the City’s Nuisance Codes would address most automotive uses so <br />the amendment was deleted from the ordinance. <br /> <br />Staff has been in contact with a resident of the City who operates a telemarketing business from <br />within his home. According to the ordinance as it is drafted, the business is in violation due to <br />the fact that there are employees on the site that do not live at the residence. Given the <br />technological age we are now living in and the growing numbers of telecommuters and <br />computer-based home businesses, staff is curious to know the Council’s thoughts on revising the <br />ordinance beyond that already contemplated to allow for employees who are not residents of a <br />property. Staff cautioned that any possible change be carefully considered as to the potential <br />impact to the immediate neighbors and neighborhoods in general. The City is not opposed to <br />home-based businesses in general nor is it opposed to residents earning a living from within their <br />homes. The concern is with the potential impacts to the neighbors who may not be comfortable <br />living next to a thriving home-based business with employees coming and going and the related <br />parking and activity issues. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin indicated he was approached by Planning Commissioner Johnson and inquired <br />if Mr. Johnson would be willing to address Council to express his concerns regarding Ordinance <br />672.