Minutes - 2000/11/13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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