Laserfiche WebLink
the biggest issue she has with Staff's proposal is it leaves a great deal of subjectivity to the <br />granting authority. She indicated you cannot read the ordinance and know what can or cannot be <br />done. She stated she pulled some wording from the Brainerd business districts ordinance, not <br />from the Home Occupancy ordinance. She indicated her client has received inquiries from a <br />person with a one-man shop that wants to do some classic car restoration. She stated they have <br />had inquiries from the trade industry, such as a dry wall business that wants to store their trucks <br />overnight and pull out in the morning. She noted they are not talking about three acres here, Mr. <br />Menard has 10 acres. She indicated this property is not suitable for high density housing, and he <br />has had no interest for that use in four years. She is trying to create a specific ordinance to <br />address this area and wanted to add some specificity to the code. She quoted a case in <br />Minneapolis that ruled you can delegate some authority but cannot make the code so vague it <br />cannot be applied to specific circumstances. She feels that Staff's version allows too much <br />discretion, and she wanted some certainty that could be granted to potential land users. She <br />agrees there may be room to trim some portions out but she wanted to present this to the <br />Commission. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt stated there was a fundamental difference between what the current ordinance <br />provides and Ms. Moreland's proposal. He indicated the Home Occupancy ordinance is not <br />really suitable to address Mr. Menard's property. He stated the problem he has with the proposal <br />is it limits the ordinance to five acres or more outside the MUSA. He agreed the proposal would <br />get the job done for the applicant but it would make a mess of the city. <br /> <br />Ms. Moreland stated she is only addressing home occupations in permissible accessory buildings <br />on large lots. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt indicated in May it was okay to allow home occupations on contiguous lots <br />with specific requirements. He believes the proposed ordinance is very cumbersome and hard to <br />enforce. <br /> <br />Mr. Moreland stated she can eliminate that part or change it, but she was trying to give some <br />specificity to the language. She indicated the ordinance said you cannot have undue traffic, but <br />some guidelines were needed so someone could determine what 'undue' meant. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald stated Staff structured their proposal in more general terms, but if you <br />look back at Home Occupations the Commission has approved, the detail is provided in the <br />Findings of Fact since they can be different depending on the situation. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer asked what Ms. Moreland's opinion is of Staff's proposal. He stated it has <br />details of the number of allowable employees, and he asked if the attorney and Mr. Menard could <br />live with that, and if not, why. He indicated as an example, Staff's proposal says four maximum <br />employees, and Ms. Moreland's proposal says ten, which in his opinion makes it a business. He <br />added the sign request also makes it a business, not a home occupation, which makes the <br />Commission's point that these types of requests cross the line from Home Occupations. <br /> <br />Planning Commission/July 10, 2003 <br /> Page 4 of 21 <br /> <br /> <br />