Laserfiche WebLink
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Home Occupation Ordinance on September 4, <br />2003. Staff made one additional change fi.om the ordinance the Planning Commission reviewed. <br />Since the ordinance allows employees for businesses operating fi.om an accessory structure, staff <br />thought Council may want to review whether home occupations that operate within the principal <br />dwelling should have the ability to employ 1 or 2 non-occupant employees. <br /> <br />Lonny Menard Situation: <br /> <br />The enclosed Home Occupation Ordinance will allow the City Council the ability to review a <br />Home Occupation Permit to operate a business from an accessory structure and provides some <br />performance standards. The ordinance further allows the City Council to consider approving a <br />business operation in existing lawful non-conforming accessory structures that do not have a <br />residential dwelling on the property. These two provisions will allow Mr. Menard the ability to <br />inform potential commercial buyers that they can apply for a Home Occupation Permit to operate <br />their business and Mr. Menard will be able to inform people inquiring about the property what uses <br />will and will not be considered on his 10 acre parcel. <br /> <br />It should also be noted that Mr. Menard is requesting reimbursement to the $400 Zoning <br />Amendment application fee. It is his opinion that since Staff wanted to have a discuss with the City <br />Council and Planning Commission about the Home Occupation Permit that he should not bear the <br />cost. Staffwould recommend a cost sharing approach to his situation. <br /> <br />Attachments: <br /> <br />Proposed Home Occupation Ordinance <br /> <br />Action Statement: <br /> <br />Direct ~ffto make any applicable revisions to the Home Occupation Ordinance. <br /> <br />CCWS: 11.03.03 <br /> <br /> · Page 2 <br /> <br />-20- <br /> <br /> <br />