Laserfiche WebLink
Community D~velopment Director Frolik noted that she would include language in the ordinance <br />that states thai the permit will be processed and terminated as a conditional use permit under <br />Home Occupahons. <br /> <br />Councilmemb~r Kurak inquired as to why 10 acres was included for certain business operations <br />rather than five acres. <br /> <br />Community D~velopment Director Frolik explained that accessory structure home occupations <br />are allowed on three acres, but the additional uses are more intensive and should be done on <br />larger parcels. ' <br /> <br />Councilmemb~r Kurak inquired if that was because of noise, traffic, etc. <br /> <br />Community D;vel0pment Director Frolik replied yes. <br /> <br />Councilmemb~ Kurak inquired if the intent of the ordinance was to try and accommodate <br />businesses outside of their home. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Frolik replied yes. <br /> <br />Councilmemb~r Kurak inquired if a property owner owns two adjoining parcels with separate pin <br />numbers what ~Would stop the property owner from having the properties combined with-one pin <br />number wheni requesting a home occupation permit so there is no longer a. problem with <br />operating a bu}iness on a parcel with a home on it. <br /> <br />Community D~velopment Director Frolik replied that that is something the City could require. <br />She explainedl that a property owner can do a lot combination at the County where two PID <br />numbers are cbmbined. The "catch all" is that the County will not let them separate the parcels <br />again unless tl~e City would authorize the split. <br /> <br />Councilmemb*r Kurak stated that she not sure how they would address the situation where there <br />are two properties across the road from one another. <br /> [. <br /> <br />Community D,evelopment Director~Frolik replied that the property owner can still requested that <br />the property numbers be combined because the property lines are not removed. - <br /> <br />Councilmemb~ Kurak stated that she has a problem with a piece of proPerty with no home on it <br />being called ai home occupation business. If there is no home on the parcel it is not a home <br />occupation. She requested that staffreview ~he two sections pertaining to that isSue.. <br /> <br />Community D~velopment Director Frolik explained that she discussed this issue at length with <br />Councilmemb~r Kurak. During the meeting, Councilmember Kurak recommended that the <br />following sentence in Subd..4a be eliminated: "The City Council may also review requests for an <br />Accessory StrCcture Home Occupation for pre-existing situations where an accessory structure is <br />located on a pfircel that does not contain a principal dwelling if such situation existed prior to the <br />adoption of th{s ordinance.", that the following sentence in Subd. 4fbe eliminated: "In the event <br />a pre-existingI accessory structure is located on a parcel that does not contain a principal <br />dwelling, eml~loyees shall be limited to the owner of the subject property and the equivalent <br /> <br />City Council/November 25, 2003 <br /> Page 11 of 28 <br /> <br />P31 <br /> <br /> <br />