Laserfiche WebLink
with the City's Building Division before the structure would be approved for operations related to the Home <br />Occupation. City Code Section 117-351 (Home Occupations) states that home occupations are permitted in <br />detached accessory buildings as long as there is at least 400 square feet of accessory building space <br />reserved/maintained for the primary residential garage. There is an attached garage on the Subject Property that <br />satisfies this requirement. <br />Exterior Evidence/Vehicle Trips <br />City Code Section 117-351 (Home Occupations) states that there shall not be any exterior evidence of said home <br />occupation such as displays, exterior storage of home occupation equipment and vehicles, materials, supplies, <br />inventory or merchandise, except for one motor vehicle affiliated with the home occupation may be stored or <br />parked outside on the site of the home occupation. Section 117-351 also states that the Home Occupation cannot <br />generate excessive vehicular traffic, which is defined as eight (8) or more round trips in a single day and not more <br />than one (1) customer at a single time. The Applicant has not proposed any exterior evidence for their expansion. <br />Although, the Permit to Carry classes will generate a larger number of vehicle trips in a single day and will include <br />more than one (1) customer at a time. <br />Public Safety <br />The City of Ramsey Police Chief has reviewed the proposed business expansion and has no objections. His <br />comments, which are in the form of an email dated February 8, 2022, are attached to this case. <br />Resident Comments <br />A public notice was sent to surrounding properties on Wednesday, February 9th - notifying owners up to 350 feet <br />from the Subject Property regarding their request. Since then, the City has received multiple inquiries that were <br />tracked below, each number signifying a different caller: <br />1. Phone call on Friday, February 11 in support of the request <br />2. Phone call on Friday, February 11 against the request <br />3. Phone call on Monday, February 14 against the request <br />. An additional call from this same caller on Tuesday, February 15 stating the Applicant continues to <br />operate beyond their allowed 2019 HOP with multiple vehicles entering and leaving the property <br />throughout the day. <br />4. Voicemail received on Wednesday, February 16 inquiring about the request, Staff returned the call and left a <br />message advising a return call to discuss more. <br />5. Phone call with a neighboring resident on February 17 stating their opposition of the request and stating they <br />will be attending the meeting. <br />6. Voicemail received on Thursday, February 17 against the request. Staff returned the call and discussed the <br />request with them. <br />Alternatives <br />Alternative # 1: Recommend the City Council deny the requested Amended Home Occupation Permit. This matter <br />was originally brought to the City's attention through the code enforcement program and concerns have been raised <br />related to the severity of the expansion and public safety aspects. City Staff support this alternative. <br />Alternative #2: Recommend the City Council approve an Amended Home Occupation Permit. This would officially <br />authorize the expanded business operations already occurring on the Subject Property. Furthermore, it would <br />eliminate a code enforcement case and place conditions on the operations of the business when the accessory <br />structure is completed. The Planning Commission may choose to recommend specific conditions as well. Potential <br />conditions are identified under the motion section and may be amended as needed. <br />Funding Source: <br />The Applicant is responsible for all costs related to this request. <br />Recommendation: <br />