Laserfiche WebLink
City Attorney Knaak stated that a home occupation is a license that goes with an individual and <br />therefore perhaps you would not want to categorize that as an interim use. He believed that they <br />would be better off reviewing that as a regulatory function and occupational license which in this <br />instance would be operating from a home. <br />Planning Manager Larson commented that they could strike the word "permit" and simply state <br />interim use. <br />Councilmember Woestehoff stated that the term also calls that to be a permit. He asked if the City <br />Council held a worksession on home occupations but did not recall that occurring. <br />Planning Manager Larson confirmed that worksession was held but Councilmember Woestehoff <br />was not in attendance. <br />Acting Chairperson Bauer suggested just calling it a Home Occupation Permit and not linking it <br />to an IUP. <br />Planning Manager Larson confirmed that staff would clean up that language. <br />Councilmember Woestehoff asked if a Home Occupation Permit would still require a public <br />hearing. <br />Planning Manager Larson confirmed that staff was not proposing to change the process. <br />Commissioner Van Scoy commented that he really likes the tables that were added but noted a <br />typo that he discovered. <br />Planning Manager Larson confirmed that staff would make that change. <br />Commissioner Heineman asked if 167th is an arterial road and whether the language for location <br />of churches would need to be amended to allow Pathways to be conforming. <br />Planning Manager Larson provided additional clarification on the roadway definition. He noted <br />that on the land use map proposed, that parcel would be designated as institutional and therefore <br />the church would be allowed regardless of the roadway. <br />Commissioner Van Scoy referenced parking standards within the table shown on page 83 of the <br />packet and asked where medical and dental would fall on the table. <br />Planning Manager Larson replied that many of the uses that were removed from the table tend to <br />not conform to general standards for parking. He stated that for the uses not listed in the table <br />there is a section above that requiring a parking justification report that would dictate parking <br />needs based on the employees, guests, and visitors. <br />Commissioner Van Scoy commented that COR 5 was eliminated and asked why. <br />Planning Commission/ July 27, 2023 <br />Page 7 of 18 <br />