Laserfiche WebLink
western parcel, most of the interested buyers are industrial or commercial users. She advised that <br />since the July 2002 adoption of the new residential districts, the City is no longer permitted to <br />process conditional use permits for anything except religious institutions, commercial horse <br />boarding, private dog kennels, commercial dog kennels, increase in accessory structure <br />height/size, cemeteries, and essential service facilities. She stated that in an attempt to address <br />Mr. Menard's situation, he is requesting that the City amend Chapter 9 to include provisions for <br />business operations to be permitted in an accessory structure. She indicated the applicant is <br />requesting that the City implement the following provisions into the Home Occupation section of <br />City Code: <br /> 1. Allow for businesses to be operated in accessory structures if the property is located <br /> outside the MUSA and over 5 acres in size. <br /> 2. Allow 1 non-related employee if the property is accessed.by a non-improved (gravel) <br /> street, 2 non-related employees if the property is accessed by a bituminous street, and 1 <br /> additional employee per acre for a maximum of 10 if the property is accessed by a County <br /> Road. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald advised that staff has researched home occupation ordinances from <br />surronnding cities and is recommending the Planning Commission consider the proposed Home <br />Occupation Ordinance, which would consist of three main subdivisions: <br /> 1. Home Occupations Exempt from Permit Requirements <br /> 2. Principal Dwelling Home Occupations <br /> 3. Accessory Structure Home Occupations <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald reviewed the differences between Mr. Menard's proposal and the <br />proposal recommended by staff. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued. <br /> <br />Commissioner Reeve indicated according to the report, some businesses would not be allowed. <br />He asked where those came from. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Watd indicated they followed Coon Rapids' guidelines. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt indicated they would not want fumes, noise, and unnecessary traffic. He asked <br />what the duration of the permit would be. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald indicated it is tied to the resident, not the land. <br /> <br />Citizen Input <br /> <br />Ms. Mater Moreland, Nash and Lodge, representing Mr. Menard, presented aerial photos. She <br />advised there are ten acre parcels and greater in the area, with a lot of home occupations. She <br />stated it is difficult to market property in this area, as developers look and they are concerned <br />about the layout, since it is not really suitable for high density construction. She noted their <br />petition is in the packet, and Mr. Menard's proposal is more restrictive than staff's in many ways. <br /> <br />P14 <br /> <br />Planning Coinmission/May 1, 2003 <br /> Page 10 of 17 <br /> <br /> <br />