03-18-2002 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I /#2333 - Home Occupations March 4,2002 Page 3 Perhaps the most i'nportanl difl'erence between a L'cense and a CUP is that a the CUP tends to grant a long-term right to a property, rather than a short term right to the current property owner. Both can be revoked, but the standards for rev ocation of a CUP are higher, and this means that the original approval conditions for a Home Occupation CUP should clearly specify the City’s right to review, add more conditions, or even revoke the CUP if violations are found or if the neighborhood impacts arc greater than anticipated. ‘Grandfathering' Certain Existing Home Occupations Under current code, home occupation licenses are renewed annually. At each annual licensing review, the license could be denied if Council finds that the proposed home occupation does not meet the minimum standards established in the code. Council could issue a renewal license subject to conditions intended to make the home occupation ‘neighborhood-friendly ’ In general, however, no home occupation licenses are ’grandfatliercd’, they are all at risk on an annual basis. Planning Commission e.xpressed concern about the ability of certain existing home occupations to continue in operation even though they may not meet the new criteria to be established for home occupations; specifically, whether certain existing home occupations would now become ‘prohibited’ by definition. One concern was the number of employees, another was regarding vehicle storage, a third had to do with whether an operation was considered a ‘dispatch center ’. The draft ordinance includes language requiring existing home occupations to become confonning within one year. From a legal perspective, this might be construed as an ’amortization of use’, which the statutes prohibit (sec Section 462.357, Subd. Ic. attached as Exhibit B). although there may be few if any existing confonning home occupations which become non-confonning due solely to the code change. I here are a nutnber of different categories of home occupations and or non- conforming uses that need to be considered; I lome occupations which don ’t conibnn to the existing code but have been annually licensed for a number of years (examples: All-Star Electric, Norum Law Office). If any of these have been in existence since prior to 1967, they might be considered as “leg.illy nonconforming ” and amortization could be a problem. Even if they started after 1967, the fact that the City has licensed them despite their non-conformities is also a potential barrier to amortization. 2)Home occupations which don ’t confonn to the existing code and have not been licensed but should have at least been required to apply for licenses (example: Heliotrope Gardens). This one known example is worthy of separate discussion due to its history. Heliotrope was granted a CUP in 1990 for constructing i^ardens and a greenhouse, as well as a variance to allow employee paiking on the .-•ite (must be inside building) but not allow ing employees to work on the site. Heliotrope was last licensed in 1994. The 1995 license was apparently not processed because there were