Laserfiche WebLink
#2333 Home Occupations <br />February 15, 2002 <br />Page 3 <br />Categories for regulatory control could similarly be established for dealing with uses that can’t or <br />don’t meet one or more standards but which can mitigate or eliminate the adverse neighborhood <br />impacts if operated subject to certain conditions. The options would include: <br />a. Require a CUP. The CUP entry in the Zoning Code would have to be written such <br />that the Council would have to find that the adverse impacts of the use can be <br />remedied by adherence to specified conditions, and clearly spell out Council’s <br />authority to review or revoke if the conditions are not met or if the conditions fail to <br />mitigate the adverse neighborhood impacts; OR <br />b. Instead of a CUP, require an annual license for such uses, if it’s important to review <br />the use on a regular ongoing basis; or a one-time license subject to review or <br />revocation only if the home occupation becomes a problem. <br />Procedural Status of Amendment <br />Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on this matter on November 19. There were no public <br />comments. You tabled this item to a work session, which was held on December 20. The result of <br />the work session was direction to staff to make a number of revisions to the draft approved by <br />Planning Commission in 1998. <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Rc-open the public hearing to sec if there arc any public comments. Review the draft ordinance and <br />discuss whether it accomplishes the Planning Commission’s intent, whether it leaves any loose ends <br />that should be tied up, whether it needs to be more or less restrictive in specific areas, and how it <br />impacts existing known home occupations. Discuss whether there should be different levels of <br />regulato.7 control. Direct staff to make any appropriate revisions, and either table for further re\ icw <br />or send it on to Council w ith a recommendation.