Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br /> MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,February 19,2002 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> (#2333 Proposed Zoning Code Amendment—Home Occupations,Continued) <br /> Kluth stated he is in favor of the draft ordinance,but would like to see some language included in the <br /> ordinance saying that if a home occupation fails these standards, they need to apply for a conditional use <br /> permit. <br /> Gaffron stated anytime a conditional use is listed in City Code, there should be enough standards <br /> attached to it so if those standards cannot be met, the Council can approve some conditions specific to <br /> one particular home occupation. Gaffron commented Staff would like the City Attorney to review that <br /> language prior to it being approved. <br /> Gaffron stated a third option could also be to broaden what home occupations would be allowed but to <br /> incorporate stricter restrictions on the number of employees, et cetera. <br /> Kluth stated the conditional use permit language could be included later. Kluth stated the intent of the <br /> ordinance is to protect the neighborhood but still allow some businesses to be run out of the home. <br /> Hawn stated the intent of the ordinance is also to allow the neighbors some recourse in the event a <br /> problem does develop. Hawn indicated she personally is happy with the restrictions contained in the <br /> ordinance,but that if other members of the Planning Commission would like to see stricter restrictions, <br /> then perhaps this should be discussed further. <br /> Gaffron noted he has incorporated three questions into the ordinance, with the first question being found <br /> under Item J. Item J states, "no equipment,machinery, or materials other than of a type normally found <br /> in or compatible with a dwelling unit shall be allowed." The question asks, "will this in effect prohibit <br /> operation of a landscape service or contractor with a backhoe or dump truck?" Gaffron stated that type <br /> of equipment generally is not associated with a dwelling use and there is a potential that some conflicts <br /> could arise. <br /> Kluth stated that also depends on how much land the person owns as well as the amount of screening <br /> that is provided. <br /> Hawn suggested adding the words, "to be parked outside",noting there are some larger properties where <br /> those types of businesses do exist. <br /> Rahn inquired whether the City requires that this type of equipment or vehicles be parked inside <br /> regardless of size. <br /> Gaffron stated the City does have an exterior storage ordinance that requires specific vehicles to be <br /> stored inside. Gaffron stated Items G and H deal with outdoor storage and parking. <br /> Mabusth inquired whether the existing home occupations would be grandfathered,noting there are one <br /> or two landscaping businesses that currently exist in Orono that would not be able to comply with this <br /> ordinance. <br /> Kluth inquired if they have an existing license currently, whether they would be grandfathered in. <br /> PAGE 5 <br />