My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1984-01-10
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Minutes - City Council
>
Minutes 1984
>
1984-01-10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2005 4:59:05 AM
Creation date
8/11/2005 1:13:55 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Mi nutes <br />January 10, 1984 <br /> <br />Harcus feels that the major rezoning has received a lot <br />of publicity through the newspapers. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes. Motion Carried <br /> <br />City Planner reviewed the staff report concerning the <br />zoning code amendment regarding the Home Occupation <br />Ordinance. This amendment specifically defines require- <br />ments for home occupations. <br /> <br />Harcus indicated that the present ordinance is difficult <br />to enforce consistently and these changes will help the <br />staff. <br /> <br />Janecek asked how this amended ordinance would affect a <br />home occupation, such as Amway, where there could be a <br />heavy amount of traffic. City Planner responded that in <br />that type of business, the primary goal was to get others <br />to sell and that whatever type of traffic that might <br />generate would be incidental to the occupation. <br /> <br />City Planner mentioned that there was no listing of pro- <br />hibited uses. The Planning Commission attempted to <br />allow a home occupation to exist as long as it retained <br />the character of a residential neighborhood and wouldn't <br />affect anyone else. <br /> <br />Blomquist addressed the limit of employees; perhaps a <br />clerical employee would be needed from time to time. <br /> <br />City Planner replied that historical enforcement is by <br />complaints of neighboring residents. <br /> <br />Benke suggested that the limit of employees may be some- <br />thing that should be looked at before the next reading. <br /> <br />Blomquist would prefer to see the restriction of employees <br />removed. <br /> <br />Schmidt has no problem with family businesses if it's SOlely <br />benefiting the people residing on the premises and he <br />could accept the tolerance of having cars coming into a <br />neighborhood if it benefits the family. Schmidt doesn't <br />see how staff and police can limit/control the traffic <br />in a neighborhood. <br /> <br />Blomquist stated we're favoring large family units and <br />hurting small family units and it would be hard to control <br />the situation by IItraffic." <br /> <br />Schmidt suggested using the tenn "administrative" with <br />regard to non-family employees and not, perhaps, lIoperat- <br />ingll employees. <br /> <br />,',' ""~>:=I~:<,~:'<>i,~~',.: "<'~~~'':'<~.dt.jfe.'M,:::t':, ';~:i',;;. ~>'i <br /> <br />. ;.,- -,~';':", ",~';:"",-:,,,,, :~:';':';'';;I'':''~',~~:~~~;'l1'~.\:''''~~I~'1'/f'~:~l<\!t': "-I'\"":"~", "i'::\,\''';~' <br /> <br />Page Seven <br /> <br />Zoning Code <br />Amendment, Home <br />Occupation <br />Ordinance <br />Report #84-9 <br /> <br />"', itt.',,; '~: <br /> <br />",.,~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.