Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 3, 2023 4 <br /> <br />would fluctuate based on the size of a home or an accessory structure. She reported it was her <br />understanding the applicant does not need 1,500 square feet, but rather she was closer to needing <br />1,000 square feet of the exterior yard. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bjorklund commented on the issues that need to be considered if a home <br />occupation were allowed to use outside space. He anticipated a precedent could be set if this <br />request were approved. <br /> <br />Commissioner Mitchell reported this was a complex request and she believed it needed to be well <br />thought through before moving forward. <br /> <br />Commissioner Collins asked if this operation continued as a hobby, would the City have any <br />oversight over the operation. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Jagoe stated if this were a hobby with a rain garden, <br />plantings, and native beds, this would fall under the category of landscaping and this would not <br />trigger any additional review. <br /> <br />Commissioner Collins clarified that at a hobby level, this request would not be considered, but <br />because the applicant has proposed to operate a business, the zoning code amendment was <br />required. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Jagoe stated this was correct. She noted when the sale of <br />plants becomes transactional, the City views this as a home business. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund requested further information on how the City would address business <br />creep or business expansion. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Jagoe reported with the conditional use permit she laid out <br />the type of activities that could and could not occur on the property. She explained if a conditional <br />use permit was approved, it would remain with the property. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund questioned what type of enforcement would the City have in place to <br />address a business expansion concern. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Jagoe explained the City’s code enforcement was complaint <br />based. She indicated if the City were to receive a complaint, the City would investigate the property <br />to ensure the applicant was complying with the CUP prior to revocation. <br /> <br />Chair Vijums explained he was struggling with the fact the property could have an accessory <br />building and he questioned how this would impact the proposed business. <br /> <br />Commissioner Mitchell asked if this home occupation could be approved on a variance, without <br />requiring an amendment to City Code. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Jagoe stated variances cannot be granted to permit a use. <br /> <br />Commissioner Weber suggested rather than limiting the use within an accessory structure, the <br />City should limit the size of the accessory structure if being used for a home occupation. <br />