Laserfiche WebLink
Re: Gem Lake Home Occupations <br />On Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 4:54 PM Evan P. Monson <evan.manson(d)tkda.com> wrote: <br />Don, <br />I put together some information regarding home occupations in the attached PD,F. If you want <br />to discuss it more on Monday, let. me know. Apart from streamlining the definition; and figuring <br />out what should need a permit or:not, I think.you guys are on track already. <br />I have unfortunately not had a lot of time since returning from vacation: but hope this can help <br />guide the commission forward towards a final product. I'II try and get a rough draft ordinance <br />put together for Tuesday night, showing everything in a more. code -like format. <br />Evan Monson I Planner <br />444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500, Saint Paul, MN 55101 <br />P 651.726.7979 .I C 651.308.00315 <br />e_v_an, monson(dtkda. corn <br />tkda.com <br />Re: Gem.Lake: Home Occupations <br />Monday, Dec 6, 2021 <br />Don Cummings dic.msp[a amaii:corn <br />Evan, <br />Thanks for putting this information: together.. This helps move us forward. <br />What you've provided gives us plenty to discuss: We have some good references for <br />"Purpose and Intent:" Some additional structure would be helpful, e.g., <br />1, It might be helpful to show the current definition Gem Lake is using in contrast <br />with the.samples, <br />2. Then, if the current definition should be moved or replicated in the main land <br />use ordinance (rather than just in the appendix). <br />3. Finally, a list of specific items in the existing licensed use conditions. that could <br />be eliminated or simplified and whether any additional conditions should be <br />added. <br />The goal is to make the City's policy clear acid up-to-date while covering as many <br />potentially troublesome situations as possible with a few succinct rules. What could be <br />easier? ;-}, <br />