Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Van Scoy stated he is having some difficulty with this because it was <br />misrepresented the first time through to them and they made a decision at that time to allow it <br />because they thought it would be more of a recreational use rather than a business use <br />Commissioner Nixt stated as the site exists is the home occupation use one they would grant if <br />they did not have the history. If they have concerns about that, it might be appropriate to bring <br />up those concerns; but if the applicant can bring the site into conformity he did not have a <br />problem with reviewing this proposal. <br />Commissioner Brauer did not think there was anything that stood out as unusual regarding the <br />home occupation request. <br />Three letters were submitted to the Commission stating their concerns regarding this item. <br />Motion by Commissioner Van Scoy, seconded by Commissioner Nixt, to close the public <br />hearing. <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Vice Chairperson Levine, Commissioners Van Scoy, Nixt, Brauer, <br />Cleveland and Hunt. Voting No None. Absent: None. <br />The public hearing closed at 7:51 p.m. <br />Commission Business <br />Vice Chairperson Levine called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission back to order at <br />7:51 p.m. <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked if there was a certificate of occupancy on the dwelling in the <br />accessory building. <br />Assistant Community Development Director Frolik stated there was not because the City did not <br />know it was there. She also noted that if the property is subdivided, the dwelling on either parcel <br />could be sold or leased. She noted the septic system does need to be upgraded. <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked if there is a requirement that each lot is required to have its own <br />access. <br />Assistant Community Development Director Frolik stated it is a requirement that each lot has to <br />have frontage on a public road and they each have frontage. <br />Commissioner Van Scoy asked if they could grant a home occupation permit to a home that is <br />not legal. <br />Assistant Community Development Director Frolik stated they are not granting it to a home, they <br />are granting it to a property owner. The owner has a right to apply for a permit with or without a <br />lot split. <br />Planning Commission / April 3, 2008 <br />Page 5 of 21 <br />—1.65— <br />