Laserfiche WebLink
equipment in his yard and there were no complaints. He stated Mr. Dahl was a good neighbor <br />and if this home business were not allowed, it would impact Mr. Dahl and his family. He agreed <br />at times the employee parking on the street was difficult, but he had spoken with Mr. Dahl about <br />this and Mr. Dahl agreed to work on this issue. He did not believe there were any other <br />neighbors impacted by this business. <br />Councilmember Dehen stated the Council was not interested in kicking any residents out, but <br />this area was residential and not commercial. He stated the issue was that neighborhoods were <br />for neighborhoods and not for businesses. He stated the Council wanted to see businesses <br />succeed, but this was a residential area. <br />Councilmember Wise stated he has never opposed a home occupation request, except for this <br />one. He indicated a concern was the monitoring of the business. He noted there was a lot of <br />equipment in the driveway and this was a small lot He indicated if the lot were larger, he would <br />probably be voting differently. <br />Councilmember McGlone stated the system was complaint based and there had been a complaint <br />received. He noted what the previous owner did or did not do with the property, was not the <br />issue. He indicated the Council now had to address this issue because of the complaint, which <br />was received. He stated he had a storage facility which cost him $45.00 per month and he would <br />be willing to share this information with the applicant. He believed this business needed to <br />consider different options due to its size. <br />Councilmember Elvig noted this was a difficult decision to make. He indicated the applicant <br />could still run his business out of his home, but he needed to do things differently with respect to <br />his equipment and employee parking. He stated if there were some change, he would not have a <br />problem with the business being run out of the home. <br />Mayor Ramsey noted the equipment and employee parking was the issue; not the business being <br />ran out of the home. <br />Mr. Dahl stated the enclosed trailer and little trailer were no longer there He stated those trailers <br />were there last winter because they had just moved in. He noted in the winter months all that <br />would be in his yard was the two trucks and no trailers. He stated in the summer, all that was <br />there was two trucks and one enclosed trailer. He stated he would tell his employees they needed <br />to carpool, so there would only be one car either in his driveway or on the street. He noted the <br />employees carne to his home roughly 3 days a week and worked 14 -15 hours a day for those <br />three days. He noted if his trailer was not signed and if the employees only had one car nobody <br />would know he had this business in his home. Associate Planner Gladhill noted the complaint <br />indicated the trailer was a concern, but it was also the parking of the employees on the street <br />which was an issue. <br />Associate Planner Gladhill noted a couple of ideas staff had been discussing with the applicant <br />was parking the enclosed trailer in the garage and have the non - resident employees' park off site <br />or at the job locations and be picked up by the applicant. <br />City Council / November 9, 2010 <br />Page 5 of 9 <br />