My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-27-2006 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2006
>
09-27-2006 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2014 3:17:09 PM
Creation date
3/19/2012 1:43:01 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
178
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
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 <br />Knudsen stated that he understood this, but noted that the Planning <br />Commission's issue is the impact on the surrounding community. <br />Barraclough noted that the business would be open 7 days per week until <br />8:00 p.m. each evening. Barraclough felt there was a fine line between a <br />home occupation and running a business from a home. <br />Knudsen asked if there was anyone from the general public present <br />wishing to comment. <br />Michelle Frison, 145 Rose Place, stated that she was not opposed to the <br />home occupation proposed. Frison reported that there has been a history <br />of problems at this duplex, and since Angell and Vasquez have purchased <br />the property, those problems have gone away. Frison felt that the new <br />owners were an asset to the neighborhood. Frison stated that the <br />neighbors big concern is with traffic, and Vasquez has assured them that if <br />the business outgrows the duplex, they will move somewhere else. Frison <br />stated that she would like to see the City give this home occupation a <br />chance. Frison felt there was adequate room in the driveway for employee <br />and client parking, and the home occupation would not generate on- street <br />parking. <br />Sue Tako, 146 Rose Place, reported that she has no opposition to the home <br />occupation and asked that the business be given a chance. <br />Socha reported that she ran a day care business from her home for 17 <br />years, and had 12 families in and out each day. Socha did not foresee a <br />problem with the home occupation proposed. <br />Rheaume felt that having three employees as part of a home occupation <br />was too intense of a use, and noted the precedent that would he set if the <br />City approved this home occupation permit. <br />Hall asked the hours of operation. Haskvitz replied that the business <br />would be by appointment only, five days per week, from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. <br />Haskvitz felt that since the business was by appointment only, they could <br />control the parking situation and keep all cars in the driveway. <br />Hall felt the services provided where comparable to a traditional home - <br />based beauty salon. Hall indicated that his concern is with the unfair <br />stigma that massage therapy has. Haskvitz replied that she has no male <br />clients, and if a male requested massage therapy, she would insist that a <br />significant other be present during the massage. <br />4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.