09-14-06 Planning Comm. Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 Hall stated that he is more comfortable with the home occupation given the need for an appointment. He also noted that there would be no signage allowed on the property. Haskvitz suggested that the Commission recommend approval of a permit on a one-year trial basis. The City Planner indicated that special use permits have none-year review, with the timing of subsequent reviews at the City's discretion. McGraw stated that he understands how the change in ownership of the duplex has resolved some problems for the neighborhood. He noted, however, that the applicants are requesting to run a business in a residential neighborhood. McGraw pointed out that there is the question of where the City draws the line for what is an acceptable home occupation and what is noC. McGraw also noted that there are Craffic concerns to keep in mind. McGraw stated that his concern is for the City as a whole and noted thaC what is allowed in one area should be able to be allowed in another. McGraw indicated that if this is approved, others will make the same request. Rheaume noted that there are group homes and day care businesses operating in residential areas of the City. The City Planner noted that the City has no regulatory authority over group homes or day care businesses. Barraclough asked for clarification of the Text Amendment. It was noted that the current Code allows for accessory massage therapy businesses as part of beauty salons. If this home occupation were to be allowed, the Code would have to be amended to allow massage therapy as an accessory use in residential areas. Knudsen noted that the concern is the precedent that this home occupation would set. Hall recommended approval of the Special Use Permit for a home occupation providing spa services including yoga, manicures, pedicures, and massage as well as a Text Amendment to Chapter 2202 relative to massage therapy as an accessory use in residential zoning districts as requested by Mary Vasquez, 140 Rose Place East, subject to compliance with Che recommendations of the City Planner as outlined in his reporC dated September 8, 2006. Motion seconded by Socha. Motion failed 2 - 5. Hall and Socha in favor. Knudsen, Barraclough, Duray, Rheaume, and McGraw against.