Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Minutes — August 13, 2009 <br />Page 2 <br />Paul Courneya, 6122 Goodview Trial Circle N, came to speak at the public hearing. He stated <br />that he is the closest property owner to the proposed building, and that he is planning to store the <br />business trailer in the building. He shared concerns with the Planning Commission regarding <br />backing up the large trailer and showed pictures of the fence between the properties that has <br />already been damaged from the applicants trailer. Paul owns the fence and said he has not <br />agreed to fix the damages. He was also concerned with other employees stopping by all the time <br />with work vehicles. <br />Schumann asked who installed the fence. <br />Paul answered that Midwest Fence Company originally installed the fence, and that it was placed <br />6 inches on his property for maintenance purposes. <br />Galler questioned some of the materials shown in the photos of Mr. Carter's backyard. <br />The applicant, Benjamin Carter explained that those were materials being used for the proposed <br />building and the sand was laid down in the area where the building would be. <br />Moore asked the applicant what vehicles does he normally keep on the property. <br />Mr. Carter answered that usually there is a car and a work truck parked there. <br />McRoberts asked if this should be considered as an IUP due to the negative effects. <br />Bryan answered that the ordinance would normally not allow a work related trailer on the <br />property, therefore without the trailer there he meets the criteria for a home occupation. He also <br />reminded the Planning Commission that the application was for the CUP and not for the home <br />occupation. <br />Rosenquist asked what he would store in the building if he didn't put the trailer in there. <br />Mr. Carter answered that he would most likely store equipment and materials in the building. <br />Schumann closed the Public Hearing. <br />Galler stated that the Planning Commission should allow the CUP because home occupation and <br />CUP requests are two separate issues. <br />Rosenquist stated that he has issues with the application however he meets the criteria for the <br />CUP. <br />Galler made a motion, seconded by Moore, to approve the CUP. <br />McRoberts thinks this item should be brought back as an IUP. <br />