My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-23-2019 PC MIN
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
2010 - 2019
>
2019
>
04-23-2019 PC MIN
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/30/2019 4:08:24 PM
Creation date
5/30/2019 4:07:48 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
PCM
date
4/23/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
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
Planning Commission <br />April 23, 2019 <br />Page 3 <br />Commissioner Jordan stated he was looking for real definition and who is the city to <br />say the neighbor takes precedence over the person with the permit; and feels it could <br />be used against a neighbor. <br />Commissioner Larson -Vito noted that's why the Conditional Use Permit process was <br />in place to address those situations. <br />Councilmember Ovall asked if staff found if piano instructors needed a CUP in <br />other cities. <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated he didn't investigate that far into other city's ordinances. <br />Commissioner Larson -Vito reiterated that the CUP process is there to address those <br />opportunities and the city isn't driving around looking for problems. It would be <br />complaint -driven as seen in other types of permits requests. She feels the no noise is <br />reasonable for the permitted use occupation, very cut and dry, and easy to enforce. <br />Commissioner Thiel stated he is in support of the language as it is written and <br />appreciated staffs willingness to go back and review other city's ordinance language. <br />Councilmember Ovall asked a question regarding if a complaint is lodged against <br />someone with a permitted use occupation would the CUP process be explained as an <br />alternative. <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated yes, it would. <br />Commissioner Larson -Vito explained the CUP process would provide conditions to <br />mitigate those things on a case-by-case basis. <br />Chair Johnson noted the public hearing had been opened and continued, and asked <br />if anyone wanted to speak. <br />There being no one to speak, Chair Johnson closed the public hearing. <br />Commissioner Rydberg asked about clarification about (a) within a dwelling unit — <br />what qualifies as a dwelling unit. He stated the attached garage does not qualify as a <br />dwelling unit. He felt that should be included in the definition. <br />Commissioner Feinstein arrived (6:49 p.m.) <br />Mr. Leeseberg stated the definition of a dwelling unit can be included but it's already <br />included in the definitions. He stated they will take a look at it and modify if needed. <br />Moved by Commissioner Larson -Vito and seconded by Commissioner Thiel <br />to approve the Ordinance Amendment for Home Occupations as outlined in <br />the staff report. <br />Motion carried 7-0. <br />11 <br />M1EAE1 RE{t <br />ATU <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.