Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 19, 1984 PAGE 12 <br />#878 THOMAS KAUL Adams commented that he thoug.it this is a marvelous <br />idea and that it would be good for the community <br />but. he felt that the neighbors views should be <br />heard. <br />Rovegno commented that he did remember the <br />application for the subdivision on this property <br />and the court findings. He felt that this is a <br />prime example of the houses of the erra and felt it <br />would be a good use of the land. Fie has known the <br />Kauls for several years and finds them to be a <br />hardworking, honest couple and feels they will <br />comply with the limitations set forth. He did, <br />however state that he is uncomfortable with the <br />"home occupation use". <br />Goetten stated B&B's are something that we should <br />address elsewhere because of the neighborhood <br />reactions. She recommended that staff look into <br />possibly amending the code to cover B&B operations. <br />Kelley moved, Sime seconded, recommendation for <br />denial of #878 Thomas Kau], 1900 Shoreline Drive, <br />subject to the following finding: <br />1. That a B&B does not meet the original intent of <br />the home occudat.ion code Section 10.20, <br />Subdivisions 4 (C). <br />Motion, Aye (5), Nay (1). <br />Rovegno voted nay. <br />Minority Opion - Rovegno stated that under Section <br />10.20, Subdivision 4 (C) home occupations code, he <br />felt that B&B is accessory to residential use based <br />on review of performance standards provided by <br />staff. It is only carried on by persons residing <br />in the residence, there are no paid employees, the <br />use is ^onducted within the principal residence, <br />there no visible signs of use from the street, no <br />accessive stock stored on the premises, no <br />overcounter sales, the entrance is through the <br />principal residence and the septic system is up to <br />the B&B as well as the 8 - 10 member family that <br />could live there. I find the three (3) stal 1 <br />parking not applicable because it only pertains to <br />rr^fession practice. Further I find that County <br />;load 15 is a major throghfare and probably a suita- <br />ble residential road on which to place such home <br />occupation. And the app] icar:t s ap;ear to he <br />wi 1 ling to subject. themselves tc, <br />