Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Regarding the first applicant's staff report on stress relief, he felt the staff report should have <br />been more specific as to the exact services being rendered. <br /> <br />Chairman Lutz also referred to the first application and the fact that there was another home <br />business on the same street. He feels the City should consider some other way of monitoring <br />this situation instead of relying on neighborhood complaints to bring a situation to the City's <br />attention. Mr. Iserson noted that the neighbor complaint is not the only way a violation is <br />reported. If the Code Enforcement officer sees a violation, he is responsible for responding <br />to it. However, the volume of violations exceeds the Code Enforcement officers ability to <br />handle them all. <br /> <br />8. MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S REVIEW <br /> <br />8a. Future Planninl!: Calendar <br />There were none. <br /> <br />8b. Actions of the City Council <br />There were none. <br /> <br />8c. Actions of the Zoninl!: Administrator <br />Commissioner Hovingh requested that on future letters regarding actions of the <br />Zoning Administrator that the type of business or business name, in conjunction with the <br />address, be included. This will help him know specifically where the property is located. <br /> <br />9. COMMUNICATIONS <br />There were none. <br /> <br />10. REFERRALS <br />There were none. <br /> <br />11. MATTERS FOR COMMISSION'S INFORMATION <br />There were none. <br /> <br />12. ADJOURNMENT <br /> <br />The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 10:28 p.m. by Chairman Lutz. <br /> <br />Respectfully submitted, <br /> <br />bIS~ <br /> <br />BRIAN SWIFT, SECRETARY <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 15 <br /> <br />October 11, 1995 <br />