Laserfiche WebLink
The public hearing was closed. <br />A motion was then made by Commissioner Jamieson, seconded by Commissioner <br />Getty that all required findings could be made for UP-80-15 and that <br />this case be approved subject to the conditions of the staff report. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />Ayes: Commissioners Getty, Jamieson, Lindsey and Chairperson Wilson <br />Noes: None <br />Absent: Commissioner Doherty <br />Resolution No. 1886 was then entered and adopted approving case <br />UP-80-15 per the staff report of 7/9/80. <br />AP-80-5, Barbara Anderson <br />Appea o Bar ara An erson from an adverse decision of the Director of <br />Planning and Community Development in denying an application for a <br />home occupation permit for a pet grooming service at her home at <br />3605 Glacier Court North. Zoning for the property is R-1-6500 (Single- <br />Family Residential) District. <br />Mr. Harris presented the staff report and recommendation of denial. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />Barbara Anderson, 3605 Glacier Court North, the applicant spoke and <br />asked for a definition of "Incidental to Residential." Mr. Harris <br />explained. Ms. Anderson stated that a neighbor is babysitting 12 <br />youngsters who are all over the place and make more of a disturbance <br />than her business would. She stated she wants to groom animals for <br />'shut-ins' and that she would pick up and deliver the animals to their <br />homes, thus there would be no added traffic. She stated she had to <br />groom three dogs per day to pay for her own child care. She also <br />stated that the neighbor who babysits also sells Amway Products without <br />a license. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />Mr. Harris stated that there is a difference between day care and dog <br />grooming. He stated a determination has been made by the Planning <br />Commission that child care in a residential neighborhood is different <br />from other types of commercial activities. He stated he does sympathize <br />with the fact that in allowing her to perform grooming she could reduce <br />her expenses but that this is not a criteria for allowing. her to conduct <br />a business in her home. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Lindsey, seconded by Commissioner <br />Getty that case AP-80-5, Barbara Anderson, be denied. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE <br />Ayes: Commissioners Getty, Jamieson, Lindsey and Chairperson Wilson <br />Noes: None <br />Absent: Commissioner Doherty <br />Resolution No. 1887 was then entered and adopted denying case AP-80-5. <br />The applicant was advised she has 15~ days in which to appeal this <br />decision to the City Council. <br />-5- <br /> <br />