Laserfiche WebLink
DeBenedet moved and Berry seconded to continue this matter to <br />April 5, 1989. <br />Stokes questioned the purpose of the continuance. DeBenedet <br />stated that the purpose would be to provide accurate survey <br />information and give the applicant the opportunity to respond to <br />the issues that were brought up At the Commission. <br />Stokes questioned if the applicant needed a survey to do that. <br />DeBenedet stated that an accurate house location would be <br />necessary. <br />Johnson added that the continuance also gives the applicant the <br />opportunity to respond to the issues that were brought up at the <br />Commission meeting. <br />Goedeke stated that the proposal is so close to the minimum that• <br />even being off a foot makes a difference. <br />Berry stated that -in view of the drainage comments, drainage <br />should also be looked at. <br />Roll Call: Ayes: DeBenedet, Berry, Goedeke, Stokes, <br />Moeller, Johnson <br />Nays: None <br />Planning 1874 <br />Ordinance Revision concerning outside merchandising and display. <br />Presentation <br />Dahlgren summarized the proposed criteria and the option of <br />allowing outside merchandising and display either as a permitted <br />use or a use by special use permit. <br />Johnson stated that she was uncomfortable with the proposal <br />before the special use permit option because of the many <br />different situations which could arise. Johnson added that a <br />special use permit allows each situation to be considered <br />individually nd would be more fair. <br />DeBenedet stated a concern that the proposed ordinance would open <br />things up beyond what was anticipated and asked if it would <br />difficult to turn down a special use permit. <br />