Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Tippinfelt staff shouldhave some leewaybased onreasonableness and <br />common sense. <br />Commissioner Adams suggested that some criteria thatt might be considered is lot size <br />and complaints by the neighbors. <br />Chairman Macht thought that a home business requiring. employees should not be <br />considered a home business and should be moved to a commercial area. He thought that if <br />it becomes visible to the point of being obtrusive outside the home, it would not meet our <br />code. <br />Commissioner Stanbridge told of her home business writing historic grants and her <br />clients do not visit her home, nor does she have any employees who come to her home. <br />Commissioner Ginn believed that was the way a home occupation should be. <br />Chairman Macht thought consensus was to accept staff's recommendation, but <br />Commissioner Tippin suggested they remove the word "clients" from staff's <br />recommendation. <br />Commissioner Ginn agreed, there should not be traffic in and out of the home. <br />Chairman Macht suggested they make it "obtrusively' visible. If a complainant <br />looking for something they can find it. <br />Commissioner Stanbridge concurred. <br />Commissioner Adams still was not happy with any of the recommendations or <br />suggestions. <br />(CLERK'S NOTE: COMMISSIONER ADAMS LEFT THE <br />MEETING AT 5:44 P.M. TO ATTEND ANOTHER <br />MEETING.) <br />S. Proposed Amendment: Height ofBuildings with Multiple Rood' <br />Structures & Limits on Height of RoofPeaks <br />Director Boling reviewed the information and recommendations contained in the <br />memorandum above concerning this proposed amendment with the aid of the sketch below: <br />April 19,1999 <br />19 <br />BOOK DO PAGE 1 <br />