Motion by Member Jim Martzke, Second by Member Randall Limbach Member Watkins and Member Gonzalez abstained due to their absense at the previous meeting.

Vote: 6 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Jim Martzke, Second by Chair Kim DePew Case planner Taylor provided a staff presentation, which is preserved in the files.
Applicant Lynn Haber, who was virtually present at the meeting, declined to provide an applicant's statement following the presentation. No one present wished to speak for or against the item.
Commission discussion: No commission discussion.
Staff recommended forwarding the docket to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval. No conditions were recommended. Approved 8-0.

Vote: 8 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Jim Martzke, Second by Member Gerry Gonzalez Case planner Taylor provided a staff presentation, which is preserved in the files.
Applicants Robert and Yadira Yon, who were virtually present for the meeting, provided an applicant's statement following the presentation. Blanca Colosio, who was virtually present, and a co-owner of the property spoke in favor of the request.
Commission discussion: Vice Chair Montgomery mentioned that he appreciated the family orientation of the request. Chair DePew asked Case Planner Taylor to clarify whether the letter of opposition came from the property owner to the north, who was buffered by a wash. Case planner Taylor verified this was the case.
Staff recommended approval of a 1,560 SF ALQ with the standard conditions of approval attached. Approved 8-0.

Vote: 8 - 0 Approved

Motion by Member Randall Limbach, Second by Member Jim Martzke Case planner Taylor provided a staff presentation, which is preserved in the files.
Applicant John Giffin, who was present for the meeting, provided an applicant's statement following the presentation. Colleen Giffin, the co-applicant, was also present but did not address the commission. No other individuals were present to speak in favor or opposition to the request.
Commission discussion: Member Limbach asked the applicant how he planned to mitigate noise. The applicant responded the majority of the manufacturing will occur indoors. He also mentioned the predominant air pattern on the property is south to north. Vice Chair Montgomery asked whether the vehicles in the photo were a material source. The applicant responded that most the cars were part of his personal car collection. Vice Chair Montgomery asked whether the applicant used entire cars to make his art. The applicant clarified that his art was "automotive themed" and he provided examples of his work. Chair DePew asked whether there would be an additional fence constructed to enclose and screen business. The applicant stated the majority of the business would be placed behind the building and screened from public view. Chair DePew asked about the effect of the opt-out building on the future use of the property. Case Planner Taylor stated the previous owner built the property under that program. The current owner has not requested any modifications to the structure. If the applicants were to request a future permit it would need to go through traditional permitting as a non-residential structure. There is some risk with inviting the public to a structure that has not been inspected for building code compliance by the county.
Staff recommended conditional approval. Conditions limited hours of operation, signage area, and mandated a right-of-way permit and screening of outdoor storage and work areas. Approved 8-0.

Vote: 8 - 0 Approved