Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 9, 1982 o o 0 () ~ 01 ANDOVER o o REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 9, 1982 AGENDA Call to order - 7:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes - February 9, 1982 1. Comm. #2-82-2 Bruce VanDenBoom Special Use Permit Public Hearing 2. Comm. #2-82-3 Advanced Enterprises Preliminary Plat Public Hearing 3. Comm. #2-82-6 Good Value Homes Amended Special Use Permit Pub1.ic Hearing 4. Comm. #2-82-7 Janett Eveland Rezoning Public Hearing 5. Comm. #2-82-8 Lloyd Reimann Rezoning Public Hea ri ng 6. Comm. #11-81-1 Firearms Committee Update 7. Comm. #12-81-1 Noise Control Ordinance 8. Comm. #2-82-4 Ordinance 8, Section 7.03 Amendment 0 9. Comm. #2-82-5 Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 Amendment o o C) 0 (,) ~ 01 ANDOVER o o REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 9, 1982 MINUTES The regularly scheduled Andover Planning and Zoning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson d'Arcy Bosell at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, March 9, 1982 at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners Present: Anstett, Perry, Randklev, Spotts Commissioners Absent: Apel, Lobb Also Present: City Engineer, James Schrantz; City Attorney, Bill Hawkins; Bruce VanDenBoom; John Peterson, Good Value Homes; Janett Eveland; Lloyd Reimann; others Approval of Minutes February 9, 1982 Page 1, John Peterson's comments referring to the size of the townhouses, change Three of the units... to Four and three will be ... to two will be.... MOTION by Anstett, seconded by Bosell to approve the minutes of February 9, 1982 as corrected. Motion carried. ~Jce VanDenBoom S ecial Use Permit Public Hearin Comm. #2-82-2 Chairperson Bosell opened the public hearing. Bruce VanDenBoom, 2205 - 140th Lane N.W. - stated that he is applying for a Special Use Permit to allow him to rent out the basement of his home. He has rented it out for the last year and a half; he didn't realize he needed a Special Use Permit and apologized to the City. Mr. VanDenBoom stated that he has bought another house two doors away that he would like to live in and rent out his whole house. He has never had any complaints about his renters. He also understood that a Special Use Permit needs to be renewed each year and asked if that is correct. Chairperson Bosell noted that the city can put a review date on a Special Use Permit. Mr. VanDenBoom stated that he would like the city to do that as a protection measure for hiS-- neighborhood. Chairperson Bosell asked if the renters have an entrance separate from Mr. VanDenBoom's. Mr. VanDenBoom stated that they do. He also insists that they keep one of their cars in the garage at all times. He also noted that he bought the lot a year before he bought the house and during that time maintained the yard, cutting the grass, fertilizing, etc. Chairperson Bosell asked how many sewer stubs serve the property. Mr. VanDenBoom noted that there is one. Commissioner Perry noted that in the letter Mr. VanDenBoom received from the City Clerk it stated that it would be necessary for the city to have proof of the rental prior to September ( )1 and asked if that proof had been provided. Mr. VanDenBoom provided the Chairman with his t~ forms from 1980 showing that he did receive rent. He also noted that he has been very selective about the people he rents to. Planning March g, Page 2 () (.J and Zoning Commission Meeting 1982 - Minutes u C) u \' ....DenBoom Special Use Permit, Cont. '-J Eileen Hanson, 2215 - 140th Lane N.W. - stated that they have nothing against the VanDenBoom's but they do not want any more multiple family homes in their area. She felt that they lower their property values, they have parking problems and they are not kept up properly. She noted that they had a verbal agreement with Mr. VanDenBoom that he would only rent his basement for three years. Now it's turning into a different situation with having it turned into a duplex. She presented a petition with 23 names on it, all opposing the issuance of the Special Use Permit. Tim Swanson, 14056 Raven Street N.W. - stated that the petition was not brought to him. He noted that he is in favor of granting the Special Use Permit. Roger Butorac, 2195 - 140th Lane N.W. - noted that the petition was brought to quite a few people and out of those people 2 to 1 were against the Special Use Permit. Bob Horning, 14085 Raven Street N.W. - his lot adjoins Mr. VanDenBoom's in the back. He stated that Mr. VanDenBoom has taken care of his property up to this point and was confident that he will continue to do so. He felt that Mr. VanDenBoom's house is of a better quality than the doubles in the neighborhood and also that Mr. VanDenBoom is charging enough rent so he gets a better quality renter. Joe Royer, 14036 Raven Street N.W. - didn't see any problem with this going through. He noted that with this additional rental, vandalism in the area would not be increased. B"ICe VanDenBoom - stated that if there is a problem with his renters, he wants to be the first ~ ) to take care of it. His driveway is 3 cars wide and 110 feet long and he has always insisted that the renters only own two cars and one must be kept in the garage at all times. He also noted that if he sells his house it will be sold as a single family dwelling and not a double. He asked if there could be something in the Special Use Permit that states that if he sells the house it could not be rented as a double. Chairperson Bosell noted that it could be a restrictive covenant. She questioned once we started allowing single family dwellings to become rental units, how we can say one person can do it and another can't. Bruce VanDenBoom - noted that last September the City said you can't have a double any more. However, they said that he could apply for this Special Use Permit because he was doing this before that ordinance went into effect. He agreed that he should have applied for the permit before he started building the house. He also noted that the people he is renting to were both in the service and they are trying to get a good start in life. They pay $410.00 per month in rent and he pays the utilities. Chairperson Bosell asked if Mr. VanDenBoom's deal on the other house goes through and he moves, will he continue to keep up the lawn and pay the utilities. Mr. VanDenBoom stated that he will continue to pay the utilities and keep up the yard. He told the renters that there rent will never go up unless the utilities increase. He felt that if the people know the rent isn't going to go up, they are not going to move. He also stated that if the Special Use Permit is denied he will rent the house to 5 single adults, which he does not want to do. Commissioner Spotts noted that in the last six months he has seen 8 dwellings in the metropolitan ,. '1. that have "mother-in-law apartments". People cannot afford housing so they are renting b-~brtion of their homes. On the other hand, Commissioner Spotts felt that when a person becomes an absentee landowner, he doesn't have control over the property. Planning and Zoning C(~ission~.~ng March 9, 1982 - Minutes Page 3 o L) u J>-'QenBoom Special Use Permit, Cont. ~ Commissioner Perry stated that she drove through the area and is concerned about additional rental units in that area and also the number of cars. Eileen Hanson - noted that when they purchased their home the area was zoned single family and they would like to keep it that way. Steve Cherney, 14049 Raven Street N.W. - Stated that he has no objections to Mr. VanDenBoom renting the house out to two families. He has lived there for 13 years and there was vandalism there before the doubles were built. He also noted that Mr. VanDenBoom will be living across the street so he can keep an eye on the house. Lois Butorac - stated that the people speaking in favor of this item don't live on their street. During the summer there are people racing up and down the street and the people doing the racing live in the doubles. Chairperson Bosell noted that if Mr. VanDenBoom does not buy the house across the street, it could be rented out. MOTION by Anstett, seconded by Perry to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Anstett asked if we require two sewer stubs for a rental unit. Chairperson Bosell stated that she couldn't find anything in our ordinance requiring this. The only requirements are that a two family home must have 7,000 square feet of land per unit and each unit must h~"e 800 square feet. Mr. VanDenBoom meets these requirements. \ j Commissioner Spotts was concerned about fire safety; if there are adequate exits in the house in the event of a fire. Mr. VanDenBoom stated that they each have two entrances; they share one of the exits and have one other each. The windows in the basement are large. Bob Peach, Andover firefighter - it was his understanding that the Building Inspector and Fire Marshal will have to inspect the building to see if it meets state codes. Chairperson Bosell noted that the income tax forms provided by Mr. VanDenBoom show that the property has been rented; therefore, we do have adequate documentation. Jerry Windschitl, 2312 South Coon Creek Drive - felt that the Planning Commission should wait until the City Attorney arrives so he could review this item and give his opinion. MOTION by Spotts, seconded by Randklev to table this item until 9:00 P.M. Carried unanimously. Advanced Enterprises Preliminary Plat Public Hearing (Comm. #2-82-3) The developer called and asked that this item be continued to March 23, 1982 as he cannot be in attendance this evening. Good Value Homes Amended Special Use Permit (Comm. #2-82-6) r ~irperson Bosell opened the Public Hearing. ~~ John Peterson, representing Good Value Homes - stated they are requesting an amended Special Use Permit which would allow them to build another style twin home in Northglen. This home has 968 square feet, a double garage and the rooms are large. There is room in the basement Planning March 9, Page 4 ,) /, d Z . C'-- . . \...--.J an om ng omml ss 1 on IVleet i ng 1982 - Minutes u / \ Lj u r--~d Value Homes Amended Special Use Permit, Cont. \.j for a 12 x 24' family room. He also noted that these homes would sell for $53,900.00. Commissioner Anstett asked what the reason is for making this change. Mr. Peterson stated it would permit the area to have different style homes. Commissioner Spotts asked if the price is compatible with 235 money. Mr. Peterson felt it is possible but unlikely. Commissioner Perry asked if it is possible that Lots 1-16 will all have the same style home on them. Mr. Peterson noted that it is possible. Chairperson Bosell asked Mr. Peterson if Good Value would be willing to withdraw their request for the Sierra home for which they were granted persmission to build. Mr. Peterson- noted that he does not have the authority to do that. He also noted that Good Value is sensitive to the objections to the Sierra; however, he would like to keep that issue separate. John Sather, 3516 - 139th Lane N.W. - noted that he is very happy with his home. Stated that he would be in favor of the Parkwood if Good Value would be willing to rescind the permit for the Sierra. Felt that Good Value could alternate the new style home with the existing style twinhome so all of the houses wouldn't be the same. Bnh Leroy, 3504 - 139th Lane N.W. - stated that he would not be against the Parkwood but would , ,igainst the Sierra. Felt that the majority of the people would go along with this plan if tney were assured that it has a basement and some place for storage. He still objects to the Sierra. Don Nast, 3436 - 139th Avenue N.W. - stated that he is opposed to the Sierra but doesn't have any objections to the Parkwood. Felt that the Sierra would lower their property values. Don Sage, 13853 Silverod Court N.W. - stated that he purchased his home because they wanted a retirement type home where there is an association to take care of the maintenance. They are renting the home to his daughter because he has not been able to sell his other house. Stated that when you buy a house where you feel the property values are going to be maintained and then someone changes the laws, it's very disconcerting. Chairperson Bosell asked if these homes would be subject to the homeowner's association. Mr. Peterson stated they would be. Don Sage - noted that the with the existing homes. owners should be required the commercial. Sierra plan left him completely cold. The Parkwood would blend in He also noted that between Northglen and the commercial area, the to put up a soil berm with plantings to protect the residential from Chairperson Bosell noted that the drawings for the shopping center show live plantings and soil berms. Our ordinance states that this has to be done. Terry French, 13997 Quay Street N.W, - stated that he is in favor of the Parkwood; however, if · ') Sierra should come up again, they are still going to meet with opposition. '---"", John Peterson - noted that there is a significant number of people who want to live in a place where there is an association. Mr. Peterson didn't want to talk about the Sierra, but stated ''\ ,'\ Planning and Zoning C\._.iissiori_____ting March 9, 1982 - Minutes Page 5 u LJ u Good Value Homes, Cont. .~ '\ , ; ~"dt there is a greater likelihood that they won't build a Sierra. Mr. Sage - stated that he would only approve of the Parkwood if the Sierra is withdrawn. Bob Leroy - agreed with Mr. Sage's remark. John Sather - suggested that before the Planning Commission approves the amended Special Use Permit, Good Value should first rescind the Sierra. John Peterson - felt that is not a fair way to do this. They are asking that the Commission consider this home on its merits. If Good Value wants to rescind the Sierra, that should be considered on its merits. Felt that these are two separate issues. At this time, the City Attorney arrived so Good Value Homes was continued until after discussion on the Bruce VanDenBoom Special Use Permit. Attorney Hawkins was unclear as to what district Mr. VanDenBoom's house was in so the Commission recessed while he could read through the material. Recess 9:18 - Reconvene 9:30. Bruce VanDenBoom Special Use Permit, Cont. City Attorney, Bill Hawkins "It is my understanding that Mr. VanDenBoom has a home that in S~~tember of 1980 became converted to a two family home by the rental of the basement. In ~_~~ember 1980 our ordinance provided that in the R-4 District where he is located, that these were allowed by Special Use Permit; however, he did not obtain a Special Use Permit. Therefore, at that time it was an illegal use without a permit. Our ordinance M, as we discussed, was adopted and provided that two family homes are only allowed when lot locations are established and approved on original plats, so any individual that would be purchasing a home or developing a home in that area would realize that two family homes are allowed in certain areas. I guess, as such, if Mr. VanDenBoom was coming in today for the first time and asking to convert a home to a two family home in an R-4 that had been used as such I don't believe the ordinance would allow that. I also don't believe that he should be entitled to do this by virtue of the fact that this was done in September of 1980. It was not a legal use at that time, a Special Use Permit had not been issued and I don't believe that the law would grandfather in and allow an individual to claim that he is entitled now to apply for a Special Use Permit under our present provision that normally would allow it when he in fact did not comply with the ordinance at that time. I believe the grandfather provision would apply to non-conforming uses at the time the ordinance was in existence. I realize that there has been some information sent out by the Clerk that indicated the Clerk and I had talked about this and that it was permissible to consider it. As I indicated, I don't recall the conversation and if there was, there may have been a lack of information and communication between myself and the Clerk but based on those facts, I don't believe the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council have the authority to consider this matter." Chairperson Bosell asked if it is proper procedure to refund Mr. VanDenBoom's money. Attorney Hawkins stated that should be done. He will have to discontinue the two family use since it's in violation of our ordinance. Chairperson Bosell asked if some money should be deducted as some money had been expended by the city. Attorney Hawkins said no, because he was mis- i' 'rmed. He should not pay for the city's error. '---/.. MOTION by Anstett, seconded by Spotts that it is the opinion of the Planning and Zoning Commission that Mr. VanDenBoom is not eligible for a Special Use Permit because it was an illegal Planning March 9, Page 6 U lJ and Zoning Commission Meeting 1982 - Minutes u LJ u \ L~~~e VanDenBoom Special Use Permit, Cont. use in 1980 and we recommend that no Special Use Permit be issued and Mr. VanDenBoom's money be refunded. Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on March 16, 1982. Good Value Homes Amended Special Use Permit, Cont. Chairperson Bosell stated that when she presents this item to the City Council she will make mention that everyone has been in favor of the Parkwood and would like the Sierra to be withdrawn. John Sather - asked if the City Council will receive copies of the petition. Chairperson Bosell noted that they will as they receive all of the information that the Planning Commission receives. MOTION by Perry, seconded by Spotts to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Perry, seconded by Anstett that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of an Amended Special Use Permit requested by Good Value Homes to build a different style twin home, the Parkwood, with a zero lot line on the property described as Lots 1-16, Block 2; Lots 36-39, Block 6; Lots 27-30, Block 6 and Lots 3-6, Block 6, all in Northglen. Approval of this request will not affect the health, safety or general welfare of the surrounding lands; it will not negatively affect existing or anticipated traffic rn~ditions, or scenic views. The proposal for the Parkwood would be in compliance with the ,~prehensive Plan to provide a variety of housing styles. A public hearing was held and we were not made aware of opposition to this plan. Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on March 16, 1982. Noise Control Ordinance (Comm. #12-81-1) City Attorney Hawkins - noted that over the course of the past couple years in prosecuting criminal cases that pertain to loud and disorderly parties, they have been having a difficult time finding applicable State statutes that apply to the city to charge individuals under. He noted that he came across a draft ordinance from the League of Minnesota Cities that would set up standards for determining when a party is too loud and give the Sheriff's Department authority to disperse the party and provide arrest powers. He stated that rather than pick out the part of the ordinance that pertained to noisy parties, he simply sent the whole ordinance to the Commission. The reason he did not want to amend Ordinance 8, Section 8.19 was that he felt it dealt with noise of a more permanent nature, where noisy parties would be temporary. He also noted that the way to determine noise is by using a decible meter. For a temporary type of noise there should be a little less formal standard. The law enforcement officers don't carry decible meters with them and they don't know how to operate them. The Noise Control Ordinance would give them an objective standard. The other section Attorney Hawkins was concerned about was to give the officers authority to have the people involved in a noisy party disperse. He also stated that he doesn't want this in the Field Party Ordinance as that only covers parties involving 50 or more people. Commissioner Anstett stated that there had been some concern that there would be no legal ,~inition of noise without a decible meter. Attorney Hawkins noted that it says in the ordinance that there are certain hours when these things can go on. Commissioner Anstett questioned if the attorney could prosecute without a Planning March g, Page 7 (j f \ d Z . c' . . '-'1.J. an on1ng omm1SS10n ,.eet1ng 1982 - Minutes () L.J u ~-ise Control Ordinance, Cont. \J decible meter. Attorney Hawkins stated they could. Commissioner Anstett also was concerned about the hours. She asked if it would be just as effective without the hours stated in the ordinance. Attorney Hawkins felt that there is a certain time period when an individual should turn down his stereo so people can sleep. Commissioner Anstett noted that she would have trouble supporting limiting it to certain hours. She further stated that she has 'some problems with having a noise ordinance at all. Mayor Windschitl - suggested that the Planning Commission figure out how they want to work with the City Attorney. Felt that some procedure should be set up so when the Commission meets they know what the Attorney's advice is. City Attorney Hawkins noted that he would be happy to come out to the Planning Commission meetings. Getting back to the Noise Control Ordinance, Commissioner Anstett asked if the decible reading section was taken out of Ordinance 8 would that give the attorney what he is looking for. Attorney Hawkins felt that the Commission should leave that in as it is for ongoing industrial activity. This item will be continued on March 23, 1982. Janett Eveland Rezoning Public Hearing (Comm. #2-82-7) Chairperson Bosell opened the public hearing. 1 ' . ) ~anett Eveland, 14722 Crosstown Boulevard N.W. - stated that she has three parcels of land that she would like to have rezoned so she can get them in Agricultural Preserve. She noted that her son is farming the land and the land has been farmed since 1936. Chairperson Bosell noted that there is one residence on one of the 40's and no structures on the other parcels, which meets the criteria of 1 per 40. Commissioner Anstett stated that it meets the qualifications and it should be approved. The only problem is the 20 acre parcel that is in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. Chairperson Bosell asked if Mrs. Eveland was withdrawing that parcel. Mrs. Eveland stated that she didn't want to, but she felt she should. Don Eveland, 14744 Crosstown Boulevard N.W. - didn't feel that the 20 acre parcel should be left in because the City Council might at a later date say that that property would be eligible for agricultural preserve and if that happens, his mother would have to pay another $150.00 to have it rezoned. Commissioner Spotts asked if by having this zoned Agricultural Preserve the amount of property taxes would be affected. Commissioner Anstett stated that the County Assessor told her that they would be about the same as for Green Acres. MOTION by Spotts, seconded by Anstett to close the Public Hearing. Carried unanimously. ~~~ION by Anstett, seconded by Perry that because this request for rezoning meets the intent -....-1 purpose of Ordinance 8, city zoning regulations, specifically providing for the most appropriate use of land throughout the City of Andover and in protecting and guiding the development of rural areas and conserving and developing natural resources as well as fostering agriculture and conserving the natural and scenic beauty and attractiveness of roadsides and Planning March 9, Page 8 dZ' CC}. (J. an onlng ommlsslon Meetlng 1982 - Minutes u L.J u ~ ,Eveland Rezoning, Cont. '-J because the city is desirous of preserving and protecting agricultural land within the city and because the city has identified the property belonging to Janett Eveland described as Plat 65928, Parcel 10 and Plat 65927, Parcels 3000 and 2400 as being eligible for Agricultural Preserve zoning, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the above described land from Residentia1-1 to Agricultural Preserve. Motion carried unanimously. This will go to the City Council on March 16, 1982. Lloyd Reimann Rezoning Public Hearing (Comm. #2-82-8) Chairperson Bosell opened the publ ic hearing.' Lloyd Reimann, 2813 - 142nd Avenue N.W. - stated that he wants to rezone Lot 2, Block 4, Pine Hills Addition from R-l to General Business in order to build a 40 x 80 brick building which will house a County library and perhaps a small real estate office. The property is located on two major roads that intersect with the driveway coming off 161st Avenue rather than off County Road 9. The library will be renting the building from him. Commissioner Anstett asked if 2! acres is enough land for a library and a parking lot. It was noted that the parking is governed by our ordinance. Chairperson Bosell asked the City Engineer how much property would be needed for a library. City Engineer Schrantz thought it would be more than 2 units. . 'irperson Bosell told Mr. Reimann that the City requires a "site plan" when property is r~loned and once you submit a site plan it is hard to vary from it. City Engineer Schrantz noted that his only concern is the location of the driveway. Commissioner Perry asked what the surface of 161st Avenue is. Mr. Reimann noted that it is Class 5 gravel. Ron Markgraff, 16011 Narcissus Street N.W. - noted that his main concern is that if the library decides to move out, what is going to go in there next, Felt that there are too many problems with trying to combine residential and General Business that close. He stated that if there was a guarantee that the library was going to stay there it would not be so bad; however, he didn't feel there was enough room for a library. Scott Widman, owns Lot 3 in the same block as Mr. Reimann's property - asked if the driveway would come out on 161st Avenue. Mr. Reimann stated yes. Scott Widman - asked if it is possible that it would exit on the cul-de-sac. Chairperson Bosell said no. Mr. Widman stated that he bought his lot 2 years ago because it was residential and there were no commercial buildings around, and the environment is clean. He didn't feel that Mr. Reimann had any definite plans. Laurence Reynolds, 15951 Tulip Street N.W. - stated that he owned that property at one time and Mr. Kemp wanted to build a grocery store there and the City Council said no. He said that if it's left as a library it would be fine, but if it's going to be a beer joint, then he doesn't \',. .t it. ,J Mike Pa110w, 16071 Narcissus - is against the rezoning. u L) Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 9, 1982 - Minutes Page 9 o \ ~~ u '"'yd Reimann Rezoning, Cont. ~~ Chairperson Bosell noted that if Mr. Reimann doesn't have clear title to the property he needs to provide a letter of consent from the fee owner. Scott Widman - stated that he bought his property for residential purposes and if Mr. Reimann's property is rezoned, it will be undesirable for him to build a house. Commissioner Perry questioned whether the parking area has to be paved. Chairperson Bosell noted that it has to be paved. Larry Koepp, 16055 Vintage Street N.W. - felt that there are better places to put a library such as in the industrial zoned property across County Road 9 or in the commercial area on Bunker and County Road 9. He also noted that when Pine Hills was platted, only two exits were allowed on 161st Avenue because it's an MSAH street. Lloyd Reimann - stated that he spoke to the County and they said he could exit onto County Road 9 if he had to. The City Engineer was directed to check into 161st Avenue for access as this road is listed as MSAH 106. Commissioner Randklev was concerned about having only a verbal commitment from the Library Board. She felt it should be more than verbal. This item will be continued to March 23, 1982. 6rJinance 8, Section 7.03 Amendment (Comm. #2~82-4) Chairperson Bosell explained that this amendment would allow a beauty salon in a non-sewered area on the condition that special holding tanks be installed. Linda Mills, 4471 - 148th Lane N.W. - stated that she would like to have a beauty salon in her home. They would turn their two car garage into a salon and build a new garage. Because they are not served by sanitary sewer, they would be willing to install holding tanks. Chairperson Bosell asked Mrs. Mills if she knew of anyone who has a beauty salon in their home and holding tanks. Mrs, Mills did not know of anyone. She noted that all of the ingredients of the products she uses were tested and the Pollution Control Agency said they didn't see why they would even need holding tanks. Commissioner Perry asked how many people Mrs. Mills would be serving at one time. Mrs. Mills stated only one at a time; she would only be open about two days per week. Discussion was on how many SAC units a beauty salon was equal to. Mrs. Mills noted that a four station salon is equal to one SAC unit. She provided the Commission with some material from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission explaining SAC charges and units. Commissioner Perry will check with other cities to see what they require for beauty salons ; 'non-sewered areas. ~J This item will be continued on March 23, 1982. Planning March 9, Page 10 r"earms Committee Update (Comm. #11-81-1) \..-1 Chairperson Bosel1 noted that she spoke to Commissioner Ape1, who is the Chairman of the Firearms Committee and he stated that he needs two new committee members. He also noted that they should have the first draft of the new firearms ordinance by Tuesday, March 16th. U I) and Zoning commission'MeE!ting 1982 - Minutes ~ l.) u This item will be continued to March 23, 1982. Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 Amendment (Comm. #2-82-5) Chairperson Bose11 noted that the City Council sent us a request to see if we should require basements on homes. Along with that, the Building Inspector sent a draft of an ordinance requiring basements. She also noted that the Commission should look at requiring attached garages. John Peterson, Good Value Homes - noted that one of the problems he sees is the minimum depth below finished ground on three sides shall be 30 inches. He stated that this provision would eliminate Good Value's quad homes. Chairperson Bose11 felt that the Building Inspector should be asked about a walkout on a twin or quad home. City Engineer Schrantz noted that anything that Good Value builds now would meet our ordinance as they submitted their plat before anything was done on this ordinance. Cnmmissioner Perry asked if the reason for this amendment is asthetics or safety. City Engineer \ rantz stated that it came about because of Good Value's plans to build the Sierra. Commissioner Perry stated that she is concerned about providing affordable housing in the city. Commissioner Spotts will research this item and report back at the next meeting. This item will be continued on March 23, 1982. MOTION by Spotts, seconded by Randk1ev to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 12:01 A.M. Respectfully submitted, U.U Vicki Vo1k, Commission Secretary '. ......_J