HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983 06-29 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes RegularMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1983 AT 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Bill Lewis, Del Johnson, Mary McDonald, Helen McClelland,)
Dave Runyan, John Palmer, John Skagerberg, and John Bailey.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Gordon Johnson, Len Ring and Phil Sked
STAFF PRESENT: Craig Larsen, Comprehensive Planner
Linda Elsen, Secretary
]. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES : June 1, 1983
John Palmer moved for approval of the minutes and Mary McDonald seconded
the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried.
II. NEW BUSINESS:
Z-83-5 Jon DeMars Victorsen, R-1 Single Family District to R-2 Two
Family Disirict, 4544 France Avenue. Generally located west
of France and north of 46th Street extended.
Craig Larsen reminded the Commission that this rezoning request was continued
from the June 1, 1983, meeting to allow the Staff time to examine alternatives and to
draft standards that address the addition of accessory apartments to single family
dwellings.
He noted that the Comprehensive Plan contains policies thatenvision the
redevelopment or retrofitting of existing single family dwellings along France
Avenue for two family use. Since the existing housing stock along France Avenue
is generally in good condition and most lots are smaller than the ordinance standard
for R-2 Two Family Dwellings, it is unlikely that there will be a demand to redevelop
under the standards for R-2 dwellings. Staff feels that there will be a demand for
conversion of existing dwellings resulting in an additional unit which is below
ordinance standards for a two family dwelling.
There are several alternatives available to address requests for accessory
apartments. We could leave the ordinance and district standards unchanged and
demand that all provisions of the R-2 Two Family District be met; we could require
that properties be rezoned to R-2 and grant variances on a case by case basis;
accessory apartments could be allowed as a right in a new zoning district; or a
Conditional Use Permit system could be adopted to address accessory apartments.
Mr. Larsen described the following:
Permitted Use by Right
This method would allow the addition of an accessory apartment in certain
residential zones without any special review by the Planning Commission or the
City Council. Use by right could apply to any or all residential district, but would
limit our ability to specifically control the location of conversion requests. Additional
control could be gained through a site review plan by Staff.
Community Development and Planning Commission
June 29, 1983, Meeting
Page two
Rezoning and Variance
The addition of accessory apartments could require a rezoning to R-2 and the
granting of variances on case by case basis. The Comprehensive Plan envisions
specific uniform standards for conversions. The Commission and City Council would
consider the rezoning request, but would not necessarily consider the specific
site plan and physical design of the structure.
Conditional Use Permit
Mr. Larsen reported that under a Conditional Use Permit system, each application
would be reviewed by the Commission and the City Council and evaluated according to
certain established standards. This system could control the location of conversions
and would provide a uniform set of standards designed specifically for accessory
aprartment conversions. Accessory apartments could be allowed by Conditional
Use Permits in the R-1 or R-2 districts.
Mr. Larsen recommended adopting a Conditional Use Permit system should
the Commission determine that the concept of accessory apartments is desirable.
The Conditional Use Permit provides for a more thorough review by the Commission
and City Council. It also provides a mechanism that would specifically address
requests to add an accessory apartment. Staff would also recommend that accessory
apartments be permitted in the R-1 Zone and only in areas designated by the
Comprenensive Plan as suitable for Low Density Attached Residential dwellings.
Mr. Larsen then reviewed the following list of drafted standards for a
Conditional Use Permit system:
Purpose and Intent
It is the finding of the Edina City Council that certain single dwelling unit buildings
located in areas designated for Low density Attached dwelling unit by the Compre-
hensive Plan may be suitable for the addition of an accessory dwelling unit provided
that the single dwelling unit building remains compatible with neighborhing properties.
Land Use Plan Compatibility
a. No conditional use permit shall be granted for an accessory dwelling unit unless
the property is designated on the Comprehensive Plan as suitable for low density
attached dwelling units.
Location of Unit
b. An accessory dwelling unit shall not be detached or separated from the principal
dwelling unit building.
Flag Area
c. The minimum useable floor area for an accessory dwelling unit shall be 400 square
feet and the maximum useable floor area shall be 750 square feet. In no case shall
an accessory dwelling unit contain more than two (2) bedrooms, or contain more
than 400 of the total floor area of single dwelling unit building.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
June 29, 1983, Meeting
Page three
Off Street Parking
d. In addition to the Off-street parking requirements for the principal unit, every
accessory dwelling unit must provide on the site at least one completely enclosed
parking space.
Number of Accessory Apartments Per Lot
e. No more than one accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted per lot.
Exterior Appearance
f. The additon of an accessory dwelling unit to or within an existing single dwelling
unit shall be accomplished in a manner which does not alter the single family character of
the dwelling. Exterior stairways are permitted only in the rear, and, then only if
completely enclosed.
Customary Home Occupations
Customary Home Occupations otherwise permitted by this Section shall not be
permitted within single dwelling unit buildings which receive a Conditional
Use Permit pursuant to this paragraph.
Definition of Accessory Dwelling Unit
"An additional dwelling unit located within a single dwelling unit building in the
R-1 District which is subordinante in size and function to the principal dwelling
unit and permitted only by a Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Victorsen and Mr. Jim Van Valkenberg, his attorney, were present.
Helen McClelland wondered what was the reason for a maximum usable floor area.
She calculated that there were quite a few homes in Edina larger than the suggested
floor area and suggested that the permit limit floor area to 40% of the proposal unit.
Mr. Larsen explained that the France Avenue corridor was the consideration when the
guildelines were created. This was just a safety step to keep the intensity of the
use down.
Mrs. McClelland was concerned with the required extra car stall. She felt this
would present a problem for some. She commented that there were many homes with
tuck under garages and wondered if that would be included in the 750 square feet
of usable floor area. Mr. Larsen noted that it was not included.
Mr. John Palmer questioned if the France Avenue corridor was the only location in
which these permits would apply because it is low density attached. Mr. Larsen explained
that there were other areas in the City which were duplex/double bungalow developments.
Most of these are developed as duplexes, but accessory apartment would only apply `to
France Avenue.
Mary McDonald asked if the subject property could fit an additional garage on its
lot. Mr. Larsen noted that it would crowd the lot and could create lot coverage
problems. She wondered if there was room to turn around in the driveway. Mr. Larsen
demonstrated possible garage locations on the overhead viewer.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
June 29, 1983, Meeting
Page four
Mrs. McDonald asked what the plan was for the homes on France Avenue. Mr.
Larsen stated that the approach of the Comprehensive Plan was that they all could b,
suitable with a few exceptions. Mrs. McDonald suggested that this plan would prese.
a more well kept neighborhood.
Mr. Victorsen summarized the different uses along France Avenue. He presented
building plans. Mr. Van Valkenberg noted that this was in line with the Comprehensive
Plan. He suggested that the neighbors were possibly concerned with a change in the
building and assured that there were no external . ' modifications with an exception
of a slight change in the roof. They were uncertain how a third garage would fit.
Mr. Victorsen commented that an additional apartment in the basement would be too
much for the propety. He explained the -remodeling plans for the stairway and roof.
He clairfied that Mrs. Aiken's petition stated that the Victorsen house was 92 inches
from her home and measurements showed it was 92 inches from the lot line.
Mr. Johnson asked if the Proponent's intent was to live there or was it a commerical
venture. Mr. Victorsen answer that they were living there and planned on continuing
to do so.
Mrs. McClelland mentioned some neighbor's concerns about cars and wondered
why there were three cars. Mr. Victorsen explained that each he and his wife had a
car and they owned and additional "collector" car.
Mr. Rolland Thompson, 4545 Meadow Road, commented that the Aikens were out
of town and therefore, he was representing the neighbors. He pointed out that Mr. Churg
was an elderly gentlemen and had signed both the opposing petition and the petition
^f approval. His opinion should be disregarded. He listed the following concerns:
The proposed density was too much for this location.
* The back yard would consist of all blacktop.
* There was a concern -that the property would result in complete rental.
* Cars presently parked on the street are located where the pedestrians
should be able to walk.
* The subject property is narrowarer than any other duplexes on the block and also
less feet in depth.
* The neighbors generally feel that the density would create too much building and
blacktop.
Mr. Van Valkenberg expressed their desire to have green area, but was not
sure what would be necessary if a third garage was required. He noted that no
one could promise what period of time they would live in a house, but he felt it
importatnt to encourage people of Mr. Victorsen's age group to move into the City
and not to make it more difficult for them.
Mr. Thompson added that in the past nine years that he has lived behind this
location, it was rented a good portion of the time. He reported problems of littering
caused by these renters. Mr. Palmer stated that they would have better upkeep
if the owner was present. This appeared to create a more acceptable stable situation.
Mrs. McClelland questioned the possibility of roomers. Mr. Larsen noted that
he could have up to two roomers. He explained that there was a fine line between
the rental of room and the creation of a new living unit. The City cannot disallow
someone from placing a stove, refrigerator and sink in the basement, but private
access to the unit distinguishes as a separate dwelling unit.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
June 29, 1983, Meeting
Page five
Mrs. McClelland pointed out that the proposed use would invite opportunity
for investment property which could turn over very rapidly without any
guarantee that the owner would live there. Mr. Thompson confirmed that this
was generally the neighbors' concern.
Mr. Johnson could not understand the motivation or economics on the part of
the Victorsens. Mr. Victorsen explained that it would help mortgage payments.
His intention was not to _increase its value and then sell.
Mrs. McClelland asked if it could be written into the Conditional Use Permit
that the owner must reside in the principal residence to avoid an investment type
situation. Mr. Larsen said that some communities that have adopted conditional use
systems have required owner occupancy or relative occupancy, however, Staff
questions the legality of this requirement. •These communities have not yet been
challenged. Mr. Palmer and Mr. Lewis felt the owners could not be forced to reside
in these houses. Mrs. McClelland disagreed.
Mr. David Runyan commented that the subject area was not made up of single
family residential, and therefore, forcing single family units in the area was not
necessarily within the character of the neighborhood.
Mrs. McClelland was uneasy with the fact that the subject lot was 45 feet shorter
and 5 feet narrower than the majority of the other lots in the area. Mr. Palmer agreed
but felt the situation was there and had to be dealt with. Mrs. McClelland felt that
this was not a desired situation for a landmark case and suggested that the room
possibility be discussed. Mr. Palmer expressed his opinion that Mr. Victorsen was a
forthright proponent and did not wish to see him encourage to accept "roomers".
Mrs. McClelland answered that this was allowed in the Code.
Mrs. McClelland wanted to apply the discussion to the City as a whole instead
of the France Avenue corridor. Mr. Larsen explained that the R-1 to R-2 proposal
was the first consideration of the Commission. The Commission generally agreed that the
Conditional Use Permit was the more preferred option.
Mr. Johnson questioned what the proponent thought of the suggestion to require
the owner to live in the home. Although Mr. Victorsen intends to stay at the
proposed location, Mr. Van Valkenberg pointed out that no other home owner in the vicinity
would be required to live there. Even though it may be the intent of the owner,
unforeseen conditions may prohibit this at a future date. Discussion ensued.
Mr. Runyan moved to accept the subject property for use as a duplex under
a Conditional Use Permit instead of a rezoning to R-2 Two Family Dwelling District.
Mr. Victorsen withdrew the proposal of R-1 Single Family Dwelling to R-2 Double
Family Dwelling, upon discussion. Mr. Palmer seconded the motion.
Helen McClelland asked for clarification regarding the 750 square feet limit and
Customary Home Occupations stated within the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Larsen
explained that the intent of the Staff was to limit the Conditional Use applicants' home
occupations because they were renting. This would ease some of the parking problems.
David Runyan felt that the 750 square footage issue was arbitrary. Mr. Larsen
recommended it state 750 square feet minimum or 40 o maximum to allow for the larger
homes.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
June 29, 1983, Meeting
Page six
It was suggested that the Customary Home Occupations remain as stated
in the R-1 Single Family Zone.
Mr. Palmer questioned if someone applied for a Conditonal Use Permit and fit
all the requirements, would the City have an obligation to grant the permit?
Mr. Larsen reported that the City attorney believed the City would be obligated.
Could additional requirements be imposed in special cases? Mr. Larsen felt that
any requirements should be listed before hand.
Mr. Larsen presented the alternative that if an owner wished to establish a
home occupation, it would trigger a re -review of the Conditional Use Permit. Mrs.
McClelland and Mr. Palmer agreed with this.
Mr. Larsen explained that the drafted Conditional Use Permit was requiring an
additional garage stall for the residence.
Mr. Thompson felt that the original intentions of the proposal were completely
reversed. He wondered if all these changes could be made at this meeting.
Mrs. McClelland explained that the Conditional Use Permit was being discussed
for the R-1 District only, not the R-2. She personally preferred it that way.
Mr. Victorsen stated that a large tree would have to be removed in order to add
an additional car stall. He noted that he was presently parking their third car
in the driveway now.
Mrs. McClelland said that Mr. Victorsen would need to apply for a variance
to preserve the tree and stay with two car stalls.
Mr. Larsen commented that instead of a required stall, a car pad could be required.
Mrs. McClelland felt that they should require an additional garage instead of a pad to
avoid unsightly car ports. She felt that Board of Appeals and Adjustments could
handle each case on an individual basis if necessary. Mr. Palmer agreed.
Mr. Runyan removed his prior motion, and Mrs. McClelland moved to accept the
Conditional Use Permits in the R-1 Zone only for accessory apartments with the
revised changes to limit accessory apaprtments to .400 of the floor area of the building
and the condition that an owner wishing to establish a home occupation would be subject
to a review of his Conditional Use Permit. John Palmer seconded the motion. All were
in favor, except for Del Johnson.
Mr. Runyan moved for the approval of the widthdrawl of [Or. Victorsen's proposal
for rezoning and for approval of the granting of a Conditional Use Permit with the
intent of the Commission that the proposal fit the standards just adopted. Mr. Palmer
seconded the motion. All were in favor, with the exception of Del Johnson and Helen
McClelland.
III. NE17 BUSINESS :
LD -83-2 Lot 13, Block 1, The Habitat. Generally located north of Vernon
and west of Lincoln Drive.
Mr. Larsen reported that the proponents are requesting a party wall division
for an existing two family dwelling in The Habitat. Individual utility connections
are provided. He recommended approval.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
June 29, 1983, Meeting
Page seven
Mrs. McClelland moved for approval and Mr. Runyan seconded the motion.
All were in favor; the motion carried.
LD -83-3 Parts of Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block 1, Parkwood Knolls 8th Addition.
Generally located north of Vernon and east of Schaefer Road.
Mr. Larsen informed that the proponents are requesting a party wall division of
an existing two family dwelling at Vernon Avenue and Schaefer Road. Individual
sewer and water services are not provided for each of the dwelling units. Therefore,
new services must be installed or a variance obtained from the Building Construction—
Board of Appeals
This property was involved in a previous lot division whereby portions of
Lots 15 and 16 were combined with Lot 17. As a result of this past division, some
pre-existing lot line easements are poorly located. We would suggest the concurrent
vacation of old easements and rededication of new easements .
Mr. Larsen recommended approval conditioned upon:
1. Installation of new sewer and water services or the grant of a variance
from the Building Construction Board of Appeals.
2. Vacation and rededication of lot line easements.
John Palmer moved for approval subject to Staff's conditions and Mary McDonald
seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried.
LD -83-4 Lot 2, Block 1, Oak Ponds of Interlachen. Generally located west
of Blake Road and north of Fox Meadow Lane.
Mr. Larsen explained that the proponents are requesting a division of the
subject lot whereby its west half is added to the adjacent lot to the west and
its east half is added to the adjacent lot to the east. Thus, three existing lots
will be combined to create two lots. He recommended approval.
Mrs. McClelland moved for approval and John Skagerberg seconded the motion.
All were in favor; the motion carried.
S-83-6 Zuppkewood. Generally located south of Evanswood Lane and west of
Blake Road.
Mr. Larsen reported that the subject property measures 2.67 acres and is
zoned R-1 Single Family Dwelling District. The property is improved with a single
family dwelling which fronts on Blake Road.
The proponents are requesting a three lot subdivision of the property. Lot 3
would measure 62,467 square feet and would be retained for the existing dwelling.
Lots 1 and 2 measure 33,412 square feet and 20,416 square feet respectively
and would constitute new buildable lots. Both lots front on Evanswood Lane.
He noted that the proposed lots are similar in size to existing lots located on
the west side of Evanswood Lane. The proposed lots are somewhat smaller than the
two existing lots on the east side of Evanswood. The proposed lots meet or exceed
the lot sizes approved in the surrounding subdivisions.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
June 29, 1983, Meeting
Page eight
Staff believes that the proposed lots conform in size with other subdivisions
and are in keeping with the existing spacing of dwellings on Evanswood Lane.
However, there is criticism with the orientation of the lots realtive to Evanswood Lane.
The right-of-way of Evanswood is platted at a right angle as the street turns from
west to north. This implies that the paved surface of the street likewise turns at
a right angle. This is not the case. Rather, Evanswood Lane curves more gradually
from west to north. This results in an unusually large boulevard in the vicinity
of Lot 1 of the proposed subdivision and a somewhat unusual relationship between a
driveway which would serve Lot 1 and the existing driveway for the home located north
of Lot 1. Mr. Larsen suggested that the lot lines proposed by the subdivision should
be modified as shown by the attached drawing in order to provide a better orientation`
with Evanswood and to avoid driveway conflicts with the existing home to the north.
Upon these modifications, Mr. Larsen recommended approval conditioned upon subdivision
dedication.
Mr. and Mrs. Allison, the proponents, were present. Mrs. Allison generally approvec
of Staff's recommendations, however, she wished to preserve more land for Lot 3
on which her dwelling was located. She mentioned that in future years she may be
interested in dividing Lot 3 into two parcels. She pointed out that the lots lining Blake
Road were 90 feet wide.
Mrs. McClelland stated that there was enough land in Lot 3 to allow 10 feet for
Lot 2 and still be able to comfortably divide Lot 3 into two parcels. Discussion
ensued regarding the lot sizes. Mr. and Mrs. Allison agreed to meet with Staff
to decide upon the lot divisions.
John Palmer moved for approval of the Subdivision subject to Staff's approval
-,nd subdivision dedication. John Skagerberg seconded the motion. All were in
savor, the motion carried.
S-83-7 Smaby Replat of Lot 5, Garden Park. Generally located north of Grove
Street and West of M.N.S. Railroad.
Refer to : Attached preliminary plat
Mr. Larsen reported the subject property measrues approximately 2Z acres in
area and is zoned R-1 Single Family Dwelling District. The property includes a portion
of vacated Garden Avenue. It abuts the M.N.S. Railroad on the east and Garden
Park on the north.
The proponent is requesting a five lot subdivison of the property. All lots
would remain R-1. Lots 1 through 4 measure 80 feet by 160 feet (12,800 square
feet in area). Lot 5, which abuts the M.N.S. Railroad, measures 124 feet by 160
feet. The easterly 50 feet of Lot 5 is encubered by an easement for the N.S.P.
power lines.
He explained that the proposed subdivision designates the northerly 78± feet
of the property as an outlot. The proponent suggests that this outlot be dedicated
to the City to satisfy the plat's dedication requirement. As noted earlier, this outlot
adjoins Garden Park.
Several properties south of Grove Street have been replatted in recent years in
a manner similar to the proponent's request; Warden Acres Peterson Replat
(directly south of the subject property) was subdivided into six lots ranging in
size from 10, 140 square feet to 16, 815 square feet. Warden Acres Austin Replat
(southwest of the subject property) ranged from 10, 200 square feet to 12, 000
sq uare feet.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
June 29, 1983, Meeting
Page nine
Mr. Larsen noted that Staff believes that the proponent's request represents a logi-
cal and expected subdivision of the subject property. Lot sizes are consistent
with other lot sizes in the vicinity, especially the recent replats to the south. The
request is also consistent with past City denials of R-2 rezonings of similar lots to the
south.
It should be noted that the existing power line easement significantly reduces the
buildable area of Lot 5._ -- A dwelling located on this lot will be limited to an overall .
length of 55 - 60 feet. The purchaser of this lot must recognize the limited potential
of this lot.
Mr. Larsen recommended approval of the requested subdivision conditioned upon
the dedication of Outlot A as a subdivision dedication.
Mrs. McClelland moved for approval of the subdivision subject to Staff's conditions
and Del Johnson seconded the motion. All were in favor; the motion carried.
Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to Permit Indoor Soccer Arenas as a
Principal Use in the Planned Industrial District.
Mr. Larsen stated that the proponents are pursuing the leasing of a building
at 7225 Washington Avenue for use as an indoor soccer arena. This building is
zoned P.I.D. Staff has advised the proponents that such a use is not presently
.permitted in the Planned Industrial District. The proponents have, therefore,
requested that the City amend its Zoning Ordinance to permit the proposed arena.
A letter from the proponent explains the contemplated use of the building. In
addition to a soccer facility, the letter states that a facility for hockey (presumably
ice hockey) will be provided during the summer. The letter also notes that some
limited retail sales, refreshment stands and amusement machines would also be
desireable in connection with this use. The proponents stress that the proposed use
is designed for participants, not spectators. Thus, very limited bleacher seating
would be provided.
Mr. Larsen stated that the Zoning Ordinance presently permits several atheletic
and health related uses in the Planned Industrial District:
Handball Courts
Tennis Clubs
Roller Skating Arenas
Aerobic Dance Studios
The building at 7225 Washington Avenue was previously used as a roller skating arena
Mr. Larsen felt the rationale for allowing handball, tennis, and aerobic dance
in the P.I.D. focused on the need for athletic oriented facilities in close proximity
to our daytime office and industrial pupulation. Although this rationale apparently
did not support approval of the roller skating arena in 1974, it nevertheless,
should continue to form our basis for allowing additional athletic uses in the P.I.D.
Staff is concerned that the proposed use does not follow this rationale and thus
should be denied for the following reasons:
First, although the use is athletic oriented, it cannot be argued, in Staff's view,
that it serves the daytime, working population of the City.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
June 29, 1983, Meeting
Page ten
Second, notwithstanding the statements of the proponents, the proposed use
seeems particularly adaptable to the enjoyment by spectators. Although the present
intent is to direct activities toward participants, we are concerned that the specator
interest will grow with resulting parking problems and so forth.
Third, the desire to provide amusement machines and related retail uses is not
only contrary to past City decisions, but it also exemplifies and interest in attracting
a concentration of individuals to the facility for a variety of purposes that are
commercially oriented.
Fourth, the proposed facility seems particularly adaptable to other short term uses.
Mr. Larsen closed in saying some of the concerns recently expressed when
denying the request for the Dairy Queen restaurant directly north of 7225 Washington
Avenue appear to be relevant in this case.
Mr. Barry Reed and Mr. Paul Skelly were present. Mr. Reed informed the
Commission that the retail use was optional. This was an aspect that they could
do without if necessary. The retail use would be specialized soccer equipment.
He explained that it generallywould consist of 25 kids ata time. There would be
few spectators, mostly participants. He noted that many families car pool, and that
this was not a desirable setting for kids to "hang out" in. The 80 parking spaces
would be adequate.
Mr. Reed informed the Commission that there would be some clinics which would
include coaches and referees.
They would be installing a good sprinkler system. The soccer accomodations would
be of the best materials.
John Bailey wondered if there were any of these facilities location in the
Metropolitan area. Mr. Reed noted that there was one in Bloomington operating in a
closed school.
Mr. Reed explained that they had been looking for sometime now for a building
without pillars and this one in Edina was exactly what they had been hoping for.
They were willing to meet any possible City requirements.
David Runyan saw no reason why a soccer arena would be worse than a roller
skating arena. Mr. Larsen noted that within this commerical district, it should be
directed to daytime workers.
Mrs. McClelland noted that there was already the traffic problem in that area.
Mr. Reed guaranteed that they were overrating the attraction. He felt that there
would not be any considerable amount of traffic involved.
Regarding possible tournaments at this location, Mr. Reed guaranteed that
they would work with the Fire Marshall to meet whatever codes necessary.
•
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING COMMISSION
June 29, 1983, Meeting
Page eleven
Mr. Palmer commented that he did not see a great amount of difference compared
with other uses.
Mrs. McClelland suggested they create a club to limit it to only members.
Mr. Runyan felt that would not make a difference.
Mr. Palmer moved for approval of the amendment without the allowance of
amusement machines and John Bailey seconded the motion. All were in favor;
the motion carried.
Linda Elsen
Secretary