1981 05-11
AGENDA
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
May 11, 1981
ITEP1:
r~
Minutes of the previous meeting were accepted as written
1. Hearing - Robert and Kathryn Sangster Conditional Use for
pottery making at 2612 Misty - Sunnybrook Fanns Sub. -
recommended to the City Council, approval as long as all
city codes are met.
2. Nearing - Sandra Murphy Conditional Use for beauty shop at
1226 E. 2 1/2 St. - Cottage Home Sub. - Tabled by Murphy's
request.
3. Hearing - Kent and Charlet Anderson Conditional Use for
beauty shop at 316 Camellia Ave. - Fran Sub. - recommended
to the City Council, approval with the conditions that the
operator must be registered, a one operator business, meets
all city codes and that there be no sign.
I hieridian Planning and Zoni
Meeting called to order by Chairman Annette liinrichs at 8:00 p.m.
Members present: Lee Mitchell, Bob Spencer, Tom Eddy
absent Burl Pipkin, Don Sharp
Others present: Kent and Charlet Anderson, Robert & Kathryn Sangster,
Charles and fdancy Rountree, Dennis and Sandra Murphy,
Steven D. Heinrich, Cheryl Shinn
The M11otion was made by Mitchell and seconded by Spencer that the minutes of the
previous meeting be accepted as written.
Motion Carried: All yea
Agenda
1 Robert & Kathryn Sangster - Hearing for Conditional Use at 2512 Misty - Pottery ma king
Robert Sangster was present to request a conditional use permit for making pottery
at his home.
Sangster: "I'm filing for this petition because I make stoneware pottery in my spare
time. It's a hobby of mine and I would like to have a conditional use permit to make
sure everything is up to code and legal and get your permission. This pottery is
going to be made only on my property and is not going to be sold on the premises what-
soever. What I would like to do though, is have the ability to make the pottery at
my residence and then attend various art shows throughout the year - like the Julia
Davis show or theE~eau Arts sale to help support the craft that I make. I want to
reassure the board that I will no way have any traffic come into my home at any time
to purchase said pottery. This is solely to get your permission to be able to make
my pottery in my studio garage and then fire the pottery on my premises."
Mitchell: "That won't be run in the wee hours of the night, I presume."
Sangster: "No sir, it will not."
Mitchell: "It makes a torch type sound right, like a weed burner."
Sangster: "No it's not - it's a muffled sound - in fact a lawnmower is more irritating
to the ear than this kiln would be. (Sangster displayed his plan) As you can see,
I've tried to make this as simple as possible - this would be the sidewalk - setback
24'. The slab of cement next to the side of the garage is here - this is all drawn
to scale. The kiln itself is 4'X 4' - this is the picture of the kiln - 16 cu. ft.
This area will all be enclosed by a 6' fence - clear back to the end of my property
line. This is the neighbor's house or garage and goes back next to my garage."
Mitchell: "Is your neighbor on here?" (Referring to .the petition signatures.)
Sangster: "Yes she is, this is Margaret Ford. I'd like for you to make note that no
one disapproved of this request. My wife and I visited many neighbors, as you can see,
approximately 30 throughout the last three months. We explained to them fully - brought
along this brochure, showed them the kiln, explained what we wanted to do - perfectly
honest and frank with them. No one disagreed with what we would like to do."
Eddy: "Is it just fora hobby? You won't be going all the time?"
Sangster: "No,this is just in my spare time on the weekends, it's an extension of a
hobby. I studied when I was in college and now that I'm working full time, it's a
great way for me to relax and to make a little bit of money every onr_e in a while.
Like I said, in September the Julia Davis show and around Christmas time."
Mitchell: "You're not planning on hiring a crew."
Sangster: ".do, just myself and my wife."
Eddy: "You wouldn't make a lot of stuff."
Sangster: "No, I would probably only fire this kiln, like I said, during the day,
probably once or twice a month. It's very quiet, very safe."
Meridian Planning and Zoning .2. May 11, 1981
Hinrichs: "The fire department was concerned. I don't see that it's close to a
property line, how far is it from the property line?"
Sangster: "It would be exactly 10' from the side of my garage to the kiln itself,
to the kiln. It would be 11' from the back of the kiln to my property line. It
would be a total of 24' from the back of the kiln to Mrs. Ford's dwelling. It would
be back 36' from the sidewalk. It will be totally enclosed, but like I said, on a
concrete slab - 24' X 20'. I have contacted Intermountain Gas. Intermountain Gas has
agreed to - once I do receive or hopefully receive the permit, will come in and
install the gas line and hook up the meter. I will have a licensed plumber come out
from the meter, tie in the gas line from the meter to the kiln. Then Intermountain
Gas will come back out and inspect that line, and when the first time I fire the kiln,
they will come back out and make sure that everything is sealed and properly done.
I would be more than willing to have any inspector come out and inspect the area and
the kiln once it is in place.."
Chairman Hinrichs: "Any comment from the public on this request?" No response.
The ~4otion was made by Mitchell and seconded by Spencer to recommend to the City Council
that the conditional use permit for Robert and Kathryn Sangster at 2612 Misty for
making pottery be allowed, as long as all city codes are met.
Motion Carried: All yea.
Agenda
2 Sandra Murphy - Hearing for Conditional Use at 1226 E. 2 1/2 St. for Beauty Shop
Sandra Murphy was present.
Murphy: "At this time I would like to ask you to table my request for this conditional
use permit. We're not certain we're going to get the property. When I started this,
we thought we were definitely going to obtain the property, but now we're not. If it's
all right with you, I'd like to have your permission to table it."
Hinrichs: "Is there any comment on Sandra Murphy's request for conditional use for
a beauty salon at 1226 E. 2 1/2 St.?" No response.
The Plotion was made by Eddy and seconded by Mitchell to table the request for a condi-
tional use for Sandra Murphy at 1226 E. 2 1/2 St. fora beauty shop.
Motion Carried: All yea.
Agenda
3 Kent and Charlet Anderson - Hearing for Conditional Use at 316 Camellia Ave. for
Beauty Shop
Kent Anderson was present to request a conditional use permit fora beauty shop at his
home.
Anderson: "At the present time, we have put in the request for the conditional use
permit for the piece of property at 316 Camellia, which looking at the plot map as it's
layed out, here is the piece of property -'right here on the corner where Camellia comes
around back over to come into Cherry Ave. There's access coming in from 2nd, from
Cherry, from Cherry on this end off of W. 4th, also where it comes in here. There is
also Maple St. that's running down this way, you've got Washington that sits on this
side. The way that we have it planned at the present time, and that is to take one
half of the garage, which the garage is sitting right here facing out. This is layed
the same way as if it were on the property right here. The house falls in here and
is back in this area. There's a sidewalk that comes down this side. Access into the
building - the access into the residence is right here. There's a separate access to
the structure. We want to leave the front part of it here for our storage. It will
not affect the overhead door, the outward appearance of the structure in any way. There
will be no aesthetic change as far as the outward appearance of the building is concerned.
It will be left so that there will be room to go ahead and park one vehicle inside the
garage, even after the remodeling is done. The restroom facilities, as required by
code, a storage area. The main things that we wanted to cover, the thing that we want
to do, is put in two stations, not three as in the comments. I can see after reading
the letter, where the possible inference of three operators might be implied. The
request is for two stations. The reason for two is to meet code. After we get the thing
Planning and Zoning .3.
up and running, we meet the requirements as far as the state is concerned, we will
drop back to one operator. The off street parking, at the present time, there are,
or there will be after the remodeling - one parking spot inside the structure, out
in front of it there are currently two on a cement slab in front of the garage.
There is room fora third parking spot just at the south of the existing ones, just
by a matter of pouring concrete or gravel. Coming around this way, there's a parking
spot there, there's room for two additional vehicles, which would allow for six
vehicles plus our own, which would be parked inside the structure without affecting..."
Discussion of parking for residence nearest Anderson.
Anderson: "Traffic patterns - we don't anticipate any great increase as far as the
amount of traffic that will be coming into the neighborhood. The target market as
far as the business is concerned, are local people, a good share of them will be
walking. There will be some vehicular traffic in and out of the area, but we feel
it won't be anything that will be excessive, over and above what is using the street
into the neighborhood at the present time. Again there will be no exterior changes
to the structure. We don't want to do anything to be detrimental as far as the neigh-
borhood is concerned. We don't feel that we're going to be taxing anything as far as
additional services in the form of police, fire, any of this type of service. The
water, the sewage, garbage, this type of thing is basically billed out on the amount
you are using as far as the facility is concerned anyway, which we'd be paying for
what we used if there is an increase, which there wouldn't be an excessive amount at
that time. Anybody have any questions?"
htitchell: "Are you anticipating one car an hour, two cars an hour, if you've got that
to the optimum, how many cars an hour will you anticipate in turnover?"
Charlet Anderson: "Two an hour, depending on the service."
Mitchell: "This is to be a home do it yourself type of thing, right, one operator?"
Anderson: "That's the eventual goal."
Charlet Anderson: "Depends on the service though, if it's a permanent, we might have
one probably in three hours."
Mitchell: "No, I mean one, you yourself would be doing a lady with a permanent and
another doing a wash, is that what I understand? You won't be hiring people to work
there."
Anderson: "There will be one person hired initially until such time as we can meet
the state requirements as far as licensing is concerned. Then at that time we will
drop back to one operator. ble need a second operator initially to meet state code.
Until October, till she meets her time requirements as far as the state license is
certified. Then after she receives her certification, then it would be a one operator
situation, but we need the second operator until that time. And the facility would be
200 sq. ft., large enough to handle the second operator."
Hinrichs: "At this time, I would like to ask for any public comment."
Charles Rountree: "Can we ask some questions first?"
Hinrichs: "Questions, yes."
Rountree: "How many hours a day in operation?"
Anderson: "As it stands right now, it would be a normal business day - 9:00 - 5:00."
Rountree: "Eight hours."
Charlet Anderson: "Or less, probably less, probably six. I've got a large family."
Steven Heinrich: "Are you planning on putting a sign up, .and if so, how big?"
Anderson: "At this time, there's no plan fora sign. As I've mentioned, the thing
that we want to do is maintain the aesthetics as far as the neighborhood is concerned.
The only thing that we're concerned about and that is being able to put the facility
in to generate the income so we can support our family. We don't want to "Neon Sign",
this type of thing no, we're not interested in that type of thing."
Meridian Planning and Zoni
4.
11. 1981
Hinrichs: "I might add that signs are severly restricted in this kind of thing
anyway."
Rountree: "Do you consider a two, one or two or three vehicle parking slab and aesthe-
tic feature to a neighborhood?"
Anderson: "That's not a change from the way it exists at the present time."
Rountree: "You only have two at the present time."
Anderson: "There is two, that's right."
Rountree: "Are you talking about an additional one?"
Anderson: "There is room for a third parking space if the city requests it, yes."
Rountree: "You said you'd consider that as an aesthetic feature?"
Anderson: "From the aesthetic standpoint, I hadn't really thought of it that way.
It had been brought up in discussion that it may be necessary as far as the thing is
concerned. If we were to put in the third one, the lines as far as the concrete is
concerned, would be so that it would fall right in with the existing concrete up to
the fence line."
Rountree: "Would there be landscaping with it?"
Anderson: "Definitely."
Hinrichs: "There are some city restrictions about parts of yards being used for
parking."
Nancy Rountree: "Can they run cement to the property line?"
Hinrichs: "I'm not quite sure, you'd have to check the city ordinances, but I do
believe there are some restrictions on the use of yards for parking. Is there any
comment? Would you please come forward and state your name."
Charles Rountree: "I reside at 231 W. Camellia. I've got a show and tell here,
excuse my voice, I just got through coaching a little league game. I'm opposed to the
granting of the subject conditional use permit, and the basis of my opposition is as
follows. On page 8 of the city's comprehensive plan are set the goals of the city's
planning - goal number 2 states, 'To ensure that growth and development occur in an
orderly fashion in accordance with adopted policies and procedures governing the use
of land, residential development, the provision of services and the distribution of
new housing units within the Urban Service Planning Area.' With the objective identi-
fied in the plan for the land use to obtain the goals say, 'Recognize 1) The importance
of maintaining compatible land uses to ensure an optimum quality of life,' etc. it
goes on for four more points. It further identifies the policy to meet this objective
and is stated in this stated objective of the city is that, 'Meridian intends to plan
for the periodic reviewing, monitoring and updating of land uses within the area of
impact and the Urban Service Planning Area.' It's my opinion as a professional planner,
that the development of commercial use in a single family residential would not be
considered orderly as identified in goal number 2. Nor could it be considered a com-
patible use in maintaining an optimum quality of life, as stated in the land use
objective. The neighborhood in question is located right here, this is a vertical area
of photography piece of the neighborhood. This is 4th, 2nd, Camellia, Cherry Ave,
and subject site in question. This big circle indicates the 300' impact radius that
people talk about. Point for the record that #here are fewer than 50 property owners
within that. The subdivision, in which the use is going to occur, is a low to moderate
single family dwelling subdivision. The condition of the neighborhood ranges from
neglect, as indicated by this property, this property, and these properties adjoining
the neighborhood - both of these, and a few well kept properties. The lot sizes are
small, as you can see from the plat. I have the plat here, the largest lot, I believe
is, in volume, is 85' X 60' - again they're small. Next to the street - not only the
neighborhood play area, but the parking area for operable and I should emphasize inoper-
able vehicles. As you can see from this picture right here, parking's at a premium -
this is the subject residence at the end of the street. Two vehicles in the driveway,
that's not an unusual circumstance. There are 39 school age children and 18 preschool
children in the Fran-Meridian Subdivision - that's in these two streets, that may be
plus or minus two - they come and go. Present traffic in the area is solely that of the
k .. - - ,,,~ ...>
r~
Meridian Planning and Zoning 5 May 11 1981
neighborhood residents and their visitors, with an average daily traffic of less than
50 vehicles - that's an average daily traffic - less than 50. There are only two roads
to access that site - Camellia or Cherry, now Cherry jogs in there and it looks like
you might have another one, but there's only two roads to access the point. There's
two - one main street coming into the area - 2nd street, there's a minor street - that's
4th St. coming off of Washington. Second St. comes off Cherry Lane. All the vehicles
coming into the neighborhood, either have to come down Camellia or Cherry. The points
to be made from this are 1) The proposed use could, and in all likelyhood would further
the degradation of quality of life in the area. 2) The use will increase the traffic
in an otherwise untrafficed area. The traffic is small, but you have to consider this,
if you only have an average daily traffic of 50, for every one vehicle you increase,
you increase the traffic volume by 2%, therefore, you significantly increase the proba-
bility of a child - vehicle accident. Particularly of the fact that the vehicle oper-
ators coming into this commercial establishment will be totally unfamiliar with the
area,at least for the few occasions. As new people come into the establishment, as
the clientele could build up, you're gonna have new people. 3) Additional demands will
be placed on an already short supply of parking on street, as there is not sufficient
space on or off street to park. As you'lT see from the plat, that the front property
line of the property in question is only something like 17.6'. It's located on a curve -
there's maybe room for one vehicle and the vehicles in the driveway. 4) The commercial
use is in conflict with the subdivision protective restrictions and covenants that states
that the lots are described as residential lots and restricted to residential use. I
might add that subdivision covenants, though not by ordinance, are required by you folks
to approve subdivisions, if I'm not mistaken. Concerning the land use policy of the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan, deals with periodic review, monitoring of land use - it is
my opinion that the Planning and Zoning Committee should take a firm stand against con-
ditional use permits till it has a basis for either hearing and or approving such per-
mits. I have a feeling as a planner, that without that base line information, the rezone
is going to act like a vacuum with here and there conditional uses, it's this one and
then it's a small engine repair, another beauty salon, bike shop, etc. I don't think
that adds to the quality of the environment. My last point is that by allowing such
areas to be zoned for commercial uses, all you're doing is inducing residential commer-
cial type competition, thus discouraging businesses to locate in our already depressed
commercial areas of which there have been vacancies, for going on years in some ofi the
newer malls. I do take exception to some of the comments made by the applicant in that
no aesthetic change would occur - any alteration, and increase in traffice, anything to
that effect would change the aesthetics of the neighborhood and for sure they shouldn't
be going the other way. They indicated they might have two people an hour, operate
six to eight hours a day - that's 12 - 16 additional vehicles a day - that's a 24% to
32% increase in traffic volumes - small, but you still increase the potential for con-
flict. That's all I have to say. Comment?"
Anderson: "I have a couple of questions here while he's (Rountree) up here."
Rountree: "I'm not subject to questions, thank you."
Plitchell, speaking to Rountree: "Can I ask for some information off your notes?"
Rountree: "Yes."
Plitchell: "You said there were what - 50 property owners in that circle?"
Rountree: "Less than 50, you could count the houses in that circle if you wish,
and adjoining properties, but I believe it's roughly 50."
Mitchell: "There's 67 children and 50 property owners."
There was discussion about the front footage.
Rountree: "There's only room for one car."
Hinrichs: "Is there any further comment from the public?"
Cheryl Shinn: "I'm at 238 tJ. Cherry Ave. I'm opposed to this because I feel there
is way too much traffic in the area. Personally, if I were trying to open a business
like this, I'd be a bit ashamed to have my clients come into that area, particularly
because it is such a shambles. There are junk cars on the street, generally. I have
two small children myself, and they happen to net out in the street occasionally.
I'm just opposed to it, hecause it would bring in way too much traffic."
Hinrichs: "Is there any further public comment?"
Meridian Planning and Zoning .6. May 11, 1981
Steven Heinrich: "I'm opposed to it also. I face this property and like everybody's
pointed out, the neighborhood's a shambles. Of course the fact that he's not going
to erect the sign pleases me, if he gets the permit. As I turn to go into my driveway,
I face his property. I drive down Fairview every day coming home and the last thing
I want to do is look at a sign in my own neighborhood. Ply wife and I saved for four
years to buy this house, our dream house. We bought it in the winter when lawns were
covered, we didn't see what the neighborhood was, or we would have never bought. Now
we've got every cent invested in this house and we're stuck there. If everybody contin-
ues to keep their yards up like they are, and Mr. Anderson's is no exception, he's got
two holes in his fence, his gate's broken. It's sickening, you look out your window
and you just, you don't even want to live in the neighborhood, but you can't move, you
know what the interest rates are right now, you can't sell your house. If you've got
signs here and a small engine here, and like Charlie said, all we have to do is let one
in and then everybody's gonna want to do it. The lady across the street watches kids
all day - she can start a day care center. The people down the street - they like to
collect old cars, so they'll start an engine repair shop, he'll start a beauty shop and
who knows what? Pretty soon I'm gonna be driving into Fairview to park in my driveway.
That's why I'm opposed to it, because once one gets in, the next person - it's just as
easy for them to get one. Now if I wanted to start a bar in my basement, I know Plr.
Anderson would be objecting to it. I know for a fact - If I wanted to start a business
that he objected to, I don't object, I think it's great that they can stay home and
maybe earn some extra income and everything - it's great, but you've got to look at all
the other people in the neighborhood too, besides just yourself. That's why I'm opposed
to it."
There was discussion as to which lots the opposers of the proposal lived on.
Sandra Murphy: "Of course being a cosmotologist, I'm sympathetic to them. I've been in
the business for ten years and I can honestly say that in a 12 to 14 hour day, I have
never, never done more than 12 people a day, and I mean that is pushing it. The average
day fora cosmotologist in eight hours - I'm talking about the average amount of people,
is six to eight people. If you do a permanent, it takes two to three hours. If you do
a haircut, it's up to a half hour to 45 minutes. Now I realize that not everybody in
this room is familiar with the cosmotology business, but I think, really feel that the
amount of traffic that they're talking about is to an extreme. If she has a family, I
can understand why she wants to stay home to have more time for her family, probably to
take care of them. She is not going to want to put in more than six hours a day, she
already stated this herself. I can also understand what they're saying, as a resident
I can sympathize with that to. I just honestly don't feel that anything of this busi-
ness would be detrimental. We live on W. 2nd St., so we're not far from this business -
we're outside of 300' radius, 1418 is our house number. I'm familiar with the people
that they're talking about as far as the day care and so on and so forth, and I don't
think most of these people have come to you with a request to open a business. I'm not
trying to say anything detrimental against them either. But I think that it's very
honerable of somebody who is trying to have a business, to come forth to you and try to
have it legal. That's basically all I have to say."
Hinrichs: "Is there any further comment?"
Don Todd: "I live at 236 Camellia - two houses down from him (Anderson). I'm one of
them that signed in favor of it. I talked to some others that have signed in favor of
it and if it's a matter of bringing everybody down - we can, but I talked to Burl Pipkin -
he said it's not going to do any good to have people go in - if you sign it, it's the
same difference. I just want to make it verbal that I'm in favor of it, because I
siyned it."
Mitchell: "If it's any consolation, it shows 50 property owners and 45 of them have
signed the authorization."
There was discussion about the ones who could not be contacted about the proposal or
who did not sign the petition - there were seven.
Hinrichs: "Any further comment?"
Anderson: "Mr. Rountree, I realize, is not subject to per se - cross-examination, but
I question the 15 vehicle count into the neighborhood in a 24 hour period. If possible,
I would like him to clarify that as to where that information came from."
Rountree: "Have you counted them?"
Anderson: "No sir I haven't."
Planning and Zoni
.7.
Rountree: "Then don't question it."
Anderson: "I am questioning."
Mitchell, speaking to Rountree: "Have you counted them?"
1. 1981
Nancy Rountree: "We have three day care centers running in our neighborhood right now
that bring traffic in, which is a little excessive for the area."
Charles Rountree: "You could take that to 100 which would be more than generous, the
statistics are still the same. You're looking at a 10% to 20%, 15% to 25% increase in
traffic, but most of all you're looking at the commercial establishment in a residential
area, which is not consistant with land use planning. That's my opinion."
Mitchell: "What do you think you can do about parking?"
Anderson: "I'm looking at the pictures, he made the comment - this is not the exception.
At the time of day that photograph was taken, I agree with him, that is not an exception,
and if you'll look at the shadows, that is an early a.m. picture. As we've stated
earlier, the plans are to take the second vehicle that is parked in our driveway
and pull it inside the structure. We will leave adequate parking for the purpose of
one vehicle. The second vehicle which is in my driveway at the present time, is not
going to be there. I'm going to be gone during the day which will eliminate these two
vehicles. This particular vehicle happens to be a boyfriend's of the girl who lived
there, they no longer live there, she no longer lives there. Normally there is not a
vehicle parked in front of that house and during the day there is never a vehicle parked
in front of that house, because it's not occupied. So from this point right here, from
the front of the pickup,. clear on down, around the residence, and looking at it on the
map, you're talking from this area right here, clear on down here around to the corner.
There is not a vehicle that is normally parked there during the day, with the exception
of one that I own, which will be inside of our structure."
titchell: "The other challenge was aesthetics."
Anderson: Our plans from the outward appearance of the building - you can see that we
have the garage which sits in front of the structure - it comes out toward the street,
the house is set back with the garage. I plan to leave the garage - the garage is 23'
in depth - we're going to take the back 20' and leave 3' at the front, directly in front
of the remodeling. So looking at it or going down from the street, there will be no
outward change as far as the structure is concerned itself. The overhead door will be
there and I'll be able to raise it up, pull the vehicle in, and I've got storage for my
lawnmower, this type of thing."
Mitchell: "You don't plan any - you were thinking of putting another car spot right
there."
~~
Anderson: Staying within the guidelines of the setbacks, this type of thing - in the
frontage of the property, I've gat room to make a third parking spot, if it should
become necessary. I would prefer not to do it."
Nancy Rountree: I happen to know that one person, only one more person that did sign
the petition and didn't know it was at this address - she thought it was on 4th St.
Not knowing that, she did not come tonight. Also, I wanted to know if they check on
these signatures. I happen to be aware that there's one household on the street that
two people from that household, by different means, signed the petition and only one
person is a home owner at that house. Then I'd also like to know what the code require-
ment is for distance from a corner intersection to allow cars to be parked. I mean on
the corner of Camellia where it turns into Cherry and heads out towards 4th."
Hinrichs: "I don't believe there are any requirements as far as parking there."
Nancy Rountree: "You can park a car right here on this corner? These people have a
pickup parked right over here that they like to keep on the street right here which
narrows this access area to a single vehicle to be able to pass through there. Which
is the case on this street most of the time, regardless of the time of day that you
take the picture."
There was discussion about the footage requirements for parking.
Meridian Plannin
Hinrichs: "Any further comment?"
Mitchell: "You are owners and not renters."
1981
Anderson: "We have some signatures on there that are signed by people who rent property.
They are not counted in the totals, and I'm familiar with the situation that she is
talking about. There are two signatures from the same household - the one that is not
the property owner, is not counted in the totals that you have."
Mitchell: "In your own place, you're owner."
Anderson: "Yes, we do own the property."
Eddy: "State law doesn't require the owner to be licensed, just the operator?"
Anderson: "Right, anybody can own a beauty shop. The only requirement is that you
have licensed people performing the service."
There was discussion about the fact that the City Clerk does regularly check the petition
signatures.
Spencer: "I'm right in assuming that your wife will not be the owner operator until
October. Somebody else will be the operator and she'll be the owner, until she gets
certified."
Anderson: "Right, as such, yes. Then at that point, then she will be the one that is
doing everything."
Eddy: "She'll work under this other girls license until she does?"
Anderson: "Right."
There was discussion as to the unusual circumstance of someone other than the owner
working.
Anderson: "The idea behind it is the training and having the other person there in
the event that she should get into a situation where she's having a problem and she has
someone that has more experience than herself there, and this is the reason why it's
required by the state law."
Mitchell: "But if she was certified in another shop before she opened, then she could
open by herself. A conditional use normally lets a family do their own thing in their
own place."
The Motion was made by Spencer to table the proposal until the Andersons were able to
have the one certified operator present.
The Motion died fora lack of second.
There was discussion.
The Motion was made by Eddy and seconded by Mitchell to recommend to the City Council,
approval of the conditional use permit for Kent and Charlet Anderson at 316 Camellia
Ave. fora beauty shop, with the conditions that the operator must be registered, a one
operator business, meets all city codes and that there be no sign.
Motion Carried: titchell, yea; Eddy, yea
Spencer, nay
The Motion was made by Mitchell and seconded by Spencer that the meeting adjourn at
9:08 p.m.
Meetingadjourned. `11
;:,~, ~
CHAIRMAN
City Clerk ~
~~..~;x~ ,..,,,,#y,,,,~.~„