Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 14, 1995 o o ~ .3/01BJa.5 ",""'~"'~-:'i-' o :i--~~'~ , .,.~ {~ : CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - MARCH 14, 1995 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and zoning Commission was called to order by Acting Chairperson Randy Peek on March 14, 1995, 7:08 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Maynard Apel, Catherine Doucette, Bev Jovanovich, Jeffrey Luedtke, Jerry Putnam Jay Squires City Code Enforcement Officer, Jeff Johnson City Planning Director, David Carlberg Others Commissioner absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 28, 1995: Correct as written. MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Doucette, to approve the Minutes. Motion carried on a 5-Yes, 1-present (Apel), 1-Absent (Squires) vote. o PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTIONS 3.02, 4.30 AND 7.03 7:09 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the proposed amendments: Section 3.02, add a definition for therapeutic massage and therapeutic massage establishment; section 4.30, add cabinet making/wood working and therapeutic massage as home occupation uses; and Section 7.03, allow therapeutic massage as a home occupation in residential districts. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Luedtke, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Squires) vote. o Skip Rither. 17410 Blackfoot Street NW - stated he talked with Mr. Carlberg about his concern with the proposal to allow wood working as a home occupation. He related a court issue in 1967 regarding a cabinet shop operating out of a home on 4065 165th Avenue, which is zoned R-3. He provided the court documents, which after a year the owner was told to cease and desist his operation in his garage. Part of that came about because of the nature of cabinet making and wood working as a home occupation. Mr. Rither reviewed the definition of home occupation and the types of uses that are appropriate; but he did not think cabinet making and wood working fit in with that definition because they are really manufacturing, taking raw material and turning it into a product to be sold for a profit. It is in basic conflict with the smaller sized lots because of the disruptions due to traffic, noise of the equipment, retail sales, and number of employees. He questioned whether a minimum of three acres will always be adequate as the City develops to avoid the conflicts. Such uses are allowed in the commercial areas, and those areas are where he felt these uses should be directed. If the uses are () o ,) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 14, 1995 Page 2 (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance 8, Continued) allowed in residential areas, at what point will they be stopped and at what point is it too intense for that area? When people buy their property, they can rely on the ordinance and are assured of the peace and quiet in a residential area. This suddenly introduces a conflict. Also, Mr. Rither felt it is inappropriate that any revocation of a Special Use Permit for these uses should be based on neighbors' complaints. Most people do not like to complain because they do not want to disrupt the relationship in the neighborhood. It is unfair to place the burden on the homeowners. Finally, as a matter of public policy, he did not think the City should encourage or allow the migration of these industrial uses into the residential area. He urged the Commission to continue allowing these uses in the commercial zones and not to subordinate the rights of adjacent property owners to satisfy the desires of another. Considering the health, safety and welfare of all residents, he didn't think the proposed change is truly in the best interest of the residents of the City of Andover. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, i-Absent (Squires) vote. 7:22 p.m. , "- ,-.J Mr. Carlberg explained the cabinet making and wood working uses are limited to lots of three acres or more, which virtually eliminates the R-4 zones. Also, the number of employees is limited to one other person other than family members, the space inside the accessory building and outside storage combined is limited to 800 square feet, and the setback requirements are larger than normal. These controls, plus others established through the Special Use Permit process such as hours of operation and noise, have been established to protect and screen the neighboring residents. It also prevents the business from expanding beyond a home occupation. The City's policy over the last three years has been to allow these uses, plus a process is in place should it become necessary to revoke a Special Use Permit. The Planning Department has received no complaints on them. Commissioner Apel felt the basic philosophy has changed to allow cottage industries, and the City has installed various safeguards to prevent the problems that occurred in the 1960s. These activities have gotten the support of the Council over the past few years under the "similar uses" phrase of the ordinance. This amendment merely clarifies the City's position that they are allowed by adding that specific language. He felt the operator in the court case presented by Mr. Rither was not being a good neighbor and that the City now has a means to shut it down if that same problem were to occur. Mr. Rither - asked if these uses are included as home occupations, where does it stop? will sheet metal and auto body shops be allowed? Because \ the City doesn't get any complaints doesn't mean there aren't problems, ,~ because many people will not want to complain. He did not think it was fair to subject the residents to being responsible for problems by having to complain. He felt it would be better to allow them only in the commercial areas because of the nature of those businesses. u r,\ U ~-J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 14, 1995 Page 3 (Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance 8, Continued) Acting Chairperson Peek reviewed the background of past requests for cabinet making and wood working, the restrictions established, and the support of the Council. The Commission and Council have the same concerns raised by Mr. Rither, which have been addressed through the Special Use Permit process. He also explained that the amendment simply adds the specific language of what has been allowed. Mr. Rither - understood the Commission is trying to accommodate the use, but his position is that the nature of the business is not compatible with the surrounding residential area. Acting Chairperson Peek felt that is a difference of opinion, but the City's policy for the past two years has been that the uses are appropriate given certain restrictions. Mr. Rither - suggested it is time to rethink that policy and get back to the original intent of the ordinance, which was to provide residents with some assurance when they bought their properties that they could expect certain things to occur. He again expressed his opinion that the philosophy should be to accommodate these uses in the industrial zones and attempt at all costs to avoid a conflict with the residential areas. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Putnam, to recommend that the ordinance : j changes be forwarded to the City Council with our recommendation of ,~ approval; and note there was a public hearing and that we did have opposition from one gentleman. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Squires) vote. This item will be placed on the April 4, 1995, City Council agenda. 7:42 p.m. DISCUSSION - THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE ORDINANCE Mr. Carlberg pointed out two changes since this was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their November 22, 1994, meeting: 1) Page 4, Section 6, a 3, Insurance - After talking with the City Attorney, Mr. Carlberg proposed the paragraph be changed to read: Each applicant for a license shall file with the City a public liability insurance policy or certificate of insurance from a company authorized to do business in Minnesota, insuring the applicant against any and all loss arising out of the use, operation, or maintenance of the Therapeutic Massage Establishment. The policy of insurance shall be in limits of not less than $500,000. Failure to keep in full force and effect the insurance required herein is grounds for revocation. 2 ) Page 4, Section b, 1 d - language has been added to include a background check from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension prior to the issuance of the license. :J Mr. Carlberg stated the feeling was it would be difficult to obtain a $1,000,000 insurance policy, and that $500,000 would be sufficient. Acting Chairperson Peek asked about restricting the scale of the operation. Mr. Carlberg stated there is nothing that specifically u ('\ U ) Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 14, 1995 Page 4 (Discussion - Therapeutic Massage Ordinance, Continued) regulates the number of tables, but there are requirements on the number of employees, number of parking spaces allowed, etc. A license is required to perform therapeutic massage off-site, though a Special Use Permit would not be needed. Commissioner Putnam wondered if the specific reference should be made that the insurance has to be renewed annually and submitted with the annual license renewal. Mr. Carlberg thought that the need for on-going insurance is adequately stated in the new language for insurance and is not needed in Item 6 of Section 7 on grounds for denial, revocation or suspension of the license. Commissioner Putnam also cautioned the City to have a practice of checking out those insurance companies to be sure they are licensed in the State of Minnesota. Mr. Carlberg noted the City Clerk reviews that as part of the investigation. MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovichr to forward the Ordinance to the City Council with our recommendation of approval with the two changes as noted on the new language for insurance and the language added to include an investigation from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension prior to issuance of the license. Motion carried on a 6- Yes, 1-Absent (Squires) vote. This item will be placed on the April 4, 1995, City Council agenda. / "- \.-.J DISCUSSION CONTINUED - DOG KENNEL OPERATIONS Mr. Carlberg noted after reviewing ordinances from other communities, he has prepared the proposed revisions to Ordinance No. 8 and Ordinance 53 to distinguish between a private and commercial dog kennel and to include a dog enclosure requirement per the discussion of the Commission at the February 28, 1995, meeting. The concern has been there is no distinction between someone who wants to own four or more dogs as a private owner versus those who want to board or breed them. Presently, the same procedure is required for both instances. Mr. Carlberg noted the proposal to include a definition in Section 3.02 of Ordinance 8 for Dog Kennel, Commercial, and Dog Kennel, Private, and to include Commercial Doa Kennel in R-1 District Only under Section 76.03, Special Uses. Private kennel licenses are also only allowed in the R-1 district, but a Special Use Permit is not required. Those applications will go directly to the City Council for action. In reviewing the proposed changes to Ordinance 53, the Commission made the following comments and changes: Section 1, Definitions, c - change to: Dog Enclosure: Any enclosure \ constructed for shutting in or enclosing dogs except fences enclosing , ) yards. Discussion noted that if the entire yard is fenced in which a dog is allowed to run, it would not be considered a dog enclosure. The Commission did not wish to state a specific size for a dog enclosure. (J o " ) Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 14, 1995 Page 5 (Discussion - Dog Kennel Operations, Continued) Page 2, Section 19, Private Kennel Licenses: delete "used as a home" at the end of the paragraph. Page 3, Section 23, Dog Enclosures, 2, Placement: Clarify wording - A dog enclosure shall not be placed closer than 30 feet from a side lot line and 10 feet from a rear lot line. No dog enclosure shall be placed in the front yard. Page 3, Section 23, Dog Enclosures, 4, Applicability of section: " "- \_--) MarQaret Dupont, 3463 l33rd Lane NW - asked that the language be changed. In the petition signed by over 100 people,it was requested that this ordinance be retroactive. Many people were enthusiastic because they were having problems similar to hers. She suggested the language be "This section shall be applicable to all dog enclosures whether now existing or hereafter constructed." In her situation, the house is up for foreclosure. The smell from the dog enclosure is very offensive and it is a mess. She offered to pay to have the enclosure moved, but it is being left up to the lawyers. She also cited other problems she and her family have had with the dog. If this is not retroactive, it will not resolve her problem. Ms. Dupont felt very strongly about the retroactive clause, noting it would not affect that many people. Commissioner Apel felt there is a constitutional issue retroactive clause, and he is opposed to any such clause. He situation can be handled under nuisance or a health factor. with a felt her Ms. Dupont - again emphasized how bad her situation is and was adamant that language be written to given her some relief. She would obtain more signatures if needed to make this retroactive. Commissioner Apel understood her position but stood firm that a retroactive clause is neither moral or ethical and that the courts will not uphold it. Commissioner Putnam did not care for the language "or source of filth". He suggested pre-existing dog enclosures which are a nuisance or a health or sanitary hazard shall be required to comply with this section. That addresses the problem in terms of health and requires compliance on any pre-existing conditions where there are complaints. He felt that would also address Ms. Dupont's concern. The Commission generally agreed that the section should not be retroactive. Mr. Carlberg stated he will clarify the wording of this section before the public hearing. Section 1, Definitions, f, Nuisance: Commissioner Doucette suggested adding language to declare any animal running at large a nuisance. " Skip Rither 17410 Blackfoot - cited instances of dogs biting people who ~~J are walking or jogging in the street, including a personal incident of being bitten by an unlicensed dog that did not have its shots. Controlling the dogs at all times should be the responsibility of the property owner. Mr. Carlberg noted that other sections of the ordinance address the issue of running at large, which is not allowed. : .) .~ () / ) '- Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 14, 1995 Page 6 (Discussion - Dog Kennel Operations, Continued) It was agreed to add to this section: it shall be considered a nuisance for any animal running at large; to habitually... Page 2, Section 18: Commissioner Doucette suggested adding Council may grant, with additional conditions, or deny the Mr. Carlberg felt the procedure allows additional conditions. was made. "the City license." No change Staff was directed to make changes as recommended this evening and to schedule the public hearing for the amendments for the March 28 meeting. MOTION by Doucette, Seconded by Apel, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, I-Absent (Squires) vote. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '~ \\\~~~~k Mar~la A. Peach Recording Secretary /- ""\ <_.J : ') "--- ,rj '-"_/ ('. ) April 4, 1995 Discussion Items Planning Amend Ordinance No.8, Sections 3.02, 4.30 and 7.03. David L. Carlberg, Planning Director REQUEST The City Council is asked to review the attached amendments to Ordinance No.8, Sections 3.02, 4.30 and 7.03. GENERAL REVIEW Section 3.02 Definitions ( " "_/ The proposed amendment would add a definition for therapeutic massage and therapeutic massage establishment. The amendment would also add therapeutic massage establishments to the definition of retail trade and services. Section 4.30 Home Occupations The proposed amendment would add cabinet making/wood working and therapeutic massage as home occupational uses. Section 7.03 Special Uses Said amendment would allow therapeutic massage as a home occupation in residential districts. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The Planning and zoning Commission on March 14, 1995 reviewed the proposed amendments to Ordinance No.8 and recommends to the City Council approval of the amendments. Attached for Council review is the staff report and minutes from Planning and zoning Commission meeting. \.