Loading...
12-10-1996CITY Of RIOHFIELD PLAnninG commission AGenDA December 10, 1996 7:00 p.m. Planning Commission meeting of November 26, 1996. ITEM #1 PC Letter #15 Tattoo Ordinance ITEM #2 1997 Study Session Schedule M" School Board Community Services Advisory Commission H RA City Council Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Service's Director at 861 - 9702:" PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r- 0=19r.9m Regular Meeting November 26, 1996 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairperson Daniel Linnihan; Commissioners: Pamela Dmytrenko, Timothy Erlander, David Gepner, Mitchell Hadley, and Kristal Stokes. MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Hanson and Paul Wasko COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: John Melin, Community Development Manager Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator Cynthia Kirchoff, Staff Planning Assistant The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairperson Linnihan at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Erlander noted that Kristal Stokes was listed as being both present and absent; she was absent. M /Erlander, S/Hadley to approve the amended minutes of the special Planning Commission meeting of October 29. 1996. Motion carried: 5 -0 M/Erlander, S /Stokes to approve the minutes of the Planning_ Commission study session meeting of November 12. 1996. Motion carried: 5 -0 PUBLIC HEARING October 29, 1996 Page 2 ITEM #1 96 -RZ -4; 96- CUP -11 6958 Cedar Avenue South, The Transmission Shop Zoning Administrator Urban presented the staff report stating that the applicant proposes to demolish two duplexes and construct an 8,594 square foot addition onto the existing building and requests that the lots be rezoned to C -2 (general commercial). John and Marilyn Craig, owners of 6932 and 6934 Cedar Avenue, stated that they believe that the addition to the repair shop would adversely affect the value of their property. They' questioned the reason behind the denied relocation to 7200 Cedar of the repair shop in 1993. Mr. Craig stated that the 7200 Cedar location would have been be more appropriate because their current location affects more houses. Commissioner Stokes stated that the relocation was denied because of the size of the lot, building and parking issues. Mr. Craig stated that they might have difficulty finding renters and questioned how the building will be maintained. He stated that the applicant has refused to seal coat their shared driveway. Commissioner Stokes questioned the affect this proposal will have on the joint driveway. Chairperson Linnihan stated that the conditional use permit may be revoked for non- compliance. Commissioner Hadley asked if the proposal is more detracting to Mr. Craig's property than the current business is to the existing duplex. Mr. Craig stated that the proposed addition would be located closer to his property than the existing building. Ms. Urban stated that staff did not require fencing because greenery is more ben' eficial. She said that fences propose maintenance issues. Commissioner Dmytrenko asked if noise was an issue and whether a fence would be a sound barrier. Commissioner Stokes stated that the neighbor who lives behind the repair shop contacted her regarding upkeep of the buffer area and the loss of sunlight and sunrise. Steve Jensen, The Transmission Shop owner, stated that he is willing to work with the neighbors on the noise issues. He also said that the Craig's duplexes are located near the warehouse portion of the proposal and that their tenant signed a petition. Commissioner Stokes questioned if there will be a need for street parking and if vehicles will be stored in the service bays. Mr. Jensen stated that vehicles will be stored overnight in the service bays. October 29, 1996 Page 3 Mr. Craig stated that he would like the applicant to have both a fence and a bufferyard. Chairperson Linnihan stated that a stipulation may be added and that the applicant and the neighbor along with staff should work together for the construction of the northern buffer. M/Hadley, S/Erlander to close the public hearing, portion of this meeting, Motion carried: 5 -0. M /Erlander, S /Stokes to approve the request to rezone 6938 -40 and 6944 -46 Cedar Avenue from MR -1 to C -2. Motion carried: 5 -0 Chairperson Linnihan stated that he supports this proposal because it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and is confident that the applicant will be a good neighbor. M/Erlander, S/Hadley to approve the conditional use permit with the additional stipulation that the neighbor and the applicant work together to design appropriate screening on the north end of the proposal. Motion carried: 5 -0 NEW BUSINESS Chairperson Linnihan asked the Commissioners to think about what projects or topics the Commission would like to undertake in the upcoming year in study sessions. LIAISON REPORTS School Board: Commissioner Dmytrenko stated that she attended a budget cut hearing in which the board discussed the of 26 items and $300,000 in cuts for the 1997 school year. Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Stokes stated that the Commission discussed the telecommunication towers. She also stated that a consultant is in the process of reviewing park uses and programs and they are attempting to determine the direction of the master parks plan group. 76th Street Task Force: Commissioner Gepner stated that the task force has not met HRA: Zoning Administrator Urban stated that Vern Luettinger is retiring. November 26, 1996 Page 4 City Council: Mayor Kirsch stated that the City Council overruled the Hearing Examiner's decision on a variance and approved the modification to the TIF Plan for 1LN and LHN Districts. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:10 p.m. Timothy tommission, ander Planning Secretary Item: #1 Agenda Section: New Business PC Letter: #15 Date: December 10, 1996 GENERAL INFORMATION Subject: Tattoo Ordinance Type of Review and discuss proposed ordinance language regulating the location of tattoo Request: establishments. References: a Letter from Assistant City Attorney Thomson responding to Planning Commission comments at November 12, 1996 study session Draft ordinance language ANALYSIS Proposal: At the study session on November 12, 1996, the Planning Commission directed staff to explore additional regulations regarding tattoo establishments. The Commission suggested that staff consider adding tattoo establishments to the adult uses ordinance. The Assistant City Attorney has recommended against doing so on the basis that it may weaken our adult uses ordinance (see attached letter from Corrine Thomson). Based on the attorney's recommendation, staff suggests that the Commission explore keeping tattoo establishments separate from adult uses and developing regulations specific to tattoo establishments. Tattoo establishments share a similarity with adult uses in that they are geared to adults. The licensing provisions require that tattoos not be given to minors except in the presence of a legal parent or guardian. Distance requirements from land uses where children are commonly present would be appropriate to provide protection to children from these types of uses. A tattoo establishment should be at least 350 feet from any school, church, park, day care center or public library. In addition, tattoo establishments should be at least 100 feet from any residential district. The licensing provisions state that tattoo operators cannot give tattoos while under the influence of alcohol or drugs and are prohibited from giving tattoos to anyone who is under the influence of alcohol or drugs. On this basis, tattoo establishments should be located at least 350 feet from any business that serves alcohol. In addition, the concentration of these types of uses has a negative effect on the aesthetics or image of a neighborhood. To avoid concentration, there should be a distance requirement of at least 1,000 feet between tattoo establishments. The Commission also asked that staff consider making allowances for tattooing that takes place as part of a beauty salon. Further information on this issue will be available at the Planning Commission meeting. A map showing the impact of these restrictions will also be available at the meeting. RECOMMENDATION Recommended Action: Preferred: Review and discuss the proposed draft ordinance amendment regarding tattoo establishments; recommend adoption of the draft ordinance by the City Council. Basis: 1. A study of the issues by the Advisory Board of Health indicates that there is a need to regulate tattoo establishments. The Board recommends that zoning regulations, as well as licensing requirements, be adopted. 2. Tattooing is an activity restricted to adults; tattoo establishments should not be located in close proximity to areas where children are commonly present. 3. Tattoo establishments cannot give tattoos to persons under the influence of alcohol or drugs; tattoo establishments should not be located in close proximity to businesses that serve alcohol. 4. Concentration of businesses such as tattoo establishments can have a negative impact on the aesthetics and image of a neighborhood. Alternative: 1. Direct staff to conduct further study of the issues. ' 2. Recommend that the City Council not adopt an ordinance amendment regulating tattoo establishments. Bill No. 1996- Amendment to the City Code of the City of Richfield The City of Richfield Does Ordain: A. Section 526 of Appendix B to the Richfield City Code entitled "Zoning: Commercial Districts" is amended by amending Section 526.27, Subd. 20 to read as follows: Subd. 20. Tattoo Establishments, provided the following conditions are met: a) such uses shall be licensed under Section XXX of the City Code: b) such uses shall be located not less than 100 feet from any residential zoned property; c) such uses shall be located not less than 350 feet from any school, church, park, day care center, or public library; d) such uses shall be located not less than 350 feet from any establishment selling and /or serving alcoholic beverages. e) such uses shall be located not less than 1,000 feet from other tattoo establishments: B. The remaining subdivisions of subsection 526.27 are renumbered accordingly. Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, Minnesota this day of 1997. Martin J. Kirsch, Mayor ATTEST: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk 470 Pillsbury Center 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis MN 55402 612) 337 -9300 telephone 612) 337 -9310 fax e -mail: atrys @kennedy - graven.com CHARTERED CORRINE H. THOMSON Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9217 November 26, 1996 Julie Urban City of Richfield 6700 Portland Avenue South Richfield, MN 55423 RE: Tattoo parlor regulations Dear Julie: This will confirm our discussion of last week regarding the treatment of tattoo parlors under the City's zoning ordinance. You mentioned that there had been some discussion at the planning commission meeting about adding tattoo parlors as a regulated business under the adult use ordinance. I advised against doing so, which led us into a general discussion about some of the theoretical underpinnings for zoning ordinances. The purpose of this letter is to lay out some of . the legal underpinnings for zoning ordinances, in order to assist the planning commission in preparing zoning text amendments. I suggested that tattoo parlors should not be "lumped in" with adult uses for a couple of reasons. First, the adult use ordinance was drafted to deal specifically with uses that are protected by the First Amendment. As you know, ordinances that implicate First Amendment rights are subject to stricter judicial scrutiny. Tattoo pal lors do not implicate First Amendment rights, and adding them into the adult use ordinance unnecessarily complicates the enforcement of the adult use ordinance. Secondly, zoning restrictions cannot be arbitrary or capricious. In other words, there has to be a logical reason for adopting certain restrictions. This is not an onerous requirement. However, you can't arbitrarily apply distance requirements to a particular use without any regard for the purpose that is served by the restriction. When we talked, I cautioned against falling into the trap of using certain distancing requirements for every new use the City regulates, without giving any thought as to whether the distancing requirement has any logical connection to the type of business being regulated. That being said, you have suggested logical reasons why the City might want to separate tattoo parlors from certain uses. The City might also want to impose a distance requirement that separates tattoo parlors from each other, under the rationale that the concentration of such uses CAH113996 RC160 -5 Julie Urban November 26, 1996 Page 2 has a negative effect on the aesthetics or image of a neighborhood. If the planning commission wants to incorporate distancing requirements into the zoning restrictions on tattoo parlors, I believe those requirements could be supported. I recommend, however, that tattoo parlors not be incorporated into the adult use ordinance. Sincerely, Corrine H. Thomson CAH113996 RC160 -5