HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/24/1991URBAN AFFAIRS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
SEPTEMBER 24, 1991
1. CALL TO ORDER
The September 24, 1991 meeting of the Apple Valley Urban Affairs Advisory Committee was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall large conference room by Chairman John McKay.
Members Present: Chairman John McKay, Members Sharon Schwartz, Robin Curran, Van
Holston, and Shirley Doering.
Members Absent; Pam Sohlberg and JoAnne Ellison.
Staff Present: Mary Mueller, Terry Cook, and Scott Hickok.
Others Present: Wilt Anderson and George Berg.
2. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
MOTION: A motion was made by Member Schwartz to approve the agenda of the September
24, 1991 meeting with the following addition:
41). Dogs in Apple Valley
-Terry Cook-
Member Van Holston seconded the motion. Motion carried.
3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JUNE 4, 1991
MOTION: A motion was made to approve the minutes of June 4, 1991 by Member Doering
to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Member Schwartz. Motion carried.
4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Cemetery Issues
-Dennis Welsch-
Associate Planner Scott Hickok introduced the cemetery issues and explained that the Urban
Affairs Advisory Committee should discuss the perceived need for a cemetery or lack of need for
a cemetery in Apple Valley, as well as listen to and discuss the current cemetery issues with Wilt
Anderson and George Berg.
Urban Affairs Advisory Committee Minutes
September 24, 1991
Page 2
After a brief introduction, Wilt Anderson explained that the existing Lebanon Cemetery at the
corner of County Road 42 and Pilot Knob consists of approximately two acres of land (85,000 to
87,000 square feet). The Lebanon Cemetery was established in 1865.
George Berg commented that the capacity of the current Lebanon Cemetery is approximately
900 graves. The projected capacity or plots available is 150. This 150 is based on known plots to
be sold, as well as situations where families may have bought a dozen plots and only intend to
utilize 7, leaving 5 remaining to be sold or somehow utilized.
Wilt Anderson explained that of the approximately 85,000 to 87,000 square feet, once the
roadway and common areas are subtracted, that number can be divided by 60 square feet, which
is a 6 foot by 10 foot plot. Based on those calculations, the Lebanon Cemetery could accommodate
969 grave sites.
Anderson and Berg went on to explain that the Lebanon Cemetery is a low budget operation
run by an association of plot owners. The cost of mowing, maintenance, etc. is supported by the
interest on the C.D.'s that have been purchased with the plot purchase costs. If you purchase a
cemetery plot, you become a member of the association and have an active voice in issues within
the cemetery.
Member Doering asked about specific rules regarding flowers, shrubs, etc. George Berg
commented that the cemetery allows shrubs, flowers, artificial. flowers, etc.
Member Schwartz asked if is land available adjacent to the Lebanon Cemetery. Staff
responded that there is land that is adjacent that is currently agricultural.
Member Holston asked how many burials occur annually at the cemetery. George Berg
responded 4 to 5 burials.
Member Doering. asked if there are records for tallying ownership. George Berg responded that
there are records that go back to the beginning, although the oldest records have questionable
accuracy or creditability.
Chairman McKay asked if the current funds for maintenance are adequate. George Berg
responded that the money is adequate to maintain what they have currently.
George Berg went on to explain the tax exempt status.
Member Doering asked if staff could find out what cities are doing around the metro area
and what the anticipated need is for our community in terms of plot inventory.
Wilt Anderson stated that he felt it is time that the city look at this issue and make some
decisions on what to do with the cemetery issue.
George Berg asked if it is possible to purchase a cemetery or an additional acreage for the
Lebanon Cemetery through tax dollars.
City Clerk Mary Mueller explained that some cities do have public or municipally-owned
cemeteries which are purchased through public funds.
Urban Affairs Advisory Committee Meeting
September 24, 1991
Page 3
Member Curran stated that everyone that she has discussed this matter with is in favor of
development of a new cemetery or expansion of the existing Lebanon Cemetery.
Member Holston stated that we are not talking about a great deal of money. The additional
land and enhancement such as wrought iron, blacktop drives, etc. would not cost that much.
Member Schwartz asked how we could make accurate projections about population and
cemetery needs. Scott Hickok responded that staff has done some research and will continue to
research other communities and the population compared with plot size and statistics regarding
residences who prefer to be buried in their community.
Chairman McKay asked about the State Legislation or laws that require certain standards for
burial. McKay added an example which he observed at Westminster Abbey which was a vertical
cemetery plot purchased by friends of the deceased,. who could not afford the Westminster Abbey
plot fee, but were able to put together enough funds to provide a vertical burial plot and headstone.
A discussion about headstones ensued and then a general discussion followed.
Scott Hickok stated that the issue will be on the agenda again and staff will follow-up on
some of the questions that came out of the Urban Affairs discussion and also staff will keep the
Urban Affairs Advisory Committee members posted with any new information about cemeteries or
the perceived need in Apple Valley.
B. Therapeutic Massage/Sauna Ordinance
-Mary Mueller-
City Clerk Mary Mueller discussed the Therapeutic Massage/Sauna Ordinance revisions which
she drafted and provided to each of the Urban Affairs Advisory Committee members for review.
Member Schwartz asked if in the definitions we are not prohibiting private sauna uses or
saunas in general by the language that is utilized. Mary Mueller explained that the definition
focuses on saunas as the primary use of a facility not in conjunction with health clubs, etc.
A question was asked about what if there. was a private' club, something that is not public
where sauna is the principle use. Mary Mueller explained that if it is anything other than a sauna
in a home, if there is going to be a membership where dues will be paid, etc., this would be a
violation of the ordinance as written which was the intention.
Member Doering asked if the city does have a health officer. Terry Cook responded, yes we
do.
Mary Mueller went on to explain the definition of massage therapy. Some discussion about
the beautician/barber provisions ensued. The Urban Affairs Advisory Committee suggested that the
therapist definition be restructured to clarify the beautician/barber portion.
Member Doering asked about the difference between "practice" and "perform". In Section 12-
21, Item B, Mary Mueller explained that the practice can only occur in a licensed establishment.
Perform may occur in other locations.
Urban Affairs Advisory Committee Meeting
September 24, 1991
Page 4
Macy Mueller went on to say that Eagan sets the maximum limit of massage/therapy facilities
at 6. She continued by stating that to date we have had two requests; one for a therapy facility
within a beauty shop and the second within a nursing home. She explained the fee structure,
reasons for granting or denying a license, and Sections 12-25 through 12-27.
Member Schwartz asked a question about the garment and Section 12-26. Mary Mueller stated
that we would go through these items and discuss these items as needed.
A general discussion ensued regarding Section 12-26 and the committee concluded that Item
A should be combined with F and K, Items E, F, and G should be eliminated, Item H should remain,
and Items I and J should be eliminated. Mary Mueller expanded that Item L is a provision that has
been added to control the spreading of disease. A discussion of the Burnsville and Eagan ordinances
ensued. Item M should remain the same. She went on to explain the therapist requirements and 12-
27.
Member Doering questioned the displaying of license and diploma. She asked if we can
prohibit an applicant from being licensed in Apple Valley based on past record. Terry Cook
explained that if there is a past criminal record that is related to a section of this code, or could
cause concerns. For example, a rape conviction in the past could prevent a license from being
issued. Cook continued by stating that he feels that the requirements for a license and diploma be
displayed be realistic and also a license for the establishment. Mary Mueller concurred. Terry Cook
questioned drugs and alcohol. The provision in Section 12-24 states that the. possession of alcohol
in and of itself is not illegal and asked if there should be a modification to that section. Mary
Mueller explained that we are better off in prohibiting alcohol than. trying to deal with issues
related to alcohol in a massage/therapy establishment.
With the Urban Affairs Advisory Committee's recommendations, the discussion of this item
was closed.
C. Housing Maintenance Update
-Scott Hickok-
Chairman McKay asked if Scott Hickok could give a brief summary of the housing
maintenance code update. Hickok explained that the housing maintenance issue is an issue that is
of importance. It has been discussed on many occasions and the Urban Affairs Advisory Committee
was reminded of their discussions in 1990 on the housing maintenance topic. Hickok continued by
explaining the renewed interest in both asingle-family housing maintenance code and a rental
housing maintenance code. The interest to date has not really focused on single-family residential.
The priority at this point of the study is an ordinance for setting standards in the rental housing
complexes. Hickok explained that through a series of meetings with the City Administrator,
representatives of the surrounding communities, and the County, the potential for a consolidated
rental housing code in Dakota County looks promising. That code would be uniformly written and
adopted across the Dakota County community lines and the enforcement of that ordinance would
be on a contract basis, at least in Apple Valley, through the Dakota County Housing and
Redevelopment Authority.
A general discussion ensued regarding housing maintenance codes and the Urban Affairs
Advisory Committee asked to have this item brought back on upcoming agendas.
Urban Affairs Advisory Committee Meeting
September 24, 1991
Page 5
D. Dogs in Apple Valley
-Terry Cook-
Captain Terry Cook explained a situation within Apple Valley where a woman owns 15 small
dogs. Captain. Cook continued by stating that there has not been a complaint about this woman or
her dogs. Neighbors have never raised this as an issue. A woman did, however, purchase a dog
from this resident and that woman contacted our Police Department regarding her perception of the
animal's health and the facility which she purchased her dog from. He explained, after handing
out ordinances, including the Apple Valley Animal Ordinance and another example of an animal
ordinance. He explained that in Apple Valley a resident is entitled to three (3) adult dogs, which
means that this woman would be required to somehow reduce the number of dogs from IS to 3 at
her residence. He continued by explaining that catteries or cats in Chapter 5 -animal provisions
are allowed and a cattery would enable a property owner to have as many as 6 cats. He raised the
question about cats versus dogs in numbers. It is fair to limit dogs to 3 where cats can conceivably
be kept in larger numbers?
A discussion ensued regarding the number of animals and some support for modifying the
Chapter 5 provisions and allowing 6 dogs of a certain weight might be an option.
Committee members asked again about complaints and conditions of the residents. Captain
Cook responded that the property is well-maintained and no outward signs of IS dogs at this
residence. The pets are kept in the basement in kennels in a containment area. and the entire lower
level of this home is devoted to the animals.
Scott Hickok added that he felt that raising the number from 3 dogs to 6 adult dogs would
not be the best solution. Because the woman has had success with keeping a large number of dogs,
we would be hard pressed to find another situation where 6 dogs could be kept and where
complaints would not be lodged by neighbors because of noise, etc.
City Clerk Mary Mueller stated that this is one good reason why we would want to have a
weight restriction on the dogs, so that the dogs would be a similar size to cats.
Chairman McKay asked if this is not one of the reasons we have the noise or barking
provision in Chapter S which states that an owner cannot keep dogs who will habitually bark, cry,
whimper, etc..
The recommendation of the Urban Affairs Advisory Committee was that Captain Terry Cook
encourage this woman to contact the Council for an opinion on revising the code and also encourage
the woman to reduce the number of dogs from 15 to at least 6 until a decision can be made
regarding revisions to Chapter 5.
5. OTHER STUDY OR CODE ISSUES
-None-
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:45.