12/12/1984 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

2cn;nc December 12, 1984 Page Three Mr. Goldade voiced his opinion for the record, that he felt that a major change to the City Code, such as the accessory building changes, could be better and more fairly handled by ballot open to all voters than by the P & Z Board acting upon the wishes of a handful of people from the community. The Board took a five - minute break at this time. KENNEL CODE ORDINANCE 87 In response to questions which arose when the City Council considered the kennel code ordinance changes, the P & Z Board had the following. With respect to the minimum size lot requirement - the P & Z Board felt that there is a need for a minimum of five acres of land where there will be three or more dogs, and that the five acre requirement is consistent with the zoning district lot size requirements. With respect to the question of nuisance as raised by Mr. Reinert - the P & Z Board felt that the concern over the possibility of a dog kennel operation causing a nuisance is equal to the concern over the possibility of it causing a health, safety and welfare problem, and asked that the City Attorney make any necessary language changes to reflect that concern. With respect to questions about pre- existing dog kennels, they would Ibe covered under the 'grandfather clause'. The Board felt that the particulars in the revised dog kennel ordin- ance and been given due consideration and the particulars recommended were appropriate. REZONE ER TO LI - Joe Spetzman ?r. Spetzman reviewed his appearance before the City Council on November 26. Details of this are in'the 11/26 Council minutes. Basically, Mr. Spetzman wants to build a storage accessory building_ on his land which abutts his son's _land. His land is ER and his son's land is LI. Mr. Spetzman presented his request and referred to a letter from the City Planner, Mr. Chapman which suggested some alternative ways of handling the situation. The Board felt that Mr. Chapman has not addressed the problem of how to split off 2.8 acres of land with no frontage, as is proposed by Mr_ Spetzman. They also pointed out that to allow a non- conform- ing use would set a poor precedent, and that Mr. _Spetzman .should" consider building the storage accessory building on his son's LI land, to which Mr. Spetzman replied that he did not want to pay for . a building on his son's land, even -though it was -a partnership type business. The Board asked Mr. Kluegel to request of Mr. Chapman an alternative which would satisfy the parameters of the Ordinance. Mr. Prokop moved to table this issue until the January meeting pending review by the City Planner. Seconded by Mr. Goldade. Carried.