2000 Planning Commission Packets

Home Browse Search

_ Item # 9 City of Mounds View Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: Title: DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE ZONING CODE RELATED TO THE SITING AND LOCATION OF TATTOO, BODY PIERCING, BODY BRANDING, BODY PAINTING AND RELATED ESTABLISHIvIENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW. Introduction: On February 14, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance 653, an emergency ordinance drafted to prohibit the siting of tattoo shops and similar uses for a period of six months to allow the City ample time to review and research these types of uses and other cities' relevant codes. The ordinance expires on August 14, 2000, unless e�ended by the City Council. Discussion: Ordinance 653 was drafted in response to the possibility of a tattoo shop being located on County Road I on a property zoned B-2, Limited Business District. Because the City's Zoning Code does not contemplate tattoo and piercing shops, it could be legally argued that they would be permitted in any commercial business district. Without any language pertinent to such uses, the City would lose any control over potential siting requirements if the zoning code were challenged and not upheld. (The Courts have ruled that cities may not exclude certain types of businesses or commercial activities while permitting other types.) While no Zoning Code can contemplate every possible type of business or commercial activity, not addressing potentially controversial uses such as adult uses, pawn shops or gun shops, can lead to problems. Some issues to consider with regard to the possible siting of tattoo parlors include which zoning district would be most appropriate, whether the use would be permitted by right or conditionally, (and if by condition, what conditions), whether setbacks would be imposed from certain sensitive uses such as schools, residential districts or churches, and whether the uses would be licensed. Staff is providing the Commission with three examples of zoning requirements for tattoo shops from the cities of St. Paul, Crystal and Richfield. St. Paul's Code is less restrictive and allows tattoo shops as permitted uses in certain districts. The City of Minneapolis also allows for tattoo shops as permitted uses in certain districts. The other two examples are very similar in their construction and, in comparison the St. Paul's code, are much more restrictive. It would be sta�s suggestion that Mounds View adopt language similar to that of Crystal or Richfield with revisions as needed.