Laserfiche WebLink
PROCEEDIPIGS OF THE PLANNING COhIMISSION <br />CITY OF MQUNDS VIEl~ <br />~ RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA <br />A speciai meeting of the Mounds V1ew Planning Cnmmisston was called to order at <br />7:90 PM on November 21, 1977 at the Mounds View City Ha11, 2401 Highway 10, <br />Mounds View, Minn.sota 55112. <br />Members Present: <br />Cha9rperson Haake <br />Commission Member Zepper <br />Commission Member FEdor <br />Comnission ~1?mber Giazor <br />Commission Mem~er Burmeister <br />Commission Member Bianchard <br />Commission Member Foss <br />A1so Present: <br />Cauncilmember Baumgartner <br />Chairperson Haake explained that the speciai meettng was to be a wonking session <br />for the Comnission Members on the home occupation ordinance and Asked each <br />Commiss9on Member for his thoughts on the present ord4nance. <br />Commi5s9on Member l.epper stated the probtems that were ar~isir.g were smalT, <br />- isolated cases and recommended that the ordinance be left'as is, and if com- <br />plaints were received, each case could be foTTowed up on individuatiy. <br />~ Comnission Member Fedor stated that he feTt tlie bastc problem with the ordinance <br />has been in the enforcement end of it iri that the police department could not <br />determine what was the iaw and who was breaking it. He also pointed out that <br />Attorney Meyers had stated previously that the ordinance could be enforced as it <br />presently stands. Commission Member Fedor suggested that the Comnission could <br />prepare a list of what is wanted and what is not wanted, in uY~der ta a11ow tha <br />fine line areas. <br />Contnlssion Member Glazer staied ihat he basically agreed with what Cnmmission <br />Members Zepper and Fedor had stated but that he did not feel it shoutd be ~udged <br />on a case by case basis as the rules would be modified for each case. <br />Cumniss7on tqamber Uurmeistcr stated that she felt comfortable with the present <br />ordinance as long as the f.ity Attorney was. She aiso suggested that something <br />might possibly be added ta cover a nuisance law 6ut recommende~i being carefal <br />not to add too many guidelines. <br />Commission Member 67anchard stated that it was an established fact that there <br />are a lot of in-home businesses in Maunds View. She also stated that #he <br />guideTines do not seem to warrant any changes and the L'ity Attor•ney seems to <br />be happy with the ordir.ance as it is, so she recommended that the ordinance <br />shouid stand as is but 8~;at a nulsance ordinance be added, with stipulations <br />for excessive noise, no signs, no door to door advertising, oP no trucks with <br />i , advertfsing on them, and so forCh. ~he also recomnended that enforcement could <br />~ be a neighborhood probiem with complaints being made to the police departinent <br />or City Council of violators. <br />