04-19-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 12 past, and he believed a more appropriate location would be the old arsenal site on County Road I. He explained that this would be a better location for most of the residents of Mounds View, and would also serve some of the Shoreview residents. Planning Associate Ericson stated this would have an added benefit in that residents would not have to transport their compost across County Road J. Commissioner Kaden requested clarification regarding the distribution of the survey. Planning Associate Ericson stated he was not certain which groups would receive the survey at this time, however, he was aware that a copy has been forwarded to the Council and Parks and Recreation Commission. 9. Discussion Regarding Proposed Changes to the Zoning Code Related to the Presence and Siting of Tattoo, Body Piercing, Body Branding, Body Painting and Related Establishments. Planning Associate Ericson stated this issue is before the Planning Commission for preliminary discussion at this time. He stated the City Council adopted Ordinance 653, an emergency interim ordinance, which prohibits the siting of tattoo shops, body piercing, body branding and related establishments within the City of Mounds View. Planning Associate Ericson stated a few months ago, the City was approached by an establishment that was looking to locate in the City, and at that time, the City Code did not address these types of uses. He explained that this is not to say such uses are inherently bad, or that they would not be welcome in the City, however, without any language pertinent to such uses, it could be legally challenged that they be allowed to operate on Highway 10, next to the daycare facility, or anywhere within the commercial district. He advised that the City Council adopted the emergency interim ordinance, which allows the City time to review and research different codes, and to draft language which would create conditions by which these types of uses could be located. Planning Associate Ericson indicated the courts have upheld that a City may not discriminate between certain types of uses, and all were aware of the issues and controversies surrounding “adult” establishments, pawn shops and gun shops, therefore, it makes sense for the City to address these types of uses before we are faced with a use in a location that may be inappropriate. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff has provided the Commission with examples of codes relating to tattoo shops and piercing parlors, one of which is that of the city of St. Paul, which is quite brief, and the other two from the cities of Crystal and Richfield. He indicated that the Richfield and Crystal codes were very similar in nature, and were actually drafted by the same