04-19-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Plan Planning Commission April 19, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 13 company. He noted that once a good ordinance is drafted, it is often the case that same ordinance is adopted by other cities. Planning Associate Ericson explained that at this time, staff was requesting feedback from the Commission. He stated the questions before the Commission are which zoning districts would be appropriate for these types of uses, should such uses be considered conditional or permitted by right, and if conditional, what conditions would be appropriate. He indicated there were conditions set forth in the examples that would certainly be adequate, however, in the process if adopting another city’s code, some fine-tuning and tweaking is required to suit the specific needs of the City. Commissioner Kaden pointed out that the language of these ordinances does not address scarification. He explained that this process involves placing silicone sand into an incision in the skin, over which a scar heals in different shapes and designs. Planning Associate Ericson stated staff could research this issue to determine if there are definitions for scarification, and possibly discuss this with a person who performs the procedure. Council Liaison Stigney stated all licensing requirements appear to pertain to the owners of these establishments, and there is no mention of licensure of the personnel actually performing the tattoo functions. He advised that some States require that you must have certified trained personnel performing these procedures. Planning Associate Ericson stated this would be similar to a massage studio or a beauty parlor, in which each of the individual operators are required to be licensed. He indicated this could be addressed in the ordinance, and there are licensing requirements for other uses within the Code that this language could be patterned after. Chairperson Peterson stated St. Paul’s ordinance is very brief, and does not appear to address location. Planning Associate Ericson stated the ordinance itself does not, however, they utilize a matrix consisting of the different zoning districts and a list of all of the uses, which are indicated as permitted or conditionally permitted uses in certain districts. He indicated that where these types of uses were permitted, they were permitted by right, and did not require a conditional use permit. Commissioner Miller advised that the Commission may wish to consider the hours of operation, depending upon where these businesses are located. Chairperson Peterson stated this was addressed in the Richfield code, which also addresses additional uses in the C-2 General Commercial District, with a number of dimensional criteria. He pointed out that St. Paul’s ordinance only addresses these criteria in the matrix. Planning Associate Ericson added that this ordinance goes no further than to specify the location of the use, and in which district, in terms of sizing requirements or matters of this nature. He stated the city of Minneapolis is similar, in that these uses are specifically permitted in certain districts, as opposed to conditionally permitted. He pointed out that this might be one advantage