The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1977-11-21 PC MinutesPROCEEDIPIGS OF THE PLANNING COhIMISSION CITY OF MQUNDS VIEl~ ~ RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA A speciai meeting of the Mounds V1ew Planning Cnmmisston was called to order at 7:90 PM on November 21, 1977 at the Mounds View City Ha11, 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, Minn.sota 55112. Members Present: Cha9rperson Haake Commission Member Zepper Commission Member FEdor Comnission ~1?mber Giazor Commission Mem~er Burmeister Commission Member Bianchard Commission Member Foss A1so Present: Cauncilmember Baumgartner Chairperson Haake explained that the speciai meettng was to be a wonking session for the Comnission Members on the home occupation ordinance and Asked each Commiss9on Member for his thoughts on the present ord4nance. Commi5s9on Member l.epper stated the probtems that were ar~isir.g were smalT, - isolated cases and recommended that the ordinance be left'as is, and if com- plaints were received, each case could be foTTowed up on individuatiy. ~ Comnission Member Fedor stated that he feTt tlie bastc problem with the ordinance has been in the enforcement end of it iri that the police department could not determine what was the iaw and who was breaking it. He also pointed out that Attorney Meyers had stated previously that the ordinance could be enforced as it presently stands. Commission Member Fedor suggested that the Comnission could prepare a list of what is wanted and what is not wanted, in uY~der ta a11ow tha fine line areas. Contnlssion Member Glazer staied ihat he basically agreed with what Cnmmission Members Zepper and Fedor had stated but that he did not feel it shoutd be ~udged on a case by case basis as the rules would be modified for each case. Cumniss7on tqamber Uurmeistcr stated that she felt comfortable with the present ordinance as long as the f.ity Attorney was. She aiso suggested that something might possibly be added ta cover a nuisance law 6ut recommende~i being carefal not to add too many guidelines. Commission Member 67anchard stated that it was an established fact that there are a lot of in-home businesses in Maunds View. She also stated that #he guideTines do not seem to warrant any changes and the L'ity Attor•ney seems to be happy with the ordir.ance as it is, so she recommended that the ordinance shouid stand as is but 8~;at a nulsance ordinance be added, with stipulations for excessive noise, no signs, no door to door advertising, oP no trucks with i , advertfsing on them, and so forCh. ~he also recomnended that enforcement could ~ be a neighborhood probiem with complaints being made to the police departinent or City Council of violators. Hovember 2t, 19'/7 page 2 Commisslon Member Foss stated that he agreed with most of what had been said but ~ that he was not in favor of having permits. He stated that he agreed a riuisance ord',~ance wculd be beneficlal and recummended that a statement be added that any business which by its nature creates a nuisance to the neighborhaod could be ~ustiflably eliminated by compiaints. He also stated that he felt there were a few hume occupations that could be allowed, such as wetcti repair, and music and dance insCrucCion with more than one pupil at a time allowed. Chairperson 1laake stated that she fe1C the present ordinance was adequate and would recommend teaving it as it stands. She also stated that she would tike • a conditional use procedure added to the home occupatlon ordina~ce, and that 9f someone wants Co make a complaint, they should appear before the Council and the busTness operator would tP;en be reqW red to apply for u conditionat use permit. ' Chairperson Haake pointed out that a home is a persons biggest personal lnvzstment and everyo~e should be ab]e to have a say in what their neighborhaod is gofng to be like. Commission Member eurnieister stated that slie `ett it might be diffucu?L to enforce the cond9tiona7 use permit requirement as the only way the City would 4now there xas a home accupation was if someone complaineci. She suggested that perhaps the conditfonal use permit should only be requiPed when there is a canplaint. Commission tdember Zepper stated that they cou!d I;hen run into the probtem of a neighbor who is a chrunic complainer. Commission Member 8lanchard questioned the requirement of a co~ditional use peYmlt -~, since it would Ee for sometfiing the ordinance alraady prohibits. '-% Comnission Member Zepper stated that tF there was a complaint, perhaps the business could be watched for a certain tfine. Ne alsa stated that he did not feei anyone should have to sign a compia9nC. Councitrt~~nibRr Baumgartner stated that he believed it is necessary to sign a complaint if somEthing is gning to go to cnurt. He also pointed out that whenever L•he pollce take a cati, thay take the ca7lers name and address for their records. Comnission Member B7anchard stated that she felt if a nuisa~ce ardinancc was enforced. it would eliminate the ma,~ority of the problems with the prespnt ardfttance. Cartmfssion Member Foss stated that it would be hard to draw the line on what to allaw and what not to allow. Caunci7member tlaumgartner stated that the ordinance 1s nut enforceable in ic's present cundition znd that something must be revised ir~ order for it to be enforced. Commission t~tember F2dor ~ointed out that the problem seems to be that while the City Attorney fee15 comfartabie with the ordinance and confident Chat he could win, in court, the Staff is the one who is actually daciding whether or not thay should give a citation. Councitmember Baumgartner recorrrnended that the Planning Commission discuss home occupations that are within the house, witf+in one room, to limit tha area. ._.~' Chairperson ttaake reported that she had toured a tv repair shop pperated within a home in Mounds View and that she was very impressed w9th the neatness of the aperatian and that there werr ~o visable signs of a repair shop beinq operated cut , ~ :November 21, 19i7 Page 3 ~ ' of the home. Sha also pointed out, however, that ~ust because one person was neaC ; ~ tlid~not mean the next person would be the same• Comnission Member eurrr~~d:ier stated she felt that Nepair shops should be 1lmited to one room within the home, excluding the garaye. Considerable discussion followed between the Co~mnission Members es to the best ' wordin~ of the ordiance and what additions or deletions ahoutd be made, e i MSP (Haake-Burmeister) to recommend to Ehe City Council that they retain the present ordinance regardiny home occupations under Chapeer 40,30, Subdivision C, paragroph , ~ (3) with the following cha~ges, that in Lhe sixth tine, after• 'premises,' !o insel•t ~, 'unless said repair shop is limtted to one room in the house, exluding the garage', and in the eighteenth line, after 'loceted in.' a new sentence be added to read 'There shail he ne activity producing n~x9ous matter or noise perceptible ar ob3actioneble to the imnediate neighbors.' & ayes 1 Il~y ~i i Comnission Member Fedor staLed that he had voted egainst the motion es he had more ,I ltheral thoughts regarding the opdinance. '+ MSP (Fass-Zepper) to amend the previous motion to increase the ii~nit of one pupla ~ to tNree puplls, in the last ~entence. b ayes I 2 nays ' Chairperson Haake sta~ed that the recommendation would be sent an to the Councfl,. ~ ~ who would be taking action, if any was Co be,taken. ~ ~ MSP (Zepper-Foss) to ~d,~ourn at 4;2U PM. 7 ayes Respectfully submitted, _ Pamela Young ~ Recarding Secretary ~ .~ ~ ~ V