PL PACKET 08162005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 2005 Page 8 1 various cities regarding accessory uses and customary home occupations as an accessory use. 2 She noted that home occupation comes up frequently in discussions with residents and basically 3 the ordinance does not allow home occupancy. She asked if this is something that they might 4 want to consider expanding noting that there are issues to address including traffic concerns, 5 disturbing the peace of the area noting that the City is aware that there are home businesses and it 6 would be difficult to seek them all out. She explained that the City responds when a complaint 7 has been made. 8 9 Ms. Moore-Sykes referenced another memo from the City Attorney that discusses non- 10 commercial opinion sign ordinance. She explained that the concern is whether the City could 11 control this kind of signage noting that they should discuss the first amendment rights of the 12 United States Constitution. 13 14 Chair Stromgren explained that this was a topic of discussion at a number of meetings. He 15 further explained that there was a serious concern with the constitutional issues in that approving 16 something that would put the City into a position where they could be embroiled in lawsuits and 17 expend City funds given the size of the City. He noted that they have a number of good models 18 to review that have been tested at the Supreme Court level and should be fairly safe. 19 20 Ms. Moore-Sykes agreed noting that it also states in the memo that while they have the ability to 21 express views there is no guarantee or an absolute right depending on the time, the place or the 22 manner of expression. She noted that they cannot incite riots or harm another adding that the 23 City Attorney does make points along those lines. She stated that it appears that this was never 24 acted upon noting that it was proposed and the City Attorney put together an opinion. She stated 25 that she did not find anything to show that it was ever approved as an ordinance in 2004. 26 27 Chair Stromgren explained that the issue was tabled at that point due to a very heavy agenda and 28 docket during those months. He stated that the City was very busy at that time with the Apache 29 project. 30 31 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that discussions have also been held regarding prairie restorations and 32 grasses,how it would be used and controlled by the ordinance within an urban setting. 33 34 Chair Stromgren noted that there are some constitutional issues here that have not been tested 35 adding that the City cannot unilaterally restrict someone's right to place a grass that is technically 36 not considered to be noxious weeds. 37 38 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that there is an instance where a homeowner in the Village did indeed 39 plant prairie grasses and there were concerns about the lines of sight for traffic and pedestrians, 40 as they can get relatively tall. She noted that the grasses are drought resistant and native to 41 Minnesota. 42 43 Chair Stromgren noted the home where this came up is actually a backyard that fronts the 44 southwest corner of Silver Point Park where the hockey rink comes in. He stated that this is an