Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Musgrove advised of outdoor wedding venues that other small cities have, <br /> including one venue in Ramsey. She stated that perhaps the applicant would be willing to not <br /> allow alcohol and have an earlier closing time, perhaps 8:00 p.m. She stated that fencing would <br /> also help with noise and keeping people on the property. She stated that she likes the idea of this <br /> as it brings people into Ramsey but also has concerns with this location. <br /> Commissioner Gengler stated that she understands the concerns of the neighbors but believes that <br /> the applicant seems to be very flexible. She stated that she is surprised that this request has not <br /> come before the Commission before because of the popularity of barn/outdoor weddings. She <br /> stated that although this is the first request, she does not believe it would be the last. <br /> Senior Planner McGuire Brigl stated that there has been interest from venues in the past but when <br /> staff mentions a Code amendment would be necessary, it tends to scare them off. <br /> Commissioner Woestehoff referenced the difference between IUP and CUP and asked if the same <br /> guidelines would apply to an IUP. He questioned if an IUP would require an ordinance <br /> amendment. <br /> Senior Planner McGuire Brigl explained that a CUP is a more commonly used tool and would run <br /> with the property, whereas an IUP would terminate if the property were sold to another party. <br /> Commissioner VanScoy stated that he likes the suggestion that the property owner and neighbors <br /> work together as it sounds like there has not been much discussion to this point and it appears the <br /> applicant is flexible. He stated that he would like to see the group table this to allow time for that <br /> additional discussion. He stated that he is concerned with maintaining the rural character but likes <br /> the concept of having events under controlled circumstances that would be accepted by the <br /> neighbors. <br /> Motion by Commissioner VanScoy, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to table the request to <br /> allow additional discussion between the property owners and neighbors. <br /> Further discussion <br /> Commissioner Woestehoff asked if both matters should be tabled or whether the ordinance <br /> amendment could continue forward. Commissioner VanScoy stated that he agrees that they are <br /> separate issues but believes that additional research is needed to determine if this response would <br /> come forward with any request. He stated that he would prefer that both items be tabled at this <br /> time. He stated that if an agreement cannot be reached at this time, he finds it hard to believe that <br /> people would be supportive in any rural area of Ramsey. Chairperson Bauer stated that he would <br /> agree that the items should remain together as perhaps the group will decide that the ordinance <br /> amendment would not make sense after additional consideration. Commissioner VanScoy <br /> commented that this is an excellent way to gather public input on this topic. <br /> A roll call vote was performed: <br /> Commissioner Peters aye <br /> Planning Commission/September 3, 2020 <br /> Page 10 of 15 <br />