My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
03/08/22
Ramsey
>
Public
>
City Update
>
2022
>
03/08/22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2025 11:54:19 AM
Creation date
3/11/2022 2:26:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
City Clerk Document Type
City Update
Document Date
12/31/2022
Document Title
03/08/22
Retention Date
12/31/2026
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
547
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Trout replied that they have battery backup, so they would never lose power and would always <br />have security. <br />Commissioner VanScoy asked how often the carry training would be done and how many people <br />would be involved. <br />Mr. Trout replied that most of the training is done offsite but they would like the capability to host <br />onsite at times, estimating a class of up to ten people once a month or every other month. He noted <br />that all shooting is done at Total Defense or at another offsite location. <br />Commissioner VanScoy asked for details on the steel building and codes that it meets. <br />Mr. Trout replied that the steel building meets the requirements of the FBI and ATF, noting that <br />there are additional gun safes inside the building. <br />Commissioner VanScoy stated that he would personally like to see the Chief of Police inspect the <br />building to verify those statements and would like that added as a condition. <br />Chairperson Bauer asked and received confirmation that the class would have ten people <br />participating at one time. <br />Kelly Schmidt, 6000 177th Lane, stated that she sent a 60- or 70-page document to the City for <br />review. He stated that this came about because of recent complaints, noting that she made several <br />complaints to the code official for the City that the business was no longer operating in the house <br />and was operating in the pole barn. She stated that in September 2019, the initial Home Occupancy <br />Permit was approved, noting that was done administratively between Mr. Trout and the City staff. <br />He noted that she now finds out that this is a running gun shop and noted that not all the sales <br />occur online. She stated that in January of 2022, the letter was sent to Mr. Trout is response to <br />complaints and he then applied for the upgraded Home Occupation Permit. She stated that the <br />staff members previously involved in the permit have since left the City. She noted that the original <br />permit was approved by one staff member with the clause that there be no exterior evidence of the <br />business activity. She stated that as a resident she does not believe there should be a gun shop in <br />the neighborhood. She noted that Total Defense already offers these services nearby in a <br />commercial area. She stated that the residential area should remain residential and not have a <br />visible gun shop. She stated that in February 2019 there were resolutions passed for a riding arena, <br />horse barn and camp within proximity to this location. She noted that her statements are easily <br />proven through Mr. Trout's security footage, own admittance, and social media posts. She noted <br />that the videos have since been removed. She requested that the Home Occupation Permit be <br />denied and that the original permit be revoked because of ongoing violations. She believed the <br />City's vague and inadequate requirements prevented residents from being notified of this business <br />request. She stated that Mr. Trout has been operating out of the pole barn for the past year. She <br />commented that automatic weapons are hanging on the wall with open ammunition and without <br />trigger locks. She acknowledged that the initial level one permit language was so vague that it <br />most likely allowed the applicant to think this activity was okay. She stated that if the business is <br />expanding, it should be moved to a commercial location. She stated that the business is being <br />conducted in the pole barn. She provided a list of complaints and did not believe Mr. Trout resides <br />at the property. She did not believe the conditions in the original Home Occupation Permit have <br />been met and asked that the request be denied along with revocation of the original permit. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.