Minutes - Planning Commission - 05/07/1996 - Public Hearing @ 7:55

Home

Attorney Fitzpatrick asserted that if only one juvenile has a sex offense, it might be arguable that it's not the primary use. He didn't know if this would apply to a particular number since this Statute was only enacted in 1994, going into effect in 1995, and there is no case law to support it yet. Commissioner Holland inquired whether any further additions are planned for the house. Ms. Frolik replied that the applicant can add until he reaches 35% lot coverage. Commissioner Deemer noted that the swimming pool constitutes lot coverage--impervious surface. Commissioner Jensen inquired whether the neighbors find the property visually offensive. Ms. Johnson replied she did not. Ms. Fiala confirmed that the kids stick to themselves. She stated she did not intend to get the boys in trouble for requesting rides; Mr. McLafferty was not aware of the situation. Commissioner Jensen asked whether the neighbors felt the boys posed any threat. Ms. Fiala insisted this was a care giving issue, noting that one of the boys was permanently scarred from abon fire incident. Commissioner Holland noted this was not going to change whether they give him two more boys; the group home is still going to be there. Ms. Fiala commented that this is not a "mom and pop" operation since "mom" just had a baby and is in Malaysia. "She's not there. She also has a full time job." Commissioner Deemer stated his opinion that this is a home occupation, and he is not prepared to deal with this tonight because the issues are unclear. He requested information on whether the City has ever allowed a home occupation to expand, suggesting putting such into the Findings of Fact and also including all of State Statute 462 which might be applicable. Commissioner LaDue disagreed, feeling this is getting off on the wrong tangent. This is not an expansion because he was not required to have a permit when this first began. Ms. Frolik stated she was not prepared to deal with this as a business, which can only encompass 20% of the area in the home. She questioned "Where do you begin to define that?" She explained that the Planning Commission is supposed to treat this as a request for a CUP and go through the Findings of Fact again based on the addition of two youth. Commissioner Deemer felt he needed more information before reviewing the Findings of Fact, adding that Mr. McLafferty isn't even here anymore to answer any of the Planning Commission's questions. Commissioner LaDue recommended pressing ahead and making a recommendation, commenting that the City Council has the option to reconvene or schedule another public hearing. The Planning Commission proceeded to review the Findings of Fact. Motion by Commissioner Holland and seconded by Commissioner LaDue to amend #2 to read "That the Applicant appeared before the Planning and Zoning Commission for a second public hearing pursuant to Section 9.03.04 (Conditional Use Permits) of the Ramsey City Code on May 7, 1996, and left prior to the closing of said public hearing. That said public hearing was properly advertised, and that the minutes of said public hearing are hereby incorporated as a part of these findings by reference." Public Hearing/Planning Commission/May 7, 1996 Page 6 of 11