Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />City of New Brighton <br />September 13, 1983 <br />Page Two <br /> <br />Motion by Janecek, seconded by Schmidt to waive the <br />reading and adopt a RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT <br />AND APPROVING THE VACATION OF CLOVER LANE (generally <br />located within the property west of Silver Lake Road <br />and Innsbruck Lane) . <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes - motion carried <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />The Director of Community Development reviewed the <br />staff report regarding a request for clarification <br />of the Home Occupation and Massage Parlour Ordin- <br />ances. <br /> <br />Mary (Kitt) Taft, 700 Tenth Street N.W. #18, was <br />present to discuss the issue. She stated she <br />felt she was in compliance with the ordinance on <br />Home Occupations, and further stated that the <br />Massage Parlour Ordinance has nothing to do with <br />her business. She also stated there was an error <br />in her letter to the Council; the word should be <br />inapplicable, rather than applicable. <br /> <br />Mayor Harcus stated that neither ordinance had ever <br />been challenged, and that since this issue had come <br />up frequently in the last few weeks he felt it would <br />be appropriate to send the ordinance to the Planning <br />Commission for reviewal and clarification to see if <br />it is up to date. He further stated that New Brighton <br />has always been sensitive to what goes on in a <br />residential area. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schmidt stated that consideration and <br />reviewal is not just necessary because of Ms. Taft's <br />request but because of all the inquiries the Council <br />had been receiving as of late. <br /> <br />Ms. Taft stated that there would be low traffic <br />volume with her business. <br /> <br />The City Attorney questioned just what Ms. Taft was <br />requesting the Council to do. If she was asking for <br />the Ordinance to be amended, then it was appropriate <br />to send it to the Planning Commission for their <br />reviewal. If it was intended to be a repeal of <br />the Planner's order, the Planning Commission was not <br />the proper body to be making that determination. <br /> <br />Ms. Taft stated she was asking for an opinion. <br /> <br />Mayor Harcus stated that the ordinance prohibits <br />massage in a residential district, and that she <br />was in violation of the ordinance. <br /> <br />Clarific~tion <br />of Home Occupa- <br />tion Ordinance <br />(Taft)Report # <br />83-230 <br />