According to Rosemount’s Community Development Director as well as the background information for the June 7, 2011 City Council Meeting (full documentation), the Rosemount’s Planning Commission members felt that the state’s regulations regarding “home occupation” status of tattoo parlors is acceptable for the city. However, both the City Staff and the Council disagreed, although for very different reasons, and now tattoos and body piercing artists are not permitted to practice their craft in their Rosemount homes as is permitted by the State.
Beginning at around the 30:30 mark in the video of the Rosemount City Council meeting above discussion begins about “home occupation” body art businesses and why the Planning Commission believes that the State’s policy goes far enough to provide the necessary protections for the public. However, as referenced in the background information, Rosemount’s City Staff feels that the State is unable to perform its inspections and without any input from the public documented, feels that the public would be surprised to find that a tattoo parlor is permissible business within a Rosemount residence.
Councilmember Kim Shoe-Corrigan (49:21) notes that she took an informal, and unscientific poll of her 17 and 18 year old students, “and in both classes nobody thought it was an acceptable use for a home occupation.” Some might note that if more documentation on this informal survey was provided by Mrs. Shoe-Corrigan such as whether the students studied the background information, state policy, recommendations from the Planning Commission and if the poll was done anonymously and thus would not have possibly affected their relationship with their teacher, then the unscientific survey would have been more useful to mention during a council meeting. However, even so, Councilmember Jeff Weisensel mentioned (55:57), “Personally I don’t care for tattoos, uhh, I don’t see they have a real good purpose,” and many within the community, especially the 25% of the population with tattoos, might offer their opinions on decision-makers enacting policy based on biased opinion rather than Planning Commission objectivity, lack of public outrage over the State’s policy, etc.
At the end of the discussion the City Council voted 4-1 to ban body art businesses within homes in residential zoned areas in Rosemount without any direct public input and in direct conflict with the Planning Commission’s recommendation while stating opinions and poorly formed polls of individuals, ~50% of which cannot vote and cannot get a tattoo anyway, as the reasons why.
After reading the background information and/or watching the relevant portion of the council meeting, what do you think about Rosemount’s decision to ban residential body art business from operation within the city’s limits? Do you believe that due to the lack of public input/education that more should have been done to garner their opinions on the subject prior to the council’s vote? Are you concerned, as the one dissenting councilmember was, that this decision could possibly impact other less contentious businesses operating within people’s homes in Rosemount? According to Rosemount City Staff, other South Metro cities are revisiting their own ordinances regarding body art in light of the change in Minnesota state policy, would you want these banned in your neighborhoods and why?