Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – April 6, 2022 3 <br /> <br /> <br />2. The Applicant shall for the duration of the Conditional Use Permit continue to provide <br />evidence to the City of issuance of FFL renewal licenses and/or Letters of Authorization <br />from the Federal Firearms Licensing Center prior to the expiration of the federal firearms <br />license. <br />3. The number of daily deliveries associated with the home occupation shall be limited to <br />one per day. <br />4. No exterior evidence of the home occupation shall be permitted. <br />5. No exterior signage shall be permitted. <br />6. The home occupation shall be conducted only by the occupants of the premises and may <br />not employ any person not residing in the residence. <br />7. There shall be no patrons visiting the premises and all home occupation engagement and <br />sales must be exclusively conducted online. <br />8. The premises shall at all times be protected by a contracted security service and all <br />firearms and ammunition shall be kept secured in heavy duty gun safes. <br /> <br />City Planner Jagoe reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: <br /> <br />1. Recommend Approval with Conditions <br />2. Recommend Approval as Submitted <br />3. Recommend Denial <br />4. Table <br /> <br />Chair Vijums opened the floor to Commissioner comments. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund asked if it was common for conditions to exceed the requirements <br />within City Code. He indicated the applicant could have one employee per City Code, but staff <br />is recommending no employees be allowed, except the applicant. <br /> <br />City Planner Jagoe reported City Code does state as part of the Conditional Use Permit review <br />that one employee not living on the property may be employed, and this was something the <br />Planning Commission can review. She explained the applicant has indicated they do not have <br />any employees nor does he intend to have employees. In this recommendation, the condition was <br />drafted to match the current scope of the home occupation because we have not reviewed parking <br />or other neighborhood impacts if there were to be an employee. The ordinance language <br />provides a mechanism for that to occur, but the applicant would need to apply for a CUP <br />Amendment to add an employee the way the condition is drafted currently. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund questioned what type of monitoring would the City be doing for this <br />type of CUP. <br /> <br />City Planner Jagoe stated the applicant would have to provide the City with evidence of the <br />licensing. She reported the City was complaint based for code enforcement matters and if a <br />concern were to arise at this property, the City would then respond. <br /> <br />Commissioner Weber inquired who would follow up on complaints received by the City. <br /> <br />City Planner Jagoe stated the City’s Building Inspector was also the Code Enforcement Officer.