04-06-22 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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