Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES <br />APRIL 11, 2005 <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />repeal the eXlstmg Massage Parlor/Sauna fees and create new fees for Massage Therapy <br />Establishments and Massage Therapists, <br /> <br />He indicated the Planning Commission recommended approval. <br /> <br />MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a <br />motion to adopt Ordinance #356 repealing the existing Section 330.03 of <br />the Arden Hills Code relating to Massage, Rap, and Sauna Parlors and add <br />Section 330.04 and its subdivisions to the Arden Hills Municipal Code, <br />and amend sections 5 (E) and 10 (G) of the Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance <br />No, 291 which refer to massage businesses. The motion carried <br />unanimously (5-0), <br /> <br />MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a <br />motion to adopt Ordinance #36l repealing existing Massage Parlor/Sauna <br />fees and creating new fees for Massage Therapy Establishments and <br />Massage Therapists. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). <br /> <br />D, <br /> <br />PLANNING CASE 05-07: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, 1245 W. HIGHWAY 96: <br />ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR IO-FOOT FRONT YARD <br />EXCEPTION TO FRONT AND SIDE-YARD CORNER SETBACKS IN R-I AND <br />R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Mr. Hellegers requested Council consider Ordinance #357 which would amend Section 6.C2.a <br />of the Zoning Ordinance and insert new section 6.C.2.d into the Zoning Ordinance, allowing for <br />front porches of up to ten feet and with a minimum setback of 30 feet from the front or side-yard <br />comer property lines, which meet design standards to be allowed subject to staff review and <br />approval and to consider Resolution #05-29 which would add the front porch language and Front <br />Porch Design Guidelines to Appendix A of Zoning Ordinance #291. <br /> <br />Mayor Aplikowski asked if they had any design standards for steps, Mr. Hellegers replied the <br />City did not have design standards for steps. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilmember Larson stated he liked front porches and they did a lot of enhance <br />neighborhoods and property values as well as helping keep crime down, but he believed the <br />setbacks established in neighborhoods for homes were intended to provide for a consistent look <br />as to where the houses were on the property as well as sight line concerns, He stated if this was <br />an open porch proposal, he would not have a problem with the proposal, but he expressed <br />concern about enclosed porches. He asked if the Planning Commission had discussed this. Mr. <br />Hellegers replied the Planning Commission had decided they would go with the <br />recommendation to allow the homeowner to have some design flexibility. He stated there is a <br />little bit of difference between a glassed in porch and an open porch, but even with a glassed in <br />porch, it would be limited as to use because of the winter weather. Hc noted this would allow <br />more flexibility for an inviting front entry way, while still maintaining some of the setback. He <br />