PC 01-05-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION ~ JANUARY 5, 2005 6 . Commissioner Holmes suggested wording be added to the Ordinance that the content of the signs be regulated by the institution owning the facility. Chair Sand agreed tlris type ofIanguage would resolve any Freedom of Speech issues. B. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE AND HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS Mr. Clark stated at the December 1, 2004 Planning Commission meeting the Planning Commission discussed massage regulations and whether they should be revised. The general direction of the Planning Commission was that Therapeutie Massage was something that should be allowed in Arden Hills and should be considered as a suitable Home Occupation. Furthennore, the Planning Commission asked staff to check with surrounding communities to see how they handled regulating Therapeutic Massage. He rcviewed Home Occupation versus massage, rap, and sauna parlor regulations as well as a comparison of Other Cities' Therapeutic Massage regulation. He also reviewed the standards for Therapeutic Massage. He statcd staff recommended deleting the existing Section 330.03 and replace it with language from either the Shoreview or Falcon Heights Therapeutic Massage regulations. He noted if the Planning Commission determined that one of the ideas proposed was the preferred alternative, staff would schedule a public hearing for the Planning . Commission's February meeting. If however, the Planning Commission would want additional review, staff would schedule this item as continued discussion on the February Planning Commission Agenda. Commissioner Larson stated he favored the Shoreview ordinance. Chair Sand stated he believed all of the ordinances offered different things. He stated he liked the New Brighton policy language because it addressed this in a positive manner, but agreed the Shoreview ordinance read the best. Commissioner Zimmerman stated he agreed with the proposed language. Commissioner Bezdicek asked if legal counsel would review this language prior to it being brought back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Clark replied it would be approved by the City Attorney prior to the February meeting. i Commissioner Holmes asked under item i. why they had different hours ~or weekdays and weekends. She stated some of the other City ordinances did not have this distinction. She stated she believed the times should be the same for both weekdays and weekends. Mr. Clark replied the reason this was done was because this was a home occupation and more people were home on the weekends and therefore as a matter of c9urtesy, they opened later. . Commissioner Modesette stated she agreed with Commissioner Holmes an? she did not see why there should be different hours on weekdays and weekends. I !