04-11-05 - 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 this type of language would resolve any Freedom of Speech issues. . B. CONTINUED DISCUSSION ON THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE AND HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS Mr. Clark stated at the Decemher 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 Therapeutic Massage was something that should be allowed in Arden Hills and should be considered as a suitable Home Occupation. Furthermore, the Planning Commission asked staff to check with surrounding communities to see how they handled regulating Therapeutic Massage. He reviewed 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 stated staff recommended deleting the existing Section 330.03 and replace it with language from eithcr the Shore view or Falcon Heights Therapeutic Massage regulations. He noted if the Planning Commission determined that one of the ideas proposed was the preferred alternative, slaff 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 Shore view 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 mecting. Commissioner Holmes asked undcr item i. why they had different hours for wcekdays and weekends. She stated somc 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 wcrc home on the weekends and therefore as a matter of c01ll1esy, they opened later. . Commissioner Modescttc stated she agreed with Commissioner Holmes and she did not see why there should bc different hours on weekdays and weekends.