Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 5, 2005 <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />Commissioner Bezdicek stated he agreed with the language as presented. Commissioner <br />Larson agreed with Commissioner Bezdicek. <br /> <br />Chair Sand stated they should also add holiday hours to be the same as weekend hours. <br /> <br />Chair Sand noted they should also add a percentage of space that could be used for this <br />home occupation. Mr. Clark replied they could add that. <br /> <br />Commissioner Larson stated this might be discriminating against smaller homes, but with <br />the portable tables, this would not be a permanent space anyway. Mr. Clark noted what <br />they were really talking about was the size of the table and he believed it would be more <br />important to limit the number of employees. <br /> <br />Chair Sand asked if they should limit the number of customers at a time. Mr. Clark <br />replied staff could eliminate the need for a waiting room, which would basically limit it <br />to only one customer. <br /> <br />Chair Sand noted the resident at the previous meeting had indicated her intent was to <br />eventually teach couple massage and asked if they wanted to limit it to only one customer <br />at a time. <br /> <br />Commissioner Holmes stated she did not want to have more than one customer vehicle at <br />a time on the premises. However, she understood there might be some overlap of <br />customers once in awhile. <br /> <br />Commissioner Bezdicek noted that this language gave the City the ability to inspect the <br />property and asked if the City would know what to inspect. Mr. Clark replied this was a <br />precaution in the event the City needed to inspect the premises, the business owner could <br />not keep them out. <br /> <br />Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the resident who was at the previous meeting was <br />given a copy of this report. Mr. Clark replied he was not sure, but it was his intent to <br />come up with firmer language and then send it to her. <br /> <br />D. DISCUSSION ON FRONT PORCHES/SETBACK EXCEPTIONS <br /> <br />Mr. Clark stated staff had received several telephone calls from residents inquiring about <br />adding porches onto their homes. Currently, porches would be permitted if they either <br />met the front setback or did not extent beyond 3 feet into the front, side or rear setback. <br />This setback exception currently applied to structural items like: Eaves, cantilevered <br />areas, cornices, canopies, awnings, decks, balconies, steps, ramps, fire escapes and <br />chimneys. Not only did this exception not allow much space for porches, on homes that <br />currently meet the front setback, it barcly provided enough space for people approaching <br />a front door without having to back down the steps. <br /> <br />He stated recognizing that front porches can offer a welcoming presence for homes and <br />better curb appeal, the City of Richfield created a mechanism within their codes to allow <br />porches to be counted as setback exceptions, but requircd staff review and established <br />specific design criteria. He asked if thc City should pursue amending the Zoning <br />