04-25-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11, 2005 7 repeal the eXlstmg Massage Parlor/Sauna fees and create new fees for Massage Therapy Establishments and Massage Therapists. He indicated the Planning Commission recommended approval, MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to adopt Ordinance #356 repealing the existing Section 330,03 of the Arden Hills Code relating to Massage, Rap, and Sauna Parlors and add Section 330.04 and its subdivisions to the Arden Hills Municipal Code, and amend sections 5 (E) and 10 (G) of the Arden Hills Zoning Ordinance No. 291 which refer to massage businesses, The motion carried unanimously (5-0), MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Grant seconded a motion to adopt Ordinance #361 repealing existing Massage Parlor/Sauna fees and creating new fees for Massage Therapy Establishments and Massage Therapists. The motion carried unanimously (5.0), D. PLANNING CASE 05-07: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, 1245 W. HIGHWAY 96; ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS FOR to-FOOT FRONT ROAD EXCEPTION TO FRONT AND SIDE-YARD CORNER SETBACKS IN R-t AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS Mr. HeIlegers requested Council consider Ordinance #357 which would amend Section 6.C,2,a of the Zoning Ordinance and insert new section 6,C,2,d into the Zoning Ordinance, allowing for front porches of up to ten feet and with a minimum setback of 30 feet from the front or side-yard comer property lines, which meet design standards to be allowed subject to staff review and approval and to consider Resolution #05-29 which would add the front porch language and Front Porch Design Guidelines to Appendix A of Zoning Ordinance #291, Mayor Aplikowski asked if they had any design standards for steps. Mr. Hellegers replied the City did not have design standards for steps. Council member Larson stated he liked front porches and they did a lot of enhance neighborhoods and property values as well as helping keep crime down, but he believed the setbacks established in neighborhoods for homes were intended to provide for a consistent look as to where the houses were on the property as well as sight line concerns, He stated if this was an open porch proposal, he would not have a problem with the proposal, but he expressed concern about enclosed porches, He asked if the Planning Commission had discussed this. Mr. HeIlegers replied the Planning Commission had decided they would go with the recommendation to allow the homeowner to have some design flexibility, He stated there is a little bit of difference between a glassed in porch and an open porch, but even with a glassed in porch, it would be limited as to use because of the winter weather. He noted this would allow more flexibility for an inviting front entry way, while still maintaining some of the setback. He