2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 5, 2005 7 . Commissioner Bezdicek statcd he agreed with thc languagc as presented. Commissioncr Larson agreed with Commissioner Bezdicek. Chair Sand stated they should also add holiday hours to be the samc as weekend hours. Chair Sand notcd they should also add a perccntage of space that could be used for this home occupation. Mr. Clark replied they could add that. Commissioner Larson stated this might be discriminating against smallcr homes, but with the portablc tables, this would not be a permanent space anyway. Mr. Clark noted what they were really talking about was the size of thc table and he believed it would be more important to limit the numbcr of employees. Chair Sand asked if they should limit thc number of customers at a timc. Mr. Clark replicd staff could elil11inat,~ the nced for a waiting room, which would basically limit it to only onc customer. Chair Sand noted the resident at the previous mceting had indicated hcr intent was to evcntually teach couple massage and asked ifthcy wanted to limit it to only onc customer at a time. Commissioncr Holmes statc:::d she did not want to have marc than one customer vehicle at a time on the premiscs. However, she understood therc might be some overlap of . customers once in awhilc. Commissioner Bezdicek noted that this languagc gave thc City the ability to inspect the property and asked if the City would know what to inspect. Mr. Clark replied this was a prccaution in the event the City needed to inspect the premises, the busincss owner could not kecp them out. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the residcnt who was at the prcvious meeting was given a copy of this report. Mr. Clark replied he was not surc, but it was his intent to comc up with firmer language and then send it to her. D. DISCUSSION ON FRONT PORCHES/SETBACK EXCEPTIONS Mr. Clark stated staff had received several telephone calls from rcsidents inquiring about adding porches onto their homes. Currently, porches would be pennitted if they either met the front sctback or did not extcnt beyond 3 feet into the front, sidc or rear setback. This setback exception currently applied to structural itcms like: Eaves, cantilcvcred areas, cornices, canopics, awnings. dccks, balconies, stcps, ramps, firc escapes and chimneys. Not only did this cxccption not allow much spacc for porches, on homes that currcntly meet the front setback. it barely provided enough space for people approaching a front door without having to back down thc steps. . He stated recognizing that front porches can offer a welcoming presence for homes and better curb appeal, the City of Richfield created a mechanism within their codes to allow porches to be counted as setback exceptions, but required staff rcview and established specific dcsign critcria. He askcd if the City should pursue amending the Zoning