My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-01-1988 Planning Commission Agenda-Minutes
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
Commissions, Committees, and Boards
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Packets
>
1980-2003
>
1988
>
06-01-1988 Planning Commission Agenda-Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/4/2024 12:22:55 AM
Creation date
8/30/2022 3:02:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting, June 1, 1988 <br /> Page 7 <br /> CASE #88-16 (Cont'd) Bergly recommended approval of the SUP to allow a <br /> one-person beauty shop in a dwelling, subject to <br /> compliance with all zoning ordinance stipulations as discussed in his report. <br /> • Commission discussed the definition of "personal services" which are permitted <br /> only in the B-2 districts. After discussion, it was the consensus of the <br /> Commission that other items listed in the definition of personal services are <br /> performed in residential districts and concurred that one beauty operator would <br /> not constitute a business use. <br /> Commission questioned what other licenses were required by the applicant and <br /> how many clients she anticipated per day. <br /> Nancy Beggin advised she is a State licensed beauty operator and the State <br /> requires written zoning approval for home operations. She stated there would be <br /> approximately 5 or 6 clients per day to begin with and would not exceed 10 <br /> clients per day. Beggin advised she would operate the home occupation Monday <br /> thru Friday, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and work only <br /> occasionally for special events on Saturdays. <br /> Acting Chair Meury asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak in <br /> favor of or opposed to this matter. There was no response and the public <br /> hearing was closed at 9: 15 p.m. <br /> Probst moved, seconded by Zehm, that Commission <br /> recommend approval of Case #88-16, Special Use Permit for a home occupation to <br /> operate a one-operator beauty shop, with one chair/sink station, at 4519 <br /> Lakeshore Parkway, Nancy and Glen Beggin, subject to compliance with all zoning <br /> ordinance stipulations for home occupations as listed in the Planner's <br /> • memorandum of 6-1-88. Motion carried unanimously. (8-0) <br /> CASE #881-7; MINOR Planner Bergly reviewed his report of 6-1-88, relative <br /> SUBD. & CONSOLIDATION to the lot split and consolidation application. <br /> DELLWOOD AVE. , JESSUP <br /> AND AREND <br /> Bergly stated the applicants propose to divide Lot 13, Block 5, of Josephine <br /> Hills Plat #2 in a manner that would combine the upland areas surrounding the <br /> pond with the appropriate adjoining lots they own. The applicants jointly <br /> purchased Lot 13; the lot is largely water. Bergly stated Ramsey County has <br /> approved the line as initially proposed; the Recorder's office reviewed the <br /> split and advised it is a common point that they can legally define without <br /> surveyors. <br /> The Planner stated Mr. Jessup currently maintains the parcel of land adjacent <br /> to his property and advises Mr. Arend has agreed to the proposed split as <br /> submitted with the application. <br /> Dwight Jessup, 3350 Dellwood Avenue, stated the previous owner wanted to sell <br /> the lot for building. Jessup explained that most of Lot 13 is under a flowage <br /> easement with Rice Creek Watershed District and the land was jointly purchased <br /> to prohibit building on the lot and as a protection to preserve the natural <br /> environment of the wetland. <br /> • Commission questioned if Lot 14 with the proposed consolidation would be <br /> divisible in the future. <br /> Bergly stated he did not believe the lot as combined would be divisible with <br /> sufficient buildable area, due to the setback requirements. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.