Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. Arden Hills council 4 August 17. 1992 <br /> <br />MOTION: Malone moved, seconded by Mahowald, to adopt Resolution <br />No. 92-60 Adopting Final Assessment Roll In The Matter <br />Of The 1992 Round Lake Road West Cold In-Place <br />Recycling Improvements, Motion carried unanimously (4- <br />0), <br /> <br />MOTION: Malone moved, seconded by Mahowald, to adopt Resolution <br />No, 92-59 Authorizing Execution Of Contract In The <br />Matter of The 1992 Round Lake Road West Cold In-Place <br />Recycling Improvement. Motion carried unanimously <br />(4-0). <br /> <br />UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS <br /> <br />CASE 92-14: SUP - HOME OCCUPATION <br />3966 GLENVIEW AVENUE <br /> <br />Planner Bergly stated that Case 92-14 is an application for <br />a special use permit (SUP) for a beauty salon home <br />occupation at 3966 Glenview Avenue. He explained the <br />location of the home and that the business is proposed to be <br />operated from the walkout lower level of attached garage. <br /> <br />. Bergly advised that the Planning Commission held a public <br />hearing on this case on August 5, where the only public <br />comments expressed were from a neighbor and related to <br />neighborhood security, precedent setting, and potential <br />traffic congestion concerns, <br /> <br />Bergly stated that the Planning commission recommended: <br />1) Waiving the Development Moratorium because this <br />application meets the requirements of both the existing <br />and proposed ordinance and will not impact development <br />or use of neighboring property, and, <br />2) Approval of an SUP with six conditions suggested by <br />Bergly and a seventh condition relating to allowed <br />hours of operation, He added that the City Attorney <br />reviewed the conditions and made minor language <br />revisions to assure the permit is granted only to the <br />property "owner" (rather than "resident") and operation <br />be allowed only at the 3966 Glenview residence. <br /> <br />Councilmember Malone questioned whether it is appropriate to <br />consider an SUP or a home occupation permit, Planner Bergly <br />stated that under current ordinance, and the proposed <br />amendments to the zoning ordinance, an SUP would be <br />appropriate. Bergly explained that under the proposed <br />. revision, a home business (such as home office without <br />patrons) does not require an SUP; however, a beauty salon " <br />which would depend upon patrons coming to the residence, <br />does require a SUP. Attorney Miller added that typically an r <br />SUP runs wi th the 1 and rather than wi th the owner, but .(' <br />\'-. <br />'1 <br />j' <br />~ <br />if <br />l~ <br />