Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. Arden Hills Council 5 August 17, 1992 <br /> Council could add yet another condition whereby the SUP <br /> would expire upon the sale of the property, <br /> MOTION: Mahowald moved, seconded by Malone, relative to Case <br /> 92-14, to waive the Development Moratorium, and approve <br /> a special use permit for home beauty salon occupation <br /> with the following conditions: <br /> l. The applicant's State Cosmetology License will be <br /> filed with the permit when available, <br /> 2, Only one work station will be provided, <br /> 3 . Only the owner of the dwelling is authorized to <br /> provide cosmetology services, <br /> 4. The driveway will be used for patron parking <br /> (i. e,; no on-street patron parking), <br /> 5 . There will be no external evidence of the home <br /> occupation, <br /> 6. Exteri or lighting will be of a "residential" type <br /> and will not be obtrusive to neighboring property, <br /> 7. The business must close by 7:00 p.m., Monday- <br /> Friday, and by 4:00 p.m. on Saturday, <br /> 8. The special use permit applies only to the current <br />. homeowner and only at the residence at 3966 <br /> GIenview Avenue, and <br /> 9, The special use permit will expire upon sale of <br /> the property at 3966 Glenview Avenue. <br /> The applicant, Cynthia Garretson, stated that hours of <br /> operation, outlined within condition 7 of above motion, were <br /> a compromise during discussions with the Planning <br /> Commission, however, she preferred some flexibility of those <br /> hours. She added that she has a limited time in which to <br /> renew her State Cosmetology License, and is required to note <br /> her anticipated hours of operation on that application. <br /> Council discussed the issue of whether or not to regulate <br /> hours of operation, Acting Clerk Administrator Iago <br /> reported that there is one other SUP in the City for a <br /> beauty salon; that SUP makes no regulation of salon hours, <br /> that salon is still in operation, and there have been no <br /> complaints received. <br /> MOTION: Sather moved, seconded by Hicks, to amend the above <br /> motion by striking condition 7. Motion to amend <br /> carried unanimously (4-0), <br /> ORIGINAL MOTION: Council then voted upon the original motion, <br />. (made by Mahowald and seconded by Malone) as <br /> stated except striking condition 7, Motion <br /> carried unanimously (4-0). <br />