Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . Arden Hills Council 4 August 17, 1992 <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 /> 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 /> Recyc1 ing Improvement. Motion carried unanimously <br /> (4-0), <br /> UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS <br /> CASE 92-14: SUP - HOME OCCUPATION <br /> 3966 GLENVIEW AVENUE <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 1 eve I of attached garage, <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 /> 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 /> 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 <br /> SUP runs with the land rather than with the owner, but <br />