Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. Arden Hills Council 5 August 17, 1992 <br /> <br />Council could add yet another condition whereby the SUP <br />would expire upon the sale of the property. <br /> <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 /> <br />1. 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, Exterior 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 />Glenview Avenue, and <br />9. The special use permit will expire upon sale of <br />the property at 3966 Glenview Avenue, <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 />