04-17-01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes - April 17, 2001 Page 4 Andrle noted that the buildable size of this parcel (877 sq. ft) would require a variance due to setback R01-1 requirements. Baker added that it appears logical for the site to remain R-1 due to the restrictive buildable Rezoning of area. Zisla agreed that during the Comp Plan update process, there was attempt to avoid non-conforming 222 New uses, and it does appear the neighbors have indicated no problems with this use. O’Brien noted that Brighton during the Comp Plan update, three parcels including this one were identified as potential neighborhood Road use district zoning. Locke verified that in the event the building was destroyed, the business could not rebuild if it remained R- 1. The owner would need to go through a variance process if the proposed use were either business or residential. In addition, the request to provide permanent cosmetic makeup at this salon is not allowed within a R-1 District. O’Keefe questioned if the owner would have difficulty selling the business. Locke believes the owner could sell to someone with a similar business use, however, B-2 zoning allows more flexibility. Andrle verified the parking requirements for a business use involve one parking stall for each 200 sq. ft. of building space. Laura Mausu, Village Salon owner, has no issue with the current R-1 zoning, but would to expand to include services such as therapeutic massage and permanent cosmetic makeup. Andrle verified that the zoning ordinance states that permanent cosmetic makeup is allowable as an accessory use within a B-2 or B-3 District. O’Brien added that currently the salon is a non-conforming use which would not allow permanent cosmetic makeup. Zisla, Baker, and Schiferl each questioned the logic for the rezoning and whether there was support for this rezoning. Tina Kleck, Villager Salon employee, has applied for a license to perform permanent cosmetic makeup at this location, and has invested money to provide this service at this location. Zisla added that this may not be a completely dead issue, but would rather revisit the non-conforming use provision of the ordinance. Samuelson asked if there was anyway to expedite the process to provide a timely answer to the applicants. Locke will investigate this request with the City Attorney. Roger Dahl, 228 New Brighton Rd., said the salon owners are great neighbors and would support any use as long as it does not increase traffic. CLOSE THE HEARING Motion by Baker, seconded by Schiferl, to . 6 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried. RECOMMEND 222 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD REMAIN AS R-1, Motion by Schiferl, seconded by to SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; MAKE THE NECESSARY CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REFLECT THIS USE; AND EXAMINE THE POSSIBILITY OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A PERMANENT COSMETIC BUSINESS TO OPERATE AT THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays, Motion Carried. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\2001\4-17-01.WPD 4