Laserfiche WebLink
-6- <br /> Zoning <br /> 6-Zoning . Ordinance. According .to Mr.. Grewe , it. will take at.. least three <br /> or four weeks to get into operation and, if the City approval is de- <br /> layed, he. will miss out on the peak season and suffer. a loss of about <br /> $10 ,000 each month he- is not in operation. <br /> Mr. Grewe. was accompanied by Tom VanMeter., President of Tan Me, . Inc. , <br /> who disagreed the services offered by- Mr. Grewe-..would substantially <br /> differ from the type of services already. offered in- the Mall in a <br /> barbershop-, beauty salon,.. the health club and .in. the Weight Watchers <br /> salon, which with a dance studio, are allowed by the City ordinance. <br /> Mr. VanMeter questioned why there should be a. prejudice against a <br /> service which is so similar to other permitted .uses and told the <br /> Commission St. Louis Park permitted. him to operate. a salon while they <br /> were determining its classification under their. ordinances . -The <br /> franchise president then invited the Commission members to visit his <br /> salon near the Maplewood Mall .to ascertain its- legitimacy and to see <br /> for themselves. the salon, is not a .front f6r• immoral purposes .- He <br /> added that the five tanning rooms are booked a week ahead, at this <br /> time. <br /> Mr. Bjorklund told Mr. VanMeter that, if. the proposal had been on the <br /> agenda that .evening,, he would probably. have made suchan inspection <br /> before. the meeting, but he does- not believe` he could make an educated <br /> decision regarding a recommendation without .seeing a- franchise <br /> brochure; a physical layout of the salon; and- evidence that the <br /> operation meets all state and city. health codes . He would also like <br /> to know .the typical. age and economic status of the clientelle as well <br /> as the cost of the services offered, -and the signage and .methods of <br /> • advertising the salons would be of interest to him as well . <br /> Mr. Jones commented that he believes Mr.. Grewe '.s problems are a -result <br /> of bad advice from Mr. Cavanaugh and suggested the best method he <br /> sees for moving .the proposal along would .be to have the legal dif- <br /> ferences resolved by the attorneys , . as was originally intended. The <br /> Chairman then informed Mr. Grewe that the City Attorney will be <br /> present when this matter is reported back to the Council during their <br /> meeting April 27th. <br /> The fence ordinance proposed by the .Public. Works Director was con- <br /> sidered next and referred to the Commission for their recommendations <br /> by the Council. <br /> There was Commission ..agreement that Subdivision l .of_ .Requirements <br /> should be amended to indicate ."the fence shall be set back at least <br /> six inches from the property line, unless the property has been <br /> surveyed to assure there will be no encroachment onto adjoining private <br /> or public property or public right-.of-way , or there is a written <br /> agreement with theadjoining- property owner if the fence is built <br /> on the property line" . <br /> Two Commission members disagreed with Mr. Bjorklund that there is a <br /> need for stipulating the size of fences for front -yards , foreseeing <br /> an enforcement problem for staff. <br /> • Motion by Mr. Bjorklund and seconded by Mr. Jones that- Subdivision 3 <br /> of Requirements of the proposed Ordinance 1982-00.3 be amended to read: <br />