07-06-1988 Planning Commission Agenda-Minutes

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting, July 6, 1988 Page 2 CASE #88-19 (Cont'd) Bergly advised the applicant indicated the parking area was necessary. • Bob Dakken, representing Northwestern Bell, explained there are three construction crews at the site and parking is a problem particularly during the summer months when the large reels of cable are stored at the site. He stated the parking lot is full in the early morning hours and again at the end of the work day; during the remaining daytime hours the parking presents no problems. Member Malone questioned the seriousness of the parking situation. Dakken stated parking presents a serious problem occasionally; vehicles could park on the street, however, the street is narrow and that could create problems. Member Zehm questioned if the landscaping would be disturbed or if additional landscaping is proposed. Dakken advised the landscaping would remain as is along the building and along either side of the driveway. He explained there is no additional landscaping proposed. Planner Bergly stated the existing landscaping is close to edge of the new parking area and the grade will have to be taken up in the parking area; he advised the current landscaping should be sufficient. Member Piotrowski questioned why a dumpster and sand currently occupy 2-1/2 parking spaces on site if parking is a problem at this time. Dakken advised the dumpster, sand and trailers were placed in the present • location on a temporary basis; the applicant will most probably move those items into the expanded storage area. Malone commented that Commission had recommended denial of a similar variance requested in this area. He stated at this site there does not appear to be a genuine need for the additional parking on the east; the parking problem exists only during specific times of the day. Commission discussed the possibility of utilizing off-site parking with an adjacent property owner; questioned if parking meets the requirements for the area. Bergly advised he had not reviewed the parking requirements due to the fact the applicant was not proposing to reduce the parking area. Carlson moved, seconded by Piotrowski, that Commission recommend to Council approval of Case #88-19, variance request for reducing the required landscape area from 16.9 to 14.2 percent, 3755 Dunlap Street, Northwestern Bell, based on the following: 1. The surrounding industrial area was developed at lower standards than now required, especially in regard to parking setbacks and landscaped area requirements. 2. The variance will not cause the subject property to be out of character with surrounding development. • 3. The proposed front yard parking setback of 20 feet meets the ordinance requirements. Member Probst expressed opposition; he did not favor making a bad situation worse.