Laserfiche WebLink
JULY 5, 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, PAGE THREE <br /> Mr. Dale DeVories, from CPI, stated the same uses today are planned for <br /> • the future, there will be no change in the types of materials, operations <br /> or processes from today. <br /> Member Zehm asked where the on-site experimental animals would be kept. <br /> It was noted that no animals will be kept outside and CPI will continue to <br /> house the animals internally. <br /> Member Piotrowski asked about a landscaping time frame and suggested that <br /> landscaping be completed sometime within one year. <br /> Chair Probst noted CPI now has demolition and foundation permits but would <br /> need PUD approval in order to continue with their proposal. He asked if <br /> the dates noted in the different phases were construction or occupation <br /> dates. Mr. DeVories noted they are construction dates. Probst also <br /> expressed concerns over the lack of additional landscaping along Fernwood <br /> as well as a proof of parking issue. He wondered if the Council should <br /> ask for something more for a written guarantee on the parking space issue <br /> and felt the City Attorney should advise on this issue. He also asked if <br /> it would be in the City's best interest to require an EAW, even if the <br /> project is scaled down to under 200,000 square feet. <br /> Planner Bergly noted that traffic and wetland issues would be the biggest <br /> issues addressed by the EAW. <br /> Member Martin asked about toxic emissions, noting that CPI indicated they <br /> are not changing anything, but asked if they are storing any toxic <br /> • chemicals. Mr. DeVories stated they do store only minimal toxic items <br /> which are used in electronic manufacturing. <br /> Chair Probst asked for questions or comments from the audience. <br /> Mr. Roger Aiken, 4360 North Hamline, noted he saw an article in the <br /> newspaper stating CPI emitted large amounts of sulphur dioxide. Mr. <br /> DeVories acknowledged the article but noted that five days later a <br /> retraction was printed noting that the emission was 13 times less than <br /> what was previously stated, and yes, the Arden Hills facility was <br /> responsible for the emissions. <br /> There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed at 8:14 <br /> P.M. <br /> Commissioner Carlson moved to recommend approval of Case No. 89-10 for the <br /> Planned Unit Development Concept Plan and the site plan for Phase I <br /> subject to the following stipulations: <br /> 1. That the City receive a traffic study prior to approval of the concept <br /> plan. <br /> 2. That an Environmental Assessment Worksheet be required. <br /> 3. That the City receive some type of assurance regarding the additional <br /> • <br />