Laserfiche WebLink
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – December 6, 2023 23 <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioner Weber asked if the applicant knew what contaminants were in the grounds. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith reported a Phase I has been completed, but the seller will not allow a Phase II to be <br />completed. He noted he has been working with a local environmental engineer who was familiar <br />with the site. He explained testing would be completed if this project were approved by the City. <br />He noted the groundwater would not be used from this site. <br /> <br />Commissioner Weber thanked Mr. Smith for his comments. He stated he did not believe he <br />would be able to support this project with only a single business on the property because it felt <br />too spread out. He believed one half of the property was not being used. <br /> <br />Mr. Smith discussed how Crew was requesting flexibility on the second building because this <br />was a new business model that was being pursued three to five years in the future. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund clarified that the Planning Commission was not able to pick and <br />choose businesses but rather was being asked to review the request before them. <br /> <br />Commissioner Weber stated he understood this to be the case and noted he had nothing against <br />Crew Carwash, but he felt the site was being underutilized. <br /> <br />Commissioner Collins reported the Applicant was requesting flexibility on half of the standards <br />within this PUD. He explained he was concerned with the access to this site and indicated he was <br />also concerned with the visual of the structure. He stated he wasn’t saying no to this project, but <br />he feared the Applicant was requesting too much flexibility. He questioned if this item should be <br />tabled in order to allow the Applicant to revise the plans in order to reduce the flexibility <br />requests. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blilie stated it was not possible for the site to be uglier than it was right now. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wicklund explained the Planning Commission advises the City Council on <br />Planning Cases. He supported the item being approved, noting that the Commission was <br />concerned with the egress/ingress to the site. He shared he would be open to tabling to allow the <br />applicant to address some of the concerns though he believed the City Council had the <br />knowledge to analyze this project for final approval. <br /> <br />Chair Vijums anticipated many of the issues that have been raised could be addressed at this <br />meeting. He stated he supported the spandrel glass because people didn’t need to see the car <br />wash mechanics. He indicated the canopy was the only concern from the Applicant and he <br />understood that this would not have an impact to the road itself. He understood there was all <br />concrete and asphalt in this area and agreed this site was in need of redevelopment. He explained <br />he supported the 18 proposed parking stalls and stated his only hang up with the property was <br />with the signage. He asked how many other sign standard adjustments the City has approved in <br />the past. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Jagoe explained the City has had 12 sign standard <br />adjustment requests in the past 20 years and the average request was for three times the permitted