CCP 03-09-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. - . Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Commission Meeting, 3-4-92 Page 2 CASE #92-03 Dave Clark explained the growth of the carnpany will occur . in the same type of uses, office and manufacturing, and parking should be sufficient to a=ornmodate the growth of the =ganization. Chair Probst asked if the parking analysis identifying the required number of spaces is based on the current occupancy. Bergly advised it is based on current occupancy and use. He indicated the parking was reviewed in detail with the applicant; noted the additional parking off-site. Bergly questioned how the mix of parking needs with the remaining tenants and the applicant will balance. . Clark explained one tenant has an almost identical use, another tenant is primarily all office space and the third use is manufacturing. Planner Bergly reconnnended approval of the proposal. Petersen moved, seconded by winiecki, that Commission reconnnend to Council approval of Case #92-03, site Plan Amendment for the properties at 1265, 1275 and 1285 Grey Fox Road, as suJ:xnitted by Phannacia Deltec, Inc., based items #1 and #2, listed on page 5 of the Planner's report and conditioned upon the following: A. Approval be subject to the City Engineer and Attorney review and approval of the storm drainage to insure a publicly dedicated easement is not needed. B. That the three new light fixtures proposed natch existing fixtures, and the . Planner review and approve the placement of all lighting fixtures in the courtyard . C. That the placement of the new trash compactor be reviewed and approved by staff. Motion carried unanlinously. (7-0) DISCUSSION; Chair Probst asked if there was anyone present to SHORELINE lANE, be heard on the matter of the proposed street extension OFFICIAL MAP of Shoreline Lane; noted this item was continued from the February meeting. Planner Bergly advised the Attorney representing two primary property owners in this area has indicated he was unable to meet with his clients prior to this meeting. It was suggested that staff meet with the property owners to discuss the proposal, rather than continue the infonnational meeting to April. Commission reconnnended staff meet with the appropriate parties and report on this matter at the April meeting. Chair Probst suggested this item be placed on the April agenda and Commission would provide a reconnnendation to Council after review of the staff report. CASE #92-04; Planner Bergly referred to his report dated 2-5-92, REVIEW SIGN ORD., regarding a request from Council for staff and Commission REFERRED FROM to review the current sign regulations, as they relate CDUNCIL to "Changeable Copy signs". .