CCP 06-08-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ' Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular P1anni.ng ocmnission Meeting , 6-3-92 Page 2 . CASE #92-06 (cx:Nl"D): '!he Planner also reviewed the findings listed in his report arrl. stated the main =ncern should be intensity of use on the property. One additional service bay will in=ease the maintenance arrl. repair portion of the b.lsiness by 50 percent. The intensity will manifest itself by on-site circulation of vehicles and parking . Bergly explained the parking requirement is for 3 cars for each service bay, plus 1 for each errq:>loyee on the major shift. Approximately 20 parking spaces are available for additional parking in the Great Lake Restaurant parking lot adjacent to this site. Bergly also stated the actual need for parking in this operation far exceeds ordinance requirements. Planner Bergly expressed concern that the applicant has not meet conditions of the previous SUP 86-27. '!he dumpster enclosure is not being used for the trash. It is currently l=ated west of the building, in a parking stall, arrl. cars are frequently parked in front of it. Bergly advised that a propane dispensing facility was proposed in July, 1991, however, the application was never filed. '!he soil remediation process on-site is ongoing arrl. is l=ated in the SW =rner of the site. Previous owners had leakage problems from the underground tanks arrl. were atterrq:>ting to resolve the issue. A wilding to house the remediation facilities was proposed, Case #91-20, arrl. staffed recieved two requests to delay . action on the item. Bergly advised he met with Architect Harry Shroeder, to discuss options f= placement of the car wash arrl. 3 options for the proposed elipClI1Sion were discussed; Option A is the east end car wash, Option B is the south side car wash, arrl. Option C is the west end placement. Advantages arrl. disadvantages were briefly discussed for each option. Bergly stated his opposition to Options B arrl. C due to lack of landscaping, uncertainty of the placement of the remediation facilities, arrl. uncertainty of the status of the proposed propane dispensing .station. The Planner also advised his concern regarding wash water being directed to the sewer syteIn; questioned if the water is being recycled or flushed immediately into the sanitary sewer system arrl. noted the Metropolitan Waste Control Canmission (MWCC) arrl. Minnesota Pollution Control Age.rcy (MPCA) require a permit to dispose water into the system. Chair Probst questioned if Option B & C require any variances. Bergly advised Option C has a slight infringement on the 15-foot landscaped end of the arrl. stated the parking scheme is the same the existing parking scheme arrl. should be required to have more parking. Option B does not show parking on the west side that could be provided arrl. is within 10 feet of the property line as a separate building. It is considered an accessory building arrl. no variance is necessary. . . -