Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> , . <br /> Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular P1.ann:ing ocmni.ssion Meeting, 6-03-92 <br /> Page 4 . <br /> ~E #92-06 lCONT'D): <br /> '!he Architect explained the car wash equipment does not cormnence washing vehicles <br /> until they are completely within the car wash bay, which should eliminate any <br /> noise to adjacent site. '!he only possible noise my be caused from the dryers <br /> when the cars exit the bay. '!he proposed driers are to eliminate residual <br /> dripping and excess water before vehicles enter the street. <br /> He stated he feels that Option A is the most conducive alternative for the <br /> general public, the surrounding neighbors and the car wash site. <br /> Chair Probst asked if there were any questions. <br /> 'Ihe Planner stated the owner of the Dentist Office, Dr. Anderson, prefers Option <br /> A because of the removal of parking and the more intensive landscaping that could <br /> be place along the property line. <br /> Ted Brauson, owner of the Amoco station, supported Option A. <br /> Chair Probst asked if there was anyone present to speak in favor of or opposed <br /> to this project. <br /> Dr. Anderson, owner of the Dentist office, expressed =ncern that the water . <br /> dripping from existing vehicles my cause icy =nditions at the easterly <br /> driveway/access to his property. He also requested sufficient landscaping on the <br /> east property line so that no headlights would shine into the office reception <br /> area. <br /> Chair Probst asked if there were any questions from the members. <br /> Member Carlson questioned the age of the underground tanks. <br /> Ted Brausen advised tanks are five years old and meet all pollution control <br /> .;r-equirements. He also stated the proposed propane dispensing station was being <br /> pursued at the request of the Ramsey County Sheriff's Deparbnerrt, for use as a <br /> back-up system. He advised he has no interest in pursuing the dispensing station. <br /> Chair Probst stated there were 2 fundamental issues for Commission to address: <br /> 1. Whether or not the additional intensity of use will be acceptable; and 2. <br /> Resolution of a number of open items in conjunction with the original SUP and <br /> proposed future use of the site. <br /> Member winiecki expressed concern regarding the SUP Amendment and stated her <br /> strong opposition to Option A, base don the intense use of the site. <br /> Chair Probst stated concerns regarding the trash enclosures and described other <br /> sites that have created problems. <br /> . <br />