Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> , <br /> . <br /> MINUTES OF THE ARDEN HILLS PLANNING cnwsslOO MEEl'ING <br /> . ~Y, JUNE 3, 1992, 7:30 P.M. - CITY HALL <br /> C1\LL TO ORDER: <br /> OJ.air Probst called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. <br /> ROLL C1\LL: <br /> Present: OJ.air Dennis Probst, Members Dave Carlson, Barbara Piotrowski, steve <br /> Edckson, Jeanne winiecki, Scott Petersen and Council Liaison Thomas Mahowald. <br /> Absent: Member Raymond McGraw. Also present: Plarmer John Bergly, Acting Clerk <br /> Administrator Catherine lago, and Recording Secretary Tery Shields. <br /> APPROVE MINUTES: <br /> Petersen !roved, seconded by Erickson, to approve the May 6, 1992, Planning <br /> Minutes as suhnitted. All voted in favor. (6-0) <br /> POBLIC HEl\RIN3 - C1\SE #92-06: SUP 1\MEI!DIENT WITH V1lRIAN::ES. 1306 W. ro. ROAD E. <br /> NDJO OIL CXJoIPANY: <br /> OJ.air Probst opened the meeting at 7:32 p.m. for the purpose of a public hearing <br /> on Case #92-06, SUP Amendment with variances, 1306 W. Co. Road E, Amxo oil <br /> CC:atq:lally. <br /> . Acting Clerk Administrator Catherine Iago confirmed the publication of the <br /> Notice of Hearing in the New Briahton Bulletin on Wednesday, May 20, and mailing <br /> to affected property owners on Tuesday, May 19. <br /> Planner Bergly referred to his report dated 6-03-92, and explained the applicant <br /> proposes to amend SUP 86-27, to alleM the present car wash to be converted into <br /> a third service bay, and anew, enlarged car wash to be attached to the east side <br /> of the existing structure. The application also requires granting a 10-foot side <br /> yard variance from the east property line, twenty feet is required for a <br /> _principal building and 10 feet is proposed. The variance would be from the <br /> requlations listed in Sec. VI, C, (2), (a), 3., of the zoning Code, which <br /> requires a minimum of 15 feet for a rear yard landscape area. <br /> The Planner reviewed the history of SUP 86-27 that alleMed the present car wash <br /> and required miscellaneous site irrprovements. The present application needs to <br /> address the folleMing issues: <br /> 1. Does the conversion of the existing car wash into a service bay and the <br /> addition of a new car wash make the use t= intense for the site? <br /> 2. Have all the coooitions of the 86-27 SUP been addressed? <br /> 3. Are there alternatives that do not require the side yard and landscaped <br /> rear yard variances proposed? <br /> 4. Will parking provided be adequate for the expanded use? <br /> 5. Will the circulation pattel:n add to the on-site congestion = help <br /> . minimize it? <br />