CCP 06-08-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of the Arden Hills Regular Planning Camlission Meeting , 6-3-92 . Page 2 ~E #92-06 (CONT'DI: The Planner also reviewed the findings listed in his report and stated the main COncerrl should be intensity of use on the property. One additional service bay will in=ease the maintenance and repair portion of the business 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 employee on the major shift. ApproxiJnately 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. The clunpster enclosure is not being used for the trash. It is =ently located west of the building, in a parking stall, and 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. 'Ihe soil remediation process on-site is ongoing and is located in the SW corner of the site. Previous owners had leakage problems from the underground tanks and were attempting to resolve the issue. A building to house the remediation . facilities was proposed, Case #91-20, and staffed recieved two requests to delay action on the item. Bergly advised he met with Architect Harry Shroeder, to discuss options for placement of the car wash and 3 options for the proposed expansion were discussed; Option A is the east end car wash, Option B is the south side car wash, and Option C is the west end placement. Advantages and disadvantages were briefly discussed f= each option. Bergly stated his opposition to Options B and C due to lack of landscaping, uncertainty of the placement of the remediation facilities, and uncertainty of the status of the proposed propane dispensing .station. The Planner also advised his COncerrl regarding wash water being directed to the sewer sytem; questioned if the water is being recycled or flushed i111mediately into the sanitary sewer system and noted the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) require a pennit 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 and stated the parking scheme is the same the existing parking scheme and should be required to have more parking. Option B does not show parking on the west side that could be provided and is within 10 feet of the property line as a separate building. It is considered an accessory building and no variance is necessary. . .